Several key Republican Congressmen — most notably Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Vista), who could take over the chairmanship of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee — have said they plan to investigate climate scientists they contend manipulated data to prove the case that human activity is contributing to global warming. (LA Times)It doesn't seem to matter an iota that three (isn't it now?) investigations have cleared climate scientists of any wrongdoing with regard to the Climategate emails -- Republicans and other climate bullies seem determined to pound on this until blood appears. Yes, actual blood. What worries me is that someone might get seriously hurt, just like the Tides Foundation barely escaped violence due to Glenn Beck's inaccurate and relentless accusations.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
The Worst Kind of Climate News
This sounds like not just bad news, but even dangerous news:
Friday, October 29, 2010
Manfred Max-Neef; But....
Here's a very interesting interview with Manfred Max-Neef, a leading economist from Chile.
He makes a lot of very good points about his time with the poor, and the failure of conventional economics to incorporate external costs (mostly environmental) costs -- until 40:24, where he says that there are a lot of catastrophes due to "storms, earthquakes, and volcanoes...." (emphasis mine). Amy Goodman, unfortunately, doesn't call him on it at all (yet another example of how the lack of scientific education undermines their efforts). That completely burst the bubble, for me -- it's difficult to respect anyone who thinks man is causing an increase in earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, no matter what else he says.
Ultimately, disappointing.
He makes a lot of very good points about his time with the poor, and the failure of conventional economics to incorporate external costs (mostly environmental) costs -- until 40:24, where he says that there are a lot of catastrophes due to "storms, earthquakes, and volcanoes...." (emphasis mine). Amy Goodman, unfortunately, doesn't call him on it at all (yet another example of how the lack of scientific education undermines their efforts). That completely burst the bubble, for me -- it's difficult to respect anyone who thinks man is causing an increase in earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, no matter what else he says.
Ultimately, disappointing.
Haas
"Nostalgia locates desire in the past, where it suffers no active conflict and can be yearned toward pleasantly."
-- Robert Haas, "Lowell's Graveyard"
-- Robert Haas, "Lowell's Graveyard"
Greenberg again
John Fleck has pointed me towards the document in question:
WASHINGTON ROUNDTABLE ON SCIENCE & PUBLIC POLICY
Science Advice to Congress
by Michael Gough, Daniel S. Greenberg, and Richard E. Rowber
This is a transcript, and I can't fault Greenberg at all for appearing at a Marshall Institute event to offer his viewpoint. I'd easily have done the same.
It seems that Mann et al definitely misfired on this one.
Greenberg Update
John Fleck comments:
Re: "Greenberg, Pielke Jr, Mann, Ehrlich and Rahmstorf":That's certainly very different than if Greenberg had accepted a writing assignment from the Marshall Institute, and so I was wrong to attribute any nefarious purposes to him, and I hereby apologize. As should Mann, Ehrlich, and Rahmstorf.
The answer is that Greenberg seems not to have written something for Marshall. They transcribed and published his comments from the round table discussion in which he participated.
Where America Ranks
Thomas Friedman gives a nice little picture of where America is today:
They won't say it.... If I had children, I would definitely encourage them to seek the good life in another country. Everything ever feared about the future of the US (especially corporatism) is indeed coming true....
“Here is a little dose of reality about where we actually rank today.... sixth in global innovation-based competitiveness, but 40th in rate of change over the last decade; 11th among industrialized nations in the fraction of 25- to 34-year-olds who have graduated from high school; 16th in college completion rate; 22nd in broadband Internet access; 24th in life expectancy at birth; 27th among developed nations in the proportion of college students receiving degrees in science or engineering; 48th in quality of K-12 math and science education; and 29th in the number of mobile phones per 100 people.Personally, I think the Tea Partiers are actually concerned about stuff like this, but don't follow the details enough to even know it. So they rail against the obvious problems that get big media coverage, like the deficit, or taxes. But all they really know -- like you and I -- is that America isn't keeping up and is on the decline.
They won't say it.... If I had children, I would definitely encourage them to seek the good life in another country. Everything ever feared about the future of the US (especially corporatism) is indeed coming true....
Greenberg, Pielke Jr, Mann, Ehrlich and Rahmstorf
I guess the latest climate kerfuffle (who can keep up?) is about Daniel Greenberg's review of Roger Pielke Jr's new book in Nature magazine.
By now the pattern is obvious. Someone writes an article. A few people object. Several others object to the objection, and that gives bloggers something to chew on for a day or two as the rhetoric continuously degrades until Godwin's Law takes hold. The climate bullies blow it completely out of proportion, and the public is once again misled.
Then it's on to the next faux outrage.
