Friday, February 3, 2017

Climate Change

This is an example of venturing where angels fear to tread - and, knowing nothing about  the science or the background to it, I should too (fear).  I only have my 'conspiratorial suspicion' that science is no different from other fields when it comes to jobs. (I mean the filthy leuchre behind it all.)  It's a follow-up to an earlier post :-

Begin repost :-


Begin  (This is a listen ~16Mb download) (or just look for me ( - don findlay) in the comments) :-

I'm always intrigued when I see pictures of mountains being carved out of flat-lying strata.  How did they get up there to be so eroded without being folded (by colliding plates)?  Just a guess, but it looks to me like the flood basalts of India or maybe Ethiopia, in the background.  What do you reckon?  Can anybody provide me with some 'false news'?   How would I know any different, if they do?"


The following comment was posted to ABC Radio National  but it looks like it might  be a casualty of my slow (shaped) internet speed from TPG, .. limping along at speeds averaging ~5kps (I read 64kps in 2009 was 'normal) (so no email till my next billing period - Ya.a.a.ay.y.y.!!!)  :-

It might not appear, so am posting it here (you can skip this bit if you went to the ABC link)  (It did get posted after a couple of days) :-

"I'm not a denier. I think renew-ables are a really good idea for two obvious reasons (clean and cheap).  But I remember when I was at school (long ago) it was common knowledge that one [serious - I'm adding the word serious] puff from a volcano would put more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than humanity ever has.  That was when we had pea-soupers during the winter in industrial cities.

There is substantial volcanic activity in the Galapagos islands causing the el Nino. Geologically too there are good reasons for considering this to have been a bleeding sore in the Earth's crust on a geological time scale.

I also remember hearing on the ABC a number of years ago [you'll have it in your archives] an interview with one of the two gentlemen who wrote the definitive paper who kicked all of this global warming stuff off.  He casually admitted that volcanic emissions were never taken into account.

Further, it is only in the last year that I have heard the scientific community (grudgingly) admit to the el nino being an overlay on all of this "global warming".  From a geological standpoint (considering global extinctions in the past) there are very good reasons for considering volcanic emissions to be far more important than we are being given to think - particularly when it comes to the warming of the oceans (featuring highly in the 'science' of global warming).

I've never looked into the detail of the science, but as best as I can (casually) make out it is very much a case of "correlation = causation", the trap that 'science' can easily fall into, particularly where funding is concerned. 

The last time such a golden egg appeared on the horizon of Earth science it was during the 1960's when Plate Tectonics was formulated.  And it is wrong too.  The Earth is getting bigger. And volcanic extrusions (and global extinctions) feature mightily in that one also. 

Science is great for getting things wrong when it comes to 'hypotheses'.  Of necessity it is always on the look-out for funds.  And there is a lot of mileage in being wrong.  The problem for the public is the way it bleeds over into education.  It's the two steps forwards, one step back thing.  Every week we have new findings in medicine that are contradicted the following week.  Is it any wonder the public get sceptical of all this 'science' and vote for a Donald Trump?  Institutions have only themselves to blame (i.m.o.).  And poor old Donald there cops the flack  :-). "

PS., Yes I see it did after all (post) (header link above), along with comments from others about 'modelling'.   So watch this space.  


Looks like the ABC didn't post my reply though, pointing out to all the naysayers (again) that correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation and that an alternative El Nino correlation might have been overlooked.

Mm.m.m.... Will follow up later when I get 'un-shaped'.


As a follow up, Michael Mann was interviewed on ABC's  RN   Late night live
I tried to post a comment there too but got blocked with the big black page :-

I've had it before.  I think this is how you gently get handed the black spot.  No matter how much you persist over the day or days, this one doesn't go away.   Obviously the broadcaster doesn't itself want to get embroiled in controversy after inviting guests on to the program  The odd controversial post is ok, but don't persist, is the message.  ("Trolling")

So I'll do another here-post (adapted 'cos I have more space).

