The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Natural disasters: be careful when predicting them! > Comments

Natural disasters: be careful when predicting them! : Comments

By Don Aitkin, published 29/10/2012

We now rarely accept that events are random, 'acts of God', or basically beyond human control - 'someone is to blame'.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All
When, oh when, are we going to accept responsibility for our own actions?
If you want to build in a flood prone zone, an earthquake fault line or a bushfire risk area then do.
BUT don`t expect anybody but yourself to take the blame if things go wrong.
What`s the next step, wrap everybody in cotton wool and prohibit getting out of bed?
Our legal profession has much to be answerable for.
And it`s not all good.
Posted by ateday, Monday, 29 October 2012 8:26:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
All this will do is to drive our scientists to expand their predictions to include the worst possible case scenario. Rather than take a reasonable guesstimate, they will need to cloud the issue so as to protect themselves against the possibility of legal action. Many of todays professionals now need to include their "Get Out of Jail" indemnity clauses.
Posted by It's Miller Time, Monday, 29 October 2012 9:11:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The court's verdict and Don Atkin's article raises some interesting questions.

Basically with earthquake forecasting the way it is, the scientists concerned should have known better than to say the unfortunate things they did say.. they were trying to please the authorities. But a jail sentence still seems harsh.

At the same time, the people who build in such places should build knowing that an earthquake will eventually occur, and that they are unpredictable..

As for the Brisbane floods.. the problem was not so much the flooding but the release strategy followed when the Wyvenhoe dam (built as a response to the 1974 flood)filled up. The resulting flood was actually about 2 metres less than the '74 floods although there was arguably more rain, because Wyvenhoe was there. If they go back and review their release strategies next time it may be less..

However, those who build in the flood plain of teh Brisbane river can still expect to get flooded every few decades..
Posted by Curmudgeon, Monday, 29 October 2012 9:40:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'Scientists' -- real or self-proclaimed -- have now attained the same status in the public regard as the clergy. Like the jesters in a medieval court, they are permitted to get away with outrageous nonsense, but nobody gets offended because nobody takes what they say seriously, not even themselves. The idea that scientists should actually bear some responsibility for what they claim and predict is a hangover from the days when they used to work with data rather than models, and got on with the job rather than focusing on their blogs and media profiles.
Posted by Jon J, Monday, 29 October 2012 12:08:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Let me point out, by the way, that if the same rules are applied in Australia, then Tim Flannery for one will be looking at a long jail sentence.
Posted by Jon J, Monday, 29 October 2012 12:10:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The scientists, were imprisoned for not predicting a disaster; in fact, for claiming there was no danger?
Imagine what would ensue, if our dam engineers claimed, even as repeated warning signs were in plain evidence, that the people of Brisbane could rest safely in their beds, that they could rest assured there was no danger whatsoever, of a life and property threatening flood event!?
That said, the scientists in question are probably carrying the can for decades of neglect and or proper planning?
As others have mentioned, it was a known earthquake zone?
When heritage listing trumps pragmatism and earthquake resistant building, eventually, but particularly in an earthquake zone, there will be loss of life and or property!?
If anyone should be mouldering in some prison cell, it ought to be the former city fathers, who left this ticking time bomb legacy!?
Is there going to be many more record breaking flood events and flash floods that rip through previously non-flooded areas, or unstoppable wild fire that take out whole suburbs or cities?
You betcha!
But only as longer as we build on historical models, rather than a predictable future, which would then require quite massive flood mitigation; and or, tens of billions dedicated to myriad dam/levy bank building and very independent, very local power supply, superior road and rail links?
Well, you may need to evacuate entire populations and do need ultra reliable power for emergency lighting, food storage, pumps and communication!
Wires just don't cut it; and or, can contribute to the lists of possible problems; unless they are underground in a non earthquake prone area! Even then?
Dams provide both flood mitigation as well as providing essential fire fighting water supplies!
If many small dams then allow the planning of previously impractical hydro schemes, that would be a welcome bonus, that would allow some of the costs to be defrayed!
Even so, any and all outlays would likely be far less than the bankrupting insurance claims, the resulting premium hikes and the eventual repair bills, that almost always come, when we can least afford them!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Monday, 29 October 2012 12:32:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jon J is drawing a very long bow.

To liken scientists to clergy is an abomination - it simply is not close to equivalent to compare recommendations or predictions based on rational analysis with a philosophy based on untestable beliefs.