In this case, Greenberg was mostly reasonable, except for this:
Now, this is what Greenberg is saying that Pielke Jr wrote. But the problem is that he doesn't challenge it at all. These are extremely serious allegations. I haven't read Roger's book yet, but I certainly have not seen any evidence that any climate scientist has "fudged data" or "compromised the peer-review process" or made any "dubious recommendations."
Greenberg ought to have spent more space in his review on these incredible allegations.
Nor do I think it's problematic for Mann, Ehrlich and Rahmstorf to question Greenberg's judgement as exemplified by his background.
OK, nothing wrong with speaking somewhere, so that arrow should have remained in its quiver. But I can't imagine a legitimate science journalist taking an assignment from the Marshall Institute to write a report for them. Greenberg would have known exactly what the MI wanted in such a report, and he knew (or certainly should have known) that that was not consistent with today's climate science.
So how could any legitimate writer or journalist take such an assignment? Who would possibly want a Marshall Institute report on their CV?
If I were Mann and Ehrlich and Rahmstorf or any of those guys, I would by now be very fed up with people questioning my integrity and making accusations about my honesty. Legitimate scientific debate is one thing -- scurrilous attacks are something else else entirely. The climate bullies have driven this situation completely out of hand (which was, of course, their goal all along). Scientists ought to be defending themselves.
By now the pattern is obvious. Someone writes an article. A few people object. Several others object to the objection, and that gives bloggers something to chew on for a day or two as the rhetoric continuously degrades until Godwin's Law takes hold. The climate bullies blow it completely out of proportion, and the public is once again misled.
Then it's on to the next faux outrage.
In this case, Greenberg was mostly reasonable, except for this:
In pursuit of public support and government action, Pielke charges, mainstream researchers in the climate-change community have fudged the science, compromised the peer-review process and encouraged governments to pursue dubious remedies, while neglecting possibilities for averting climate-caused disasters. Unrealistic scenarios for reducing carbon emissions have been pushed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), he argues, and the leaked e-mails from the notorious ‘Climategate’ episode have emboldened sceptics and diminished public confidence in scientific integrity.
Now, this is what Greenberg is saying that Pielke Jr wrote. But the problem is that he doesn't challenge it at all. These are extremely serious allegations. I haven't read Roger's book yet, but I certainly have not seen any evidence that any climate scientist has "fudged data" or "compromised the peer-review process" or made any "dubious recommendations."
Greenberg ought to have spent more space in his review on these incredible allegations.
Nor do I think it's problematic for Mann, Ehrlich and Rahmstorf to question Greenberg's judgement as exemplified by his background.
Nature should have pointed out to its readers that Greenberg has served as a round-table speaker and written a report (see go.nature.com/otwvz2) for the Marshall nstitute (see go.nature.com/4u9ttd).
OK, nothing wrong with speaking somewhere, so that arrow should have remained in its quiver. But I can't imagine a legitimate science journalist taking an assignment from the Marshall Institute to write a report for them. Greenberg would have known exactly what the MI wanted in such a report, and he knew (or certainly should have known) that that was not consistent with today's climate science.
So how could any legitimate writer or journalist take such an assignment? Who would possibly want a Marshall Institute report on their CV?
If I were Mann and Ehrlich and Rahmstorf or any of those guys, I would by now be very fed up with people questioning my integrity and making accusations about my honesty. Legitimate scientific debate is one thing -- scurrilous attacks are something else else entirely. The climate bullies have driven this situation completely out of hand (which was, of course, their goal all along). Scientists ought to be defending themselves.
There are no fouls here, just sharp elbows. Play on.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Science Bullies
There's a good letter in the Oregonian on school bullying:
One of the most interesting factors in our American culture is the way we adults bewail the social crime of bullying in our schools while applauding it and laughing at it on a daily basis as we watch the bullies of Fox TV and other bully pulpit programs beat up on people who have something good, factual and educational to share.
This planned system of bullying, breaking into a person's response, ridiculing, telling lies about others, name-calling, harassing and making endless innuendoes about others is exactly the set of tactics used by individual and groups of bullies in our schools.Hmm.... ridiculing, lying, name-calling, harassing (such as publishing email addresses), endless innuendos.... Remind you of anybody?
Monday, October 25, 2010
Hal Lewis Knocks Out Hal Lewis in the First Round
Hal Lewis, the physicist who two decades ago warned about the dangers of greenhouse gas warming, has become a cause celebre for now changing his mind and now coming out against the problem. Anthony Watts even somehow managed to get an op-ed published in the Christian Scientist Monitor, proclaiming Lewis as the next Martin Luther, the most hyperbolic statement I think I have ever encountered in my life.
