Hard to Discern the Truth

Last evening's BBC News had a long report on the melting glaciers in Bolivia and how people there were going thirsty due to the greedy people, like us, who pump carbon into the air. Their message was clearly that "it is all our fault and unless we make Copenhagen succeed, Bolivians and the world is doomed".

We all know that it takes temperatures in excess of freezing to melt glaciers. So I went Googling for temperature data for the Chacaltaya Glacier in Bolivia--finding http://www.made-in-southamerica.org/ in the blog posting "Chacaltaya Melting". Here temperature data shows that there is no warming--in fact, there is cooling.

The author, Lykee Anderson, concludes that the evidence (receding glaciers, decreasing temperatures) are fully consistent with Svensmark's cosmic ray theory--a theory rejected by the "consensus-orientated scientists" since there is no anthropogenic component to sunspot variation and its affect on our climate.

Typical of the BBC to ignore the evidence, except to spin it for their own purposes.

The Logic Escapes Me

The UK Guardian Newspaper reports today in headlines "Climate change: Gulf stream collapse could be like a disaster movie" reports on a study (? or was it just comments ... the Guardian's report does not say) by Bill Patterson of Saskatchewan University.

"The next Ice Age could take only weeks to engulf Britain. Scientists say the last great disruption to the Gulf Stream 12,800 years ago took only a couple of months to trigger a massive plunge in temperatures across Europe."

The "trigger" in this case was:

"Such an event occurred 12,800 years ago when a vast lake – created from melting glaciers at the end of last Ice Age – overflowed and poured into the north Atlantic, blocking the Gulf Stream. Europe froze – almost instantly, said Patterson."

Mr Paterson is reported to have said:

"It was very sudden," added Patterson, "and it could happen again."

I suppose it could happen again. But what is the trigger event that could make it happen? Is there somewhere in the vicinity of the Atlantic or Arctic Oceans a vast lake that could flow into the sea? What are the threats which could cause it to "happen again".

This is a classic demonstration of the idea written here before about how people do not understand (or chose to understand) Risk. Risk is not just a situation. Risk is a threat, which causes something to happen, with results in impact.

The impact here is clear: the severe change in climate to be very cold in Northern Europe which we intuitively conclude would be a "huge" impact and a very "bad thing" indeed, caused by the shutdown of the Gulf Stream. [The Gulf Stream brings heat to Northern Europe from the Caribbean]. The "threat" or the "cause" in this scenario was "vast" freshwater lake that spilled into the sea. This makes sense.

But to "happen again" there has to be some cause that makes it happen. What are the possibilities that we can now imagine that could realistically or even unrealistically cause the Gulf Stream to shutdown? None are mentioned in this article--but we are made to be afraid because it could "happen again"!

Says it all about the Climate

I really like Terry Hughes's short article about his "Saturday's with a laptop" working with climate date in and around Phoenix. Rings true to my understandings, some of which started in grad school in the 1970's when we were looking at Chicago's effect on weather in Indiana.

There is more science to discover.

He sums up nicely:

The more I’ve seen, the more convinced I’ve become that the global warming crowd latched onto the parallel rise in temperatures and CO2, and built what has essentially become a religion around it. For 22 years it appeared to have been a solid conclusion that they were indeed tied together. Then the inescapable truth of the matter made itself clear in 1998 that they are not necessarily linked in the fashion that was first thought. Entire professional careers have been built around, and on, the premise that man-caused CO2 raises temperatures, and it’s too late to turn back now for most of them.

It appears that Jones and the CRU folks didn’t simply massage the data. As other pundits have pointed out, they waterboarded it. There are several blatantly obvious conclusions to be drawn here. First, any group receiving public money for research must make their data available to all. Even to guys with laptops on Saturday afternoons. Second, it seems that peer review means next to nothing. In the whole AGW thing, collaborating researchers apparently became co-conspirators. Wink-wink, nudge-nudge has no place in honest scientific endeavors. Third, science in general has taken a huge hit, making the average guy wonder if large grants create large lies and vice-versa. Fourth, where the heck has our media been? Menus at the White House are more important than what is possibly the biggest scam ever perpetrated on the American public? Apparently, only FOX got the memo. Fifth, school children need to be re-educated that CO2 is not the same as phosgene and sarin.

Jerry Pournelle on "Climategate"

He thinks and writes so clearly.

Risk and Probability

For reasons beyond my understanding, in recent weeks I've been involved with a number of independent conversations with a number of people the the same theme--risk. That four letter word has apparently replaced other four letter words in common use. In almost all instances, I was jarred at the diverse understands of what "risk" actually means. This is a pity since there now is so much talk about risk--in the financial world, in the climate change debate, etc.

Despite the time I've spent reading, talking, and teaching risk and risk management (an oxymoron by the way!) I now realise I haven't written as much here on risk as I had thought. I looked back and found this, and my best article here. But there is so much more from the plethora of PowerPoints in my files and some new ideas in my head. I promise here to start getting this written down and published here over the upcoming time period.

