Climate terms

Letter to the Geelong Independent - 13/12/19

It seems there is some confusion about terms used in Climate Research.

'Global Warming' is about temperatures rising across the world. Measured temperatures, averaged across location, across season or across years are all going up. The rate of change is much higher in the last century or so than it has been over the rest of human history. The growth slowed a bit in the 1960s which caused some people to think there might be a downturn, but by the 1980s it was obvious that it was rising faster than ever. Global warming has been measured and is real.

'Climate' is simply the average weather across years and refers to a particular location. Weather varies over time and climate varies by place.

'Climate Change' is about the effects that come from rising temperatures. It would be astonishing if there were no change since temperature is one of the major factors in climate. Other important factors are the shape of the land, the amount of water, ground cover and air flow.

The way these things work together is very complicated and differs for each location. Also, since it is all about averages, only trends and likelihood can be given.

So any particular spot may become drier, wetter, windier, stormier - even cooler if normal currents are disrupted. It doesn't help a farmer that a desert area gets more rain if his land loses and becomes fire prone. Climate change affects everyone but how it manifests depends on where you are.

The 'Climate Emergency' is because almost any change will drastically affect our civilisation. After decades of warning, it is nearly too late to bring the train back onto the track.

Energy Supply Terminology

Apparently there is something magic about 'baseload' which means only coal can supply it. The word just means a steady reliable supply of power. Just as "dispatchable" means supply that can be turned on and off at need. Coal is certainly steady and reliable, but not really dispatchable as it can take hours or days to turn up or down. Gas is dispatchable but to expensive to use as baseload. The wholesale price of electricity is controlled by the highest cost and that is gas. Wind and solar, on their own, are neither dispatchable nor baseload. I don't think there is any disagreement on that point - even though it keeps being brought up again and again. The game changer here is storage. There are about 20 different ways power can be stored, from batteries, to pumped hydro, to molten salt, to hydrogen production. Most can be varied in under a second, being much more dispatchable than gas. The output can be finely controlled making them more steady than coal. With multiple different storage methods working together, it is also more reliable since there is no single point of failure. With storage, wind and solar, are the most stable, dispatchable and cheapest forms of energy available in the world. Recent work economists at RMIT show that solar with storage is cheaper (and easier) to build than new coal and wind farms are even better. The only downside is how long it will take to transition - but that is still quicker than building a new coal plant. So in what way is the obsolete technology better?

The Scientific Method

The scientific method does not involve making up a story and finding facts to prove it is true.
The scientific method involves making up a story and trying find evidence that it is wrong.
If you can't prove yourself wrong, you ask an expert to have a look and see - this is called "peer review". If the expert can't find the flaw, you publish the story in a respected scientific journal. This is considered an invitation to anyone in the world to try and tear down the story by giving a supportable reason why it doesn't match reality.
If no-one can prove you wrong then the story becomes accepted. When very many people, using different techniques and styles find the same story explains a lot of things, then a consensus is reached and it becomes as generally accepted Theory.
This does not mean that it will not be dis-proven in future, or that more details will not be added over time.
So far no-one has come up with evidence that anthropogenic climate change is wrong. It is just a story but it is one that matches reality as closely as we can find at this time.

The Grain

All organisations have a direction, a focus, a momentum which arises from their roots. As a wood-worker, I like to refer to it as the 'grain'. It is possible, and sometimes necessary, to work against the grain, but things flow and match so much better when you work with it.
For companies this grain is part of both the current culture and from the history - from the underlying purpose and goals which prompted the organisation to be started in the first place. A start-up which is 'pivoting' is shifting direction, but the people and ideals are the same. The group dynamic is the same. The core of what makes it real may shift, but it carries the background with it.
I have seen this in a couple of companies that I have been part of which have been acquired by larger rivals. There is a battle of cultures, which everyone recognises and tries to mitigate. But there is also a core group who will always identify with their origins. The parent company can accept this and use the strong bond within the believers, or they can try to stamp them out. Either way it is usually an unconscious decision since the larger group rarely realise the sub-culture that exists within their ranks.

But my point...
I was thinking about this because I have been involved in a market scan for a new (software) product for a client. There are a lot of Rules Engines out there, and they all have very similar features. Based purely on the functionality and capabilities there is little to choose from. But there it is, inherent in the marketing and implicit in the product roadmap. The grain. The direction that the product is coming from and where they are going. Finding a product that aligns with the grain of the client means finding the product that will fit with the culture and growth and direction and grain of the way it will be used.
Once I can see that, the rest is just making the right case to convince the major stakeholders; many of whom wouldn't have a clue about the airy fairy "vibe" of the thing. Many of which have seen slick marketing by vendors who don't even understand the business the customer is in. Or who want "what she is having".
An example in an area more familiar to, well, software people anyway - Case Management. Big thing at the moment and everyone is doing it. Any product that can include case management is doing so since it is a great selling point. So what grain do each of the products have?
Salesforce - it is in the name. Started in sales and marketing and still the foundation of their business
Dynamics - Microsoft's strength is in customer retention and their CRM reflects this. They bend over backwards to make sure they are backwards compatible and keep customers on-side
ServiceNow - big in problem solving and fixing issues. Great when you want to follow ITIL Service Management principles.
Pegasystems - all about process and efficiencies and automation.
Each can handle any case, but they are so much better when playing on their home ground. So the goal, as a consultant, is to understand which fits best with the approach of the client and the grain of the way they operate.