Anyway, Lewis told Revkin something that gives away the game:
Anyway, Lewis told Revkin something that gives away the game:
I believe I was chairing JASON in the early 1970s when Gordon MacDonald ran our first computer modeling on the subject, and the results were not all that different from what people get now using the same methods.
In other words: The science of greenhouse gases is so straightforward that 35 years of advances in computer science and climate science have hardly changed the major result. Actually, they’re now even that from what Arrhenius calculated, by hand, over a hundred years ago.
That is to say: Greenhouse gases warm planets, and more of them warm it more. That's the problem in a nutshell.
We need to know all the details, but this is the basic concern, not whether climate models predict the exact year of the last Himalyan glacier. In one sentence, Lewis succinctly states what all the hoopla is about – and he doesn’t even seem to recognize it.
PS: Indeed, Lewis wrote in his book: "The broad outline is clear."
Also, he told Revkin:
No one knows how much humans can (your word) warm the planet — the science is complicated. It might be a degree or two (Celsius) per century, but anyone who says he knows is committing fraud.
This is a very irresponsible use of the word "fraud," because, of course, climate scientists don't say they know how much warming will occur -- the IPCC ARs give a relatively wide range for the prediction. Surely Lewis has heard of error bars?
Saturday, October 23, 2010
6ft Under
Nathaniel Fisher: You hang on to your pain like it means something. Like it's worth something. Well, let me tell you - it's not worth shit. Let it go! Infinite possibilities, and all he can do is whine.
David Fisher: Well, what am I supposed to do?
Nathaniel Fisher: What do you think? You can do *anything*, you lucky bastard - you're alive! What's a little pain compared to that?
David Fisher: It can't be that simple.
Nathaniel Fisher: What if it is?
-- "Six Feet Under, S4 E12 (2004)
Private sector job losses & gains
Here's a very interesting graph:
I trust I don't have to explain the horizontal axis to you.
Via: Youtube.
I trust I don't have to explain the horizontal axis to you.
Via: Youtube.
How Cold Was Last Winter?
Last winter was unusual.
Well, it was in some places. It wasn't where I live: the temperatures in Scappoose, OR were 2.1°F above baseline in the three months between 12/21/09 and 3/21/10.
But there was record-breaking snow in Washington, DC, which skewed the media coverage. It was also very cold and snowy in Europe -- as always, it's difficult to summarize how cold Europe was last winter, because Europe is a very large place. See this Wikipedia article.
But, of course, one season does not a climate make, and now a new GRL paper says it wasn't really so cold after all:
They show that
Their conclusion: "The winter 2010 thus provides a consistent picture of a regional cold event mitigated by long‐term climate warming."
--
Caveat: Of course, all climate scientists are cheats, frauds, and liars and nothing they say, including the time of day, can ever be accepted (unless they are expressing doubts about past work). Also, all of their mother's were whores (not that it matters)(but they were).
Well, it was in some places. It wasn't where I live: the temperatures in Scappoose, OR were 2.1°F above baseline in the three months between 12/21/09 and 3/21/10.
But there was record-breaking snow in Washington, DC, which skewed the media coverage. It was also very cold and snowy in Europe -- as always, it's difficult to summarize how cold Europe was last winter, because Europe is a very large place. See this Wikipedia article.
But, of course, one season does not a climate make, and now a new GRL paper says it wasn't really so cold after all:
"Winter 2010 in Europe: A cold extreme in a warming climate,"
J. Cattiaux, R. Vautard, C. Cassou, P. Yiou, V. Masson‐Delmotte, and F. Codron
Geophysical Research Letters, VOL. 37, L20704, 2010.
They show that
(1) actually it wasn't that cold of a winter at all, compared to the last 6 decades, and
(2) not really that cold, when you look at the phase of the , which controls storm tracks across the north Atlantic.
Their conclusion: "The winter 2010 thus provides a consistent picture of a regional cold event mitigated by long‐term climate warming."
--
Caveat: Of course, all climate scientists are cheats, frauds, and liars and nothing they say, including the time of day, can ever be accepted (unless they are expressing doubts about past work). Also, all of their mother's were whores (not that it matters)(but they were).
Speaking Out for Liu Xiaobo
The New York Times essay by Thorbjorn Jagland, chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, is especially elegant and worth reading. It's essential message: nothing is more important than individual rights.
We happen to live in a time when nation-states are extremely powerful, and (all of them) usurping more rights all the time, and they are so powerful that they can routinely commit the most heinous forms of barbarism, murder, and other moral failures, and get away with it all. I, for one, hope this period of history ends soon, but it will no doubt be a few more centuries.
We happen to live in a time when nation-states are extremely powerful, and (all of them) usurping more rights all the time, and they are so powerful that they can routinely commit the most heinous forms of barbarism, murder, and other moral failures, and get away with it all. I, for one, hope this period of history ends soon, but it will no doubt be a few more centuries.
