Hot air and rainfall in Mumbai
Published by Yazad Jal January 18th, 2005 in EnvironmentIt’s ok to be chatty and anecdotal when you have just a basic understanding of a topic under discussion. But not when you’re a scientist who specialises in the area. In this front page TOI article, Sanjay Limaye claims to observe the monsoon in Mumbai, but all he does is make general statements like
I have been visiting Mumbai periodically over the last few years and found that the city does not see that kind of heavy rain any more.
Well if you’re a scientist at the University of Wisconsin’s space science and engineering centre talking about global warming, we would like you to substantiate your claims with data. And guess what, the data is easily available from the website of the Government of India’s Regional Meteorological Centre in Colaba, Mumbai which happens to be damn close to the TIFR lawns where Mr. Limaye was observing the monsoons from. The data shows no great deviation from the normal. Instead of jumping to hasty conclusions, Mr. Limaye might like to emulate the director of the Regional Meteorological Centre who
said that there was a “year-to-year” variation in the monsoon all over India and there were several reasons for this.
For good measure, I was in Bombay for the past three monsoons and I remember quite a few heavy downpours including one whole week this year when it rained non stop.
The article also blames old taxis for the pollution. Which ones may I ask? Since 2002, all taxis run on compressed natural gas, thanks to a high court order.
Global warming is something most of us take for granted. I find it’s use by some to be similar to my mother’s use of a “bogeyman” to scare me if I didn’t drink my milk or was a naughty boy (which was often) and well I came to discover that the bogeyman was a myth. So is consensus on global warming amongst scientists studying the climate.
Global warming is an article of faith for the greens now - which is unfortunate, because it takes up resources that are needed far more elsewhere. I’ve written on this here and here.
Global warming does not follow an incremental trend over the year but instead tends to change sporadically in short bursts; much like political change.
Global warming does not follow an incremental trend over the years but instead tends to change sporadically in short bursts; much like political change.
Yazad - Misrepresentation is thy name or game - can’t figure out if it is intentional or just plain lack of knowledge.
Firstly: in your post you implied that the article was BY Sanjay Limaye - the article is just a TOI piece where it looks like they called up a couple of contacts and asked for info.
Second the article is all of 20 lines long - a little short to display all the stats on climate change don’t you think?
Third you link to a site which shows a trend line for a couple of months and offer it up as ‘data’?? You should join NOAA or NASA - those poor fools have been busy using data from the last century.
So Yazad I appreciate your trying to ‘fisk’ an article - but please try to have the vaguest of ideas of what you are talking about. You are great at politics and economics literature but it is rapidly becoming apparent that statistics and science are not your forte (BTW have you ever done a stats course or used a computer-based modelling tool - I strongly suspect that the answer is a no but feel free to surprise me :).
So blame the TOI for a shoddy job at reporting but don’t attack somebody whose work area you obviously know nothing about. But since you are at it would you like to critique Dr. Limayes work on atmospheric circulation on Venus. I’m sure you can find many holes in his theories ;) based on your training and deep understanding of the field ;).
CK
I linked to the article itself. So I can’t be accused of misrepresentation. That the article was written by Limaye was your assumption. Don’t blame me for it.
Who wants all the stats? One line would be enough. If he was observing the monsoon in India, it would be very easy for him to state something like “rainfall in Mumbai has declined by 17% in the last 5 years” instead of making anecdotal statements.
The Regional Meteorological Centre has many other links on the sidebar. Click away — you’ll find 30 year trends. They don’t have an index page for that section so I was forced to link to the first table instead.
If the remanining part of your comment was just ad hominem I’d have ignored it. It’s a downright lie as you know that I’ve studied both statistics and econometrics. Remember that you were a few years junior to me in both St. Xavier’s and Mumbai University? You can make your point without cheap pot shots. Or maybe it’s just not possible?
Yazad it was not a cheap shot. Yes I know you did what passes for statistics at Xavier’s and Bombay U. I did too. However it is apparent to me that you have never actually used a serious staistical program like SPlus or SAS. I have. It was part of the coursework for my Masters in the US.
Now if you had actually done any serious modelling using computers (sorry some random proofs like we did in Xavier’s a 3 line problem in Bombay U do not count) you would have realized that you can’t go around making simplistic statements like you make. I have spent many a long nights in a computer lab running simulations which by scientific standards are simple - but even these use to take about 30 minutes to run on a PIII machine.
You are all about soundbites
That is fine to say but a scientist or a statistician would never make a statement like that and expect it to mean anything. Decline by 17% relative to when? What is the sample size. Did it account for cyclical fluctuations? Did you use a floaing average or a weighted average? What are the constraints on your model?
So you may think you have studied what passes for statistics in Xavier’s and no doubt it is enough to get you by in your current profession but you get into trouble when you start taking on a real scientist or statistician as you have done numerous times in the past and tried to use simplistic sound bites of information to make a point. All well and good for a blog I suppose but I think you should accept your limitations in this field. Maybe…just perhaps there are some things you don’t know ;)
I think Ck has fallen into the classic Indian trap of questioning qualifications instead of the voracity of the arguments made. I saw a recent documentary on the BBC about the shady practices of Sai Baba and the presenter was questioning a minister on why the Government continued to support Sai Baba and hadn’t instigated a full investigation into a murder at his compound. As the questioning became difficult the Minister immediate response was to say “Do you know who I am. I am the Home Minister. Do you think you can say these things to me.” I have found this to be a curiously Indian phenomenon where logic and reason are put aside but insults are traded on the basis of qualification and such things. I find it despicable. That’s why I fear for the economic growth of india. Because if someone has a good idea the first thing he is going to be asked are his qualifications.
