H1N1 in the US

Here's a CDC graph that shows how much worse this flu season is shaping up compared to the previous two years, due to H1N1.



(Click to enlarge.)

Upside of the Recession?

Unexpectedly, it seems that life expectancy increases during economic recessions and decreases during economic expansions.

In the 1920-1940 period, life expectancy rose 6.2 yrs from 1929 to 1932. It declined during good economies such as 1936-37.

The speculated reasons are: people work faster and harder during economic expansions (overtime, etc.), suffer more injuries, and have less time to exercise, socialize, and they drink more and face more stress. But during downturns people have more time to sleep, to socialize, and less money to spend on drinking and smoking.

Of course, these are national averages. Being unemployed can be pretty stressful too.

Polar Bear with Hockey Stick

And he's not happy....

An Apology for the Yamal Accusation?

I still think Steve McIntyre owes Keith Briffa an apology. Now he is (of course) picking through Briffa's comments, looking for inconsistencies and starting to play the victim. This whole episode has all been very unseemly.

McIntyre complains that

Briffa's comment leads off with the accusation that I had implied that the recent data had in this chronology had been "purposely selected" by Briffa "specifically because they exhibited recent growth increases". I want to dispense with this up front. While I expressed surprise that there were so few cores, not only did I not imply that Briffa did any sub-selecting, but I specifically said the opposite.

But here's what he did write, on Sept 26:

Unfortunately, to date, people in the field have not honored this responsibility and, to an outside observer, seem to have done no more than pick the version (Yamal) that suits their bias.

That certainly confirms Briffa's accusation, it seems to me: "pick the version" = sub-selecting, and "bias" = data that would imply an upturned blade. You can put a bow-tie on a snake, but it's still a snake.

Stuff

Some stuff I've come across lately:

• Nike has resigned from the US Chamber of Commerce board in protest of the organization's opposition to climate change legislation. Last week three other companies left the organization altogether: Pacific Gas & Electric, PNM Resources, and Exelon.
• John Fleck has an update on Albuquerque's GHG situation. Emissions are up 8% despite the mayor's 2005 pledge to cut back.
• Here are a couple of interesting sites: Sixty Symbols -- videos about physics and astronomy -- and The Periodic Table of Videos, about chemistry.
• "6.4 percent of Portlanders say biking is their primary mode of transportation to work, up from just 2.1 percent 10 years ago. Of the 30 largest cities in the country, Minneapolis trailed in second place with 4.5 percent and Seattle ranked fourth with 3 percent regular bike commuters." (Portland Mercury News)

With Friends Like This...

(Part two of a series.)

Tokyo governor Shintaro Ishihara warned on Wednesday the 2016 Olympics could be the last Games, with global warming an immediate threat to mankind.

"It could be that the 2016 Games are the last Olympics in the history of mankind," Ishihara told reporters at a Tokyo 2016 press event ahead of the vote.

"Global warming is getting worse. We have to come up with measures without which Olympic Games could not last long.

Via Reuters.

Yamal Replies

Both Keith Briffa and RealClimate have replied to the Yamal accusations, and you get the impression they're a little pissed (but too professional to admit it). And you can't blame them, with all the unfounded accusations of malfeasance so quickly and irresponsibly tossed around. You'd get pissed too.

As usual, there's no there in any of the accusations. Here's Briffa:

The basis forThe substantive implication of McIntyre's comment (made explicitly in subsequent postings by others) is that the recent data that make up this chronology (i.e. the ring-width measurements from living trees) were purposely selected by me from among a larger available data set, specifically because they exhibited recent growth increases.

This is not the case. The Yamal tree-ring chronology (see also Briffa and Osborn 2002, Briffa et al. 2008) was based on the application of a tree-ring processing method applied to the same set of composite sub-fossil and living-tree ring-width measurements provided to me by Rashit Hantemirov and Stepan Shiyatov which forms the basis of a chronology they published (Hantemirov and Shiyatov 2002). In their work they traditionally applied a data processing method (corridor standardisation) that does not preserve evidence of long timescale growth changes. My application of the Regional Curve Standardisation method to these same data was intended to better represent the multi-decadal to centennial growth variations necessary to infer the longer-term variability in average summer temperatures in the Yamal region: to provide a direct comparison with the chronology produced by Hantemirov and Shiyatov.

He continues:

McIntyre's selection of which of our (i.e. Hantemirov and Shiyatov's) data to exclude and which to use in replacement is not clear but his version of the chronology shows lower relative growth in recent decades than is displayed in my original chronology. He offers no justification for excluding the original data; and in one version of the chronology where he retains them, he appears to give them inappropriate low weights. I note that McIntyre qualifies the presentation of his version(s) of the chronology by reference to a number of valid points that require further investigation. Subsequent postings appear to pay no heed to these caveats. Whether the McIntyre version is any more robust a representation of regional tree growth in Yamal than my original, remains to be established.