It's difficult to tell about El Ninos because they have only been tracked since the 1950's.  Also, anomalies are simply averaged and represented on a flat-line graph so it doesn't show the exponential shape that the global warming graph does.  And even if it tried, the fractional variations considered significant for global warming would be lost against the much greater signal of the El Nino. 

The information must be there to do it, just that I haven't seen it, looked into it, or heard it mentioned - and just too that it is only very recently that the science community have (grudgingly) admitted that it might fog the global warming data, .. though exactly how much 'fog' is fog I'm not sure, because when I do a search for the word 'Nino' on the wikipedia pages for global warming or for climate change, it doesn't show.  [Neither by the way does the term "global warming" appear in the body of the wikipedia article on El Nino (though there are heaps in the references) and the term "climate change" only appears once (twice actually, but by an obvious editing glitsch).]

 So what do they mean by "fog"?  Is there FOG (no fog? ..some fog?, .. or is it all fog?  Or what?)    Evidently "more research is needed", but I would have thought there might have been some more casual mentions about 'fog', .. along lines of trying to discriminate El Nino from global warming.  But I've casually heard nothing about that until only the last year or so.  Of course the El Nino is not a controversial (/political) issue because the seasonal warming of the oceans is well known as having a effect on weather, and since it only has been tracked since the 1950's it isn't easily compared with that J-curve of Global Warming as presented in the same time. (Besides, it hasn't been touted as a political issue.)

But let's try.  Here's a typical El Nino graph :-

Notice it ranges about 4 degrees in about 40 years.

And here's the global warming graph. [Notice it ranges only about about one and a half degrees in about a hundred and forty years.  In other words the El Nino makes a lot of 'noise'.]

... From which see 1.  the flat-line depiction for El Nino, [because "currently, each country has a different threshold for what constitutes an El Niño event, which is tailored to their specific interests." (link)]  [addendum (20170506):- I see I overlooked this link, but you can search the string.] and 2.  that the temperature range of 4 degrees for El Nino every five to ten years is the 'noise' against which the signal of global 1.4 degrees of global warming in a hundred and forty years has to try to make itself heard. 

Seems to me the view expressed on the same page that "There is no consensus on if climate change will have any influence on the occurrence, strength or duration of El Niño events, as research supports El Niño events becoming stronger, longer, shorter and weaker" (link) is round the wrong way and that stretching that left-hand side of the graph is stretching the long bow - (i.m.o.)  A degree or so (-0.4 to +1  in a century is nothing to write home about inside a nearly 4 degree fluctuation every ten to fifteen years).

Seems to me that the noise *is* the signal and that when it comes to sea surface temperatures El Nino (/La Nina) is a very possible candidate for 'all fog'.  Further, so far as the atmosphere heating up the oceans goes it also seems to me that a billy of tea is far better made by sticking a red-hot soldering bolt (namely the Galapagos volcanoes) into it to heat it up ["The chain of 13 islands and 17 islets, which sits about 1,000km (621 miles) off the coast of Ecuador, is one of the most volcanically active regions in the world."] .. rather than trying to warm it up with your CO2-laden breath.  In fact come to think of it, it's how I cool my tea down, not heat it up, .. so I don't know who's coming the raw prawn here. 

Sea-surface temperature and location of the Galapagos Islands

Wind dragging the oceans is one thing, heating them with the sun or whatever is another.

[(Added 20170514)  Recently there have been attempts to conflate sea-surface temperature with global warming and climate change (and thereby Industrial CO2; check the above comment about making tea with a soldering bolt in the context of underwater volcanism) :-
".. Geologists have identified more than 5,000 active underwater volcanoes, which account for more than 75% of the total lava that erupts every year. Most of these are located along the mid-ocean ridges, where the Earth’s tectonic plates are spreading apart. Most of these are very deep underwater, and difficult to study, but some are located in more shallow water. " [1] [2]). 
" .. These sea surface temperature maps are based on observations by the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) on NASA’s Aqua satellite. The satellite measures the temperature of the top millimeter of the ocean surface."   [Link
And chilling them by evaporation and winds (on that one millimetre) is another. [How much heat is lost to making rain?  What assumptions would be made to measure it?  And how would you?)