Presumably, as suggested by his crack at Tim Flannery, Jon J is one of those pesky climate sceptics who claim science when it appears to somehow support their notions, yet challenge and deny the relevance of all other science and scientists.

Climate sceptics are in a separate field, removed from both religion and science. Perhaps it is reasonably described as self delusion.

Whatever the veracity of the foregoing, it is drifting off topic.

I remember the immediate aftermath of the Newcastle earthquake of a couple of decades ago, when the structural adequacy of many buildings needed to be assessed. Engineers were confronted with 4 possibilities for each building.
1. The building was stable and would remain stable. They are deemed to have added little of value because "blind Freddy could see that it was OK".
2. The building had collapsed, gone past the point of no return. Blind Freddy wins again.
3. If they stated that the building was unstable, yet it continued to stand, they were risk-averse, bureaucratic wasters of money and impediments.
4. If they stated that the building was OK, yet it subsequently collapsed, they were culpable idiots.

So, as in Italy or Brisbane, experts, unless 100% infallible, are on a hiding to nothing. In the real world, they cannot win.
Posted by JohnBennetts, Monday, 29 October 2012 12:38:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I feel a little sorry for those Italian guys who are looking at a jail sentence, merely for doing their job as they saw it.

For me, it is a clear illustration of the problems that inevitably arise when a government sets itself up as some kind of omniscient expert, a source of infallible guidance that the public should have "full access" to, and that they should consult at every opportunity.

That faux-expertise is applied expediently, and for political purposes, so when things go wrong they can simply shift the blame onto the individuals whom they had appointed to carry the can.

Let's look at it realistically. Governments have far less of a direct interest in the "advice" they give than, say, an insurance company that faces a specific monetary risk. Sure, the manual says they should act "in the public interest". But that instruction hasn't been observed for several generations, thanks mainly to the professionalization of politics itself.

On the other hand, an insurance company will act upon its own advice, as to whether a building is exposed to flood danger, or sits on a geological fault line. The problems arise when the poor householder, waving goodbye as their home floats away downstream, suddenly finds that they are not insured against floods. What do they do then? They agitate for "government compensation" to recompense them for their personal stupidity, which the government does (to ensure their vote at the next election) while bitching under their breath about predatory insurance companies...

I hope the Italian higher courts recognize this, and let the poor saps off with a slap on the wrist. As JohnBennetts points out, they were screwed by the damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't nature of the system.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 29 October 2012 2:37:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Climate sceptics are in a separate field, removed from both religion and science. Perhaps it is reasonably described as self delusion."

That's just stupid; every day more evidence against AGW appears; even Briffa, a staunch hockeystick man has rebutted the concept, just as the egotist, Mann, the man without a Nobel prize, prepares to sue Steyn for calling him in effect a fraud; what an ironic juxtaposition!

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hockey_stick_mann_awards_himself_a_nobel/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/28/manns-hockey-stick-disappears-and-crus-briffa-helps-make-the-mwp-live-again-by-pointing-out-bias-in-ther-data/

It has reached the point where it truly can be said that the only people who still believe AGW are idiots or fanatics.
Posted by cohenite, Monday, 29 October 2012 2:45:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>Let me point out, by the way, that if the same rules are applied in Australia, then Tim Flannery for one will be looking at a long jail sentence.<<

Scientists get things wrong from time to time: they have been since science was natural philosophy and they will be until religious fundamentalists take over the world and we stop doing science. The reason these scientists are being prosecuted is that people died. If they're not causing the deaths of others I don't think this case represents a threat to the freedom of scientists to get things wrong.

Cheers,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Monday, 29 October 2012 2:49:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
the main problem is that these science prophets don't actually use proper science for their predictions. Many of them make some of the fallen US evangelist look like angels. They follow the money and not what is tested and proven. Just look how many compromise knowing that evolution is a fairytale. The gw scam is fruit of this pseudo science. They play the game or lose their jobs/funding. Thankfully we have the book that tells us the beginning and the end. Most are to prideful to see that what is written is easily observable. How dumb we become when we ignore our Creator and Saviour.
Posted by runner, Monday, 29 October 2012 3:07:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
runner,

