I notice that folks are discussing things which are only slightly related to the thread, or not related at all, probably because there’s no open thread appropriate for such discussion. So here’s an open thread.
No Britney, no Master’s tournament, no more Bach-vs-Mozart wars, and let’s NOT discuss the hockey stick. That’s not off limits permanently — but after literally weeks of back-and-forth on that topic on many threads, this blog is taking a week off hockey.
Categories: Global Warming
 | Hank Roberts on World Wide Web of Science |
 | dhogaza on Open Thread |
 | Lost and Confused on Open Thread |
 | steven mosher on Open Thread |
| Hank Roberts on Fast CO2 |
| Hank Roberts on Fast CO2 |
| Lost and Confused on Open Thread |
 | Leif Svalgaard on Cycles |
| Leif Svalgaard on Stalking the Elusive Solar-cyc… |
 | cce on City of Musicians |
 | george on Cycles |
 | Paul on Stalking the Elusive Solar-cyc… |
 | John Mashey on City of Musicians |
| Hank Roberts on Perjury |
 | stirfry on Fast CO2 |
252 responses so far ↓
John Cross // April 11, 2008 at 1:27 pm
this blog is taking a week off hockey.
If you want to take even longer off I would suggest that it is off limits until the Stanley Cup is decided! Seems like a fitting time - from one hockey stick to another.
John
P. Lewis // April 11, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Some ‘fun’ reading about scepticism, denial and psychology. No climate, but …
TCO // April 11, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Lazar and I were having a very high content science discussion on PCA method (not just alarmist versus denier blog choir contest, but really digging into details) in the last PCA thread. I think we should be able to continue that, so please allow those comments to go through (in that thread). It doesn’t hurt anything. And it is more science/math related than most of the casual stuff going on here.
If all you care about is defending Mann (or if all McI cares about is castigating him), than that’s not interesting anyhow. What’s interesting is the detail. Wahl and Amman are interesting. Zorita is interesting (he has a comment coming out by the way). That is real science.
[Response: It's clear that "all you care about is defending Mann" is not a valid characterization. If you want to discuss PCA, go ahead, but keep it civil, and separate from the hockey stick. A week off will do us all some good.]
dhogaza // April 11, 2008 at 3:18 pm
After all, if the past is any indication, there’s plenty of time in the future to discuss it - we’ll still be discussing it twenty years from now …
Dano // April 11, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Frozen Four this weekend and start of the playoffs, and you want a week off hockey?!?
And John Cross’ Habs will run into Dano’s Wings not soon enough, and a week off hockey?!? How are we going to wager?
Sheesh. Brutal host. ;o)
Best,
D
Lazar // April 11, 2008 at 3:57 pm
TCO, if you want to drop me an email, I can be found at lazaracflickr [at] yahoo [dot] com. I still want to do a full run of Steve’s ‘white plus red noise’ benchmark. I’m also looking at bristlecone/foxtail pine series and local temp/precipitation data which might be interesting.
Regards
TCO // April 11, 2008 at 11:14 pm
Ok.
michael // April 12, 2008 at 3:37 am
From the article linked by P. Lewis, above:
“Experience with deniers has at times brought me face-to-face with what is potentially the ugly side of skepticism – smugness, arrogance, and sarcastic belittlement.”
Does any of that ring any bells for the commenters here? (Hint: don’t read “deniers” to mean “AGW deniers”.)
dhogaza // April 12, 2008 at 4:10 am
Well, since you ask, yes …
Those who deny evolutionary biology (actually, pretty much all of biology).
Those who deny the HIV/AIDS causation.
Then we have those who claim that slamming Boeing 767s with nearly full fuel loads into the world trade center could not POSSIBLY have brought them down - it had to be an Intelligently Designed effort involving the US government and explosives hidden within the building.
What else did you have in mind?
Hank Roberts // April 12, 2008 at 4:51 am
The sentence before that one is the one that worries me. He thinks he is in need of fossils to be able to show that evolution actually happens! http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060901164253.htm
And the conclusion …. well, I disagree. An accumulating track record of citation in subsequent successful scientific work should be enough to clearly discriminate science from pseudoscience.
Nice rhetoric though.
fred // April 12, 2008 at 8:27 am
“Does any of that ring any bells”
Yes indeed it does. The concept of denialism, applied as a debating tactic when discussing AGW, is not only unhelpful, it is positively counterproductive. Its logically a form of begging the question, when we assume what we are seeking to prove. Its polemically just a form of insult, which rarely convinces anyone.
There are all too many ways in which the debating tactics of a substantial part of the AGW movement remind one of the bad old debating tactics of the authoritarian left and right.
The problem with it as a concept that it can be applied to anything one thinks true. I myself can only think of one case in which its use is really legitimate, and that is when applied to those degenerate followers of Larry Wall, the Perlistas, who deny the obvious merits of Python, and keep repeating lies, yes lies I tell you, about white space and indentation. That is really awful and we should do something to stop them perverting the young minds of beginning programmers!
Petro // April 12, 2008 at 8:40 am
This articles is truly illuminating:
Climate Reality Bites the Libertarians
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/13935
fred // April 12, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Petro, its truly a ridiculous piece. AGW is at bottom a very simple scientific hypothesis. It is that rises in atmospheric CO2, whether due to human or natural causes, will or will not produce certain levels of warming. There is nothing right left or center about this, it is a matter of fact. It has nothing to do with anyone’s views on religion or politics.
What we should do given the facts is a quite different matter, and here you may expect people with different approaches to society and to science and engineering to have differing views on either prevention or adaptation. Reasonably enough.
Libertarians are scarce here, so its hard to ask them. But it is difficult to see anything in the hypothesis that is incompatible with libertarianism, republicanism, conservatism or liberalism. Or Buddhism, Christianity or Islam. Its just a matter of fact, like whether antibiotics are effective against bacterial infections. Or whether and under what circumstances steel corrodes.
The quicker everyone stops trying to associate the scientific hypothesis of AGW with every political or social obsession under the sun, the faster we will make progress on it. Some eccentric posted a link here the other day to an Ayn Rand followers’ dating service. As if he thought that had something to do with climate! Mad.
I suggest by the way a sensible politically correct vocabulary for the two sides in this debate:
Warmers versus Coolers.
dhogaza // April 12, 2008 at 2:14 pm
So you’re suggesting that those who reject science are all convinced that the world is really cooling, instead?
luminous beauty // April 12, 2008 at 2:19 pm
fred,
“The concept of denialism, applied as a debating tactic when discussing AGW, is not only unhelpful, it is positively counterproductive.”
The actuality of denialism, applied as a debating strategy is rather unhelpful, as well.
Do you deny that there are denialists, fred?
Petro // April 12, 2008 at 2:21 pm
fred, there is a certain lot of libertarians here who oppose AGW. I have tried to figure out, why they continue fight against scientific facts. In that respect, the piece I linked above is revealing.
Denying reality is very much dependent on religion and politics. The strong convictions and beliefs are tend to be held inspite of observable facts. The best example is evolution. It is impossible to teach a fundamental Christian with facts to accept evolution.
Hank Roberts // April 12, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Fred, there aren’t two sides, and it isn’t a debate — here.
Where did you get those numbers?
Let’s talk about your numbers — where you found them, who attributes them to the IPCC, and where they’re cited to — so we can do the first step, check them, and talk about them.
Chris O'Neill // April 12, 2008 at 3:42 pm
fred:
In your opinion.
That’s beside the point. The point is that some libertarians will do their damnedest to avoid accepting evidence for the hypothesis because of their motivation.
Maybe but ACCEPTANCE of the fact does.
This is bizarre. You’re implying that libertarians’ accept that there will be warming and that their objective is that mitigation is the only acceptable way to deal with it. I’m sorry but there are libertarians who do not accept that there will be significant warming.
fred // April 12, 2008 at 4:39 pm
I have no idea what libertarians think. About warming or anything else. And don’t much care. On the continent on which I reside, we do not have them.
What I think is that there are two independent questions: first, is there a dangerous amount of man made warming, and second, if there is, should we try to adapt to it, or should we try to prevent it.
I think different people, having accepted the first point as a matter of fact, that there is likely to be dangerous warming, may come to different views about the optimal reaction to it, based on their differing views of science, society, the role of government, and their optimism about our engineering prowess when applied on a planetary scale. Their views on the second point will probably be influenced by their political attitudes. Not however the first, which is not a matter of what is desirable, but of what is.
Chris, I cannot help what some libertarians do, or some kilt wearers, or some dog lovers. It none of it makes any difference to the AGW issue. Sometimes one feels that half of the people blogging have taken some terrible drug that deprives them of the ability to distinguish the relevant from the irrelevant.
And so here we go again with evolution! We went through this in the nineteenth century. It is not an issue. Will someone now please start in with tobacco? One is sure that has much to teach about climate sensitivity!
nanny_govt_sucks // April 12, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Perhaps if virtually every piece of “evidence” was not paired with a call for politicians and bureaucrats to “act now” - and in the process chip away at the foundations of human liberty - you might get a better response from libertarians.
dhogaza // April 12, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Thank you, NGS, for proving the point. If you didn’t exist, we’d need to invent you.
Petro // April 12, 2008 at 5:06 pm
nanny stated:
“Perhaps if virtually every piece of “evidence” was not paired with a call for politicians and The problem with you libertarians is that you will bureaucrats to “act now” - and in the process chip away at the foundations of human liberty - you might get a better response from libertarians.”
The problem with you libertarians is that once scientific facts are in contradiction with you beliefs, you choose your beliefs every time.
Besides, it is certainly not a human liberty to distroy environment. Environment belongs to all of us, not only for those who want make economical profit by distroying it.
matt // April 12, 2008 at 5:11 pm
NGS: Perhaps if virtually every piece of “evidence” was not paired with a call for politicians and bureaucrats to “act now”
It’s this “we must do something” attitude that drives me nuts about all this. It’s very interesting, on both sides, to look at the underlying bedrock beliefs of the believers and deniers. Has anyone met a believer whose roots are not in anti-growth and anti-big oil? Has anyone met a denier that loves big government?
Do we look for causes and supporting data that fit our pre-conceived notions of what is wrong with the planet and latch onto those? Or do we objectively base our decisions on what is known?
And on another note…as the west consumes agricultural land for growing fuel instead of food, the cost of wheat has increased 120% in teh last year, and rice has increased 75% in the last two months. Starve the world’s poor today so that they wont’ be flooded in a hundred years I guess. Nobody wants to admit that if carbon is the problem, then we need to figure out how to trim current usage by 90%. Alas, the smug hybrid driver thinks he’s done his part with CFLs and a 20% bump in fuel economy…and castigates those that won’t join him in not making a difference.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/apr/11/worldbank.fooddrinks1
luminous beauty // April 12, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Nanny,
If libertarians’ response to every piece of evidence (without the scare quotes) wasn’t to obfuscate the evidence (without the scare quotes) with specious nonsense, then libertarians’ response might be considered less than useless.
fred,
On what continent do you reside, Mu?
TCO // April 12, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Lee:
SM has a comment on one of his blog topics (the SI one)* where he discusses the snipping issues. He manages to confound two different occasions of snipping (in post snipping without noting, and hurricane topic snipping). He also cites my reaction to the SECOND instance, (which I approved) when the topic in controversy is the FIRST one. He also doesn’t bother including the following comment which I made directly after your complaint on the in post snipping (post 372):
“You’re right, Lee.”
I’m not sure if SM is just kinda warped and stupid or deliberately dishonest. I think it’s more warped/stupid. But the whole pattern of these things (Tucson Airport debate, Nigel Persuad, not writing a paper for 3 years now, only publishing doodles that find fault never that confirm, cherry picking individual stations/data points and not following up with general statistical study, red noise modeling refusal to answer the question, “vanishing”** his own miscues (like his veiled threat to go after a GT student who disagreed with him by auditing her papers) is a bad pattern.
Frankly, the best course of action with SM is to blow him off until he makes clear arguments with real math and science in real papers. We should not consider it a requirement to read through the fever swamp for the occasional interesting point among the meanders.
* Interestingly, the whole kerfuffle IS OFF TOPIC to an actually intersting point about the use of self referencing via SI to detailed derivations and the like. But what do you expect. SM doesn’t hold himself accountable. And he’s a meandering miscreant. Who is more concerned with using his blog and the whole meta-debate to try to score points versus “opponenents” than to disaggregate issues and test them logically.
**rather than apologizing and leaving the evidence of his poor behavior for all to see.
Hansen's Bulldog // April 12, 2008 at 5:14 pm
I think the level of discussion has decreased. I recommend taking time to collect thoughts carefully, and composing them in a way designed to enlighten.
Petro // April 12, 2008 at 5:19 pm
fred confessed:
“I have no idea what libertarians think.”
How come you then said that the article is ridiculous? If you don’t even know how libertarians think. Read nanny’s post above: that is a view of libertarian. Read stephen mosher’s comments here, he is a libertarian.
fred continues:
“What I think is that there are two independent questions: first, is there a dangerous amount of man made warming, and second, if there is, should we try to adapt to it, or should we try to prevent it.”
These questions have anwered by scientific experiments, among scientists the consensus is over 90% and increasing. There exist people who deny that the consensus is reached, and those people have all sorts of motives for their denial. Most of these peope lack proper scientific education, but have impact on political and economical decision making.
Evolution was an example. It reached scientific consensus in 19th century, still significant percentage of people even in most civilized and highly educated countries think that evolution is not true.
Believing in evolution or not is though not as critical as taking actions for preventing global warming.
TCO // April 12, 2008 at 5:39 pm
BTW, below is a link to one of the CA threads in question, where SM is complaining about his treatment in Tammy-world:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2993 (post 22)
Look at http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1868#comment-126057
Note that SM has ERASED LEE’S complaint but kept his reply. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?! Like how is that a conversation!?