I'm going to start not with an attempt to define "risk", but instead to define how I think it must be described. All risks should be articulated as the following sentence suggests.

Because of [the uncertain event], [an event or events] might happen, which could lead to [impact or result which could be positive or negative].

Risk is not simply an uncertain event. Risk is not a "bad thing". Uncertainty is not always bad. Risk is not an event. A risk is properly articulated with all three of these elements. One must insist when talking with others about risk that these three elements are used to articulate and explain the risk. Without this articulation, the risk is not understood and is not yet ready to be "fixed" (called "mitigation" by professions).

From an understanding of risk as articulated here, we can start to understand or at least brainstorm about those things which we can influence--or not, the kind of things that can happen, and the impact (positive or negative from our own perspective). Further, we start to understand which risks we are going to try to "manage".

There are just preliminary words about a concept that I now feel I understand more clearly. It's time to get it written down.

When Scientists Become Politicians

In fact, when scientists become politicians but continue to pretend to be doing science, that is the real crime.

Making Twitter Work For Me

I do not really "get" Twitter for my personal use. I guess see it as a world-wide texting system largely independent of mobile phones companies (who make large margins on text services). I do not doubt, though, that people do use it. Accordingly, I setup a Twitter account for The Scottish Oil Club called, funny enough, "scottishoilclub". The purpose is to give greater visibility to the club for members and non members. Perhaps also it could be a way to remind members of upcoming events and club news. All depends on getting "followers" of which as of now there is only one--me.

I gave some thought about how I was going to remember to contribute something to this Twitter feed. There is no point to having Twitter with no tweets! However, that is easier said then done.

Then I remembered that the automation I use for managing the Club is mostly done in Python (with a little Microsoft Access) which interacts with the database (MySQL) and the internet (web site, email, etc.). I wondered if I could use Python to interact with Twitter? "Yes" is the answer.

A Python wrapper around the Twitter API has been created, called Python Twitter. After installing this in Python, three lines of code are required to post a tweet:

import twitter

api=twitter.Api(username='something',password='something')

api.PostUpdate("Hello World!")

I've added this into my little program that manages club information. When I make changes to information (new directory, email to members, etc.) I now have in front of me the option to send a tweet on the same subject. Since this is almost automatic, it is likely to happen.

Managing Priorities vs. Managing

David Allen, the "Getting Things Done" Guru, has an article in the UK edition of Wired, published on the internet. If you world is full of things--especially in a corporate world--this is a very insightful and worth reading the whole thing.

Interesting idea:

I think the economic crisis was created because too many smart people focused too much on their priorities.

and:

A vast majority of professionals are in “emergency scanning” mode. Their self-management consists of checking for and acting on the loudest immediacies – in email, in the hallways and on the phone. Everything else is shoved to the side of the desk, and to the back of their mind. Because they’re focused only on “priorities”, and are paying attention only to the most intheir- face stuff, everyone else has to raise the noise level to “emergency” mode to get any audience at all. Sensitivity and responsiveness to input are criteria for the evolution of a species; and many an organisation has a nervous system that keeps them low on the food chain.

Finally:

The addiction to this myopic view of what’s “most important” is not self-correcting – it is self-perpetuating.

and:

Sometimes your highest priority may be to just get some unimportant things done.

Scientific Data Does not Support This BBC Headline

So this guy takes a hike in the Arctic and concludes a) ice in the Arctic is soon to disappear, and b) opening shipping in the Arctic will be bad for the world. This is getting a lot of attention on the BBC web site, BBC television, and BBC radio.

Yet the science, satellite measurements, etc. that I've read and studied do not support these conclusion. Further, the Arctic has never been closed for shipping and has been in use for years.

Great PR for a point of view, I guess.

Which is puts the world more at risk? New policy based on great PR and bad science, or new policy based on science?

Read more from Watt's Up on "Top Ten Reasons Why I Think Catlin Arctic Ice Survey Data Cannot be Trusted"

Making Microsoft Project Work

When asked what I do, I say "help people and teams make great investment and project plans." This is a huge topic and is much more than just scheduling the project.

However, inevitably the conversations turns to how to use Microsoft Project and how "I tried it once but could not make it work", or "my guys tell me Project can't do [this or that]."

