I started my working life in construction – having left school at 15. Looking at a guy with rolled up plans – I decided I wanted his job. I finished 3 years of high school in 8 months. Being a voracious reader made it hard work but possible. The purely pragmatic decision to study engineering became a passion when I discovered that I could numerically simulate rainfall and runoff. I was always an environmentalist. While studying engineering I was Vice President of the Jervis Bay Protecting Committee. We stopped a joint US/Australian navy exercise once. Sent the greenies out on the firing range. Ten years later I had a Masters Degree in environmental science. It was always apparent that only rich communities can afford environments. And that free market economics were the source of optimal economic growth.
The global economy is worth about $100 trillion a year. To put aid and philanthropy into perspective – the total is 0.025% of the global economy. If spent on Copenhagen Consensus smart development goals such expenditure can generate a benefit to cost ratio of more than 15. If spent on the UN Sustainable Development Goals you may as well piss it up against a wall. Either way – it is nowhere near the major path to universal prosperity. Some 3.5 billion people make less than $2 a day. Changing that can only be done by doubling and tripling global production – and doing it as quickly as possible. Optimal economic growth is essential and that requires an understanding and implementation of explicit principles for effective economic governance of free markets.
Markets exist – ideally – in a democratic context. Politics provides a legislative framework for consumer protection, worker and public safety, environmental conservation and a host of other things. Including for regulation of markets – banking capital requirements, anti-monopoly laws, prohibition of insider trading, laws on corporate transparency and probity, tax laws, etc. A key to stable markets – and therefore growth – is fair and transparent regulation, minimal corruption and effective democratic oversight. Markets do best where government is large enough to be an important player and small enough not to squeeze the vitality out of capitalism – government revenue of some 25% of gross domestic product, balanced budgets over the business cycle and management of interest rates and money supply to keep inflation in check. Austrian school of economics principles on which successful economies have been built – more or less – for 100 years. Economic growth is the easiest way to minimise the impacts of government profligacy.
Economic growth provides resources for solving problems – conserving and restoring ecosystems, better sanitation and safer water, better health and education, updating the diesel fleet and other productive assets to emit less black carbon and reduce the health and environmental impacts, developing better and cheaper ways of producing electricity, replacing cooking with wood and dung with better ways of preparing food thus avoiding respiratory disease and again reducing black carbon emissions.
Robert I Ellison
In my recent comment – it is the difference between random instrument error and systematic error over 100,000 profiles a year. With such precise instrumentation – individual profiles cannot be that wide of the mark. With such dense coverage – the Argo ‘climatology’ is the most robust available.
I am really uninterested in what people ‘say’ and I don’t read random posts on WUWT – or anywhere else basically.
Rob, this has nothing to do with climate, but I’ve been alerted that you are a hydrologist and I’d very much appreciate it if you had the time to read my article and make any comments. I’m not looking for detailed comments just a quick check by someone who’s familiar to hydrology to make sure I’m not saying anything which is obviously stupid and/or wrong.
Thanks – https://www.facebook.com/Australian.Iriai/
Paper number 3 here:
At the pdf, other areas are similar. I am seeing zonal shifting to meridonal and wondering about the global impact. You’ve been posting two maps suggesting zonal and meridonal flow.
I am a layman who has come across your comments on ‘Climate etc’ – usually in the context of technical arguments that I am unqualified to judge except on the basis that they resemble arguments that would pass muster if they were presented in like fashion in domains that I do know about (or at the very least would qualify as interesting).
Something that I personally find interesting is the claim that climate modelling is immensely valuable in furthering our understanding of climate, although it does not contribute a jot towards our ability to predict climate. On face value this seems anti-intuitive. An explanation for the layperson of this contradiction would be welcome.
Every model has 1000’s of plausible solutions that diverge over time. Over a shortertimeframe and using initialed models – like weather forecasts – we may have more useful results.
Hello! I could have sworn I’ve been to this website before but after looking at many of the articles I realized it’s new to me.
Nonetheless, I’m certainly pleased I came across it and I’ll be
book-marking it and checking back frequently!