The authorities assert that no one has the right to interfere in China’s internal affairs. But they are wrong: international human rights law and standards are above the nation-state, and the world community has a duty to ensure they are respected.
...The idea of sovereignty changed again during the last century, as the world moved from nationalism to internationalism. The United Nations, founded in the wake of two disastrous world wars, committed member states to resolve disputes by peaceful means and defined the fundamental rights of all people in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The nation-state, the declaration said, would no longer have ultimate, unlimited power.
Today, universal human rights provide a check on arbitrary majorities around the world, whether they are democracies or not. A majority in a parliament cannot decide to harm the rights of a minority, nor vote for laws that undermine human rights. And even though China is not a constitutional democracy, it is a member of the United Nations, and it has amended its Constitution to comply with the Declaration of Human Rights.
However, Mr. Liu’s imprisonment is clear proof that China’s criminal law is not in line with its Constitution. He was convicted of “spreading rumors or slander or any other means to subvert the state power or overthrow the socialist system.” But in a world community based on universal human rights, it is not a government’s task to stamp out opinions and rumors. Governments are obliged to ensure the right to free expression — even if the speaker advocates a different social system.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Good News on Health Care
NYT: "Health insurance premiums are expected to rise an average of 8.8 percent, according to data compiled by the benefits consulting firm Aon Hewitt. Employees’out-of-pocket expenses are expected to increase 12.5 percent from 2010, in the form of higher premiums, higher deductibles, higher co-pays and co-insurance, or all of these, said Sara Taylor, health and welfare solutions leader at Aon Hewitt.
This is fantastic news. Really. Only when the average American has been bled dry by our current system and sees 12% increases a year when their paycheck goes up 3% a year will we ever see any real reform in this country, and they see that quality health care cannot be provided in a "free market" environment, and they will begin to realize what the rest of us are going through.
I actually thought this breaking point had occurred in the 2008 election. But apparently not. So bring it on. A 12% increase each year will so quickly overwhelm a 3% increase a year that it shouldn't take but one, or at most two, more presidential cycles.
Of course, the insurance companies will fight to the end -- and I do mean the end -- before they give up their extremely profitable monopoly. And Americans don't have anything near like the balls of the French, who stop fuel shipments just because someone wants to raise their retirement age. Who says the French don't have courage?
This is fantastic news. Really. Only when the average American has been bled dry by our current system and sees 12% increases a year when their paycheck goes up 3% a year will we ever see any real reform in this country, and they see that quality health care cannot be provided in a "free market" environment, and they will begin to realize what the rest of us are going through.
I actually thought this breaking point had occurred in the 2008 election. But apparently not. So bring it on. A 12% increase each year will so quickly overwhelm a 3% increase a year that it shouldn't take but one, or at most two, more presidential cycles.
Of course, the insurance companies will fight to the end -- and I do mean the end -- before they give up their extremely profitable monopoly. And Americans don't have anything near like the balls of the French, who stop fuel shipments just because someone wants to raise their retirement age. Who says the French don't have courage?
Solar-powered animals
io9 writes about photomedicine, but here's what I've been wondering about lately: why have no animals ever evolved that directly convert sunlight into cellular energy?
In other words, why don't we all have large flat heads lined with natural solar cells? Why go through this ugly process of having to eat the plants (or, worse, eat the animals that eat the plants) that gather solar energy for us?
Are we just too small? I don't think so. Humans need about 3000 kcal/day to survive. (What nutritionists call a "calorie" is actually, in the language of physics, a kilocalorie.)
The Sun shines on the top of our atmosphere with about 1360 W/m2, but averaged over the planet that is, at most, about 300 W/m2.
If I've done the math correctly, that means you'd only need a "solar-cell" area of about 0.5 m2 atop you to power the human body, or about something the size of a chessboard.
That's not unimaginable, is it? So where are these animals?
In other words, why don't we all have large flat heads lined with natural solar cells? Why go through this ugly process of having to eat the plants (or, worse, eat the animals that eat the plants) that gather solar energy for us?
Are we just too small? I don't think so. Humans need about 3000 kcal/day to survive. (What nutritionists call a "calorie" is actually, in the language of physics, a kilocalorie.)
The Sun shines on the top of our atmosphere with about 1360 W/m2, but averaged over the planet that is, at most, about 300 W/m2.
If I've done the math correctly, that means you'd only need a "solar-cell" area of about 0.5 m2 atop you to power the human body, or about something the size of a chessboard.
That's not unimaginable, is it? So where are these animals?
Quote
“I shall tell you a great secret my friend. Do not wait for the last judgement--it takes place every day.”
