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.

Point Henry Solar?

This is my blog and no-one reads it anyway so why am I keeping it to generic topics?

I've read Alcoa's plan for the Point Henry site and I understand the Geelong council and State Government are also considering similar options for the area. But the area is a combination of salt marsh, protected wet-lands and contaminated soil. I can't really see a residential development being a reasonable use of the land. While, the proposal looks good on paper and housing is generally a high return than most other land uses, I doubt the quality of the homes that could or would be built in that region. It won't even grow trees of any real size and the idea of a lawn is laughable without kilotons of soil being imported - and then washed away. More likely it will end up with a scraggly row of houses such as Avalon Beach - and for much the same reasons.

So what else for Point Henry? Well there are the salt flats there, and a (now) disused Aluminium Smelter, a set of high tension power lines leading out to the Otways, a wetlands on the back side and a single long pier for large ships.
Hmm, salt pans - large flat areas exposed to the sun for most of the day. What modern and growing industry needs large flat areas exposed to the sun? But any intermittent power generator needs a storage mechanism - that is just common sense, as well as being a key recommendation of the Finkel Report. The two most efficient mechanisms are pumped hydro and molten salt. The first requires very UNflat ground - something like the Otway Ranges where Alcoa have their (disused) coal mine, the second requires a facility to manage and work with high temperature materials. And, of course, any power station needs high voltage lines in and out.

So a solar plant sounds like it might at least be plausible. The point might also lend itself to wind or wave power although suitable protection for the wetlands needs to be considered. There has also been talk about geothermal at the other end of the power line which is outside Anglesea. So we have a multi-technology options for both generation and storage.
The downsides? Well, I have no idea if the salt pans are still operational or economically viable and I think the owners might wish to keep them if they are making money. The need for greater power into the grid at Geelong needs to be considered on a cost/benefit basis. The costs and effort in retro-fitting all the necessary equipment, even though some is available, it may actually make more sense to install elsewhere (the geothermal plant didn't go ahead). And last but not least is the impact on the local environment. I think it is isolated enough, but close enough to Geelong that there is not likely to be much backlash from the public but potential other plans for the area need to be considered. A bridge across Corio bay is unlikely still on the cards and it would almost have to leave from Point Henry.
To take the idea further would mean involving Alcoa (obviously), Salt International who I believe own the flats, a Power company - Momentum have a good presence and reputation in the region and have background in renewables, and definitely the City Council.
I suspect the last of those would need to be contacted first, but a reasonable business case would need to be created first, and that involves everyone else.
So how could the basic feasibility of the idea be evaluated - where to start?

Integration is not Interoperability

There is a tender out from the ADHA for an "Interoperability Framework" for Australian eHealth systems. Apart from the ridiculous timelines for such a wide ranging topic, I have a problem with what they seem to think 'Interoperability' actually is.

Interoperability is NOT the same as integration. It is not just about data transfer and communication mechanisms, but also about how well functional separation is maintained and demarcation of responsibilities. It is a consequence of good design and following the principle of high cohesion and loose coupling. The difference between the two is the difference between speaking the same language and playing well together. The concepts are linked but interoperability covers a much wider space and is somewhat more nebulous.

Integration between systems is a well understood discipline with many well thought out patterns, along with clearly guidelines on when and how each technique should be applied. To support the many (many) applications on the market that don't support modern integration techniques, there are products widely available which abstract the whole communication thing into a mediation layer, acting as a translator between the different units.

But just because you can talk together doesn't mean that you do - or do so effectively. Interoperability is what makes disparate applications work as a system, one that is able to work with other systems into a larger whole. At the lowest level it takes in the concept of workflow or business process management; do you use orchestration or a choreography, where and how is control handed off between components and where do responsibilities start and end. A well designed system, built for interoperability, is able to delegate tasks and accept responses, fitting other systems into its own flow so that tasks are performed as effectively as possible.

A prime example from the industry at hand would be the patient management system in a hospital. There is administration which tracks admission and discharge,  costs and payments, accommodation and feeding schedules. There is also the medical records which track condition, treatment, testing and medication. Both systems need to have a relationship management aspect which are looking at the patient from very different directions. Since doctors tend to also operate their own practices separately from hospitals, we have another set of records, and the government is now entering the mix with the MyHR initiative. Whatever happened to the principle of a single master source for data? The problem is that none of these systems has the capability to delegate responsibility for record keeping to another system - a proper CRM which is designed to track any and all interactions with an individual. Each is built to be self-contained, which is fine, and has no ability to interoperate when necessary, which is not.

Loose coupling between components of a system would allow it to disable the internal store and plug into an external module as and when required. It would allow workflows and processes to be handed off to sub-systems or associated applications and the results re-integrated once complete. This is the mindset behind the current approach of micro-services and composed applications. Unit design and interchangeable parts have been standard in the manufacturing industry for a century but IT is only just coming to grips with it.

That is interoperability.