And here's RealClimate getting to what I think is the heart of the matter:

There is nothing wrong with people putting together new chronologies of tree rings or testing the robustness of previous results to updated data or new methodologies. What is objectionable is the conflation of technical criticism with unsupported, unjustified and unverified accusations of scientific misconduct. Steve McIntyre keeps insisting that he should be treated like a professional. But how professional is it to continue to slander scientists with vague insinuations and spin made-up tales of perfidy out of the whole cloth instead of submitting his work for peer-review? He continues to take absolutely no responsibility for the ridiculous fantasies and exaggerations that his supporters broadcast, apparently being happy to bask in their acclaim rather than correct any of the misrepresentations he has engendered. If he wants to make a change, he has a clear choice; to continue to play Don Quixote for the peanut gallery or to produce something constructive that is actually worthy of publication.

Jennifer Mahasoy absurdly called for CRU scientists to resign over this manufactured scandal. Think she or McIntyre will have the integrity to fall on their own swords?

At the very least, McIntyre owes Briffa an apology.

Peer Review and Yamal

The anonymous "Bishop Hill" writes, in reply to my post:

David also takes aim at Climate Audit's not being peer reviewed. I think this argument is completely overdone. Watson and Crick weren't peer reviewed. Einstein wasn't either. Didn't stop them being right.

Well, Steve McIntyre isn't Einstein. Enough said.

Nor is he Crick or Watson. In any case, their work appeared in the best journals of their day (Annalen der Physik and Nature, respectively), and some rather distinguished editors approved of their publication there. (Peer review didn't become common until after WW2.) They didn't appear on a blog, nor where they accepted immediately. Or without the input from experts in the field.

It's important here to remember what science is and what it isn't. Blog posting aren't science. They don't look the same. They don't read the same. They have far different standards of scholarship. They have far different standards of publishing. It's kind of silly to even have to go into this, because there is no comparison.

And by the way, peer-review isn't an appeal to authority, so let's drop that canard. Nor does it say a paper is right. Plenty of peer-reviewed papers have turned out to be incorrect. As Robert Park says, passing peer-review means that a paper is not obviously wrong. And that it follows accepted methods of scholarship. These are important, and an important distinction. Of course, the only authority any scientific paper really has is its agreement with empirical data.

If Steve McIntyre really thinks he has an important point, then he should write up his findings and submit them to a journal. I'm sure he could collect the page charges from a tip jar. These days you can even ask that it be given express treatment.

That Yamal Reconstruction

I heard that people on the science-side are looking at Steve McIntyre's accusations about the Yamal reconstruction, so just wait for it.... It's hard to take seriously, though, if you're a journalist, because

1. it's a blog post and not science. I know McIntyre tries to be rigorous -- perhaps he tries a little too hard -- but it's certainly not on any kind of level like a peer-reviewed publication; and
2. the whole tone of the debate -- Aha! Caught you again, you thieves and liars -- is really unscientific and offputting. There's always this tone, though not explicitedly expressed, on Steve's blog, plus the Ahab after the white whale setting....but its far worse in the comments and on other blogs. Unless hardened skeptics learn to express themselves without calling everyone they disagree with liars their points are not going to be taken seriously (even if they are legitimate). It's all about scoring points in public perception, which is no way to address scientific questions.
3. Also, wait until you see what's in the November issue of Scientific American.

Big Quake in South Pacific

About an hour and a half ago there was a very large earthquake (Mw 7.9) in the South Pacific, near American Samoa.

--

Reminder: A magnitude M earthquake is about 10 times less likely than a magnitude M-1 earthquake (the Gutenberg-Richter Law).

The San Francisco earthquake of 1906 was Mw = 7.8. The 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake in the same region was Mw = 6.9. The Boxing Day earthquake of 2004 in Indonesia, which caused the huge tsunami, was Mw=9.3.

Wikipedia says:

The USGS estimates that, since 1900, there have been an average of 18 major earthquakes (magnitude 7.0-7.9) and one great earthquake (magnitude 8.0 or greater) per year, and that this average has been relatively stable.

UPDATE: A tsunami warning has been released for the surrounding area, all the way to New Zealand. (That doesn't necessarily mean a tsunami has occurred.)

NOAA's Pacific Tsunami Warning Center is swamped right now (11:50 am PDT) -- just when the world needs it most. You'd think they'd have a contingency plan for exactly this situation.