-- Albert Camus
Monday, October 18, 2010
Oregon and Vote-by-Mail
Here in Oregon we vote by the US postal system. They send you a Voter's Guide, and a few days later a ballot, and you fill it out and sent it back. I sent mine back this morning.
Sounds easy and wonderful. But I don't like it.
Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I like going to the polling booths. It makes you feel like a citizen.
OK, it was especially fun in New Hampshire where, during a presidential-election year, all the polling places are plastered by activists and media and you have to wade through them to get to the booths. You feel like your vote really mattered.
But beyond that, I liked having to go to a community center someplace and showing my face. Not that anyone especially knew me, or that I knew them (though many people did know their neighbors). But you got a sense of community that is missing with vote-by-mail.
With VBM you feel very much on your own. You feel completely alone. And that's just not how a democracy should feel. We have far too little sense of community these days anyhow. VBM just makes it worse, not better.
Sounds easy and wonderful. But I don't like it.
Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I like going to the polling booths. It makes you feel like a citizen.
OK, it was especially fun in New Hampshire where, during a presidential-election year, all the polling places are plastered by activists and media and you have to wade through them to get to the booths. You feel like your vote really mattered.
But beyond that, I liked having to go to a community center someplace and showing my face. Not that anyone especially knew me, or that I knew them (though many people did know their neighbors). But you got a sense of community that is missing with vote-by-mail.
With VBM you feel very much on your own. You feel completely alone. And that's just not how a democracy should feel. We have far too little sense of community these days anyhow. VBM just makes it worse, not better.
Obama on Mythbusters
President Obama is going to appear on Mythbusters as they once again try to verify Archimedes' claim that the Greeks set fire to an invading Roman fleet by reflecting the sun's rays off mirrors.
OK.... It should be fun to watch Obama in any kind of activity like that. But Mythbusters has already "busted" this myth (which, I think, agrees with common sense). Isn't there something better out there to try?
Of course, MB will do whatever Obama wants....
I watched Mythbusters for their first season or two.... I recently had a chance to watch in on some current episodes (Season 8 or something like that), and I could hardly stand it. The success of the show has totally gone to the heads of the participants, especially the three assistants (Tory, Grant, and (esp) Kari -- the latter having completely sold-out to the role of a comely slut for the geeks)). The way they play to the camera is silly and literally embarrassing to watch.
Jamie and Adam at least have retained some dignity. But I think the show needs to acknowledge its success and, like a 38-yr old career .300 hitter, go out while their heads can still be held up high.
OK.... It should be fun to watch Obama in any kind of activity like that. But Mythbusters has already "busted" this myth (which, I think, agrees with common sense). Isn't there something better out there to try?
Of course, MB will do whatever Obama wants....
I watched Mythbusters for their first season or two.... I recently had a chance to watch in on some current episodes (Season 8 or something like that), and I could hardly stand it. The success of the show has totally gone to the heads of the participants, especially the three assistants (Tory, Grant, and (esp) Kari -- the latter having completely sold-out to the role of a comely slut for the geeks)). The way they play to the camera is silly and literally embarrassing to watch.
Jamie and Adam at least have retained some dignity. But I think the show needs to acknowledge its success and, like a 38-yr old career .300 hitter, go out while their heads can still be held up high.
The Future
"...the future isn't the present on steroids. The future is a mutated bacteria that you never saw coming."
-- Annalee Newitz, io9.com
Friday, October 15, 2010
Pachauri is Making a Mistake
Rajendra Pachauri is going to stay as chair of the IPCC, and I think that’s a mistake.
It’s not that he’s been a particularly bad chair. He hasn’t. But neither has he been a particularly good chair. He’s just….been. Besides the 4AR, the IPCC hasn’t achieved much special under his watch, and right now it needs dynamic leadership. He didn’t provide it, and he won’t in the next few years.
It’s time for him to move on. The world cannot afford mediocre leadership on this most important of issues.
--
This isn’t about the failure to prevent the claim that Himalyan glaciers will melt by 2035. That’s just one mistake in a very large, dense set of science, and it says nothing about the fundamental case for climate change.
It’s like claiming a 90-year old smoker is going to die of lung cancer, when in fact he might well die from lung cancer, esaphogal cancer, cancer of the throat or COPD. Or he might even get hit by a bus.
This was a third-order mistake and such mistakes always crop up. You can be sure climate change deniers will find one in the Nth AR, where N ~10 or even ~100.
That hardly undercuts the very real and very fundamental case for climate change – CO2=GHG=a warmer planet -- and Pachuari, if he can be faulted for anything, hasn’t made that clear enough. I don’t think he’s been enough of a spokesman, or enough of a leader.
I’ve talked to scientists who’ve worked on the individual assessment reports, and it takes a very solid, multi-year effort on their part. They do it voluntarily, and they work hard at it. Then they pass it on to the next generation.