And so how much carbon dioxide from underwater volcanoes is going into the oceans compared to atmospheric (industrial /human) CO2?   And what is melting the ice at the poles then mostly due to, the atmosphere or the oceans?

Of course, in a context of volcanism the Galapagos connection only shows correlation, not causation. [See video link above.]  However the Galapagos 'plate' is closely connected to the equatorial offset ruptures of the Atlantic Ridge.  The equatorial zone of mantle has been a very special zone of rupture from way back, .. so, .. heat from above (sun) and heat from below (mantle)?  Plate Tectonics is quite happy with heat from the mantle moving continental plates around (on convection currents) (but only Earth expansion mentions the equatorial connection as tectonically significant), so what's wrong with convection providing heat to move some water around too?  And anyway, where did all those limestones in the geological record come from, if not from volcanic CO2?]

It also seems to me all this is not a science issue.  It's a funding one, relying heavily on the politics of consensus. And that bugs me.  Not for the funding, which science needs, so all power to it, but for the politics in it which I detest.  So I'm conflicted.  Are we to think that that the human factor that's behind global warming is the same as that behind Plate Tectonics?
Reposted from e-book first edition :-
Consensus 1.
Consensus 2.

I don't mind in the least when it comes to cleaning the place up ('sustainable energy') but Plate Tectonics just, .. well, bugs the hell out of me when it is so manifestly a consensus of ignorance. Surely the world can put up with one stupid person (me), but when they get themselves into positions of educational power ... that's a different thing.

I've never particularly looked at the evidence for climate change.  A degree in a century doesn't seem to me to be much of an issue, and besides, the industrial revolution started a long time before that J-curve, so the correlation is not quite as they say.  So as usual when I want to know a bit more about things I know nothing about I google it up,  I'm curious, because on the other side of the country today it's the hottest February day on record, while over here in wild west it's been decidedly chilly for about the last four days and raining constantly, and showing not much sign of letting up.  Before there was all this ruckus about climate change such weather would be all over the news as an El Nino event, but nobody seems to want to talk about El Nino any more.   I would like to hear more than we do about the comparison with the el Nino.  It seems to have fallen off the radar.  Here's the global warming data from that linked site :-  (editing glitsch here; link overlooked; I thought it was Noaa but it is Nasa.)

Hey!!  hang on, .. fair go!! .. Mr. Earth Science Communications Team at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory /California Institute of Technology, ...   How do you do that?  Apples-with-apples and all that.  Are you comparing CO2 from ice cores from fossil weather in Antarctica with CO2 measured from around two of the most active volcanoes in the world today?  Doesn't matter where they are (in the middle of the Pacific or wherever), why would you want to be taking readings of CO2 levels in the vicinity of active volcanoes unless you want elevated readings?  CO2 is heavier than oxygen too, so what's that mean for an ambient air-mix (on Hawaii)?   A better, and more convincing place would surely be just about anywhere else in the world, other than around two of the most active volcano on it.
" In May 2013, it was reported that readings for CO2 taken at the world's primary benchmark site in Mauna Loa surpassed 400 ppm." (Wikipedia.)
"Mauna Loa is among Earth's most active volcanoes, having erupted 33 times since its first well-documented historical eruption in 1843. Its most recent eruption was in 1984. Mauna Loa is certain to erupt again, and we carefully monitor the volcano for signs of unrest.Jan 10, 1985" (same link)"
"Kilauea is one of the world's most active volcanoes. It is a shield-type volcano that makes up the southeastern side of the Big Island of Hawaii.Sep 16, 2014 "
[Something here too about living with the smell of the place (since we're talking about ambient air mixes).]]

