Tuesday, September 06, 2005
ROBUST ROBUST ROBUST
“Our understanding of the climate system, and the ways in which it is being modified by human activity, is not sufficiently robust to tell us whether any specific extreme weather event was caused or influenced by human activity.” So writes Dr Michael Molitor in today’s Age. Molitor looks forward to an advance in robustness:
Although it may not be possible to make a concrete link between cause and effect today, it is my view that in the near future evolving developments in climate science will demonstrate that both the probability and power behind Katrina were influenced by human activities.
Interesting that Molitor mentions a “concrete link”, given his experience working for the Biosphere 2 project in Arizona:
The agricultural, savanna and rain forest sections had all been infused with microbes in order to encourage plant growth. It was now felt that these microbes were consuming too much oxygen.
A problem with this theory was that microbes breathing that much oxygen would also be creating a massive amount of carbon dioxide. Yet this jump in CO2 was unaccounted for in the atmosphere readings. Further investigation revealed that the concrete at the base of the facility had been absorbing the carbon dioxide as it cured.
More roads and buildings, that’s what we need! Molitor concludes his Age piece with standard Greenoid hysteria:
Katrina sends us the most chilling message of all; the storm makes it clear that everyone on this planet is at risk from climate change - regardless of your economic status or geographic location. Katrina did not spare the homes of wealthy people or the staggeringly expensive offshore oil drilling platforms in the Gulf of Mexico.
Surely hurricanes in that region are evidence of climate stability; if there were no hurricanes during “hurricane season” (clue in the name), well, then you’d be looking at climate change. Molitor is described by The Age as “chief executive of ClimateWEDGE Ltd, but omits his celebrated role as science adviser to The Day After Tomorrow (the film that would cost George W. Bush the election). Naturally, his advice was robust:
The basic idea of the film—that human activity leads to an abrupt climate change event with nasty consequences—is based on robust science.
Here’s robust Mike. He just loves robustness!
(from reader Jay Santos)