Like them, Pachauri should admit that he’s done his best, and that it’s time to hand it over to someone else. In a field this important, and this contentious, that’s important for everyone.
It’s not that he’s been a particularly bad chair. He hasn’t. But neither has he been a particularly good chair. He’s just….been. Besides the 4AR, the IPCC hasn’t achieved much special under his watch, and right now it needs dynamic leadership. He didn’t provide it, and he won’t in the next few years.
It’s time for him to move on. The world cannot afford mediocre leadership on this most important of issues.
--
This isn’t about the failure to prevent the claim that Himalyan glaciers will melt by 2035. That’s just one mistake in a very large, dense set of science, and it says nothing about the fundamental case for climate change.
It’s like claiming a 90-year old smoker is going to die of lung cancer, when in fact he might well die from lung cancer, esaphogal cancer, cancer of the throat or COPD. Or he might even get hit by a bus.
This was a third-order mistake and such mistakes always crop up. You can be sure climate change deniers will find one in the Nth AR, where N ~10 or even ~100.
That hardly undercuts the very real and very fundamental case for climate change – CO2=GHG=a warmer planet -- and Pachuari, if he can be faulted for anything, hasn’t made that clear enough. I don’t think he’s been enough of a spokesman, or enough of a leader.
I’ve talked to scientists who’ve worked on the individual assessment reports, and it takes a very solid, multi-year effort on their part. They do it voluntarily, and they work hard at it. Then they pass it on to the next generation.
Like them, Pachauri should admit that he’s done his best, and that it’s time to hand it over to someone else. In a field this important, and this contentious, that’s important for everyone.
GISS: Warmest year-to-date
GISS recorded September as +0.56°C above their baseline. With the year three-quarters over, 2010 is, year-to-date (Jan-Sept), the warmest in their records.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
The Chilean Rescue
Last night I stumbled on to live video coverage of the Chilean miner's rescue, via The Lede at the NYT, and there was something very noble and transcendent and uplifting about it. The big, competent men in their overalls and hard hards were working hard, as they always do. The President of Chile was there, but didn't overwhelm the scene, like would have happened if this were taking place in America. The workers even sang a patriotic song or two and it didn't feel forced or weird, as (again) it would have been in America.
The first miner popped out and went through the crowd, looking incredibly strong and brave, and exactly like someone you'd want to be stuck in a hole with for two months, if you absolutely had to.
In other words, it was all genuine.
I had Twitter running alongside the video, and watched the comments come in in real time. Many were in Spanish, but I got their jist. This was something special, something unusual. Something beautiful.
Once again the world, via the ubiquitous networks that now cross (most) of our planet, had a front-row seat to a singular event, not unlike the BP oil spill. It makes such a huge difference. Imagine if there were a real-time Internet and cable feed to attacks in Darfur, or a family starving in Saharan Africa, or the Bangledeshi floods. If I were a relief organization that might be my first priority from now on -- get a camera in there, and a T1. The media, and the world, will flock to your door.
In any case, it was good, at least for a moment, to watch a success story. They seem to rare anymore. A lot of credit goes to everyone in Chile who worked long and hard to make this rescue happen. They did this, and they did it with class.
The first miner popped out and went through the crowd, looking incredibly strong and brave, and exactly like someone you'd want to be stuck in a hole with for two months, if you absolutely had to.
In other words, it was all genuine.
I had Twitter running alongside the video, and watched the comments come in in real time. Many were in Spanish, but I got their jist. This was something special, something unusual. Something beautiful.
Once again the world, via the ubiquitous networks that now cross (most) of our planet, had a front-row seat to a singular event, not unlike the BP oil spill. It makes such a huge difference. Imagine if there were a real-time Internet and cable feed to attacks in Darfur, or a family starving in Saharan Africa, or the Bangledeshi floods. If I were a relief organization that might be my first priority from now on -- get a camera in there, and a T1. The media, and the world, will flock to your door.
In any case, it was good, at least for a moment, to watch a success story. They seem to rare anymore. A lot of credit goes to everyone in Chile who worked long and hard to make this rescue happen. They did this, and they did it with class.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Hal Lewis's Temper Tantrum
So someone named Hal Lewis has resigned from the American Physical Society in a snit over their position on climate change, and this is supposedly "fracturing" the scientific community.
Who is Hal Lewis? I've been studying physics for 30 years, and I've never heard of him.
We're told that
Anthony Watts is calling it “…an important moment in science history. I would describe it as a letter on the scale of Martin Luther, nailing his 95 theses to the Wittenburg church door." Which is such an exaggeration it's essentially impossible to quantify, except to call it complete bullshit.