One Atomic Bomb Every Four Seconds

Here's an interesting little tidbit: every 4 seconds humans consume as much energy as was released in the Hiroshima atomic bomb. (Both are about 60 trillion Joules.) That is, humans consume over 20,000 Hiroshima bombs worth of energy per day.

H+ Magazine

Here's a magazine you might enjoy: H+, about the future of humanity. Their latest digital issue is here.

Glenn Beck, Ha Ha Ha

On Andrew Sullivan's site someone named James Poulos writes:

A word about Glenn Beck. Glenn Beck is the worst. But why? Not so much because of who he distrusts or why. From where I’m standing, Beck is so awful because he theatrically combines and conflates performances of ultimate sincerity with performances of ultimate sarcasm. I think this is a telltale sign of a soul disordered by a confusion of love, power, and resentment. It becomes impossible, in such a person, to tell quite where their selfless solidarity, their egotism, and their hatred borne of weakness begin or end.

This is supposed to be surprising? These talk show hosts EXIST to be theatrical and combine sincerity and sarcasm.

They have chosen to the clowns of our society and are highly awarded for success. Every bit of attention they get -- even this one -- adds to their portfolio and their ratings and makes them money. EVERY ONE.

They aren't idiots -- they know that sacrificing their intellectual honesty and even their dignity will get them lots of attention and will perhaps make them rich. It's a choice they make, and know they've made. Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Ed Schultz, Alan Combes, Victoria Taft, all of them -- they all strive to be as outrageous as possible, to get mentioned on Drudge or the Huffington Post, to have people talking about them. It's how they make their living.

The more your disclaim their ideas, the better it is for them.

Obama's Incredible Wealth Creation

Robert Reich -- who is perhaps the straightest shooter out there, in my opinion -- has an interesting column on the Huffington Post noting the large stock market gains during Obama's presidency, which is a little weird seeing as how the economy is supposed to be down and consumer's aren't spending.

So who is spending? The US government. They're providing credit where the private market isn't.

How much wealth has been created in the stock market since Obama's inauguration? About $2.83 trillion, according to the Wilshire 5000. That's only in 8 months. The government has spend a fraction of that in that time, so this would seem to be a good deal (sort of).

So while all those Tea Baggers are out protesting the expansion of government, it's been precisely this expansion that is behind the large increases in their 401Ks (if they own them) since Obama became president. Reich writes:

In other words, the Dow is up despite the biggest consumer retreat from the market since the Great Depression because of the very thing so many executives are complaining about, which is government's expansion. And regardless of what you call it -- Keynesianism, socialism, or just pragmatism -- it's doing wonders for business, especially big business and Wall Street. Consumer spending is falling back to 60 to 65 percent of the economy, as government spending expands to fill the gap.

Monday stuff

I was at a conference all day, and will be there tomorrow and Wednesday, too. It's in Portland, so it's like having a real job -- leave the house at 6:30 am, get back at 6:30 pm. I don't know how I ever did that when I used to do that. Working at home is so much more efficient.

This conference -- in fact, nearly every conference I go to -- reminds me why I like being a freelancer, and a science writer -- there's so much interesting stuff going on, everywhere, and it's hard to know a tenth of it from just sitting at home reading press releases and papers.

Anyway the sun is setting and the western sky has that dusky, orangish color along the horizon, with that magical blue color above it that you could never capture in paint or on a photograph. I'm wiped out and need to get ready for tomorrow.

Death Rates

I heard this on the Jack Rice radio show this morning:

• additional chance of dying in the US if you don't have health insurance, compared to someone who does, 1993: +25%.
• in 2009: +40%

Ocean Rising

Are the seas rising? Yes.

Here's the latest result for global mean sea level from the University of Colorado, taken every 10 days. So the blue line is the 1-year moving average, and the green line is the 5-year moving average. (Click to enlarge.)

George Who?

This is the kind of survey answer I always have trouble believing:

Only one in four Oklahoma public high school students can name the first President of the United States, according to a survey released today.

I usually think that the question was strangely worded, or some other potential misdirection was included. But no, the question, from the US test for citizenship, was:

Who was the first president of the United States?

Answers to the other questions are equally depressing, especially this one:

What ocean is on the east coast of the United States?

Only 61% of high school students knew the answer. 4 in 10 did not. Not 4 in 10 2nd graders -- high school students.

And they wonder why Oklahoma is considered flyover country. What an abomination.

Debate With Marc Morano

Marc Morano (of ClimateDepot.com) and I have agreed to a debate on the climate change situation and debate this November, just before the Copenhagen Conference. We'd prefer to do it on the radio than via Web cam. Any one out there want to carry such a debate for, say, an hour?

USA: Number 37

Via: Pandagon.