Global warming is a real phenomenon. The average temperature of the entire earth has increased over the past few decades. You might find RealClimate’s critique of Michael Crichton’s State of Fear an interesting read on the same subject.
Another point is that there is hardly ever any consensus in science. Science thrives on inproving current ideas, proving set notions incorrect or discovering situations that current knowledge fails to explain. For example, even Newton’s theories of motion or understanding of gravity changed significantly in early 20th century.
Unfortunately, lobbyists from industry and eco-watch groups misuse data in a way it makes science into nons(ci)ence.
[Much of my argument is borrowed from posts and comments on this site]
Ram - being a Home Minister is a position and not a qualification.
CK, I have done “serious modelling,” not as part of my course, but outside. But this post is not about my skills.
The example I gave is a soundbite — a stump. What I was saying is that I’d be happy even if he gave that. But he gives worse — anecdotes.
And, qualifications do matter, but are not the “end-all” — the substance of the idea is important as well.
Niket, the controversy lies in attributing the rise in average temperatures to greenhouse gases (global warming). It could well be due to various other factors.
Yazad considering your recent self-confessed rant on shoddy reporting about blogs I think that the good Doctor can be forgiven - if the Indian Express can’t get you right on something simple like blogging why expect TOI to get it right on something complex like climate change.
Having said that you are right in criticizing the article but don’t dismiss climate change based on a report of a report of an interview of a scientis who happened to be visiting India and remarked somewhere in a 20 lne piece that he thought rainfall had decreased in Bombay.
True CK.
I am not dismissing climate change on the basis of one link. I think it’s a complex issue and the simple equation of greenhouse gases / global warming causing climate change needs to be examined closely.
Yazad u r a fish out of water when it comes to climate modelling. Stop trying to make political stabs at scientists. Even the scientists belonging to the “anti-global warming” group accept that increased green house gases caused by human activity has contributed to temperature increases. Most models (that have accurately modelled El Nino and other weather changes) have indicated a linear increase in temperature with time as a result of increased greenhouse gases.
Anon,
Back up your statements — links to relevant stuff would help.
Why do I have to back up statements ?!! I am not mentioning anything revolutionary. I need to back up statements while you dont even need to back up entire articles you post. If you are too tired to google heres some help.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Michaels. The skeptic who agrees that CO2 causes warming.
And skepticism about this skeptic
http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=Patrick_J._Michaels And of course your skepticism about g-warming is worthy of an fashioning new trash bins. What next - your opinion on the steps mathematicians should take for solving the Reimann hypothesis; something that you came up with after “fisking” their interviews.
BTW, me or u backing up statements with hyperlinks count as nothing. There is an enduring and well known tradition known as scientific peer review process and publication that does a much better job than hyper-linked blogs. What scientists seem to agree upon is irrelevant here because it hasnt been “fisked” by some dumb “blog-pundit”.
Next time learn more about the topic you post on before exhibiting your cluelessness for the world to admire. If you bothered to read a little before posting “opinions” you wouldnt be asking me to backup statements. Anyone with a passing interest in g-warming knows about these basics.
I generally avoid discussions with those who hide behind anonymity and toss generalisations. I’d provided a link which we could take as a starting point.
http://www.co2andclimate.org/wca/2004/wca_29c.html
Insults are cheap and real discussion needs thought. Are you ready?
Discussion, not only requires thought it also requires education which you sorely lack, so do I. So now u r repeating hyperlinks.
Since you like hyperlink contests heres one for you
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
The “consensus” is 3 on a scale of 1-7.
The models have many limitations but have been good enough to model temperature shifts such as winter-summer and El Nino. For some reasons compromises made by the model are “very serious” if they predict warming.
I am not interested in a discussion where neither me nor you know anything apart from googling. Fact is climate research requires a PhD, not googling skills. Fact is a majority of scientists think warming is real. Some dont. Virtually all published papers predict warming. If I were you I would hedge my bets perhaps 1-15 that warming wont happen. But you seem to favour the minority POV inspite of zero scientific knowledge. I have seen enough of your commentary to know that you have no knowledge of the topic and discussing with you is worthless.
What I am more interested in is why you favour the minority POV ? For example you have surely heard of this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_reappraisal
Havent yet seen a post here vehemently asserting that HIV does not cause AIDS. Considering that you have no knowledge of AIDS (just the same as g-warming) I am curious about your position on the issue.
I think this just a typical knee-jerk reaction of an Anarcho-capitalist whenever he is presented with a scenario where the local optimum is not the same as the global optimum. Well … whatever suits your fancy. I am outta here.
Graphs and charts does not show exact mm of the rain fall. It is necessary to have acm/mm statement near the graph. Graphs shows approximate measurement of rainfall and also minimum and maximum highlights, whereas for agriculture purpose cm/mm is the best.
Are there international agency to divert and control monsoon rain carrying clouds. Ask Dr. Kasturirangan (ISRO) after studying clouds image.