So who is Harold Lewis? First, let's note that he does not even appear to have a Web page of his own.
Here is the bio at the end of his letter (note: really important scientists don't sign their letters by including a bio):
He appears to have played it safe his entire career, and was sure to keep his top button fastened all day long, no matter how uncomfortable it was. They paid for him to fly all over the place.
I'm willing to be proven wrong. Can anyone point me towards a single important insight Lewis ever had, or an important result he's derived? An effect named after him, or a theorem? Even an ansatz?
Had Anthony Watts ever heard of Hal Lewis before this? Had Joanne Nova? I highly doubt it.
If Lewis has been an APS member for 67 years, he must be well into his 80s, or even his 90s. In other words, you can surely bet that he's not up on the latest climate date or the latest thinking in climate science, and moreover is probably basing his outrage on ideas he learned in graduate school a half-century ago.
The world -- and especially the US -- is full of such scientists, all of whom are surely smart people, and all of whom once had great potential. They rode the scientific wave spawned by WW2 and Sputnik. When their potential went unfulfilled, they satisfied their egos and justified their salaries by joining every and any federal committee that would have them.
That is really not so bad. At least they didn't become TV weathermen.
Let's note that Lewis's resignation letter does not give even one fundamental reason why modern climate science should be considered wrong. His complaints are all about secret committees and underhanded negotiations. Which is what you'd expect a long-term techno-bureaucrat to complain about.
I'm sure Dr Lewis deserves some respect. But his opinion on climate science does not. Let's move along.
Who is Hal Lewis? I've been studying physics for 30 years, and I've never heard of him.
We're told that
"Hal Lewis comes from the elite upper levels of science — a physics professor at University of California (Santa Barbara), and a member of the Defense Science Board advising the Pentagon).
He’s resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) today, after 67 years. The APS is the world’s second largest organization of physicists, with 48,000 members. He is scathing of the fall from grace of the once renowned institution.
Anthony Watts is calling it “…an important moment in science history. I would describe it as a letter on the scale of Martin Luther, nailing his 95 theses to the Wittenburg church door." Which is such an exaggeration it's essentially impossible to quantify, except to call it complete bullshit.
So who is Harold Lewis? First, let's note that he does not even appear to have a Web page of his own.
Here is the bio at the end of his letter (note: really important scientists don't sign their letters by including a bio):
Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President's Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW II; books: Technological Risk (about, surprise, technological risk) and Why Flip a Coin (about decision making)In other words, Lewis is the kind of scientist who hasn't really accomplished anything fundamental worth noting in science, but has made a career of sucking up to those in authority via being on their many committees and boards.
He appears to have played it safe his entire career, and was sure to keep his top button fastened all day long, no matter how uncomfortable it was. They paid for him to fly all over the place.
I'm willing to be proven wrong. Can anyone point me towards a single important insight Lewis ever had, or an important result he's derived? An effect named after him, or a theorem? Even an ansatz?
Had Anthony Watts ever heard of Hal Lewis before this? Had Joanne Nova? I highly doubt it.
If Lewis has been an APS member for 67 years, he must be well into his 80s, or even his 90s. In other words, you can surely bet that he's not up on the latest climate date or the latest thinking in climate science, and moreover is probably basing his outrage on ideas he learned in graduate school a half-century ago.
The world -- and especially the US -- is full of such scientists, all of whom are surely smart people, and all of whom once had great potential. They rode the scientific wave spawned by WW2 and Sputnik. When their potential went unfulfilled, they satisfied their egos and justified their salaries by joining every and any federal committee that would have them.
That is really not so bad. At least they didn't become TV weathermen.
Let's note that Lewis's resignation letter does not give even one fundamental reason why modern climate science should be considered wrong. His complaints are all about secret committees and underhanded negotiations. Which is what you'd expect a long-term techno-bureaucrat to complain about.
I'm sure Dr Lewis deserves some respect. But his opinion on climate science does not. Let's move along.
Friday, October 08, 2010
The Climategate Investigation
I haven't been investigating the Climategate incident, which occurred not quite a year ago. But it seems to me quite strange that we haven't heard boo about this break-in.Wasn't Scotland Yard investigating? How can there be no word about the break-in after 10 months? If there isn't something known by now, why should we expect anything in the future?
I don't know anything here. But something doesn't smell right to me.
I don't know anything here. But something doesn't smell right to me.
Where is My Solar Cell?
David Biello tweets:
Instead we all have to go through this stupid cycle of eating the plants that can covert sunlight into energy (or, worse, of eating the animals that eat the plants that convert sunlight).
Why haven't I simply evolved with a bio-solar panel on top of my skull and back?