Perhaps you can explain to us the "proper science" that relegates the theory of evolution to fairytale status?
Posted by Poirot, Monday, 29 October 2012 3:15:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot, you forget runner has a book. If it isn't in that book, it doesn't exist.
Posted by Agronomist, Monday, 29 October 2012 3:49:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>Perhaps you can explain to us the "proper science" that relegates the theory of evolution to fairytale status?<<

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdocQHsPCNM

Cheers,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Monday, 29 October 2012 4:17:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
John J.
Add Will Steffen and a variety of others to that list.
Posted by Prompete, Monday, 29 October 2012 5:44:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot

'Perhaps you can explain to us the "proper science" that relegates the theory of evolution to fairytale status? '

Something that can be tested and proven. As simple as that. Also something that people don't have to shut their eyes to (design) every moment of the day to back their dogmas (like evolution).
Posted by runner, Monday, 29 October 2012 5:51:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here you go, cohenite:

http://hurricanesandyspeaks.com/2012/10/29/message-from-hurricane-sandy-people-call-me-frankenstorm-superstorm-weatherbomb/

I say, rather "unusual" in an "extreme" sort of way for an "event" like this to come about...?
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 30 October 2012 2:41:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot, Cyclone Sandy was downgraded sometime ago; it is nothing out of the ordinary.

Yet like you the ABC was all over it, calling it a superstorm and you could just feel they could hardly wait to claim it as an example of AGW.

They're like vultures waiting for any catastrophe so they can say, 'I told you so'.

That's no way to live a life.

The ABC should be shut down; I don't think so harshly of you.
Posted by cohenite, Tuesday, 30 October 2012 4:45:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Didn't this storm earn the title of super-storm, it united with two other weather systems which altered its make up. It started as a tropical cyclone, so didn't the class of storm become redundant when it joined forces with two other cells. So why not call it a super storm.
Posted by 579, Tuesday, 30 October 2012 4:53:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"So why not call it a super storm"

Why don't you call it the "Purple People Eater", or the flying spaghetti monster, or some other fanciful name; it would sit just as well with the canards of AGW.
Posted by cohenite, Tuesday, 30 October 2012 5:21:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That hurricane needs to look at the bigger picture: there's more to this than global warming. The way I look at it there is one clear culprit for the damage now being wrought in the US: a butterfly in Brazil. I think that the obvious solution to the mega-hurricanes of tomorrow is to de-wing all Brazilian butterflies.

Cheers,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Tuesday, 30 October 2012 5:29:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There's not much for me to comment on, though I do expect the storm to be linked to AGW before very long.

On religion: my brief take on it would go like this. There are a lot of people out there who 'believe' that, for example, there is a spirit called Gaia, and that human beings are wicked people wrecking Gaia's planet. There are strong and weak versions of this belief. But it needs verification, and something equivalent to the book, which it finds in the IPCC reports, and in scientists who 'predict' doom unless we repent. That doesn't make them priests, but they serve that function for believers — and one or two of more of them rather enjoy the authority that comes with the role. I wouldn't go much further than that.
Posted by Don Aitkin, Tuesday, 30 October 2012 7:16:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cohenite wrote:

>>Cyclone Sandy ... is nothing out of the ordinary.>>

LOL

Except, I guess, it's not funny for the people in the affected area such as my wife's niece.

However, in fairness, no single event, no matter how extreme, can be used as evidence for AGW. It is the pattern that is important.

Poirot

There is no point in arguing with evolution deniers.
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Tuesday, 30 October 2012 7:49:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I wondered how often a flurry of small quakes was followed by a big one. Or, to put it another way, is a flurry of small earthquake a reliable predictor of a big one in the near future.

Turns out it's quite rare. Almost always flurries of small quakes just peter out.

What's more it seems that most really big quakes are not preceded by a flurry of smaller ones.

With the benefit of hindsight I think the scientists should simply have said there is no reliable way of predicting earthquakes.

However, for the mathematically minded, here is a link to the Gutenberg – Richter law for estimating the probability of an earthquake of given magnitude occurring.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gutenberg%E2%80%93Richter_law

According to the Gutenberg-Richter law the Italian scientists were quite right. It was very unlikely that an Earthquake of that magnitude would strike the village any time soon. But only in the sense that it is very unlikely that heads will come up 10-20 times in a row.
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Tuesday, 30 October 2012 8:09:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Except, I guess, it's not funny for the people in the affected area such as my wife's niece."

Did I say it was funny for the people impacted by it!?