Whatever the intention, it's ending up in that graph, leaving us to make of it what we will despite Mr Global Climate Change Earth Science Communications Team at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory /California Institute of Technology (and something more about consensus politics, bad science, fake science, and scientists generally behaving badly.)

I don't know.  Never looked at it beyond for this page.  But on the face of it, it looks awfully suss to me.

More research (mine?) is obviously needed.

Note in the blue Nasa graph above that the kick in the graph that everybody is talking about is where the info for the El Nino kicks in (which climate science has been ignoring) (till now), ..  The video clip  is a very good example of the case for consensus and argument from authority by the way.
[ (20170507) Holy Moley - I hope that bit of the graph, 1950 => onwards is my misread, and not an honest mistake (of theirs)!! ]
Do you hear the enthusiasm for it from the audience - the public willingly being led up the garden path?  Even El Nino gets a mention from the mod. as the mitigating factor).

Bloody rabbits, with their whistles and lanyards and measuring tapes, trying to do geology and climate change.  Just watch them try to blame the warming of the oceans on people too.  There is no question what's killing the Great Barrier Reef (the sugar industry?) - and it ain't the increase in the temperature of the top millimetre of tropically warming water of one degree in a century. (i.m.o.)

What agenda does science journalism have, promoting that guff, .. talking up "teams of researchers" and /"new" and /"for the first time" as if they might benefit from some sprinkly stardust?
[20170519 - This one was hiding.  I discovered it by accident when I cleared the screen and found youtube had clicked over to the next item without me noticing. It's an oldie (2013), but since the one above is (2016), it's worth repeating.]
[And some more links.]

"We know exactly how much Carbon Dioxide coming out of the volcano on Mauna Loa the tourists on Hawaii have to put up with.  In fact we correct for it every day at twelve o'clock sharp.  We fire a gun just to let everybody know we're doing it."
"Well what about all the submarine volcanoes getting mentioned?"
"Yep. Them too.  We have any amount of algorithms already in the file."
"Jeez!  How much ignorance are you guys able to publish?"
"Heaps. It's the maths.  We're good with numbers. Show the public an equation and they think you know what you're talking about."
"And you don't?"
"Nah, .. we don't have a clue.  We just stick any old  'Let this be that and that be this' guff at the top of the page.   Doesn't matter, .. You can always fudge that. We just deal with the numbers."
"Hah, .. you think we're bad, you want to see what geophysicists do with Plate Tectonics.  They frankly admit they don't have a clue."
"Really?  Just get a few high profile names behind you, .. institutions and journals, .. It's easy.
(Isn't that what they say?) 

"If it's consensus it's not science." 
"It doesn't matter how smart you are " [+video clip]
( The case for consensus and argument from authority )

Anyway, the point is not whether the climate is warming or not (that's a scale thing).  It's been getting warmer ever since the last ice age with some natural fluctuations (including El Nino - though likely others too).  The question is whether or not we want to take advantage of advances in science that dirty industry has given us, that have taken us to a point where we can now clean up our act.

And surely, the sooner the better.  According to David Bellamy, Plants grow greener when there is CO2 around (and he should know), .. but green just fouls the pristine built environment.  (Plant-rust.)

 (20170519) When I came to Perth (W.A.) there were some Moreton Bay Fig trees in the square outside the Central Post Office.  Two as I remember, .. maybe just one.  But really nice to sit under on a hot day (even with all that concrete)  I looked in vain for a picture of them on google images.  I would like to include them to give the gist of my gripe, but there's nothing there.  Right now in writing I thought to open up the search but I get a blizzard of pdf's from the council, none of which are an answer.  Strange there is no record of them being cut down, .. what would have been for many people back then a momentous event (not for me except for a tinge of disappointment because I was virtually just passing through at the time).  They were the centre of the town, the place where the old folk would congregate and exchange the time of day - before eventually being marked by their absence.  But those trees like their 'children' are now ghosts in older people's memory, all there is of a time that got shocked in the electric chair of the nickel boom, and replaced with twee little Noddy Trees in a Bucket to augment a 'Shopping Precinct'.