Climate trolls

Scott Adams has been talking about a couple of issues lately - obviously trolling although he does seem to actually believe what he is saying as well.
I am not sure why I keep feeling the urge to reply but hopefully documenting the obvious holes here will ease the desire. For a number of reasons I prefer not to respond on his site - I don't feel I want to login to comment for one, I really hate to feed the troll - which includes the other commenters, and there are so *many* comments that it is probably pointless anyway.
While Scott's statements are (deliberately) inflammatory, there are points of interest. The insight into Trump for instance, says more about American population than it does about the target. One clear point is Adam's own cognitive dissonance on the topic. He admittedly admires Trump and that is seriously colouring his interpretation of events, even to the point of changing his previous system of agreeing with the experts when he does not understand a topic. Trump himself, of course, disregards... no not disregards - denigrates - anyone who disagrees, whatever their level of expertise in the area.

As Feynman said "reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled" - although there may be disastrous fallout in the meantime if the people who ARE fooled head off in the wrong direction. Feynman said this while investigating the Challenger disaster. In that case management convinced themselves as well as the funding bodies that no problem could possibly arise, while the engineers were constantly warning about known issues. There are significant similarities to the conversation about climate change.
But to cover Adams' comments- first he uses his favourite straw-man argument, talking about climate models. No, models are not accurate. Yes, there are multiple ones around each of which state something slightly different. No, the details don't agree with observed reality. As a business man, Adams knows that there are multiple ways to predict future earning, none of which predicts the future accurately but are essential to operations.
Actually, this is not a bad analogy since the climate change models are the same order of complexity, accuracy and uncertainty. Except that we are talking about the stock market, not an individual business. Who believes, that the stock market will drop suddenly? The market has risen and fallen in the past, but the smart money is on a continuing upward trend.

But that is not the point either. The models are used to predict the future, but they are not the core of the argument for climate change. Past performance shows an unprecedented increase compared with at least the last 12,000 years. The safe bet is that it will not suddenly stop. The models are just a fancy way of saying that. And, yes the data is based on a limited set of evidence, but it is a limited set in each of about a dozen difference disciplines each of which agree on the rough numbers. There is no precision in the data - but there is a clear trend.

But even that does not directly address Scott Adams central argument - which is mostly about his 'persuasion filter' and 'bullshit' detector. He says that there are significant disadvantages to any scientist who doesn't toe the party line and so everyone is jumping on the band wagon to keep their jobs. Which is shows a major lack of understanding of the scientific process for someone who claims to trust experts.
Climate change has been under discussion in the scientific community for decades. There were books about it in the 70's. It is not a new idea and there have been at least two occasions I can recall where action was taken to succesfully reverse human impact on the atmosphere. The acid rain problem, especially in Europe, was mitigated by cutting sulphur emissions and the hole in the ozone layer is finally starting to close over due to reductions in CFC usage. Neither problem is, or will be, completely solved.
In both cases, there was major push back from the companies most effected by the fix, and their politicians, about who's fault it was, who should pay and especially about whether the problem really existed. Which is the same as the current (political, not scientific) argument about climate change.

So the underlying issue is that there has been a recent - last five, maybe ten years - push back against science which has been on-going for decades. The denial camp is the late comer and, as challenger, the burden of proof is on them. However, the core arguments seem to be simply - "I don't want to believe it". I have not heard anything more substantial.
Nonetheless, these arguments carry some weight and this is core to Adams' point. The deniers are better persuaders. Of course, this does not mean they are right, or even that they believe their own arguments, only that they have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Carbon emissions come, in the main, from energy generating systems - including the petrochemical industry. There is a  lot of money, political clout and - importantly - persuasive people involved in those areas. Ones that do not like to lose, and have the will and the means to prevent it.
In that context, it is interesting to note that the last 5-10 years also covers the rise of NewsCorp as it took control of much of the world media. Murdoch is definitely a master persuader - that is his entire business. He is also a climate change denier and most (if not all) of the arguments against it were first published in his media.


But back to the point; Adams apparently is a denier because that side of the "argument" have better persuasion skills. Of course, as every debater knows the ability to convince people of your argument is completely irrelevant to the reality. Climate change denialism is a flag of convenience for the folks at the top. It's a loyalty oath and a touchstone: they don't necessarily believe it, but it's very convenient to fervently preach it in public if you want to continue to turn a profit.
So, the story about your average joe scientist toeing the party line to avoid losing his job is backward. It is not a conspiracy of silence amongst thousands of people, but rather a concerted effort by a small number of master persuaders.

Finally, a comment about the fears of taking action whether or not climate change is real. As I understand it, and I haven't heard a good explanation, the problem of improving the world anyway is the potential economic impact. Which, of course, is not supported by economists or by ANY economic theory.

Taking action on climate change means adding regulation to a number of old, well entrenched industries - the ones who make profit from cost-cutting and processing efficiencies. The ones who are best able to automate, shed jobs and reduce costs. New industries are required for handling renewable energy and sustainable approaches - ones that create work that has not existed before and need experienced people to fill them. Ones that will spin off secondary industries to make use of what they produce.
While there is a threat to the old guard, for the rest of us, we stand to gain more work, better, cheaper products due to new production processes, cleaner air and water.

 But of course, this has all been said before and don't claim to be a great persuader, so it is unlikely any of this will make any difference at all... but I do feel I needed to say it.