Don't verbal me; I said any attempt to use Sandy as evidence for AGW was vulture like and that it was not unusual despite its destructiveness.

Extreme weather is now the 'hotspot' of AGW propaganda; like every other so-called 'proof' of AGW it is a lie, as a genuine scientist notes:

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/top-10-damaging-hurricanes-within-50.html#comment-form

And don't conflate anyone who rejects evolution with scepticism of AGW. In fact the similarities between AGW and such off-shoots of religion like creationism and ID are the real stand-outs of the AGW ideology.
Posted by cohenite, Tuesday, 30 October 2012 8:56:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cohenite,

".....Cyclone Sandy was downgraded sometime ago; it is nothing out of the ordinary."

I think some folks in the north east of the US might beg to differ.

Sandy was downgraded fairly soon after it crossed the coast, but ya know it's not all about whatever category it was given, it's about the sheer size and nature of it, its late in the season formation and the fact that the waters were warm enough to sustain it all the way up the east coast of the US in late October - so that it could cause a massive storm surge and dump torrents where it did. For something that is "not out of the ordinary" I think you'll be surprised at the devastation revealed in the coming days in this heavily populated region.

I believe, that folks are right that one storm can't be regarded as anything decisive in the AGW debate, yet it's exactly the type of event that we can expect to happen with more regularity if ocean warming continues.

579 - I believe there's an Arctic storm front coming down from the north-west down through the middle and that is expected to link up with the remnants of Sandy's system.

Also noted that the storm hit on an expected high-tide on the night of a full moon - very bad timing.
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 30 October 2012 10:01:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Steven, Poirot, Sandy was not even much of a cyclone. Yes it was large & slow moving, but at it's peak was only a category 2. I have experienced larger & very much stronger cyclones in the Whitsundays which passed with nothing more than a few branches down. In one we had all our resort boats up a creek for 70 hours, it took so long to pass.

Last night Sandy was already considerably below the wind strength required to be classified as a cyclone at all. It was actually simply an extra tropical rain depression for the last 12 hours before crossing the coast.

The main thing with these US hurricanes is the large storm surge they generate. It is of course all the solid water coming ashore that is so dangerous & causes so much damage. It is much more dangerous than the wind that generated it.

Still why is it so common in the US, & so rare here.

I have started another thread hoping someone can tell me. I am not much good with Google, & could only get the simplistic Wikipedia description, which was not detailed enough to be much use.

It is a pity the simple blocking of a cyclone/depression by a high pressure ridge, something which helps shield us from much damage by ours, is being described in such extravagant language.
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 31 October 2012 12:00:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot, just a few facts. There are a couple of very good papers, [no I don't have a reference] describing the effect of warming, if it occurs, on extreme weather.

In fact, it is the high latitudes that would warm most, reducing the potential between the tropics & the polls, which causes extreme weather. This reduction would be reducing extreme weather. That this reduction of extreme weather has happened over the last 30 years, is the only thing that gives me pause in my rejection of AGW.

A cyclone does not link up with another weather system, they repel each other, as do like magnetic polls. It was the depression that had been Sandy "bouncing" off the front coming down from the arctic that turned it inland south of New York, rather than continuing a course parallel to the coast, causing little damage or problem, as is usual, with these things.

The question of the spring tide is interesting. 35 years ago I knew a 90+ year old, very wise, very smart, but little educated gentleman, who's entire life had been as a fisherman, until injury changed him to park ranger. He did me the honor of educating me on things natural, of the sea, the reef, & the island parks.

One of those things was a system of forecasting the strength of a cyclone. Simply look to your tide chart. The higher the tide, the higher the cyclone damage. In my experience, which only covers from about Gladstone to Townsville, this has been right every time.
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 31 October 2012 12:57:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen,

I was referring to a merging of systems once the cyclone was over land. Or do you have another explanation for the snow happening in Virginia?
http://hint.fm/wind/

I'm not going to quibble here over the wind strength of Sandy. Suffice to say that any storm with the potential to cause unusual and extreme conditions (the high water mark in New Jersey was "three foot higher" than the previous record) The issue here is that a weather event of this nature hitting a heavily populated and highly developed coastal community like that in north eastern America is always going to impact in a specific manner. Power outages in the sevens of millions and total transport shutdown (and subways filling with water) aren't the sorts of things that Caribbean islanders would experience in the same manner.