[It was the early seventies, and the tail end of the 1960's nickel boom riding on the back of the Vietenam war.  Poseidon share prices peaked at $280 in February, 1970.  Can you imagine , .. the excitement, .. back then?   Maybe it's just the rosy glow of retrospect, but things have never really been the same since. Will Trump give us another one?  Oooh, .. there could be a few rubbing their hands on that one, I think..]

Their function (trees) would later be replaced with facebook and twitter and a rush of multi-tasking to hurry the economoney (for some) along, while everybody else does the treadmill except for those who fall off it.  And those who would have once made their slow way to see even slower friends, now sit at home, stuped and duped by 'entertainment', till, like so much hospital garbage, they go up the chimney.

But the council cut them down.  Correction. One person on the council would probably have pulled weight and others would have gone along with it in fear of being blackballed.  I can hardly believe it was a unanimous decision. [Make a note to check the record. Interests involved etc,]   (ends gripe.) (sort of.)

20170510 - The further point is that the above is not about climate change.  It's about science and the trap of consensus, and how science should *always* be under review as a guard against corruption.
"We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield." ~ George Orwell
[An example that comes to mind (as I write) is the shuttle disaster of 1986. Reprise and remember. And reflect, [also].. on what amounts to institutional malpractice, which is a corruption that continually contrives to raise its head (for bonking) that no government seems to have the power,  or the persuasion, or the inclination to do.
 And certainly consensus (of itself) should never be claimed as Authority. But there's nothing like intellect for having a go - as scientific scholars prove regularly

I claim my misread (in red above)  until somebody convinces me otherwise. In principle I don't defer to consensus (as some who manifestly and shamefully do - and should know better).

A whole roomful of them, going by that No.3 case /consensus /Nasa authority video above.  And worse, mostly yung'uns.  Ah well, .. they'll learn.

So, .. you want to do science??  Then beware the trap of consensus, or you too could end up a populariser of it, and promulgating what it is *NOT* about.  Mathematics (/modelling) is useful but it is not, by itself, science.  Science is the journey towards what in simpler terms is common sense - which it becomes, once it is reached.  Science is about context, .. 'finding out', ..  getting your 'dominoes' (/'ducks') in the right order and at the right scale, which is the antithesis of science ('reductionism').  Taxonomy is necessary, but call it like it is.  (Or you end up with Plate Tectonics.) (And maybe climate change.)

Wherever there is the potential for some leuchre, some smack, ..   [Why is it such a popular word?  Where does it figger in this enterprise of living?]

"What was that?  It's really what it's all about? .."
"Yeah, .. fair exchange (a measure of).

So what is it?  Altruism? (you're a mug)(?).  Barter? (entices the strong to exploit the weak)(?).  'Interest'? (entices the criminal)(?)   Derivatives? (encourages and applauds the worst of the worst)(!)  So, then, which way round does our economy function? What's the answer, .. fair exchange?  What's that?

(20170520) came up with these (on climate change) exactly the same views as above - except they are nobel prize winners.  Does that mean something about arguing from authority, .. or the facts?

1.   (Ivar Giaever)
2  (same Giaever, a bit older)

So what happened to the El Nino /La Nina?  We hardly hear it mentioned these days...
"In American Spanish, the capitalized term "El Niño" refers to "the little boy", so named because the pool of warm water in the Pacific near South America is often at its warmest around Christmas.[4] The original name, "El Niño de Navidad", traces its origin centuries back to Peruvian fisherman, who named the weather phenomenon in reference to the newborn Christ.[5][6] "La Niña", chosen as the 'opposite' of El Niño, literally translates to "the little girl".
And so thus it would appear that the origins of "Climate Change" (that everyone appears to have forgotten about) (to such an extent that this is no longer mentioned), is a classic example of rebranding amnesia and generational change)(just like "Plate Tectonics" appropriated 'Continental Drift'), and an indictment of older generations too.
"The major 1982–83 El Niño led to an upsurge of interest from the scientific community. The period 1991–1995 was unusual in that El Niños have rarely occurred in such rapid succession.[39] An especially intense El Niño event in 1998 caused an estimated 16% of the world's reef systems to die. The event temporarily warmed air temperature by 1.5 °C, compared to the usual increase of 0.25 °C associated with El Niño events.[40] Since then, mass coral bleaching has become common worldwide, with all regions having suffered "severe bleaching" .[41]  "   [Link]