"once again the Nobel goes to chemists for finding a way to do in lab... what plants, animals, our bodies do every day http://bit.ly/a2lZntI was thinking about something similar the other day: why has no animal ever evolved to have a self-contained solar cell that would directly convert sunlight into the energy they need to survive?
Instead we all have to go through this stupid cycle of eating the plants that can covert sunlight into energy (or, worse, of eating the animals that eat the plants that convert sunlight).
Why haven't I simply evolved with a bio-solar panel on top of my skull and back?
Liu Xiaobo's Nobel Peace Prize
Liu's Nobel Prize is one of the most deserved in recent years, and it is good to see it awarded.
Human rights in China seem to be sadly forgotten amidst China's economic growth and their purchase of much of the US debt, but it is no less important than it ever was, or were the humans abused during the Soviet Union (or in today's Russia).
I don't think anyone really knows how many Chinese are unfairly prosecuted merely for their beliefs. Surely its is 10s of thousands, and no doubt many more. It is difficult to imagine. Such a thing seems almost impossible to Americans/Europeans like you or me.
The strange thing about human rights is that any country could have them, if only they simply marched en masse. A million people could easily overtake any Beijing institution, if they marched on them. For that matter, a mere hundred thousand Americans could overtake Congress any day of the week, though a few percent would die. But it's just easier for us to give in to our cowardice and all go along.
Who even looks at the label of a piece of clothing anymore, before they purchase it? A decade or two ago you might turn it down for purchase if it came from China -- I did, for awhile. Now, if it's 10 cents cheaper, any American consumer snatchs it up.
Like with climate change, we seem to have no scruples whatsoever, if it saves us (literally) a penny two. We are hopeless.
Human rights in China seem to be sadly forgotten amidst China's economic growth and their purchase of much of the US debt, but it is no less important than it ever was, or were the humans abused during the Soviet Union (or in today's Russia).
I don't think anyone really knows how many Chinese are unfairly prosecuted merely for their beliefs. Surely its is 10s of thousands, and no doubt many more. It is difficult to imagine. Such a thing seems almost impossible to Americans/Europeans like you or me.
The strange thing about human rights is that any country could have them, if only they simply marched en masse. A million people could easily overtake any Beijing institution, if they marched on them. For that matter, a mere hundred thousand Americans could overtake Congress any day of the week, though a few percent would die. But it's just easier for us to give in to our cowardice and all go along.
Who even looks at the label of a piece of clothing anymore, before they purchase it? A decade or two ago you might turn it down for purchase if it came from China -- I did, for awhile. Now, if it's 10 cents cheaper, any American consumer snatchs it up.
Like with climate change, we seem to have no scruples whatsoever, if it saves us (literally) a penny two. We are hopeless.
Wednesday, October 06, 2010
Can UAH Be Trusted With Climate Data?
The University of Alabama's Roy Spencer recently posted their number for the Sept-2010 global temperature anomaly (+/- 0.603°C), and his commentary does makes you wonder if they are being fair.
This measurement was the warmest September in their 31-yr recorded history -- and yet Spencer did not even mention that. That seems like a very significant oversight.
If skeptics are going to question NASA GISS's objectivity, then there's certainly plenty of room here to questions UAH's objectivity. Christy and Spencer are well-known climate change deniers. Are they being fair with their numbers? Calculations of raw data invariably include value judgements before the final numbers are produced -- can we be sure they are being fair?
Worse, Christy and Spencer for years propagated a major error in their satellite calculation that today is nearly forgotten. Had such an error taken place in NASA or Hadley statistics, we are all sure that professional liars like Marc Morano would still be sounding this to the rooftops.
OK. Scientists make mistakes. Christy & Spencer deserve credit for correcting their error -- and it was a MAJOR error. So major that you have to wonder why there are still in charge of this raw data.
I'm just asking. Deniers would certainly be asking these questions. They're fair questions, I think.
This measurement was the warmest September in their 31-yr recorded history -- and yet Spencer did not even mention that. That seems like a very significant oversight.
If skeptics are going to question NASA GISS's objectivity, then there's certainly plenty of room here to questions UAH's objectivity. Christy and Spencer are well-known climate change deniers. Are they being fair with their numbers? Calculations of raw data invariably include value judgements before the final numbers are produced -- can we be sure they are being fair?
Worse, Christy and Spencer for years propagated a major error in their satellite calculation that today is nearly forgotten. Had such an error taken place in NASA or Hadley statistics, we are all sure that professional liars like Marc Morano would still be sounding this to the rooftops.
OK. Scientists make mistakes. Christy & Spencer deserve credit for correcting their error -- and it was a MAJOR error. So major that you have to wonder why there are still in charge of this raw data.
I'm just asking. Deniers would certainly be asking these questions. They're fair questions, I think.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)