"...The higher the tide, the higher the cyclone damage..." - yes, for inundation with water, that would seem a reasonable assumption.

This was a late season cyclone, which impacted an area outside the tropics. The system was able to travel so far north at his time of year because the waters it travelled over were warm enough to sustain it. That it was only a low category cyclone doesn't mitigate the damage caused to the particular communities it impacted in the way in which it impacted.
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 31 October 2012 4:19:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot, you are wrong; read the Pielke Jr post on Sandy to see that she is not such a late season storm with other, bigger storms occurring within spitting distance of Sandy's landbreak, doing so at close to the same time [ie mid to late September]:

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/top-10-damaging-hurricanes-within-50.html#comment-form

It is also the case that almost to the same day in 1991 the perfect storm which sank the Andrea Gail occurred:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/10/frankenstorm-sandy-approaches/#comments

There is no AGW fingerprint in Sandy.
Posted by cohenite, Wednesday, 31 October 2012 8:24:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cohenite writes:

>>Extreme weather is now the 'hotspot' of AGW propaganda;>>

For the benefit of those interested in the actual science, one of the forecasts for a warmer world is, indeed, more frequent extreme weather events. The Economist recently carried a piece on this:

Climate change
Bell weather
A statistical analysis shows how things really are heating up

http://www.economist.com/node/21560235

>>ARE heatwaves more common than they used to be? That is the question addressed by James Hansen and his colleagues in a paper just published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. >>>

The findings as published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences can be summarised with a single graphic (See link below)

http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/290-width/images/print-edition/20120811_STC780.png

From The Economist again:

>>As the chart (right) shows, there are two trends. First, the peaks of the data-based curves move right, over time, with respect to the reference curve. In other words, the average temperature is rising. Second, more recent curves are flatter. A flatter curve means a bigger standard deviation and a wider spread of results.

If the mean of each curve were the same, such flattening would imply both more cold periods and more hot ones. But because the mean is rising, the effect at the cold end of the curves is diminished, while that at the hot end is enhanced. The upshot is more hot periods of local weather.>>

Interesting that this piece should appear in the Economist. Climate forecasts are far from perfect but they are paragons compared to economic forecasts ;-)

Another datum: Are the Chinese cooling the planet?

See:

Global warming pause linked to sulfur in China

http://phys.org/news/2011-07-global-linked-sulfur-china.html

And:

Global warming lull down to China's coal growth

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14002264

Sulphite particles from Chinese coal may have cooled the planet as happened briefly in the 1950s. Of course, once they start cleaning up their power stations we could see a resumption of the warming trend.
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Wednesday, 31 October 2012 8:52:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cohenite,

Actually, the "perfect storm" which sank the Andrea Gail is interesting - an "extratropical low" in late October.

Found this:

http://ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/satellite/satelliteseye/cyclones/pfctstorm91/pfctstorm.html
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 31 October 2012 10:19:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
More news on the trial of the Italian seismologists.

From New Scientist

Bugged phone deepens controversy over Italian quake

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22439-bugged-phone-deepens-controversy-over-italian-quake.html

>>Wiretap evidence suggests that Guido Bertolaso, then a chief of civil protection, ordered one of the defendants to issue a reassuring statement. A newly released audio recording also appears to show Bertolaso trying to conceal information in the aftermath of the quake.

Franco Coppi, who legally represents Giulio Selvaggi, one of the convicted seismologists, calls Bertolaso the "great absent member of the trial". "All these scientists were sent to L'Aquila with a precise task," he told New Scientist. "Given that they are considered responsible for insufficient communication, it would have been important as well to consider what mandate Bertolaso gave them."

[...]

In the recording, Bertolaso later says: "At the end you'll file a press release with the usual stuff that you can say on the subject, on the potential of a new one [earthquake], and you won't mention the real reason for this meeting. All right?">>

In my view this actually strengthens the case against the Italian scientists. They should not allow themselves to be bullied by a bureaucrat.
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Wednesday, 31 October 2012 2:21:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“For the benefit of those interested in the actual science”

For those interested in the actual science I would recommend ignoring everything Mr Meyer regurgitates. Hansen is nicely rebutted here:

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2012/08/14/hansen-is-wrong/

Michael Mann, who lies about being a Nobel prize recipient, has also joined the chorus of those usual suspects claiming more extreme weather; and likewise has been comprehensively rebutted:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/16/quote-of-the-week-what-planet-does-michael-mann-live-on/

As have those other hysterics claiming god-given inside knowledge about the climate, Trenberth and Fasullo:

http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2012/09/20/a-blog-memo-to-kevin-trenberth-ncar/

Gore calls the lie of more extreme weather “dirty weather”; the only thing dirty about the current situation is the lies of the climate spruikers and their idiot followers.