While this gap in knowledge will often provide an opportunity for me to help them, I freely give away some simple rules for making Microsoft Project work:

• Schedule, plan, and estimate deliverables ... not Tasks. Keep "todo's" out of Project. Let people manage the todo's. Let Project compute the cost/schedule.
• Keep the plan in Project as "high level" as possible. There is no "standard" work package size and believe no one who says otherwise. Use judgement and think.
• Focus your brain power on you and your team's energy to define the logical sequence of the project. Get the critical path network as right as possible while at the same time keep it "simple enough". Sometimes yet more complexity is a great thing because probably that complexity is indeed in the project you are about to embark upon and there is no reason to avoid it in your project model. Better to let complexity hit you in the model than let it take you by surprise in real life.
• Put no start/end dates on any task except for the start. Break this rule when in fact the date is a date that will not ever change, e.g. the date and time of a future solar eclipse ... things like that. Project deadlines are never fixed in Project even though the boss or client insists "it must be done!"
• Fix project deadlines in Project in the Deadline field. Let Project alert you when Project forecasts your plan is computing forward as missing future deadlines. [Hint: use the built-in field "Status Indicator".]
• A detail but worth a lot: properly manage the mpp files with respect to versions, backup, etc. Avoid relying on manual methods like email, file shares, etc. wherever possible. Create "one version of the truth", and if not true, make it so.

If this topic interests you, contact me.

Discussion Deleted on Apple Mac Discussion Forum

Gosh, but I received an email today from "Apple Discussions Staff" telling me that my posting on the "Apple Discussions" has been removed. I tried to launch a "discussion" about battery life experienced by others. I posted this "discussion" on the "Apple Discussions" forum dedicated to "Power and Batteries on a MacBook 13-inch Aluminum (Late 2008)". Gosh, but I guess it too controversial as they sent me this. Three people replied before it was deleted (see bottom). Guess they don't like "discussion" on their "discussion" forum.

Dear Robert,

Recently you posted a poll on Apple Discussions. We are including a copy of your message at the end of this email for your reference. We understand the desire to share experiences in your topic "What is Your Battery Life?", but because these posts are not allowed on our forums, we have removed your post.

These forums are intended for technical questions that can be answered by the community. We want everyone to be able to contribute to our forums and have their issues addressed. We feel that we have a very strong community and that it is an excellent resource for users to get assistance. I encourage you to continue using the Apple Discussions while abiding by our terms of use. The Apple Discussions Use Agreement, which also includes helpful information about using Apple Discussions, is located at http://discussions.apple.com/help.jspa

If you would like to share your experiences with Apple directly, you can submit feedback here: http://www.apple.com/feedback
As part of submitting feedback, please read the Unsolicited Idea Submission Policy linked to the feedback page.

Apple Discussions staff

This message is sent from a send-only email account. Any replies sent to this address are deleted automatically by the system.

A copy of your message for reference:

Collecting info about what would be a reasonable expectation of how how much time to get on a battery charge using a MacBook. I get at most 2:25 as shown on the battery indicator (top right of screen), but in clock time about 2 hours max.What about you?

Three people provided me their experience before the posting was deleted:

1. Battery life really depends on how the computer is being used (screen brightness, disk burning, wi-fi, BT, etc.) and can vary considerably. Just sitting here surfing the web about 4 - 5 hours for me.

2. Basic web browsing (low brightness)- 4 hours. Streaming video/Music - 2.5 hours

3. I have similar battery life as the other 2 posters, with optimal energy saving settings, about 4.5 hours. If I'm playing a video game, I can expect about 1.5 hours give or take.

UK Government Abusing Children?

This is a gross mis-use of taxpayer's money. £6 million to do scary bedtime stories--a father is telling his child how scientists found that global warming “was being caused by too much CO2, and it was the children of the land who’d have to live with the horrible consequences”. I wish we had a much certainty and solutions as this for our other problems in the world.

Google Wave?

If anyone reading this has a spare Google Wave invitation, I'd greatly appreciate having the honor of taking one from you. I'm keenly interested in collaboration technology and am considering some ideas. At this juncture just want to get a look at it, especially the API.

Water In Huge Quantities Required for Renewable Energy

Worth a read in today's NY Times ... nothing is for free despite what some folks think.

Here is an inconvenient truth about renewable energy: It can sometimes demand a huge amount of water. Many of the proposed solutions to the nation’s energy problems, from certain types of solar farms to biofuel refineries to cleaner coal plants, could consume billions of gallons of water every year.

We have a lot of water, but we have a growing population who continually need more water, more energy, more food.

Trouble Should Brew with Tree Ring Data at Heart of IPCC's Case

Steve McIntyre at "Climate Audit" (linked above) last week managed to gain access, via Freedom of Information request, to the raw data used by Briffa et. al. which used tree ring data samples collected from locations in the Arctic to look for evidence of climate change. Briffa's work has been central to the IPCC and their temperature reconstructions which suggest that recent climate change has been unprecedented. Many other investigators have used Briffa's data to support the concept of anthropogenetic climate change.

McIntyre's work since last week, reported on his web site, indicates that Briffa's work only chose tree ring data which supported their hypothesis of unprecedented climate change. They excluded tree ring data that did not tell the story they wanted told. The IPPC's case for anthropogenetic climaate change rests firmly on this hypothesis.

If this were science, the hypothesis would be declared "not proven".

I hope this will cause widespread debate in the world. Trouble should be brewing. I fear it isn't.

Hat-tip to my friend the professor on this!

Update 1 Oct: See the well-written article at http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/29/yamal_scandal/print.html.