I retired from personal blogging in July 2008.
But you can find me over at http://blog.xero.com.
Posted by rod@drury.net.nz in Google at 8:09 pm on Sunday, 14 October 2007
Peter Lynn is name I used to hear around a few years ago in NZ windsurfing and kiting circles.
His name appears in the latest Cringely.
Oh, and We Also Saved the World: Google’s Energy Plan
blog
Errm, that’s Pete Lynn, the son of Peter Lynn, who works at Makani Power …
http://www.makanipower.com/lynn.html
But, it’s still Kiwi Doing Good :-)
Global warming hysteria has infected every sane man on the planet. Green supporters and various anti-industrialist groups have hyped up the potential disasters from global warming. The global warming science isn’t certain yet, but politicians have followed the precautionary principle’s in that it is better to do something now even though the science is still unclear, rather than waiting for a definitive answer. This will definitely lead to huge economic hardship for some developing economies.
“precautionary principle’s in that it is better to do something now even though the science is still unclear, rather than waiting for a definitive answer.”
Cures for cancer aren’t definitive either, but doctors still try to treat it.
One of the points of science is that unlike the legal system where the answers are supposedly black and white, nothing is definitive. Doesn’t make it less useful though.
i think that’s great - has anyone told rob fyfe yet? - sounds much better than one engine running on bio-diesel…
wrt the comments around global warming - it continues to suprise me that the current debate focusses on such a narrow part of the equation. also important from an ecological perspective (i.e. therefore holistic) is:
1] the security of supply of the primary power resource, and
2] other resources used and other pollution created by the extraction, conversion, and distribution of the primary power resource.
i.e. carbon fuels are limited in supply (leaving aside for now the debate aroudn to what extent) and involve huge manufacturing costs and associated pollution right through supply chain (rigs, ships, trucks, service stations)
seems to me that these surf-kites-on-steriods tick the box across the whole energy creation/conversion and distribution life-cycle.
as is oft said in green circles, ‘think global, act local’ - imagine a little cluster of these things spread around the place at, say, local borough / city council level - much less dangerous than the cancer-causing sub-stations and pylons…
Don said…
Cures for cancer aren’t definitive either, but doctors still try to treat it.
No, the comparison here is irrelevant. Cancer is not a Complex System, however climate system is. If you left cancer untreated, there will be lots of deaths, no doubt about it, but it won’t impose economic hardships on some developing economies and that is the difference between precautionary in cancer treatments and precautionary in implementing policies to combat climate change for something that is not certain yet.
The IPCC report is full of simplistic climate models (linear), which don’t represent the true Physics of climate systems which are of course non-linear. Approximate? No, not even approximate solutions, since the disparity between observations & theoretical models are so huge as to almost render the models useless. One of the most difficult tasks in the analysis of climate data is the feedback in climate systems. These problems were raised in a NASA sponsored workshop a few years back. (You must click the refresh button once you’re on that page, to avoid the text being cluttered to the left side)
WORKSHOP ON CLIMATE SYSTEM FEEDBACKS
The section for IPCC report 2007 on climate feedback system, was the same one from IPCC report 2001, which was completely reprinted unchanged from 2001, since there was very little progress in developing models to solve those difficulties that were addressed in that workshop (see above link). I have had some informal discussion (email) with the chairperson, William Rossow of NASA (a former IPCC author), of the workshop stated above in the past, regarding the problems that they raised during the workshop, and he told me, that there is a wide gap between what the current models predict and the observational data collected. I have read a lot of papers on climate numerical modeling, not because I wanted to be a climate scientist, but because I just curious of how some algorithms that I am already familiar with, are being applied in climate modeling. For example, was the use of feedback control theory (both linear & non-linear) in climate modeling, particularly in this publication:
Inferring instantaneous, multivariate and nonlinear sensitivities for the analysis of feedback processes in a dynamical system: The Lorenz model case study
I have implemented a number of algorithms (there are many variants available from the literatures) in this area for multivariate systems prediction. The IPCC feedback models are too simple. They only describe single coupling feedback (2 interacting systems), such as land-coupling-to-atmospheric or atmospheric-coupling-to-ocean. The true physics of real climate system is not single coupling feedback but multi-coupled non-linear feedback systems as discussed in that NASA sponsored workshop (see link above), which is why we shouldn’t jumped and take action too early based on simplistic linear models in the IPCC report. There is a misconception in the general public that if you’re an IPCC author, then you know every available climate numerical models. So, there were over than 2000 scientists who got involved in drafting the IPCC report, I would estimate that perhaps only about 10 or even less who fully comprehend non-linear coupling feedback systems. If the answer to global warming is to be answered, then problems with climate feedback numerical modeling have to progress forward. This will only answer if man is to blame or not.
Don said…
One of the points of science is that unlike the legal system where the answers are supposedly black and white, nothing is definitive
I agree, however if one wants to be objective about the science, then a high level of definiteness is required before implementing policies that are going to affect the lives of millions of people around the world. That high level of definiteness is not there yet.
Falafulu,
… a high level of definiteness is required before implementing policies that are going to affect the lives of millions of people around the world…
Surely it remains a balance of risk and probablities question. If, for the sake of argument, Science told us there was a 40% chance that global warming was happening and would aniliate everyone living less than 100 meters above sea-level and that given this, a 95% chance that via a policy which caused the loss globally of 4% of GDP, we could prevent it (I.e i.e. only a 38% chance that the spend policy was worthwhile). Would that not require us to effect the policy change, even though we were far from definite?
Gentlemen,
Please stick to IT. I’ll handle the RE.
Thanks,
Steve :)