The whole concept of more extreme weather is based on AGW predictions of more ‘heat’ and therefore energy in the climate system; this lie was disproved in 2010 by Knox and Douglass and measurements of the Earth’s energy balance.

But even if it were true that more heat/energy were being retained in the system that would not necessarily mean more extreme weather. Climate energy is expressed through steeper energy gradients; AGW predicts a warming of the poles and a decrease in the lapse rate; simply put the energy gradients, both vertical and horizontal would decrease under AGW and therefore there would be less energy disparity to cause extreme events.

As usual AGW theory is as contradictory as its believers are gullible.
Posted by cohenite, Wednesday, 31 October 2012 4:55:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cohenite,

A paper published in Nature in February this year examined storm surges using New York as a test case.

Here's an analysis of it:

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S32/98/37G63/

"Storm of the century" may become storm of the decade."

"Researchers from Princeton University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that regions such as the New york metropolitan area that currently experience flood every century could instead become submerged every one or two decades.

The researchers report in the journal Nature Climate Change that projected increases in sea level and storm intensity brought about by climate change would make devastating storm surges - the deadly and destructive mass of water pushed inland by large storms - more frequent."

A theory which is in keeping with your highlighting of 1991's Halloween Storm.

That storm ,btw, is interesting in that it absorbed another tropical storm - and itself morphed into an unnamed hurricane before it petered out.

The rest of the story on the Halloween Storm of '91:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/satellite/satelliteseye/hurricanes/unnamed91/unnamed91.html
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 31 October 2012 5:12:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot, I have no doubt that would be the case IF AGW were real. It is not. For your informatiuon, in respect of sea level rise this is another nail in the coffin:

http://www.igs.org/assets/pdf/Poland%202012%20-%20P09%20Bar-Sever%20PR51.pdf

What this analysis from NASA shows is that satellite measurements of sea level rise since 2003 are systemically flawed with a consistent over depiction of the rise. Slide 3 is the key one where it is shown that be comparison with surface based altimeters the satellite measurements show a spurious acceleration of sea level rise.

AGW is a theory with no consequences except vast financial chicanery and waste and the ignoring of real pollution issues.
Posted by cohenite, Wednesday, 31 October 2012 5:52:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Further to Poirot’s post above,

I notice her “analysis” did not:
1) Highlight the fact that at least one of her “researchers”
“Oppenheimer is a longtime participant in the IPCC”.
2) Nor, did she shine a spot-light on the huge wiggle room in the estimate of BETWEEN “1.5 –5 feet”.

So here’s a much more sober appraisal of sea level rises along the US east coast:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/29/cooling-that-east-coast-sea-level-hotspot/

However – if you are thinking heck SPQR, this IS Halloween we want to hear more “The end is nigh” stories --(and I can appreciate that, I’m no party pooper) then, here is more of what Poirot tried to feed you.
http://www.bookofrevelationonline.com/

And just quietly, I have heard that it may well be the source and inspiration of many of her posts:

Trick or treat!
Posted by SPQR, Wednesday, 31 October 2012 7:02:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SPQR,

When all is said and done, the best you can offer up is a link to WUWT.

(I didn't bother clicking on your second link)

: )
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 31 October 2012 10:22:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot

And others who may be interested in real science.

This link may be of some interest.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-global-warming-happening-faster-than-expected&WT.mc_id=SA_CAT_SP_20121029
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Thursday, 1 November 2012 7:01:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It seems to me that global warming has become the new religion. On one hand we have the die-hard atheists; on the other we have the believers. Somewhere in the middle lie the agnostics; those who look around and see a very different planet from the one we used to know; who'd like to think there's a rational, scientific explanation for hotter summers and colder winters, for the burning sun and the flooding rain and for the irritating overuse of the terms La Nina and El Nino.

More irritating to us agnostics are the endless, roundabout, point-scoring, he-said/she-said arguments based on so-called facts provided by the ‘churches' of either side of science, both of which secretly worship at the pagan altars of politics and business, and neither of which actually gives a toss about the other 6.99 billion flotsam and jetsam we like to call human life. Like we’re something special.