So (just to repeat), .. despite the currently politically popular "climate change" and "global warming" having their origins sourced in unusual El Ninos, the wikipedia article for both C.C ands G.W. do not mention El Nino, and except for one instance (as highlighted above), neither does the article on El Nino mention C.C. of G.W..  If that's not 'party-political bias' I don't know what is, unless it is the media in general giving absolutely no coverage to the sceptical side of the debate in order to meet their own agenda - which is (first and foremost) 'Wowserism" in order to sell, .. which is all about $$$$.  Which returns me to that black refusal image at the top of this page, and considerations about where that $$-domino should go in the relentless, pre-ordained grand plan of cause and effect. ( Right up-front - or very close.)  [Before or after "The oldest profession in the world"?]

 El Nino?  Nobody talks about it because there is not a lot can be done about it other than to fight a rearguard action as best we can.  Adapt, in other words.  Anyway, there is a lot of mileage in doing the hubristic thing (and playing God) to sort it all out. Keeps everybody happily worrying.

I don't think there is much to be gained by furthering this page, .. not on account of the 'science' anyway.  The bones of it appear to be laid bare.  What NASA did was to take the historical data of long term changes in the Earth's climate from ice cores in the Antarctic, stick the data from El Nino of the last 50- 60 years on the end of it (omitting to mention the historical and oceanic origins of El Nino) (as well as at the same omitting to mention the contribution that heat and pollution from volcanoes are also making (to the oceans mainly) and say, "Look what atmospheric pollution is doing to our oceans - so give us more research dollars so we can frighten the b'jazus out of you. We've got the very medium to help us too, who will willingly chip in their two cents worth too, coz they think we're special and like the stardust rubb-off they get by talking about us."

And so they are (special), .. just that they don't do themselves any favours by prostituting themselves to the Almighty, and are not always up-front about societal benefits that accrue to their enterprises when the poor are struggling with recycling coke bottles to give light and power to their mudhuts.

 Will all this 'science' behind global warming turn out to be another example of institutional bad behaviour?  If Nobel Prize winners making their views public don't cut it (even if their views *are* the same as mine above) :-)) I don't see that me making any noise on the issue is going to make any difference.  Besides, as I said at the start, I'm not a climate change denier, it's what climate does all the time and is the whole story of geology.  I just suspect it's in the same anti-science vein as Plate Tectonics, and has the same homocentric misconceived attributes of correlation = causation all over it. ('Dominoes', and what order they are in.)

P.S.  Here's Scientific American [page-search "hoax"] also promoting 'Argument from Authority'  ["Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations."]  Less than a degree and a half in a hundred and forty years.  Who are they trying to kid?  And measured exactly how (in ice cores)?   The term 'El Nino' does not occur on the page despite its immaculate credentials as the source of "climate change" (&search for term 'original').  What they are trying to do is put as much space as possible between its El Nino origins and its climate change rebranding.  Why?  Because they smell a "share in the treasure" to be got by exploiting reputation for all it's worth, which by the end of this page is (in my book) quite  a lot (as measured by the standard of egg-on-face).

So, Earth expansion.  Where shall we begin?  ( => ) (Gravity, flatness (/roundness?) - and fractures? .. and maybe have look in at climate change as we go.  Or with volcanoes and that pesky problem of scale.. .. [Note in the video they don't say it will (have an effect) they say "could" (with emphasis)] 
(Underwater volcanoes)

No comments:

Post a Comment