2. When you follow the links that SM gives, it’s important to read around a bit as you see the whole story. And see some things that SM doesn’t show.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1853#comment-126390
Lee’s post on 363 is quite to the point:
“In the last three days, I have had a post edited by SteveM without notice, in a way that altered the apparent intent of the post and left it looking as if it were my work. I then had several posts, posts pointing that out to SteveM, simply removed without correcting the issue, until finally after multiple posts, SteveM removed the post he had edited.”
Isn’t it interesting that SM on his SI thread doesn’t direct you to the contested “edited” post? Well here’s the reason! He erased it! That sucks! That’s like “Mann you lose” (on the refusal to show the algorithm).
nanny_govt_sucks // April 12, 2008 at 5:42 pm
There is not a “libertarian scientific belief”. Libertarianism is a political philosophy, not a scientific one. I’ve met plenty of libertarians that are concerned about global warming and CO2 emissions.
The difference is, libertarians will look for NON-government solutions instead of resorting to the force of government. And when comes to non-government solutions to CO2 emissions, there are plenty: Plant trees, end paper recycling (bury paper waste instead), spraying oceans with iron filings, end corporate welfare for big oil. The list goes on. Keep the talk away from building up big government and you’ll have the ear of libertarians every time.
TCO // April 12, 2008 at 5:49 pm
I think discussing PCA in isolation has some limited use but the more relevant thing is digging into Mann’s methods, into McI’s testing of the methods, into the interaction of different steps of the algorithm. The “junior level” “what is PCA” explanation was actually very UNHELPFUL in honing in on whether Mann’s choices were appropriate or not. there wasn’t even a good connection of some fundamental attributes of PCA to the higher level issues that were in contention.
And I COMPLETELY agree with stopping the threadjack hockey stick comments in other threads (one of the habits of my skeptics is to jump in at socially inappropriate moments like pugnacious teenagers expecting every aspect of AGW related science to be defended by every AGW adherent within every thread). But if we want to dig into the hockey stick in the appropriate threads (PCA threads or Open) than why not let us? We could post 10,000 posts, but you would still have all the other threads to deal with stuff. I don’t like this cutting off of debate. Science and math are ALL ABOUT pushing for detail. Would you cut someone off who was worrying at testing the micro details of the 4 color math thereom? Let us talk.
[Response: I didn't say the topic was forever off limits. I specifically stated otherwise. I just said, let's take a week off.
Don't worry the subject isn't going to go away.]
Lost and Confused // April 12, 2008 at 6:31 pm
I wanted to clarify a couple things from another topic, about my comments on Al Gore. The first thing is, I do not say anything as an insult to him. I take issue with some of his actions, and this keeps me from respecting him. Primarily, he has made several false claims and never corrected them. I have not cared enough about him to find out if this sort of action is common for him, and I certainly have not cared enough to insult him.
The first claim has already been discussed (and accepted) on this site. In An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore shows the MBH reconstruction, while attributing it to Thompson. This would not have stood out, except he says the graph confirms MBH. Naturally it does confirm itself. This is the primary problem for me, and it is the main one I would like to see corrected. Incidentally, Thompson himself has informed Gore of this mistake.
The next problem, from the same movie, would be his (false) claim that rising sea levels had caused the evacuation of Pacific islands.
The third issue is from the presentation Hank Roberts linked in the other thread. In it Al Gore shows a video of a house falling off a cliff as part of the cliff collapsed. The problem here is twofold. First, Gore attributes this to global warming. Second, perhaps through poor wording, Gore says Daniel’s Harbour is in the Arctic Circle.
Now then, I have not been able to find any evidence the collapse was caused by global warming. The experts examining the situation have said what were the causes (erosion and rain), but global warming was not amongst them. Now then, as Tamino (somewhat snidely) points out, it is possible global warming is responsible to some meaningful extent. I have, both before and after his comment, attempted to find evidence showing such, and have failed. Gore provides no evidence of this, so I am stuck with the assumption it is false unless someone can provide me it. However, I have been able to find conclusive evidence Daniel’s Harbour is not located within the Arctic Circle.
The main issue to me is Gore’s presentation of MBH in An Inconvenient Truth. At the point in which congressmen believe Gore’s statements on this, there is a serious problem. I know very little about Gore, but i do know this. He has made several false statements to *millions* of people. These statements may be of minor import, but I cannot respect him until he attempts to rectify them. It would be easy too. The next time he is interviewed by 60 minutes, he could just say, “I would like to take a minute to correct something I have said to millions of people…”
[Response: In your previous comment you stated unequivocally that he had told outright lies. Now you only seem to be able to claim mistakes. I find that tells me a lot more about your approach than about Al Gore's
And I thank God that Gore didn't waste his time on "60 minutes" with errata. Motivating people to take global warming seriously is vastly more important.]
Hank Roberts // April 12, 2008 at 6:51 pm
> erosion and rain
Didn’t I just cite this? It’s less sea ice, more wave erosion at sea level, and thawing of the soil. Must be in another thread.
Lost and Confused // April 12, 2008 at 6:56 pm
On the issue of Steve McIntyre, I am a bit baffled by some of the criticisms I hear. Certainly, accusations of him making unmarked edits to people’s posts is hard to believe. I have only seen one person claim it happened to his post, and McIntyre denied doing such. I have no reason to believe McIntyre is lying, especially when a plausible explanation exists (and one was offered shortly after the complaint).
Beyond that, TCO, you say “He also cites my reaction to the SECOND instance, (which I approved) when the topic in controversy is the FIRST one.” While you may feel the “controversy” is in the first issue, McIntyre needed to respond to both issues. There was no reason for him to think only the first issue was important, so naturally he would cite you on the second.
Ultimately, this comes down to a simple matter if you only worry about the first issue. Lee accused McIntyre of editing a post without marking the edit. McIntyre denied it. Somebody else offered an explanation that would fit the circumstances, and it is perfectly reasonable.
I do not see any justification for making personal attacks on this issue. There is no evidence to suggest either Lee or McIntyre is lying, and these insults are pathetic.
TCO // April 12, 2008 at 6:58 pm
It’s one thing to make another mistake. Another not to correct it when you find out that there was one. Initially the issue is one of lack of care. But when you allow a mistake to stand when you know it’s wrong…then that is dishonest. I think you have excorciated Watts (rightfully) for his lack of forthrightness in correcting his earlier assertions.
Lee // April 12, 2008 at 6:59 pm
L&C:
Coastal damage in the Arctic
More open water in the Arctic Ocean allows erosion due to wave action to affect the coast for longer periods, particularly during fall, when storms tend to be stronger with higher storm surges. The resulting destruction has already forced residents of the Alaskan town of Shishmaref to vote to abandon their village. More than half the residents of the nearby village of Kivalina were forced to evacuate on September 13, when 25-40 mph winds drove a 3-4 foot high storm surge into the town. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers built a $3 million sea wall to protect the town, but the wall has not been able to hold against recent storms. Over 100 feet of coastline has been lost in the past three years.
http://www.wunderground.com/climate/Feature_200711_SeaIce.asp
Hank Roberts // April 12, 2008 at 7:01 pm
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/04/denialists_against_corrections.php
——-excerpt——-
“… Roger Harrabin at the BBC wrote a news story about the WMO statement that managed to turn the WMO’s statement that global warming had not stopped into a statement that it had stopped in 1998….
…Of course this erroneous story was picked up by Drudge and was linked by Glenn Reynolds and the rest of AGW denialists.
Fortunately the WMO (and others) contacted Harrabin about the misleading article and it was corrected to read:
… this year’s temperatures would still be way above the average - and we would soon exceed the record year of 1998 because of global warming induced by greenhouse gases.
And of course Glenn Reynolds and the rest of the gang corrected their posts.
Ha ha! Just kiddding. No, instead of making corrections Reynolds and co accused the BBC of bias:
Under Fire: “The BBC is under fire after altering a news story about global warming as a result of activist pressure.”
———–end excerpt———
Lies, and lies about the lies.
David B. Benson // April 12, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Burying waste paper is carbon-neutral (unless buried very, very deeply). Worse, the paper landfill will express methane, so the ressult is eventually global warming positive.
To properly bury carbonaceous materials requires first a carbonizing step (pyrolysis, torrification, or hydrothermal carbonization) followed by burying the resulting char deeply. Currently nobody knows just how deep that is, but 10 meters might suffice.
I see but insufficient direct economic incentive to engage in burying char. Doesn’t look libertarian to me.
Lost and Confused // April 12, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Tamino, I did not retreat from my previous position, as you seem to think. I largely thought of the words mistake, false claim and lie as interchangeable. To be clear, I am saying Al Gore lied in An Inconvenient Truth. I am not attributing any motivation to these lies, though I would assume they were not intentional (i.e. they were mistakes). I do apologize for being unclear.
Also, I am not going to suggest other people think poorly of Gore. What is more important is up to each individual. To me, honesty is paramount. Other people can decide his lack of openness on this is not significant, that the false claims are not meaningful. I however, cannot respect someone who is dishonest
To me Al Gore is dishonest.
[Response: To me, you're being dishonest.]
TCO // April 12, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Confused: Steve erased the post which Lee claims was edited. That is damning.
dhogaza // April 12, 2008 at 7:32 pm
How is Gore supposed to fix the movie? It’s a bit late?
And the published copies of his book? It’s too late.
Do you have evidence that the error regarding Thompson v.s. Mann graphs is still in the latest version of his slide show?
Do you demand that every author of a textbook that’s made an error stand up and publicly cry out “my book has an error!”. Nonsense. Yes, errata get published - sometimes. Often not, if they’re not important they’re just noted and fixed in the next edition.
This criticism of minor errors is just a technique to shift attention away from the message, a message which is fully supported by the consensus of the climate science community.
“Al Gore made a mistake and is fat, which makes him a liar, and climate science false” is a chain of logic that baffles me. Yet that seems to be the message that one hears from the denialsphere.
TCO // April 12, 2008 at 7:52 pm
Yes, a public statement should be made in these cases.
dhogaza // April 12, 2008 at 7:57 pm
Is there no sense of morality left in this world?
A mistake is the same as a lie?
God wrote “Thou shall not make a mistake, ever” on those stone tablets?
If I make a typoe I’m lying?
Hank Roberts // April 12, 2008 at 8:04 pm
The TED talk:
“Already, around the Arctic Circle ….”
The slide, a familiar one, is of Shismaref, Alaska.
Cause?
http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pages/arctic.html
“Sea level rise also affects the Arctic, where it is frequently combines with permafrost thaw to create severe erosion. The native village of Shismaref Alaska, a village of about 590 Inupiats perched on a sandy barrier island on the NW shore of Seward Peninsula …”
Where is the Seward Peninsula?
On this map, it’s the peninsula right under the red letters “Ar…” in the label “Arctic Circle” — see it here:
http://forces.si.edu/arctic/images/media/library_007_lg.jpg
What is the Arctic?
http://forces.si.edu/arctic/04_00_00.html
The Arctic can be defined by the Arctic Circle, an imaginary line at 66°33’ North Latitude. Map The M Factory © Smithsonian Institution
The Arctic can be defined by the polar treeline, the northernmost limit of tree growth. Map The M Factory © Smithsonian Institution
The Arctic can be defined by high latitude areas where the average summer temperature does not exceed 10°C (50°F). Map The M Factory © Smithsonian Institution
Dave Andrews // April 12, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Sorry, this is just the mischievious side of me but couldn’t we just pull out the BCPs and then the hockey stick would be of the agenda?
[Response: You can't let it alone for a week? I'd say that illustrates the degree of obsession which makes taking a time out a good idea.]
harold // April 12, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Hansen’s Bulldog, you are a little testy today. Dave’s joke would not be funny in a weeks time.
Have a great weekend.
nanny_govt_sucks // April 12, 2008 at 9:15 pm
Isn’t that up to the entrepreneur who may decide to engage in this business? There are plenty of carbon-sequestering businesses operating right now, taking advantage of the guilt that some people feel about emissions.
“Libertarian” is not about smart business decisions vs dumb ones! It’s about freedom of choice. If someone wants to start up a “char burying” business, let them. Let them fail. Let them succeed. That’s freedom. That’s libertarianism.
dhogaza // April 12, 2008 at 9:26 pm
And if we saw an asteroid aimed right at the heart of our planet, due to hit in a couple years, your response would be …
“If someone wants to start up an “asteroid busting” business, let them. Let them fail. Let them succeed. That’s freedom. That’s libertarianism.”
Freedom by any other name is … planetary suicide?
TCO // April 12, 2008 at 9:32 pm
I will honor the time out.
harold // April 12, 2008 at 9:33 pm
A lot of jokes in this thread.
Hank Roberts // April 12, 2008 at 9:38 pm
So, Lost’n …
> perhaps through poor wording,
> Gore says
So you say, incorrectly.
Look at the video again. The first, old slide is the one showing what was happening already some years ago around the Arctic Circle, where warming has been the greatest.
I won’t speculate about the reason you are saying incorrect things.
But I doubt you are confused.
Hank Roberts // April 12, 2008 at 9:43 pm
http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=as6BR0QV4KE8&refer=home
nanny_govt_sucks // April 12, 2008 at 10:23 pm
And I guess your response would be
“Let’s have Hillary Clinton and George Bush build a rocket to bust up the asteroid”
I’ll take my chances with a free society.
Hank Roberts // April 12, 2008 at 11:07 pm
But we digress. Weren’t we asking for some sources for claimed facts, before the witnessing started?
dhogaza // April 12, 2008 at 11:17 pm
Personally, no, of course not. I wouldn’t trust George Bush to build a paper airplane.
Government collectively has done some reasonable things, though, like finance the R&D, engineering and original deployment of these internets you seem to enjoy.
Why aren’t you using the one created by private enterprise? Where’s the libertarian one?
Hank Roberts // April 13, 2008 at 1:07 am
> where’s
Right here, and you should make sure you know how to use it (and keep a modem around). Just in case:
http://www.fanciful.org/bbs-promotion/how-to-bbs/fido.htm
dhogaza // April 13, 2008 at 1:21 am
Fidonet came about 20 years after ARPANET (which was originally built around leased lines and modems in a similar fashion). TCP/IP and Ethernet (xerox parc) preceeded by the Hawaii state government funded Alohanet (developed at University of Hawaii). If you’ve ever wondered how Ethernet got it’s name, it’s to honor its predecessor, which was transmitted by radios (due to Hawaii’s island geography). Even today, each Ethernet subnet has a special IP named the Broadcast IP …
Perhaps the Fidonet people might’ve figured out how to build a hierarchical worldwide network if ARPANET hadn’t paved the way.
Maybe not.
Lost and Confused // April 13, 2008 at 1:24 am
I will admit my choice of wording was somewhat poor. I used “mistake” and “lie” interchangeably, because it is my belief Al Gore’s actions were both. I believe he made mistakes, which caused him to say lies. The only other possibility I see is he did it intentionally, which seems implausible. I apologize for the confusion, but I have no idea what it is that would make someone think I am dishonest.
I am not criticizing Al Gore. I do not know enough about the man to feel comfortable doing that. I am simply saying, that as an individual, I can have no respect for him until he attempts to correct his lies. I have never said, “Al Gore is fat,” “You should not listen to Gore,” or “That movie is a piece of trash.”
Hank Roberts, I do not see how I am mistaken. Al Gore said, “Around the Arctic Circle,” then showed two different scenes. Only one was from the Arctic Circle. That would make it a lie, though it seems probable it was made by accident. I suspect this is just a matter of poor wording.
Also TCO, why would Steve McIntyre’s deletion of that post be “damning” if it was deleted along with the other off topic posts? I am not particularly inclined to defend McIntyre, but these criticisms seem to be baseless.
[Response: The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines "lie" as "to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive." In other words, it's deliberate, not accidental. Please don't misuse the word.]
dhogaza // April 13, 2008 at 1:31 am
And, of course, the telephone network upon which Fidonet operates was built as a result of federal regulation giving Ma Bell a virtual monopoly for decades here in the US. And built outright by governments in Europe …
TCO // April 13, 2008 at 1:52 am
Lost: you tire me with your stupidity, but I will explain it, stop by step. McI originally left the post up and only edited a portion of it. Then he deleted the whole thing along with posts complaining about the partial deletion. that is damning.
EliRabett // April 13, 2008 at 2:20 am
Nanny, you have to understand that the techniques for intercept mission, pretty much reside in government agencies. It’s not simple.
Lee // April 13, 2008 at 2:42 am
TCO.
The part of that thread that put me over the edge was what SM refused to let be said. When I first made that comment, the entire thing appeared. Later, when I looked back, half of it was missing. When I pointed out that this was what I saw, McIntyre cut the explanation. Repeatedly. He allowed the comments saying I was incompetent and didn’t know how to post, he allowed the comments calling my words “pure garbage” - you can see them there still, and Stevie Mac seems not to have considered them to be “noise.” But he didn’t allow my comments detailing what had happened, and he didn’t allow the intermediate posts asking him what had happened. THAT was what made up my mind.
cce // April 13, 2008 at 2:58 am
Ethernet is a network medium (the “ether”). TCP/IP is a software based protocol. The broadcast IP address is the address you send a packet to if you want all clients on that subnet to receive it and is not dependent on ethernet, just as TCP/IP is not dependent on ethernet.
Ethernet also has a broadcast address, which allows you to broadcast to all hardware (MAC) addresses on the physical (or wireless) network.
Lost and Confused // April 13, 2008 at 3:13 am
TCO, there is no evidence Steve McIntyre edited the post. Lee said accused McIntyre of doing so. McIntyre denied it. There is no reason to believe Lee’s accusation is correct, especially when a reasonable alternative exists. And of course, as you already agreed, McIntyre did nothing wrong by deleting the post.
Since you already agreed McIntyre was justified in deleting the post, it seems you are stuck relying on Lee’s baseless accusations. I find it disconcerting you would insult me because I refuse to accept baseless accusations.
Also Tamino, a different definition I am more used to is, “To create a false or misleading impression.” The word lie does not require deliberate deception. I do realize there are different interpretations, so I apologize for not being clear. I will attempt to stick with the more common definitions.
To be clear, I did not mean to accuse Al Gore of intentionally making false statements, and I apologize for appearing to do so.
[Response: I'll go with the definition given in the dictionaries.
Wiktionary: To give false information intentionally.
Merriam-Webster: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive.
yourdictionary.com: to make a statement that one knows is false, esp. with intent to deceive.
thefreedictionary.com: A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
dictionary.cambridge.org: something that you say which you know is not true.]
dhogaza // April 13, 2008 at 3:30 am
So which dictionary did you get that from?
The same dictionary that enabled you to fail to parse portions of the Wahl and Annan papers that led you to read them so differently than others here?
You write too well to not understand what “lie” means. I’m not buying it.
Yes, true, the software protocol came from DARPA, not from Xerox Parc, greatly strengthening the libertarian case that nothing good comes from gub’mint.
Sorry for my confusion!
Hank Roberts // April 13, 2008 at 3:43 am
Fifty years ago today:
“I see Earth! It is so beautiful!”
– Yuri Gagarin
Lost and Confused // April 13, 2008 at 3:44 am
The second definition listed by Wikitionary is, “To convey a false image or impression.” Merriam-Webster offers the for its second definition the same as I used, word for word, “To create a false or misleading impression”
There are several meanings for most words. I may have used a less preferred definition, but it is still a valid definition.
Chris O'Neill // April 13, 2008 at 3:47 am
fred:
The only way this has any chance of being true is if fred lives on Antarctica. In that case, congratulations fred!
Hank Roberts // April 13, 2008 at 3:47 am
Lost a line there:
Fifty years ago today:
NASA founded.
12th April, 1961:
“I see Earth! It is so beautiful!”
– Yuri Gagarin
Hank Roberts // April 13, 2008 at 4:50 am
North Pole ski attempt halted by frozen jumble of ice left by last summer’s melt:
http://north.bensaunders.com/journal/entry/postscript/
“the worst ice conditions” mean the thinnest and most fractured ever recorded, a direct result of the unprecedented summer melt of 2007″ he writes, refuting one “Confused” who tries to tell him he, on the ice, is wrong about the conditions there.
That’s his answer to “Confused” who posted an astonishing example of Internet-based ignorance.
Here’s when he hit the jumble of ice:
http://north.bensaunders.com/images/blog/8.jpg
“. The ridge was monstrous: nowhere was it less than two stories high, it stretched as far as either horizon, it was essentially vertical, and it even had a little moat around it (thankfully frozen) just for good measure. It looked just like a frozen fortress, and I half-expected one of Philip Pullman’s armoured polar bears to pop its head over the parapet as I approached.
I skied toward the lowest point I could spot, strapped my skis and poles to the sledge and attacked it with both hands, both feet and both knees. After a surreal vertical climb I wedged myself at the top and hauled the sledge up, hand-over-hand by its knotted trace (the rope that connects sledge to harness). And as I turned to face north, I was greeted with a troubling sight: another giant ridge, then beyond that an endless view of rubble ice so smashed up that it made anything I saw at the start of this expedition seem like child’s play.
An interesting thought occurred as I scrambled on. It’s quite possible that no one else has seen multi-year sea ice (ice that’s thick enough to survive the summer) in this state before. The summer of 2007 saw the biggest Arctic melt ever recorded - more than half the pack ice disappeared completely, and if things continue at this rate, there won’t be any multi-year ice left in a few years’ time. There will come a point, equally, when it’s impossible to reach the North Pole on foot. The consensus among the experts at Eureka was that the ice on the Canadian side this year was more fractured than they’d ever seen before. Right now, camped on a modestly-sized flat bit of ice, surrounded by towering ridges, that’s not a very comforting thought. I feel a bit like a mouse curled up in a rusty car-crusher, hoping it won’t creak and rumble into action tonight. Hopefully things will improve tomorrow, as I can’t take many more days this tough….”
nanny_govt_sucks // April 13, 2008 at 5:58 am
Sure, just ask any European Jew from the 1930’s.
When you talk about Government harm vs good and free society harm vs good, it’s really a question of scale.
When there’s a free society “mistake” and people die you may see body counts in the hundreds, maybe thousands in the worst cases (for instance the Bhopal disaster, though government had a hand in that as well). When governments go bad, the body counts are in the millions (see genocide).
Was creating the Internet or ARPANET a good thing? Yes, but what has our free society produced in the meantime? There are digital TVs, DVD players, computers, digital cameras, cell phones, iPods in every home. Could government have accomplished that?
fred // April 13, 2008 at 7:31 am
The problem is, a rather provincial focus on US politics. All these debates that people here are so obsessed with, creationism, evolution, Ayn Rand, the various institutes, Al Gore and the Democratic Party, they are all local political or cultural issues. This is why so much of the debate appears utterly bizarre to those of us living on another continent, a bunch of people desperately trying to associate acceptance or rejection of a scientific hypothesis about a global issue with some local flavor of their local political system.
I will not refer to debates in Continental Europe, which take place in other languages and so are invisible in the US, but at least have a look at the UK, where the Conservative Party is at least as committed to AGW as the Labour Party. It is simply not a left or right issue.
To give you a sense of how bizarre this looks from outside, let me give an analogy - suppose one were to read in the Arabic language press or blogs a claim that AGW was all a Shia plot. Suppose that on other blogs people went on and on about Sunni deniers, their lies about history, their various heresies.
Please, this is (or may not be) a global problem. Can you all not for a while lift your eyes above the US local scene enough to focus firmly on it, to the exclusion of your other purely local preoccupations?
fred // April 13, 2008 at 7:33 am
Sorry, the Conservative Party is not “committed to AGW”. Wish there were an editor. Leading figures in it do accept it as true. What the party is committed to is a basically Green agenda. Maybe even a Greener one than the Labour Party.
EliRabett // April 13, 2008 at 11:50 am
Ethernet is not a broadcast medium unless you are talking about broadcasting along cables. See interchange about lying and deception. It is a protocol for communication along a set of wires.
TCO // April 13, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Lost and Confused, I certainly do NOT agree that SM was justified in disposing of evidence of an alleged edit of a poster’rs post. Also, erasing Lee’s accusations is outrageous as well.
TCO // April 13, 2008 at 12:14 pm
I didn’t leave because of the Lee controvresy, but because of my own experience that the guy doesn’t play fair. Gerd Burger (a well published scientist, who has written GREAT critical examinations of Mann’s method) also finds that McI doesn’t play fair (refuses to answer questions on science points, that hurt McI’s case.)
Lazar // April 13, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Stats questions…
x, y, and z are time-series.
y ~ x and
y ~ z
are significant at the 95% level.
But for y ~ x + z, only [beta]x passes the t-test.
What does this imply?
What are the differences between multiply regressing y ~ x + z, and regressing z against residuals of y ~ x?
[Response: I presume you're regressing y against both x and z, not against the arithmetic sum x+z.
Basically it means that your two "predictors" x and z are correlated with each other; in a sense they contain much the same information. There's a lot more to say, but I'm taking my wife out to breakfast right now; I'll give you a more complete answer later today.]
Lost and Confused // April 13, 2008 at 2:50 pm
TCO, it is my understanding you gave Steve McIntyre the okay to delete the posts in question. Is this incorrect?
Hank Roberts // April 13, 2008 at 4:03 pm
> it is my understanding
Cite, please? Mindreading? personal communication? you-are-him?
Sez who?
——-
on political ’sides’:
“It is easy enough to find faults with either stifling, state-bureaucratic paternalism or rapacious, cheating-infested thievery by conniving cabals of CEO golf buddies. But, in fact, we should have outgrown all of that simplistic nonsense long ago! And we should be - at long last - studying the things that each hand is good at….
…
And here is one foremost example, that shows just how stupid the dogmatists are.
Levees are the most fundamentally left-handed project of them all.
Only governments build levees on a large scale. Only governments can, or ever will build levees on a grand scale. When private interests feel threatened by floods, they use political pressure and any means possible to get governments to spend money, even taxed from faraway mountain dwellers, in order to save their precious lowland property. And, yes, rich men who despise taxes and big government will do this, as they always have.
And what big projects do you think we have in our future?….”
http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/
TCO // April 13, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Lost: you understand incorrectly.
TCO // April 13, 2008 at 4:37 pm
I approved of erasing hurricane topics. I did NOT approve of erasing evidence of a point in controversy regarding mismoderation. I did NOT approve of erasing Lee’s complaints of mismoderation. And note, that Steve LEFT POSTS that argued against Lee’s complaint. That’s not fair. That’s not true. That’s not brave. It’s scummy is what it is…
Hansen's Bulldog // April 13, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Lazar:
When you regress a predictand (in your case, y) against multiple predictors (x and z) a lot depends on how strongly the predictors are related to each other.
It’s useful to think of the predictand (y) data values as making up a “data vector” in a large-dimensional vector space (with as many dimensions as there are data points). You can also think of the predictors (x and y) as vectors in this same vetor space. When you perform a linear regression on one of the predictors, say x, you’re essentially projecting the data vector onto the direction defined by your predictor variable. If predictand (y) correlates very strongly with predictor (x), then the data vector and predictor vector are nearly in the same direction, i.e., nearly parallel.
If regressing the y values on the z values also gives very strong correlation, then the y vector is also nearly parallel to the z vector. If y is nearly parallel to both x and z, then x and z are nearly parallel to each other. I don’t know how strong the correlations are for your data, but I suspect that’s the case here and probably x and z are correlated with each other.
When you do a multiple regression onto both x and z, you’re essentially projecting the data vector onto the 2-dimensional subspace spanned by the x and z data vectors. This is definitely not the same as projecting onto x, taking the residuals, then projecting them onto z. The two-step process can give a poor fit even when the single-step multiple regression gives a good one.
Just because the coefficient of z in the multiple regression doesn’t pass the usual test, it’s not impossible that the improvement from adding z to the mix isn’t worthwhile. It’s necessary to compare the quality of the fit with just x, to the quality of the fit with both x and z as predictors. There are many ideas about how to do this, lately I’ve taken a liking to the Akaike Information Criterion.
You might gain some insight by trying this: first regress y against x and compute residuals. Then regress z against x and compute residuals (this will eliminate the correlation between your predictors). Finally, regress the residuals of y against the residuals of z
David B. Benson // April 13, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Lost and Confused // April 13, 2008 at 3:44 am — Looking into older dictionaries, one finds only the original definition of the word “lie”. There has been an unfortunate increasing tendency over the last fifty years to use the word with ever less precision, especially in the United States. The newer dictionaries then perforce record these popular mis-usages, to the ruination of another perfectly good word.
But you will understand the word in its original sense via “Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics!”
Stick to the original meaning. Don’t be sloppy. Thanks.
nanny_govt_sucks // April 13, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Exactly! But complicit with the rich who use the power of government for their own interests is an already existing big government ready to respond to their whims.
So what’s the solution? Restrain the rich at the expense of our civil liberties and our economy? I say it is to reduce the size, scope and power of government so the rich will have to use their own resources to save their property. When it is THEIR money being spent, I’m sure the job will be done much better as well.
Lost and Confused // April 13, 2008 at 5:36 pm
I understand now. The posts you agreed to have deleted were in a different thread, and you are not complaining about them (Lee had complained there, and I mistook which of Lee’s points you were supporting). I apologize for the confusion.
I do however, note Steve McIntyre left several of Lee’s posts up, in which Lee states his accusations. By McIntyre’s remarks, the original post was off-topic and deleted as part of a “food fight.” This seems reasonable to me.
I do not see how the deletion could be “damning.” The basic facts are easy to see, even without the post. Lee had a post he claimed McIntyre edited (by truncating). McIntyre denied doing so, but he agreed a truncation happened. The original post would show nothing more than that which both parties agree, namely Lee’s post was truncated.
It could not possibly show that McIntyre edited the post, so why would it be “damning” for McIntyre to have deleted it? Just what do you suggest that post would show, to make its deletion “damning”?
To demonstrate the reason I cannot take these accusations seriously, remember I could just as easily say Lee intentionally truncated his post, just so he could accuse McIntyre of editing it. It would be a baseless accusation, and I would hope nobody would believe it. Just as I would hope nobody would believe Lee’s accusations.
Hank Roberts // April 13, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Recommended reading (particularly for those who haven’t actually looked at the primary sources and believe the PR claims about this material — try reading, and thinking, for yourself using original source material.
Everyone’s entitled to their own opinions — why copy someone else’s?
Start with the facts, held in common.
Preface:
http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC32/Meadows.htm
Main link:
http://www.clubofrome.at/archive/limits.html
cce // April 13, 2008 at 6:14 pm
The free market does many things well, but there are some things that require government.
The switchover to digital TV is a great example of the necessity of government arm twisting.
David B. Benson // April 13, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Governments set standards. NIST used to be named the National Bureau of Standards.
Might have trouble using the roads if there wasn’t an agreed left-right standard.
Hansen's Bulldog // April 13, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Free enterprise, and the profit motive which drives it, is necessary for economic and technological progress. But it can’t be trusted to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.
Hank Roberts // April 13, 2008 at 7:48 pm
So let’s say that you run a blog, and you’ve agreed that someone’s been editing other people’s postings, and you say that you can’t figure out how to tell who has access to edit the files, so you delete everything.
What does this tell you?
TCO // April 13, 2008 at 8:32 pm
The deletion is both damning and characteristic. It matches Steve’s behavior when he behaves badly and instead of apologizing and leaving the evidence of his bad behavior, he erases it. That’s the pattern with him.
Lost and Confused // April 13, 2008 at 8:49 pm
I have no idea what you are talking about Hank Roberts, so I have no answer for your hypothetical question. In what way is it supposed to be relevant?
Barton Paul Levenson // April 13, 2008 at 9:16 pm
matt writes:
I believe James Hansen is a Republican, actually.
Alexander Cockburn springs to mind.
Barton Paul Levenson // April 13, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Lost and confused posts:
You’re lost and confused. A lie is not a mistake and a mistake is not a lie. A lie implies intent, a mistake implies lack of intent.
sod // April 13, 2008 at 9:37 pm
Watts is discussing a german blog post, attacking a recent change in HadCRUT data:
http://tinyurl.com/5gzbmo
when GISS can be shown to be highest, it is an error in their data.
if other data shows similar results to GISS, it is a conspiracy…
Lost and Confused // April 13, 2008 at 10:18 pm
TCO, you failed to demonstrate how deleting the post could be “damning.” What could possibly have been lost from that deletion? The basic facts are known, even without the post, so just what are you accusing (through implication) Steve McIntyre of hiding?
Also Barton Paul Levenson, Tamino and I have already had an exchange on that subject. In it, I believe it was reasonably shown my usage was justified. I have already admitted my wording was unclear and have apologized for it. Does this satisfy you?
[Response: I disagree that using the term "lie" to indicate an unintentional mistake is justified. I believe you when you say it wasn't your intention to imply deliberate deception. I urge avoiding the word "lie" to indicate unintenional mistakes.]
Barton Paul Levenson // April 13, 2008 at 10:23 pm
nanny writes:
And that’s what’s wrong with Libertarianism. If enough people don’t feel guilty, the problem won’t be solved and innocent people will die. No, such things should not be left to the free market. When there’s no market incentive to provide something everybody needs, that’s when we need governments. There’s a difference between Libertarianism and Anarcho-Capitalism. There are some good arguments for the former but none for the latter.
steven mosher // April 13, 2008 at 10:36 pm
I have proof that Lee’s post was inadvertantly
trunc
TCO // April 13, 2008 at 10:43 pm
Lost: Looking at the posts, the sequence, SM responses etc. could be useful. It’s like Sandy Burgler’s destroyed original notes documents. We can’t tell if there were annotations on them or not.
TCO // April 13, 2008 at 10:44 pm
Lost: It’s an issue in contention. Destroying the record is inappropriate.
Barton Paul Levenson // April 13, 2008 at 10:46 pm
Lost and Confused posts:
I can have no respect for you until you repent of the rape, arson and high treason you’ve been committing.
And have you stopped beating your wife?
Hank Roberts // April 13, 2008 at 10:57 pm
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2008/04/short_term_temperature_trends.php#more
Hank Roberts // April 13, 2008 at 11:01 pm
http://xkcd.com/164/
steven mosher // April 13, 2008 at 11:15 pm
TCO I have a problem with Hadley data. It’s changing right under my nose with no explanation.
Just like GISS the past data is changing.
Now to be clear let me explain why I think this is an Issue.
1. There is nothing wrong with readjusting data. However, you need to.
A. NOTE THE CHANGE
B. EXPLAIN THE CHANGE
C. INFORM PREVIOUS USERS OF THE DATA
2. The planet is still warming. AGW is still true
The sloppiness bothers me and fuels denialist fires. Both HADCRU and GISS do this. They need engineering change control.
Hank Roberts // April 14, 2008 at 12:12 am
Is there a physical chemist here?
I’ve been noticing the suggestions to increase cloud cover by mimicing what happens over ships
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0469%281966%29023%3C0778%3AACL%3E2.0.CO%3B2
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/Images/PacificVapor_M2002119.jpg
One suggestion is to spray sea water into the air.
Question — would this tactic change (I’d guess increase) the amount of CO2 dissolved in the nearby/downwind upper ocean significantly, at the same time?
I would guess not — I think putting these cloud nuclei up is more a matter of timing and location to increase cloud layers but probably can’t compare to the amount of water and air churned together by the normal round of ocean storms.
Lost and Confused // April 14, 2008 at 12:59 am
TCO, you have again failed to demonstrate anything that would be gained by having the original post. If nothing would be gained by having the original post, then it seems implausible the post was deleted to hide anything. If the post was not deleted to hide something, but rather to remove a “food fight,” it would be difficult to call the deletion “damning.”
Tamino, by saying my usage was “justified,” I only mean to say I was using an actual definition. I have no intention of using “lie” in that way again here, as that usage was poor and misleading given the context. Using it that way is mostly a habit gained from literature, where precision is often sacrificed for literary technique.
Phil. // April 14, 2008 at 1:48 am
Regarding the German Blog being discussed by Watts et al. it appears to be confusion between the land only data and SST data!
steven mosher // April 14, 2008 at 2:33 am
Phil, ya the changes i see are minor little things, those from the german site have to be the german guys mistake. they are huge.
John Mashey // April 14, 2008 at 3:46 am
Hank writes:
“matt writes:
Has anyone met a believer whose roots are not in anti-growth and anti-big oil?”
Yes, lots.
How about an ex-Chairman of Shell Oil?
http://www.davidstrahan.com/blog/?p=40
Hank Roberts // April 14, 2008 at 4:06 am
No I don’t.
EliRabett // April 14, 2008 at 4:29 am
Hank,
No, but it would put up a bunch of CCNs the question is how many of them would grow. It would be most effective to toss a bunch of SO2 into the mix.
Chris O'Neill // April 14, 2008 at 7:08 am
sucks:
Incompetently missing the point as usual. The point was NOT that governments have not done any unreasonable things. It was that some of the things governments have done are reasonable.
And the implied solution appears to be to get rid of governments completely. Yes, that will work really well.
When there’s a free society “mistake” and people die you may see body counts in the hundreds, maybe thousands in the worst cases
Julian Flood // April 14, 2008 at 9:51 am
re Hank Roberts // April 14, 2008 at 12:12 am
The amounts of seawater used are so tiny I’d be surprised if they had any measurable effect: from the Latham, Salter et al paper -
quote Latham calculated that the quantities of spray needed in
suitable regions are surprisingly small. An annual increase of
the spray rate by 10 to the 18 drops per second would allow the
present rate of rise of CO2 to continue with no temperature rise.
If the spray were done from 50 new sources each year, spraying
one micron drops, the water mass would be only ten kilograms
of sea water per second from each source.unquote
Tiny changes in the CCN numbers or structure can have enormous effects on cloud cover: now you see why I wonder what oil pollution and surfactant spillage are doing to the oceanic strato-cumulus. Do surfactant coated particles rain out more easily — ie do they coalesce onto drizzle droplets and fall out, thinning the cloud and lowering albedo? Does a polluted surface produce fewer CCNs? The pollution is real: next time you’re flying over the sea, look up-sun and you can, almost anywhere, see long swirls of smoothed water. The pollution is real. Have we studied the effects? Google ‘Nasa shiptracks’ to see how starved certain areas are of condensation nuclei.
This is why I asked LB for changes in smooth and ruffled seawater emissivity and why I asked Vic about how much cloud cover equals the calculated CO2 forcing on the Summer Snow thread — piggy-backing on their answers will give me some idea of how big the Kriegesmarine effect should be to be a player. I keep coming out with less than one percent cloud change and about five percent surface smoothing, but this seems too low to be real.
Oil pollution is enough to cover the world ocean every two weeks. Yes, yes, I know, .
JF
Julian Flood // April 14, 2008 at 9:54 am
damn and blast the less than and more than — insert odd effects bracket rave, froth, swivel eyes close odd effects bracket…
JF
Hank Roberts // April 14, 2008 at 1:46 pm
> An annual increase of the spray rate
> by 10 to the 18 drops per second
> would allow the present rate of rise
> of CO2 to continue with no
> temperature rise.
Yeah, and assures the loss of aragonite and calcite this century. Pity.
climatewonk // April 14, 2008 at 3:50 pm
But Steve gets tired deleting off-topic posts … He’s too busy writing papers to be submitted to science journals to be moderating his blog more thoroughly I guess.
Julian Flood // April 14, 2008 at 4:35 pm
HR, have you read this?
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006JGRC..11108008F
Increased net CO2 outgassing in the upwelling region of the southern Bering Sea in a period of variable marine climate between 1995 and 2001 Fransson Chierici Nojiri
Where is the CO2 coming from if the sea level is going up faster than the atmosphere? Very odd. Has that been resolved?
JF
L Miller // April 14, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Worse yet it totally misses the fact that the Nazi’s were individuals acting on their own outside of government until weakened government institutions allowed them to take control of the government. The failure wasn’t too much government power it was a result of the democratically elected government preceding the Nazi’s having to little power.
Dictatorships and authoritarian regimes are not the result of a state having too much power they result for a state having insufficient power to constrain wealth or powerful individuals within society. If you want to make a democratic state into a dictatorship or monarchy the surest way to get it is to weaken the state so it can no longer limit the actions of its most powerful citizens.
Hank Roberts // April 14, 2008 at 5:17 pm
JF, what relation do you understand there is between CO2 level and sea level? Do you have a reference for one?
You wrote:
> Where is the CO2 coming from
[the deeper water]
> if the sea level is going up faster than the atmosphere?
[who says it is? cite please?]
[perhaps you mean you believe the amount of CO2 dissolved in the ocean is increasing faster than the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere — but why would you think that? I know no support; cite please?
>Very odd. Has that been resolved?
I don’t see what you think is odd or a problem.
You know the solubility of gas in water changes with temperature; you know the rate of change in the atmosphere.
nanny_govt_sucks // April 14, 2008 at 5:29 pm
cce:
Wow. You couldn’t have picked a worse topic to try and make your point. The heavily regulated airwaves should have been available to our free society long ago. We’d have digital, analog, and many other choices as well. The “switchover” should have simply been a deregulation and a closing of the FCC. Then no “arm-twisting” would have been necessary.
David:
But governments certainly are not needed for this. Just look at XML.
Hansen’s Bulldog:
And the Constitution is exactly where most libertarians draw the line where government involvement should take place! See Article 1 Section 8 of that great document.
Barton:
Can you provide a concrete example of what you’re talking about?
Chris:
Why would you assume such an extreme? No one has implied this. Libertarian solutions involve limiting government, not getting rid of it completely. How limited? See the US Constitution for starters.
Hank Roberts // April 14, 2008 at 7:04 pm
> no market incentive to provide
> something everybody needs
http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/x6557e/X6557E00.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/lead/
http://www.wwnorton.com/college/history/ralph/workbook/ralprs36.htm
Julian Flood // April 14, 2008 at 7:49 pm
quote JF, what relation do you understand there is between CO2 level and sea level? Do you have a reference for one? unquote
Sloppy drafting, sorry. I meant level of CO2 in the sea.
quote > if the sea level is going up faster than the atmosphere?
[who says it is? cite please?] unquote
Did you read the link? And if you’ve got a link for a non-pay version of the paper I’d be interested. The abstract says “From linear regression of seasonally detrended data we obtained an annual pCO2sw increase of 6.5 +/- 1.4 μatm yr-1 and 11 +/- 1.9 μatm yr-1 in the basin and shelf slope, respectively. This was higher than the observed pCO2air increase (between 0.47 +/- 0.28 and 0.96 +/- 0.62 μatm yr-1), indicating the importance of other processes than oceanic CO2 uptake from the atmosphere to explain the pCO2sw increase.”
quote [the deeper water] unquote
I thought the deep water was operating on a timescale of centuries. maybe it would pay to look at the isotopic composition of the C — if it’s low in C13 then we’ll need to do a bit of thinking about the Suess effect — for example, the higher partial pressure of the gas in the sea may lead to outgassing and if it has an organic signature then the smoking gun relating to fossil fuel signature is in trouble.
You don’t happen to have a good detailed graph of isotope changes for the last hundred years or so? I’ve been looking for one for months.
JF
Hank Roberts // April 14, 2008 at 8:40 pm
Nope, I’m just an amateur reader in these topics, no academic library access.
I know that increased turnover of cold deep water (which will be supersaturated with CO2 when it reaches the surface) is predicted and observed — it got one of those mocking threads over at CA when the observations were published, pretending the increased upwelling of cold water proved cooling rather than confirmed a prediction from warming models.
You might want to look at the solubility profiles for calcite and aragonite at depth for various temperatures — those determine what kind of rock the sediment eventually forms, whether there are detectable shells in it (I recall the fieldworker’s distinction between limestone and dolomite — test by applying a drop of acid to the rock to see if it fizzes evolving CO2).
Who are the scientists who work in the field of isotope changes?
Aside: It never hurts to phone and ask them, once you’ve read their publications. My dad was a grad student advisor for decades; that was one of the lessons he always taught biology grad students, to study a person’s work then phone their department secretary and ask that fierce gatekeeper (grin) when the researcher might have time for a phone call. Nowadays we use email, but I think the old method has its advantages too.
L Miller // April 14, 2008 at 8:42 pm
Without heavy regulation, broad spectrum noise would make radio communication of any kind virtually impossible.
Hank Roberts // April 14, 2008 at 8:43 pm
One more on spraying salt water:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080408163231.htm
—-excerpt—–
… changes our view of the chemical transformations that occur in ship engine exhaust plumes, and tells us that emissions from marine vessels may be polluting the globe to a greater extent than currently estimated.”
…..
The paper “High levels of nitryl chloride in the polluted subtropical marine boundary layer” is available in the April 6, 2008 advance online edition of the journal Nature Geoscience. The print version is scheduled to appear on May 1st, 2008.
———-end excerpt——
nanny_govt_sucks // April 14, 2008 at 10:48 pm
And it would be virtually impossible to communicate with Markup Language as well, but somehow we did it (XML) without the heavy hand of government force.
TCO // April 14, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Hank: Yeah. Nothing wrong with calling. I actually called Hoskings with one of my previous attempts to pin SM down.
Mosh: Wasn’t aware of shifting data, but agree with all your points on proper practice. That’s motherhood.
Lost: I’m sorry, I was unable to convince you. I have nothing more to say and we are repeating ourselves. Understood that we disagree.
trrll // April 14, 2008 at 10:59 pm
Lost and Confused, what you are observing here is that most people find it deceptive–verging on dishonest–to use the word “lie” in full knowledge of its connotation of dishonesty, and then, when challenged to justify the accusation, to retreat to a linguistic bait-&-switch insistence that you are only using a “dictionary definition”–as though you are now only beginning to learn the English language, know the word only from the dictionary, and were until this moment somehow unaware of the connotations that the word conveys in common usage.
At this point, the honorable course of action is to apologize and to swear never to do it again.
TCO // April 14, 2008 at 11:13 pm
The ability to admit one was wrong is the last courage that one learns. Dink Stover didn’t know it in The Varmint, when he was placed in Coventry. And many, many of you (us?) have not learned it yet.
TCO // April 14, 2008 at 11:27 pm
In the latest flacid peer review thread, there is something really sad. We hear people like Willis complaining about their treatment in peer review, when they’ve already shown (on CA, on Climate of the Past comments) that they lack the ability to write cogent arguments. The issue is not that these guys are getting shut out. The issue is that they can’t do clear analysis!
TCO // April 14, 2008 at 11:28 pm
Peer review is helpful here PURELY as a clerical/stylistic mechanism to prevent low quality from getting through. Unfortunately, these never had a Ph.D. or never did a good one types think they are being persecuted for lack of credential, when they just haven’t learned good standards yet.
steven mosher // April 14, 2008 at 11:39 pm
TCO.
I remember the time went through my first murder board.
Afterwards, the colonel called me in to his office. Gave me the thumbs up, but left me with these lessons. Lessons, I have never forgotten, but lessons I haven’t always learnt so well, sadly.
“Learn these simple sentences son,” he intoned.
I dont know
I was wrong
I am sorry.
“Yes Sir. May I suggest an additional one? ”
“Of course son.”
“kiss my ass”
The colonel was not pleased with moshpit wit.
but he couldnt hide his grin.
TCO // April 14, 2008 at 11:58 pm
We used to have something called the balls to brains ratio…when playing cat and mouse with the bad guys.
David B. Benson // April 15, 2008 at 12:32 am
I don’t know how we wandered into this, but
“There are old soldiers
and there are bold soldiers.
But there are no old, bold soldiers.”
L Miller // April 15, 2008 at 12:57 am
Marc Andreessen regarding his invention of the Web Browser:
“if it had been left to private industry, it wouldn’t have happened, at least, not until years later”
BTW as an added bonus the guy who wrote and sponsored the legislation Andreessen was talking about… Al Gore
steven mosher // April 15, 2008 at 3:36 am
Sorry TCO. my tongue has a mind of its own.
Hank Roberts // April 15, 2008 at 3:41 am
Shakespeare, Hamlet (1603):
“For tis the sport to have the enginer Hoist with his owne petar”.
cce // April 15, 2008 at 3:51 am
Re: DTV
You can’t “deregulate” the airwaves anymore than you can deregulate shipping lanes. You can’t have “digital, analog, and many other choices” — that’s the whole point. There isn’t enough room for everyone to do everything they want. If you want to come up with your own standards, you can buy part of the newly freed spectrum and do whatever you want (even give away the service if you choose). It will cost you a few billion dollars, however.
For the free part of the spectrum, there has to an agreed upon standard, and ATSC, love it or hate it, went through a long process. Granny shouldn’t have to deal with sleazy joe’s 100 megawatt proprietary internet service screwing up her reception. She needs her stories.
XML will operate along side other standards. It’s not either or. It’s software. It is not an appliance that relies on public airwaves.
FYI, Article 1, section 8 gives Congress the power to regulate commerce.
Lost and Confused // April 15, 2008 at 5:00 am
This is getting tiresome trrll. I used the word “lie” in a way I use on a regular basis, indeed the one I use most often. Initially it did not occur to me this would create confusion. When I did, I apologized and stated I would refrain from doing it again.
I cannot take your accusations of malice seriously, as I know it was merely a result of different environments. I cannot take you seriously, because you did not bother to read the full discussion. You are now telling me the “honorable thing” to do is what I have already done so, several times.
I would hope we could move pass this.
MarkeyMouse // April 15, 2008 at 5:24 am
“amid growing unease over the planting of biofuel crops as food prices rocket and riots against poverty and hunger multiply worldwide.
UN Special Rapporteur for the Right to Food Jean Ziegler told German radio Monday that the production of biofuels is “a crime against humanity” because of its impact on global food prices.”
Discuss.
dhogaza // April 15, 2008 at 5:29 am
How in the world can someone who doesn’t know the meaning of one of the most common words in the language expect to be understood?
There isn’t a dictionary in the realm that will define “lie” as being “an unintentional mistake”. The intent to deceive is inherent in the definition.
Since you don’t know the language, we can safely ignore everything you write, I guess.
nanny_govt_sucks // April 15, 2008 at 7:07 am
LOL! Try reading it again.
Well, internet broadcasts are resolving that issue. For the spectrum, standards can be agreed to without the use of force.
Why should it cost me anything? Certainly I have just as much right to a portion of the spectrum as the next guy. Who grabbed the entire spectrum in the first place and said everyone who wants to use it must pay? By what right can they do this?
nanny_govt_sucks // April 15, 2008 at 8:37 am
Well, it was happening. Mosaic wasn’t the first web browser. WorldWideWeb/Nexus and Viola predate it, and I don’t think Gore was involved in those.
Hank Roberts // April 15, 2008 at 12:46 pm
> Who grabbed the entire spectrum in
> the first place and said everyone who
> wants to use it must pay?
Marconi
> By what right can they do this?
Discovery, and first occupation
The spark gap transmitter _did_ occupy the entire spectrum, and only one Marconi station could operate at a time within broadcast range.
It wasn’t a clean signal:
http://www.acmi.net.au/aic/sparkx1.AIFF
The capacitors required were huge:
http://www.acmi.net.au/aic/spark_marc_caps.GIF
Note that it would have been rather risky to stand near those plates once they were in use.
I suppose you could argue that competitors gathered together and took the airwaves away from Marconi by nefarious means. Isn’t that how government is described in this view?
A whole lot of people (both before Marconi’s time, alongside, and after) wanted to use radio. It took many nations quite considerable organization to find a way to do that without each station stepping on all the others.
– N6VSB
steven mosher // April 15, 2008 at 12:52 pm
L&C. you’ve tried, ” i was wrong” you’ve tried
” I am sorry” I suggest you see my list above
for the next thing to try.
Hank Roberts // April 15, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Relevance?
Airwaves : Atmosphere
Marconi signal : large coal burning
Bluetooth/WiFi : gas, diesel, tobacco smoke
No kidding. Enough small sources can, unmanaged, make the shared resource unusable for everyone:
http://www.mf2fm.com/blog/index.php?entry=entry051130-065508
JCH // April 15, 2008 at 1:17 pm
“But it will emerge from my dialogue with the American people. I’ve traveled to every part of this country during the last six years. During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country’s economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system. …” Al Gore, 2000
“BOTH OF THESE AMENDMENTS SEEK NEW INFORMATION ON CRITICAL PROBLEMS OF TODAY. THE COMPUTER NETWORK STUDY ACT IS DESIGNED TO ANSWER CRITICAL QUESTIONS ON THE NEEDS OF COMPUTER TELECOMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS OVER THE NEXT 15 YEARS. FOR EXAMPLE, WHAT ARE THE FUTURE REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPUTERS IN TERMS OF QUANTITY AND QUALITY OF DATA TRANSMISSION, DATA SECURITY, AND SOFTWEAR [sic] COMPATIBILITY? WHAT EQUIPMENT MUST BE DEVELOPED TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE HIGH TRANSMISSION RATES OFFERED BY FIBER OPTIC SYSTEMS? …” Al Gore, 1986
Hank Roberts // April 15, 2008 at 1:29 pm
> World Wide Web … Viola
Check your history:
http://www.inf.fu-berlin.de/lehre/SS01/hc/www/www2.html
in November 1990, TBL started working on WorldWideWeb …
in 1991, the WWW project and source code was made public, so that other programmers could develop their own browsers. For example,…ViolaWWW, written by Pei Wei in Berkeley…. Berners-Lee, there was a time, when Viola was the best program to browse the web.
Timeline:
http://www.let.leidenuniv.nl/history/ivh/chap2.htm
1990 ARPANET… had been reduced to a pale shadow of its former self and was wound up.
1990 … Archie was developed at McGill University, Montreal. …
1991, the NSF removed its restriction on private access to its backbone computers …
“Information superhighway” project came into being. This was the name given to popularise Al Gore’s High Performance Computing Act which provided funds for further research into computing and improving the infrastructure of the Internet’s (US) structure. Its largest provisions from 1992-96 were $1,500 mln for the NSF, $600 mln for NASA and $660 for the Department of Energy.
… in 1991 the World Wide Web was released to the public.
—————————-
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. Facts can be cited. Please do.
george // April 15, 2008 at 2:18 pm
On April 12
Hansen’s Bulldog said:
You can say that again… and again …and again…(and again) ….
OR, what is far better, just delete the garbage because some folks seem to be under the misapprehension that your blog is a”chat room” where they are free to post pretty much anything they want — not only stuff that is not “climate science related”, but stuff that is not even remotely science-related.
I for one read your blog to learn something about climate science and data analysis in general. It is one of the best on the web in that regard, as far as I am concerned.
I speak only for myself, of course, but I could certainly live without some of the comments like these (from above):
A comment made on April 14:
Another from April 14
Or this one Made on April 15
[Response: I realize it's a problem. But allowing a certain amount of freedom in discussion does explore areas I ordinarily don't address, particularly regarding policy issues, which I generally don't post on because I really don't know much about it.
I've often been told I'm too lenient in allowing comments. You should see some of the stuff I *do* reject!! I think I'll try being a severe moderator in topical threads but a loose one on open threads. We'll see how it goes; moderating comments seems to be an art form, and I'm still learning.]
cce // April 15, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Re: Commerce
Article 1, Section 8
“To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;”
Re: Internet vs Airwaves
The internet is a series of physical links, with flow control at each node. If the links are maxed out, you add more, and end users don’t even notice a change.
The airwaves are potentially open to anyone. If there are no rules, and too many people try to broadcast on or near the same frequency, that frequency becomes useless or unreliable. If new fangled ways of adding more data onto the same bandwidth come about, every client has to upgrade, which is not a good idea for an appliance.
Barton Paul Levenson // April 15, 2008 at 3:58 pm
nanny writes:
Everybody needs clean air. But an industrial or transportation company has no incentive not to dump their waste into the atmosphere, where it hurts everybody. In fact, they have incentive (maximizing profit and minimizing costs) to do just that. That’s an example of where government needs to step in. It’s an externality, an old concept in economics which libertarians deny exists.
L Miller // April 15, 2008 at 4:19 pm
There were 50 web sites at the end of 1991, 150 web sites at the end of 1992. The WWW didn’t start to proliferate until people tried Mosaic. This went hand in hand with incentives to enhance the internet backbone.
Prior to the 1991 bill the internet was in a deadlock, because the tools were poor there were few people using the internet, because there were few people using the internet there was no commercial interest, because there was no commercial interest there was no need for a robust backbone and because there wasn’t a robust background there it was useless to develop better tools or expand the number of users.
Business, especially startups, work best when it can focus on a particular area, but in the case of the internet wildly different areas needed to advance at the same time to support each other. Any startup who tried to do it all would certainly fail because they lacked focus, but if they would also fail if someone else didn’t focus on the other key components. This is where a government with some vision can play an absolutely key role in getting things started, and IMO it’s very similar to the deadlock in dealing with climate change now.
Be it new technologies or environmental issues you need government to:
1) Create the initial conditions required by private business
2) Ensure private industry competes of grounds that benefit rather then hurt the public. (I.E. competing based on who can produce something with the lowest input of cost and labor is good, competing based on who can save money by denying employees medical benefits is bad)
3) Prevent the formation of monopolies and trusts
4) Perform functions where there is too much overhead or no clear business model
L Miller // April 15, 2008 at 4:29 pm
The economics actually work fine, the real problem IMO is that Libertarians are more then willing to look the other way and ignore clear violations of free market principles when profits are at stake.
In this particular case businesses don’t pay the cost of dirty air, therefore it breaks one of the cardinal rules of an effective free market: a producer must pay the full cost of what they produce. Allowing business to pollute freely is in effect a subsidy and should be opposed by people who want a truly effective free market.
Hank Roberts // April 15, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Speaking of all the above, no matter which spoke of the political wheel you represent or how far out you are from the axis of spin, you’ll enjoy this. Trust me:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qD-hAuCBDLA
David B. Benson // April 15, 2008 at 6:18 pm
MarkeyMouse // April 15, 2008 at 5:24 am — I suspect a climate policy web site is more appropriate for your discussiion item.
But this is a Open Thread:
Lester Brown, formerly of World Watch Institute, has for years warned of impending food shortage, long before the popularity of biofuels.
I’ll hazard a guess that the greatly increased costs of transportation fuels, together with the growth in consumerism in India and especially China, explains a good portion of the current crisis. The very bad wheat crop in Australia, together with just so-so yields in North America explains some more of it. Maybe corn for ethanol explains a bit more.
trrll // April 15, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Lost and Confused,
I am sorry to hear that you have been an habitual offender, but it is never to late to learn. It sounds as if we are doing you a great favor by helping you to break you of this very bad habit that, whether you are aware of it or not, undermines whatever point that you are trying to make.
Perhaps the same people who neglected to inform you of the connotations of the word “lie” (well understood by everybody except, apparently, yourself) have also failed to explain to you that “I am sorry but…” [followed by a defense of the actions that gave offense] does not, in the opinion of most people, constitute an “apology.”
nanny_govt_sucks // April 15, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Agreed. And we do. Lawsuit threat is a powerful force in stopping many polluters. But just watch what happens when we trust government to watch over polluting industries. A little money under the table, a favor here, a prostitute there and the industry can pollute away. It takes lawsuits against _government_ to get them to enforce the regulations they promised! Talk about waste! If we simply enforced private property rights we wouldn’t need all the government involvement and associated corruption, waste, and damage to our environment.
nanny_govt_sucks // April 15, 2008 at 6:51 pm
But it is government that CREATES monopolies! Only the force of government can push aside competition and hand huge subsidies and sectors of business to a favored company. Commonly, people will bring up the rail barons of the 1890’s or whenever. But just look at the government land grants they received! Later, government “broke up” the monopolies and “saved us”! But it is always government that creates the problem in the first place.
L Miller // April 15, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Lawsuit threat isn’t desirable for anyone. You can’t run a business knowing any error will make you the victim of a trillion dollar class action law suit, running a court system and paying the lawyers to handle that legal system is prohibitively expensive, and for the public it’s pointless because all a successful suit means it the company declares bankruptcy and walks away while you still live with the damage they did.
It’s much better to simply establish clear boundaries and let business figure out the most cost effective way to stay within those boundaries.
Is Microsoft a government created monopoly? Is Intel becoming a monopoly because of government interference? If all the major banks decided to merge would that be a government created monopoly?
Nearly all businesses progress towards monopoles over time and given the opportunity all businessmen will collude behind closed doors because it’s by far the most profitable way of doing business. Why do you think Adam Smith devotes so much time to this particular topic in Wealth of Nations?
L Miller // April 15, 2008 at 7:50 pm
It looks like I messed up my closing tag on the second quote, the last 2 paragraphs were my response, not part of the quote. Is there a preferred method for asking to have something like that fixed?
[Response: Politely. It's fixed.]
Hank Roberts // April 15, 2008 at 7:52 pm
> Only the force of government can push
> aside competition
Who are you quoting there? So many people could have said that.
Bill Gates? Andrew Carnegie? John D. Rockefeller? Charles M. Schwab?
There’s little difference between a government and a corporation if neither has oversight and control by citizens.
nanny_govt_sucks // April 15, 2008 at 9:14 pm
LOL! Microsoft is a monopoly? Last I heard Linux and Mac were still around and Office-like products are springing up on the net like poppies FOR FREE.
I’m sure Intel benefits from government contracts, but they too have AMD as a competitor. Funny that when a company charges a lower and lower price for their products they are accused of competing “unfairly”. I’m all for low prices, aren’t you?
The Federal Reserve IS a government-created monopoly of banks. See the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.
nanny_govt_sucks // April 15, 2008 at 9:27 pm
Government uses force. Private companies use persuasion.
No one forced software company X to sell out to Microsoft. Bill made them a good offer and they took it. It’s different when your business is suddenly outlawed and the Feds break in a take all your assets!
Government, contrary to popular belief, has little oversight built into it. An election every 2 or 4 years is about it. Once elected, politicians do pretty much what they want and don’t have to pay for the consequences of their actions. In the private sector millions of customers vote everyday with their dollars. Bad business decisions are rewarded with a lot of red ink on the company growth chart.
DonShmon // April 15, 2008 at 10:16 pm
I have been browsing the site and ran across an issue that didn’t seem to be closed on an old thread. I don’t see anyone adding comments to old threads so I assume I should post my question here.
(Note: Please excuse any obvious ignorance, I’m _not_ a climatologist, just someone who finds it fascinating — if tiresome — to argue with denialists).
In the comments on the Red-White-Blue post (http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/01/12/red-white-blue-noise-that-is/) , Hans Erren stated he had a follow-up communication with Douglass and from what I can tell, at least from that report, he concluded that satellite measurements indicate a 1K increase / 2xCO2.
I didn’t see a follow-up to this. Is that a valid conclusion? Does this mean that the Douglass & Clader is in disagreement with the 1.5K - 4.5K / 2xCO2 that is in the IPCC reports?
Thanks!
dhogaza // April 15, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Perhaps it would’ve been better if government had just contracted out the construction and ran the trains itself.
Because I assume you’re aware that private industry didn’t have the means to finance the first transcontinental railroad given that no market existed at that time.
So, it was built by a combination of direct construction payments and the promise of potentially huge profit through the sale of land, which kept government’s investment down (at the time, the land was plentiful and, without the railroad, not worth much at the time).
In the case of the Union Railroad Company, the problem was obviously the lack of federal oversight and regulation, which allowed the principles to siphon off the federal construction money into Credite Mobiliér (sp) while saddling the railroad with the debt.
Something like the transcontinental railroad, by definition, requires huge amounts of capital, quantities that private industry historically has rarely been able to raise.
David B. Benson // April 15, 2008 at 11:14 pm
I am attempting a amatuer attempt to determine some values for ‘natural climate variablity’ which I will take as the absolute value of the 50-year change in termperature. In this comment we study just part of the Eem (Eemian interglacial, termination 2), using the data devloped by Petit, et al. from
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok.html
with dates from 125989 ya to 131840 ya according to their data assignment method. The Eem Climatic Optimum is at 128357 ya.
The temperature data is given every 50 years (with a slight adjustment now and again), so I treat the temperature data by adjusting for the difference of the two dates to be exactly 50 years and then consider the data to be equally spaced rathr than bothered to use weighted standard deviations, etc. The 109 data points provides 108 differences in 50 year temperatures, with the following statistics:
min= 0.00 @ 127310
max= 1.42 @ 129374
mean= 0.23
sD= 0.22
skewness= 2.06
kurtosis= 7.07
with temperatures (in K) given to two decimals, as is the data. (sD is the standard deviation.)
Comments, such as on the adequacy and meaningfulness of the results, are most welcome. I’d like to make any changes before doing this for two intervals in the Holocene.
[Response: There are two things to be aware of using the Vostok temperature data. First, it's temperature in a limited area, so it's likely to show greater variation than global average. Second, the phenomenon of "polar amplification" definitely applies. As near as I can determine, Vostok temperature change throughout ice ages is about twice the global temperature change, so the changes you see there should be halved to get an estimate of global temperature change.]
L Miller // April 15, 2008 at 11:40 pm
AMD will be dead in 5 years, and even now have no power in the marketplace.
Neither Linux or Mac OS have significant market share, and it’s pretty tough for them to lower their prices any further. Let me clear things up for you, MS got where it is by selling inferior copies of other peoples products, locking them out using product interdependency until they could no longer put new products out the door then jacking up their prices. They are a classic vertical monopoly.
The Federal Reserve is an arm of government with the specific responsibility of managing US money supply. This is an *ESSENTAIL* function in a modern economy. Too much money supply creates inflation or even hyperinflation. Insufficient money supply creates a deflationary economy which is economic death. (A deflationary economy means burying your money in your back yard is a superior investment to investing in a business, so business simply shut their doors.
nanny_govt_sucks // April 16, 2008 at 12:11 am
I think I’ve heard it all. The Fed inflates our currency so a dollar is worth only 4 cents and this is “essential”! Loaning money to the US govt at interest (when the govt can coin its own money) is “essenital”! The Fed with the powers given to it by government CREATES inflation and deflation!
nanny_govt_sucks // April 16, 2008 at 12:18 am
The Great Northern Railroad was privately funded. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Northern_Railway_(U.S.)
So you don’t need government even for these “big” projects.
Hank Roberts // April 16, 2008 at 2:31 am
So let’s get together, launch Triana, fund the ongoing project management, and resolve this silly arguing by actually measuring what we’re conjecturing about.
Hank Roberts // April 16, 2008 at 3:42 pm
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/04/why-the-us-poli.html
Hank Roberts // April 16, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Excerpt from the above, for those who don’t click links. (Before you blow up after reading the excerpt, please, read the article — read the discussion that leads to this conclusion):
——excerpt——
The need for regulation So what does this all mean? In a nutshell, it suggests that the federal government’s reliance on voluntary measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will likely prove unsuccessful. The success of voluntary programs depends on their ability to achieve meaningful corporate participation. Such participation will ultimately depend on the payoff to shareholders. Our research shows that shareholder value declines when companies join Climate Leaders and pledge large cuts in their carbon footprint. Indeed, greenhouse gas emissions, like most other pollutants, seem to constitute a classic example of an externality, where the overall cost to society is not internalised by the individual corporation. In light of such market failure, federal regulation is a viable way to achieve a broad reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. It is high time for the U.S. federal government to face the facts and take real measures to seriously fight global warming.
——end excerpt——-
Hank Roberts // April 16, 2008 at 6:16 pm
http://plankt.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/28/9/871
(And much else in the related links — the plankton biologists and climate modelers begin to do serious work collaboratively, with much useful argumentation)
dhogaza // April 16, 2008 at 6:47 pm
You know what that means, don’t you, NGS? That the capital required to build the railroad was reduced because they were able to cobble together bits that had been partially funded via the traditional land grant process?
And, you do recognize that the market for their services existed due to growth of the US West which came largely because of the earlier railroads that the government had funded?
Tapping into a market created in large part by government investment doesn’t require the capital required to build a new market on your own. You have to consider the big picture, dude.
Hank Roberts // April 16, 2008 at 7:17 pm
For reference:
On delay, regulation and public health, pointing out how the ’sound science’ PR program continues to spread lies even about old stories to justify delay in new situations.
Prompted by seeing someone post “Alar” and “hoax” in a thread at scienceblogs.
Same belief tanks involved, no surprise.
http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/full/95/S1/S81
Excerpt here:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/04/a_teenager_doesnt_believe_global_warming.php#comment-838008
David B. Benson // April 16, 2008 at 9:29 pm
Hank Roberts — What’s wrong with dotEarth?
That I started commenting there?
Lost and Confused // April 16, 2008 at 10:02 pm
I have no intention of doing that steven mosher. I feel the issue is satisfactorily resolved, so I will instead just try to avoid responding. If people wish to continue to make it an issue, that is their decision. It is my decision not to participate in it.
On another topic, was anyone else baffled when they read, “The Fed inflates our currency so a dollar is worth only 4 cents…”?
Hank Roberts // April 16, 2008 at 10:09 pm
Chuckle. Nope!
David B. Benson // April 16, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Natural and anthropogenically influenced climate variability —
Previously on this Open Thread I posted values for the Eem. Here are values for the early Holocene, before there could have been much anthropogenic influence in the climate and then for the last approximately 2000 years, when W.F. Ruddiman’s hypothesis would begin to take full force.
The maximum 50-year change for the late Holocene data is amplified by the fact that the intervals in the data are about 25 years, but reported as if the temperature difference continued for a full 50 years. Similarly for the mean, etc. The maximum @ 190 ya is surely the effect of the Mt. Tambora eruption of 1815 CE. The maximum @ 8091 is again aurely the eruption of the Kurile super-volcamo on the Kamchatka Pennisula.
Early Holocene
from 10564 ya to 6004 ya [95 differences]:
min= 0.00 @ 9494
max= 2.00 @ 8091
mean= 0.40
sD= 0.38
skewness= 1.64
kurtosis= 3.32
Late Holocene
from 2171 ya to 0 ya (mean recent time) [71 differences]
min= 0.00 @ 848
max= 3.12 @ 190
mean= 0.73
sD= 0.70
skewness= 1.16
kurtosis= 0.79
Assuming that the statistical procedure used is not too biased, it appears that while the average temperature remained about the same for the last 2000+ years:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_Climatic_Optimum
the variability is to be greater.
But then, maybe Tamino, aka “Hansen’s Bulldog”, (or others) will offer reasons why this treatment of the data from
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/deutnat.txt
is not to be trusted.
Even if it is, note the following from the Petit et al. data: “No correction for the influence of the geographical position of the ice was applied.” This measure of variability would need some correction to apply to data such as
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/10yave.jpg
Anybody know what correction to apply to translate from Vostok deuterium-derived temperature differences to the HadCRUT3v delta temperatures?
nanny_govt_sucks // April 16, 2008 at 11:33 pm
Plug in years 1913 (the year the Federal Reserve was created) and 2008 to see what’s happened to the value of the US dollar:
http://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/
Lost and Confused // April 17, 2008 at 3:14 am
Are you seriously implying all inflation since the Federal Reserve was created, was caused by the Fed inflating the currency?
nanny_govt_sucks // April 17, 2008 at 4:47 am
Who else are you going to blame, counterfeiters? The Fed runs the printing presses. They have the power (given to them unlawfully by Congress) to inflate or deflate.
cce // April 17, 2008 at 6:42 am
It’s hard to make a case that the US economy of the last 75 years was anything other than the envy of the world, even if we include the depression. A small amount of inflation is just fine. What we are seeing today (negative personal savings rate, exploding debt to foreign nations, and runaway entitlements) is another thing entirely.
Barton Paul Levenson // April 17, 2008 at 12:40 pm
nanny — aren’t you assuming a perfectly constant velocity of money? The fiscal equation is
M V = P Q
where M is the money supply; V the “velocity” of money, or how many times a dollar turns over in a year, P is the price level and Q real production. M = P if and only if V and Q are constant or rise in proportion. If velocity has increased since 1913, then not all the price increases have been due to the Fed inflating the money supply.
Rattus Norvegicus // April 17, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Meanwhile, back in the real world, a little challange to those who say the effects of AGW on agriculture will be benign. It seems as though the drought in Austrailia has caused a big dent in world rice production.
nanny_govt_sucks // April 17, 2008 at 10:43 pm
Barton, that’s an interesting equation, but since the Fed controls M, and has a large part in controlling V and Q through manipulation of interest rates, and even fiddles with P through changes in the way CPI is calculated, what are we talking about here?
Anyway, since the Fed has the power to deflate as well as inflate it could certainly correct any inflation that may occur. It chose not to, and our dollar is worth 4 cents.
dhogaza // April 17, 2008 at 11:06 pm
The dollar’s just an abstraction, anyway.
JCH // April 17, 2008 at 11:19 pm
I have zillions of pennies in jars; I’ll separate them into piles of four and trade each pile to you for a dollar.
I’ll even polish them.
nanny_govt_sucks // April 17, 2008 at 11:22 pm
Well, it didn’t used to be!
It used to represent a certain amount of gold or silver on deposit at a bank. It was an actual receipt. The Fed changed all that so now the dollar represents nothing. They took our gold and gave us paper. Thank you government, for giving us the Fed.
TCO // April 17, 2008 at 11:59 pm
Steve McI has a post on RE up. It’s one of his typical meandering posts. Doesn’t clarify which points of his are new and which repeat (I assume most). Doesn’t have footnotes and clear citations. Whines about his treatment by the other guy in such a manner that it assumes we are always paying attention to and remembering every old slight. I think he must have a screw loose.
Oh….and he promised me that he would supply detials on his RE test in his Huybers comment reply (big part of this post) several months ago. He justr didn’t have time right then. And he still hasn’t done it. He’s such a dishonest little wussie.
dhogaza // April 18, 2008 at 12:08 am
Finally, we agree!
luminous beauty // April 18, 2008 at 12:23 am
And the value of gold is not an abstraction? It isn’t the best material choice for food, clothing, shelter or food, now, is it?
Money was only invented for the purpose of levying taxes. It is the most stupendously ironic idiocy that free market fundy anti-tax libertarians have deified monetary value as a cosmic first principle superior to the laws of physics or any rational principles of ethics.
luminous beauty // April 18, 2008 at 12:29 am
One ‘food’ should be ‘fuel’.
I’m so embarrassed.
Hank Roberts // April 18, 2008 at 1:44 am
Hmmm, compare this chart and the text label.
http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/MI-AP970_LIBOR_20080417180020.gif
Hank Roberts // April 18, 2008 at 1:46 am
Oh, the text label is about the change since yesterday, but that’s not what’s charted. Sorry, meant to quote it.
nanny_govt_sucks // April 18, 2008 at 4:47 am
No. Gold has many uses not the least of which is in the making of jewelry. For more, see: http://geology.com/minerals/gold/uses-of-gold.shtml
cce // April 18, 2008 at 5:00 am
I have a request for a post, somewhat related to the Hockey Stick (it’s been a week). It’s been said that BCPs are a precipitation proxy, and therefore it stands to reason that they are also an ENSO proxy. It would be interesting to see an analysis of this. Wahl and Ammann have suggested this, and I think Mann as well.
Somewhat related, it would also be interesting to see what portion of natural variability is directly related to ENSO. I presume ENSO is the strongest single influence on global climate, other than the occasional explosive eruption. So, it wouldn’t be surprising that the BCPs would be so heavily weighted in the Hockey Stick if that’s what they are picking up.
Lost and Confused // April 18, 2008 at 7:08 am
Can anyone take this sentence seriously, “Anyway, since the Fed has the power to deflate as well as inflate it could certainly correct any inflation that may occur.”? I would like to know how the Fed could correct for inflation from just one year. Failing that, I would like to know how the Fed would correct for just two percent inflation from a single year.
The myriad of effects any action the Fed could take would seem to make this impossible.
Lost and Confused // April 18, 2008 at 7:43 am
TCO, after reading your last post here, I went and read Steve McIntyre’s latest post. I am unable to see the basis for your complaints. On the issue of the post meandering, I disagree. There is only one portion which digresses, and it serves a meaningful purpose (to explain a weakness of RE).
When you say, “[It] [d]oesn’t clarify which points of his are new and which repeat (I assume most),” I am confused. What is your criticism here?
When you discuss how he “whines,” I become suspicious. What in his post do you consider whining? I see several complaints in that post, which are all serious and worded to reflect this. I must flat out reject your criticism here when you then say, “[I]t assumes we are always paying attention to and remembering every old slight.” None of the complaints in his post require any knowledge of context. They are worded such that someone with no prior knowledge could understand his complaints, and if needed, verify them.
I have no idea on the issue of whether he provided data as promised. However, I have been incapable of seeing the flaws you list. Would you provide examples to demonstrate these flaws?
TCO // April 18, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Lost:
Have you read this thread and the comments?
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1302
TCO // April 18, 2008 at 1:20 pm
The new versus repeat comment revolves around this: I have read Steve’s entire blog. I want to know if he is repeating points made before or if there is new analysis. (He often repeats things.) Note, if he wrote regular science papers, this would occurr much less…as well as it would be easier to refer from past to new.
luminous beauty // April 18, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Nanny,
Gold has many practical, though few essential, uses. Pretending it is a practicable and necessary reserve standard for a value exchange medium in a modern economy is not useful.
It is silly.
Lost and Confused // April 18, 2008 at 2:18 pm
No TCO, I had not read that thread or comments. Now that I have, I am not sure why I just did. Nowhere in that topic did Steve McIntyre make the promise you claim he made, so either that link was irrelevant or dishonest. Would you mind telling me why you had me read through it?
As for your next post, while you may want to know what is new and what is repeated, your personal desires are not a basis for criticisms.
I am responding to you because you say, “I think he must have a screw loose” and, “He’s such a dishonest little wussie.” When pressed about your criticisms, you failed to support them. You ignored several of the points, posted a link which did not support your criticisms and offered a bogus reason to “support” another criticism.
If you have legitimate reasons to criticize McIntyre, so be it. However, all I see at the moment is unsubstantiated insults. I will admit I am wrong if you can show me I am, but I have seen nothing to support your claims.
And to head off any confusion, the 43rd post is the only spot McIntyre made anything resembling a promise. In it McIntyre says he will archive the code he used. Nowhere in that thread does he promise to give it to anyone. Clearly this does not support the criticism leveled at him. You could argue he failed to meet this “promise,” and it may be true, but that is not what the accusation stated.
Incidentally TCO, please do not send me to links which in no way support your points while implying they do. It wastes my time and is dishonest.
JCH // April 18, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Arguing with a libertarian is somewhat akin to gambling with Rainman about how many spilled matchsticks there are on the floor.
They’ll win every time.
And then you when you step outside into the real world, he’ll be like a fish out of water and you will have gills.
They are the masters of a pointless reality.
L Miller // April 18, 2008 at 2:23 pm
I don’t think anyone with any level of knowledge does. Deflation of any kind at any time is very very bad for an economy. The great depression happened in large part because the Fed stood back and did nothing while liquidity dried up and deflation set in. Many economists feel that it could have been prevented if the Fed had pumped money into the economy at the outset.
The irony is that you will frequently see libertarians blame the fed for the great depression, while ignoring the fact that the mistake they made was right out of libertarian play book.
dhogaza // April 18, 2008 at 2:55 pm
McIntyre whines constantly that climate scientists have in the past been reluctant to had him their archived code. Their reluctance to do so has been one brick in the foundation of his edifice which he has built to support his claim that climate scientists are guilty of scientific misconduct or fraud (though when pressed he falls back to the position of claiming they’re simply incompetent).
So archiving but not releasing his code would be hypocritical on his part, though I’m sure you have a special definition of “hypocritical” available that’s drawn from the same dictionary that insists that a lie is not a lie …
TCO // April 18, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Lost:
The sentence that is relevant is this one, “So it’s something that I need to do, should have done at the time and WILL DO SOME TIME SOON.”
TCO // April 18, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Lost:
ARE you differentiating between “giving me the code” and “archiving it”? But you agree that SM did not keep his promise to archive it? (Note that his promise was made in response to my requests/threat earlier in the thread. It’s definitely a response to me as he cites the NUMBER 41 of my post! Note also that he BLEW OFF responding until I threatened to go to the journal, but then responded with his post 43.)
Parse “give code” and “archive” any way you want, Lost…but is this BEHAVIOR that is honest? It’s not just me, Lost, Gerd Burger has the same complaint.
nanny_govt_sucks // April 18, 2008 at 3:48 pm
8,000 years of human civilized history would disagree with you. That’s about how long gold has held its value. How long do paper currencies last?
nanny_govt_sucks // April 18, 2008 at 3:59 pm
LOL! Yes, who wants lower prices? Not me! I want the price to be raised before I’ll buy.
When the Fed “does nothing” it is restricting the movement of interest rates and money supply. That is not libertarian. Let interest rates and sound currency float. THAT is libertarian.
Gavin's Pussycat // April 18, 2008 at 4:16 pm
cce: sounds like an interesting idea.
Do you have a reference for this suggestion by W&A?
Lost and Confused // April 18, 2008 at 4:44 pm
TCO, I do not agree he did not keep his promise. I have no idea whether or not he has archived that information. That is not the issue here. You criticized Steve McIntyre, as well as insulted him. You called him dishonest. When pressed, you failed to support *any* of your criticisms and are now sidetracking the discussion.
If you want to move on to another topic, first resolve the topic at hand. Support your criticisms or retract them. Admit your link was wrong. Stop being dishonest.
Bill Bodell // April 18, 2008 at 4:56 pm
nanny,
With deflation, your earnings would go down along with the prices of gas groceries, etc.
However, you’d have to pay off any existing loans or contracts with less earnings. Not to mention the effect of business paying off loans with reduced revenues.
This is what led to a majority of the problems in the Great Depression.