For the truth is - a bit like that other religion involving a heavenly being in white flowing robes -I suspect none of us will be able to substantiate or disprove anthropomorphic AGW’s existence or influence until it is too late.

The possibility of increased frequency of natural disasters is not the issue. The issue is that, despite strutting the planet like some despotic overlord, inventing new ways to do this or make that, we are still susceptible to the vagaries and viciousness of nature. The aftermath of Hurricane Sandy proves, beyond a doubt, that no matter how ‘prepared’ we think we are, no matter what measures we take, no matter if we pray to the sun or to the moon or to our own navels, we'll never be able to prevent natural disasters. At most, we can survive them. Never (apart from fiscally of course!) will we learn from them.

In the end, it really won’t matter if events like Sandy happen once every millennium, century, decade or year. As we are nothing more than a carbon-based life form on an ever-evolving planet, we're as unimportant and as insignificant as the very soil on which we stand.

Amen.
Posted by scribbler, Thursday, 1 November 2012 8:08:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you, Steven,

A couple of brief articles that may be of interest:

http://climate.nasa.gov/eswSite/blogs/?FuseAction=ShowBlog&NewsID=46

http://www.slideshare.net/Revkin/reverse-tribalism-and-global-warming

I believe most "scientists" working in the climate field would encourage healthy skepticism and a degree of humility in regard to their search for evidence, and in the conclusions reached regarding climate change.

The contrast between that attitude and the braggadocio and swagger of the "skeptic" camp is notable.
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 1 November 2012 8:12:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks Poirot.

I was especially fascinated by the GRACE piece. I had no idea the technology of gravimetrics had advanced to that point.

I find when talking to people it is better to ignore the "noise" from the so-called "sceptics" and focus on the real science.

Given:

--Some very basic physics

--What we know about air and ocean currents that that transport heat from the equatorial regions to the poles

--What we know about the earth's "radiation budget" – radiation in and radiation out

It would be truly astonishing if pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere did not cause the Earth to heat up. In fact it would be as bizarre as finding that things sometimes "fell" towards the ceiling rather than the floor.

Now having said that there are still some legitimate questions:

(1) Will the heating be significant? What exactly is the sensitivity of the Earth to various combinations of atmospheric greenhouse gases?

(2) Would a somewhat warmer Earth be such a bad thing? Maybe it doesn't matter. Maybe there will be some positives.

The first question has largely been answered. There will be a measurable and significant increase in temperature.

The second is harder to answer. Based on what we know now it looks as if, barring a total catastrophe, there will be winners and losers. The countries around the North Pole such as Canada, Scandinavia and Russia could be big winners. China could be a loser. Parts of the US are already benefitting from a warmer climate while other parts seem to be suffering.

And what is the likelihood of a catastrophe that causes a great extinction as has happened before in Earth's history? There is no way of knowing.

All we can really say is that we, by which I mean humanity, are taking an enormous risk by continuing to pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

And as is nearly always the case we cannot have certainty. We are going to have to make decisions under uncertainty.

Cest la guerre.
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Thursday, 1 November 2012 9:19:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cont'd

One of the problems with any debate on climate is the parasites that attach themselves to any issue. In the case of climate in Australia the major parasites are the Greens. There is much truth to the watermelon charge. Many, perhaps most, Greens are green on the outside and red on the inside. They have hijacked the climate issue in order to advance a Marxist / totalitarian agenda.

Another group of parasites are anal cavities like Flannery, not a climatologist, who has used the climate issue to advance the cause of Flannery.

And then there is the ABC which has departed from its mandate of presenting the science to becoming a partisan player.

The best thing that could happen for the climate debate in Australia is for the loathsome Greens and their Leftie baggage to vanish.

It would also help if the ABC were to be less partisan. A good start would be to fire Tony Jones.

The noise from the Greens, the ABC and self-aggrandising "activists" like Flannery is actually more destructive than anything coming from the "sceptics" camp. The "sceptics" would be easy to deal with if it weren't for the noise from these parties.
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Thursday, 1 November 2012 9:56:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Actually sea levels are rising more rapidly than forecast: http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-blogs/climatechange/reasons-why-sea-levels-are-ris-1/1005661
Posted by Seamus, Thursday, 8 November 2012 8:03:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy