Wuxi, Return to Melbourne, Doctoral Progress

[tcpip]

The third part of the conference proceedings involved two nights in the nearby city of Wuxi, which I had visited only several days prior on holiday. Staying at the rather impressive Juna Hubin Hotel, a morning was spent at an industrial park, specifically for electric scooters and bikes of various makes and models, which are widespread throughout the major cities. I was particularly impressed by one which had the capacity for self-driving! I can imagine a future where we'll simply zip around in a self-driving easychair with a coffee and book whilst our vehicle takes us to our destination. After that was a visit to a precision textiles company, which, whilst being the manufacturing centre for some major name brands, didn't quite interest me at the same level. In the afternoon, we finished our conference with a very enjoyable visit to Wuxi's Huishan Old Town and gardens.

With a car deciding to merge into our bus the previous day (our bus was scratched, the car lost three panels), it made narrative sense that, following a return to Nanjing, that the airline company cancelled my flight from to Guangzhou, and then couldn't find my initial booking when arranging a replacement. When I was finally booked on a late-night plane, we found ourselves stuck on the tarmac due to inclement weather. Never mind, everything sorted itself out and I finally made it in their air with a three-hour layover at Guangzhou airport in the middle of the night, before taking the nine-hour flight back to Melbourne town.

I took this window of opportunity to finish the final written requirements for the second course in my doctoral studies (I still find doctoral coursework strange at best). This was a major project on a public debate in New Zealand between two opposing views in climate science, with my former professor and IPCC lead author, James Renwick, debating a soil scientist and AGW "sceptic", Doug Edmeades. Whilst trying to be as charitable as possible, Edmeades engages in extremely sloppy cherry-picking of data and shows a profound lack of understanding of even the basics of climate physics. It is so bad that I am tempted to suggest that he is engaging in malice rather than ignorance, as it seems perplexing that one could complete a scientific doctorate whilst being at odds with scientific methodology. I think I will be writing to him to find out why.

Comments

[motg]

I do find this odd. I have interacted with many climate deniers of the more sensible variety. And this is way back in the past. Like 20-odd years ago, before it became only too apparent that Man this isn't about decades in the future. This is like NOW NOW NOW!

What I remember about the folks (mostly NZ-based) I knew is that it was all science-based. The Stefan-Boltzmann Law was frequently cited. Because climate science is still comparatively new it took a long time for the Bleeding Obvious to sink in. Guys: it's all about the oceans. Really it is. Because Specific Heat in relation to hydrogen bonding???? really? Eight times as much as most metals? Oh.....

As a former denier (until about 15 years ago) I can be sympathetic up to a point. But when does the mountain of accumulating horror reach the point when you mumble into your beard and say OK it's looks as though I was horribly wrong?

I'd like to draw an analogy with heliocentrism. The 16thC Papacy thought they were on a winner. Because Look don't be silly. If the Sun's in the middle where's your stellar parallax? EWell, er. Maybe it's there but it's too small to measure??? And as it turned out, well yes. It is there, and with modern telescopes it's been measured. After Kepler reduced the Ptolemaic nightmare of epicycles, deferents and the like to actually, it's an ellipse with the Sun at one focus .... well. That was the moment to ditch Ptolemy. Because fewer postulates and William of Ockham and all that.

Back in the day, people knew when to abandon busted paradigms. Is that too hard today? I hope not :/

[tcpip]

The author in question used an IPCC projection that spanned over a century and then selected the famous hiatus following the El Nino period from 2000 to 2009 to declare that anthropogenic global warming was a myth.

In reality, the relative flatness of the warming trajectory is a pretty normal variation in a projection that spans a century.

And, as you say, the oceans are so critical in all this.

[motg]

Oh dear. Yes, the 2008 cold year did inspire some weird predictions! Never mind that the smoothed trend is UP UP UP!

I sorry to say it, but a lot of us older folks seem to find it impossible to say this simple sentence:

'Well, it looks as though I was completely ballsed up over that. Sorry.'

[tcpip]

A copy of Edmeade's paper for your interest and amusement.

https://www.dougedmeades.com/uploads/files/WhyScepticPaper2010.pdf

[motg]

These reasons are not developed from a personal knowledge of the primary scientific literature, but arise mainly from material available in reviews on this topic.

Well! We're off to a flying start here.

Indeed the lack of change in the rates of glacial shrinkage and sea level rise over the last half of 20th century appears to contradict the AGW hypothesis.

Um, do you have any actual evidence to support this preposterous statement???

I read to the end, but was left little the wiser. And not much better informed. Um, oh dear.....

Amusement? Yes, of a sort. I am actually laughing now, but in derision more than anything!