David B. Benson // April 18, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Money is actually very useful. Barter economies are illiquid and the barterers poor. Many rural people in Africa suffer (additionally) by having no money whatsoever.
cce // April 18, 2008 at 5:38 pm
Wahl and Ammann write in their Climatic Change paper:
“A further aspect of [MM's] critique is that the single-bladed hockey stick shape in proxy PC summaries for North America is carried disproportionately by a relatively small subset (15) of proxy records derived from bristlecone/foxtail pines in the western United States, which the authors mention as being subject to question in the literature as local/regional temperature proxies after approximately 1850 (cf. MM05a/b; Hughes and Funkhauser, 2003; MBH99; Graybill and Idso, 1993). It isimportant to note in this context that, because they employ an eigenvector-based CFR technique, MBH do not claim that all proxies used in their reconstruction are closely related to local-site variations in surface temperature. Rather, they invoke a less restrictive assumption that “whatever combination of local meteorological variables influence the proxy record,they find expression in one or more of the largest-scale patterns of annual climate variability” to which the proxy records are calibrated in the reconstruction process (Mann et al.,2000). MM directly note the link between bristlecone/foxtail pines and precipitation (p. 85,MM05b), which is exactly the kind of large-scale pattern registration that the MBH CFR method takes as axiomatic because large portions of this region are known to have important ENSO/precipitation teleconnections (cf. Rajagopalan et al., 2000; Cole and Cook, 1998). Since ENSO has a strong role in modulating global temperatures as well as affecting regionalprecipitation patterns, a CFR method of temperature reconstruction can effectively exploitregional ENSO/precipitation teleconnections that register in proxy data.”
I would think you could do some kind of analysis on the BCP data and an ENSO index and establish this relationship. If ENSO is responsible for X% of natural variability . . . then that is the reason for the heavy weight of the BCPs in the Hockey Stick.
Gavin's Pussycat // April 18, 2008 at 6:29 pm
cce, thanks… that text is familiar. So this is not a new proposal then? I always understood this passage as ENSO being just one example of teleconnection. But yes, it’s a biggie…
L Miller // April 18, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Deflation doesn’t just affect the value of what you want to buy it effects the value of what you already own, and acts as a strong discouragement owning anything. It means people don’t want to own business because the value of that business will drop, and even if they do start a business people won’t buy anything from you because owning anything is to their disadvantage. When people won’t make things sell things or buy things you no longer have an economy.
How can currency supply float? Either you need someone at the helm managing currency supply or you go with a fixed currency supply and a fixed currency supply has a soft limit on economic activity.
The Fed does no set interest rates, it has target interest rates that it reaches by controlling money supply. Interest rates are a function of currency supply and liquidity, so any time you set money supply you are controlling interest rates whether you know it or not. Even if you use something like gold as a standard (and I completely agree that as a monetary metal it’s as much a fiat standard as anything else) you are setting limits on the currency supply and therefore setting interest rates. The only difference is that you are setting them to very undesirable levels.
TCO // April 18, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Lost:
1. I asked for the code several times.
2. Steve M refused to answer and erased some of the requests.
3. I threatened to go the GRL.
4. Steve M. answered up toot sweet, saying that he would archive it “soon”.
5. Radio silence for 8 months.
cce // April 18, 2008 at 7:08 pm
GP,
It’s not new. I’m just interested in seeing it quantified.
TCO // April 18, 2008 at 7:48 pm
It’s interesting that in the same thread, SM complains about reviews (sharing some details of the reviews) on a paper of his…but does not show a preprint of the paper. And all his acolytes back him up…without asking to see the paper that is the subject of debate! Maybe the reviewers did a good job! Maybe SM’s submission shares some of the skewedness and poor writing of his blog posts. Who knows….
TCO // April 18, 2008 at 7:52 pm
He still hasn’t finished his Almagre work either. Just rushed into print with titilating stuff…and then didn’t deliver. What a putz. Almost Wattsian. Wonder why my skeptics are so much like that.
Lost and Confused // April 18, 2008 at 8:19 pm
TCO, you are disappointingly dishonest. Your dishonesty invalidates any criticisms you may level against Steve McIntyre. I have no means of stopping you from leveling baseless insults, nor will I attempt to do so.
So feel free to continue to shouting louder so as to avoid actual discussion.
Hank Roberts // April 18, 2008 at 8:32 pm
Probably this isn’t helping.
apolytongp // April 18, 2008 at 8:45 pm
My dishonesty (of whatever level it is) can not validate SM. He is either right or wrong. Just as evasion by Mann can not validate dishonesty by SM. This is fundamental. You may have some Marxist dialectic leading you to think otherwise. Or maybe you are stupid.
BTW: I have a new blog:
http://apolytongp.wordpress.com/
Hank Roberts // April 18, 2008 at 8:55 pm
In other climate-related news:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/04/the_listener_against_free_spee.php
apolytongp // April 18, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Ok. I started a new blog. It is called Climate Audit audit.
Lost and Confused // April 18, 2008 at 9:16 pm
I am confused now. Is apolytongp the same as TCO, or was it just a response to my post from someone else?
In either event, I never said anyone’s dishonesty validated Steve McIntyre. I said TCO’s dishonesty invalidated TCO’s criticisms of Steve McIntyre. It is absurd to read, “[M]aybe you are stupid” because someone makes no distinction between those two.
Hank Roberts // April 18, 2008 at 9:22 pm
It’s been done (and done rather well, I recommend these links for background and perspective):
See http://strangeweather.wordpress.com/2007/11/19/lets-audit-climate-audit/
and followup threads to that one;
See also
http://strangeweather.wordpress.com/2008/02/17/the-heisenberg-principle-of-climatology/#comments
nanny_govt_sucks // April 18, 2008 at 11:23 pm
Re: Deflation
Please re-read the statement I responded to:
“Deflation of ANY kind at ANY time is VERY VERY BAD for an economy.” (my emphasis added)
Simply untrue.
Have lower priced computers and other high-tech products been bad for our economy? I think not.
Hank Roberts // April 18, 2008 at 11:39 pm
New:
http://www.geoscientific-model-development.net/index.html
dhogaza // April 19, 2008 at 12:48 am
That’s not deflation, holy moly. Deflation is a general lowering of prices in the economy.
NGS, you’re arguments might be more persuasive if you actually knew what you were talking about.
TCO // April 19, 2008 at 1:22 am
Lost: I have been trying to respond to you but Tamino won’t let my posts through.
[Response: Try again.]
Lazar // April 19, 2008 at 2:06 am
Nothing new here, just a random observation…
This is a comparison between temperature as a function of latitude and height for January in GISS model E (M23) and from observations (CIRA). High and cold equatorial tropopause, low and warm summer stratopause.
And this for zonal (eastward and westward) wind speeds. Eastward jetstreams at 40N and 40S about 10km up.
From an earlier model (GISS middle atmosphere model); temperature as a function of time and latitude, at a height of 1.5mb.
Isn’t it amazing that the emergent properties of a hugely complex system, a GCM, match so closely the emergent properties of an even more complex system, the earth atmosphere.
PS HB, thanks for the response earlier.
Gavin's Pussycat // April 19, 2008 at 3:01 am
cce: OK, my misunderstanding.
nanny_govt_sucks // April 19, 2008 at 4:32 am
The quote was “deflation of ANY KIND”. By your definition, how many kinds of deflation are there? I would think one. But that’s not what is implied by “any kind”.
Anyway, deflation caused by lack of demand can be a bad thing, but if caused by oversupply from a boom due to technological advances (not due to a Fed-caused bubble!) it can be a good thing.
And of course deflation is great for those not in debt with plenty of savings, as the value of that savings grows. So the “deflation is bad all the time, everywhere, for everyone, no matter what” simply doesn’t hold.
Barton Paul Levenson // April 19, 2008 at 10:29 am
nanny writes:
This is a classic example of the fallacy of composition. Because having the price of one thing lower is good, nanny assumes having the prices of all things lower is equally good. Not necessarily so, of course, as we saw in 1929-1933.
Barton Paul Levenson // April 19, 2008 at 10:32 am
nanny writes:
Nanny is factually incorrect here. Letting interest rates and the money supply free-fall was EXACTLY what the Fed did during the Great Depression. They were more worried about “the gold drain” than they were about the state of economy as a whole, and as a consequence things went to hell in a handbasket.
Barton Paul Levenson // April 19, 2008 at 10:37 am
nanny posts:
Nanny continues to confuse prices of particular commodities dropping with all prices dropping. Yo! Nanny! Deflation means ALL the prices fall! Not just computers! Lower prices on computers are nice because our incomes haven’t fallen proportionately!
TCO // April 19, 2008 at 11:39 am
Lost: You asked me to back up my claims. I did. If you don’t like that. tough. You’re the little sophist who twisted and turned and refused to admit that he had misused the word “lie” previously. You’re probably unconvinceable, because you’re inherently dishonest and unwilling to admit fault. But…still…I gave you a gift. Which was to show you McI’s recalcitrance to expose his methods.
TCO // April 19, 2008 at 11:41 am
Lost: I won’t be answering any more of your questions. You can take/leave what I say. You can comment in reply. But I think very little of you and it isn’t worth my time to engage a sophist.
Lost and Confused // April 19, 2008 at 12:24 pm
TCO, you are blatantly lying when you say, “You asked me to back up my claims. I did.” I have stated several times the exact opposite. You contradict this, by effectively saying, “You are wrong,” nothing more.
You are living up to your own claims of being a troll.
TCO // April 19, 2008 at 7:46 pm
Looks like Steve has finally archived the RE comment code. Guess he is reading this blog. The good thing about this is that now we can have Gerd Burger more effectively rip apart what SM called ‘neat’ and ‘elegant’, but what was really a flawed (and skewed to help SM, hurt Mann) calibration method.
TCO // April 19, 2008 at 7:52 pm
I’ll bet dollars to donuts, that my posts on the PCA part 5 thread around March 30th (see interchange with Lazar) are what finally moved SM to honor his promise.
steven mosher // April 19, 2008 at 9:15 pm
L&C,
you just need to let TCO have his points. He has an issue with SM’s paper output, he has an issue with SM’s blog admistration. These are HIS issues with SM. SM is a big boy and a nice man ( we had a nice dinner) he can handle TCO in his own fashion or choose to ignore TCO in his own fashion. He doesn’t need you to defend him.
If you engage TCO in these kind of battles, then it will make good theater ( hey TCO, we made some good theater) However, you won’t get much out of the exchange. Better is to find a common ground with TCO. he’s a porcupine, but not entirely moronic.
Hows that for a complement TCO.?
TCO // April 20, 2008 at 3:31 am
Hey Mosh. Sm occasionally has an interesting point. But he’s very prone to exaggerate the impact. You have to really watch him. He’ll do things like varying two independant varaibles at once (in a single comparison) and impute all the change in the dependant to one of the independants. He’ll do things like overmodeling his red “noise” so that it asically apes the data to start with…but try to act rhetorically as if this is just noise. He’s also done things like having sock puppets. Like dishonest behavior in the airport thread (allowing a false point to remain up until compeltely held to account to remove it). He’s also extremely weasely in his self justifications. It’s no wonder that he says he l,ikes Clinton. Both are big equivocatoers.
TCO // April 20, 2008 at 3:32 am
And of course he changes what he removes stuff without trace on his website. So you practically have to screen shot every page of his site all the time…if you want to really hold the sucker up to scrutiny for his errors.
[Response: I'm no fan of McIntyre. But enough already. You've all made your points, further back-and-forth seems pointless.]
TCO // April 20, 2008 at 3:45 am
BTW, Moshie, I’m completely outclassed by matrix algebra and formal stats and stuff. But I can sniff logical fallacies. It always worried me that SM came up with a whole NEW analysis to reserucct his view of RE after the Huybers comment showed issues with it. Sort of like finding more synergies to up the NPV when the board disagrees with your acquisition.
REad the Gerd Burger paper. In particular his reply to Steve’s review. I’m “smelling” that using white noise series to replicate 21 of 22 series was not appropriate. It’s really fasicnating that Steve will use super red noise (actually overmodelled) when it helps him. But that in another case, he won’t even use AR1. He blasts opponents for the iid fallacy when it helps him. But then falls pray to it when it helps him.
TCO // April 20, 2008 at 3:50 am
ok…but he repeats his stuff to. but OK/
TCO // April 20, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Sorry, I relapsed (like the guy after New Years resolution in the Nexus cartoon). Now the hoi polloi on CA are whining about the concern that others will write real papers using ideas from CA. What they OUGHT to be worried about instead is that no one will write the papers. That the field will not well archive insights. And that the field will not see ideas well layed out for examination (McI has a bad habbit of having the nugget of a point, but than exaggerating it’s impact. This happens because he confounds scientific/math testing with political PR.)
Lost and Confused // April 20, 2008 at 10:49 pm
So you know steven mosher, my only reason for responding to TCO was because he made what seemed to be untrue statements. I hate seeing lies go uncontested. I have no intention of “defending” Steve McIntyre. I would do the same for any derogatory statement which I did not believe to be true.
If someone blatantly lies just to insult someone, I can only do one of two things. Either ignore him completely, or respond and show the lies for what they are. I am trying to do the former more as of late.
steven mosher // April 20, 2008 at 11:56 pm
L&C. I have no issue with you, but Every untruth does not need to be corrected, although I admire your dedication to questioning TCO and bringing him to task.
Let me say it a different way. If you and TCO want to fight about SM, go make a blog for it.
These kinda fights are distractions on CA, distractions on RC, distractions here.
Now, sometimes distractions are fun. Like the intermission at the drive in picture show. But now, the intermission is becoming the main show and , frankly, it’s more boring than warts on my toe.
Lost and Confused // April 21, 2008 at 12:29 am
As I said, I am trying to ignore things more often. I had not intended to respond to TCO again, even before you posted. Once I decide someone is a troll, I just tune them out.
dhogaza // April 21, 2008 at 12:46 am
See? You do know what the word “lie” means, and did all the time, didn’t you?
Leave a Comment