Bishop Hill Jul 30, 2007 Life The other day, when I posted about Amit Varma's best public convenience competition I thought my suggestion of the gothic spendour of the Isle of Bute's finest was a good one. But it turns out that the Victorians' finest has been put in the shade by the, erm, delights of another, via here:
Bishop Hill Jul 29, 2007 Climate: Cuttings There's been plenty of excitement in climate circles this week, so without further ado, here's what you may have missed.
The Lockwood & Frohlich paper and its claim to refute the solar theory of climate change continues to attract comment.
- Lubos Motl has comment from solar physicist Nir Shaviv, who reckons the paper is meaningless. Apparently Lockwood is using proxy measurements of solar activity (like sunspots) rather than measurements of the cosmic ray flux, and also doesn't consider the possibility of a damping which would introduce a delay between changes in cosmic ray flux and changes in temperature.
- Joe D'Aleo has a substantial paper pointing out flaws in Lockwood's thesis. In particular, he's been picking the brains of solar scientists Richard Willson and Nicola Scafetta.
Willson runs the NASA's ACRIM programme which collects the data on solar output. He thinks Lockwood should have used his ACRIM results rather than Frohlich's own PMOD series which represents ACRIM plus some heavily disputed "corrections".Scafetta points out that the results of the Lockwood paper would be quite different if they had used ACRIM instead of PMOD and takes Lockwood & Frohlich to task for not considering this. He also takes issue with their averaging technique which implies that temperature at any point in time is partly driven by the future output of the sun!
There's also more comment on the Armstong paper claims of the inadequacy of climate forecasts.
- Real Climate had a piece attacking the paper. While mostly knockabout stuff, they did make a substantial claim, namely that there is out of sample testing of climate models, although how you can test your model against the shambles of the paleoclimate reconstructions is beyond me.
- Jos de Laat of the Dutch Met Office reckons Armstrong's criticisms have hit the nail on the head
Surfacestations.org has now passed the 200 mark and should hit 20% of the network next week.
The Great Global Warming Swindle was shown on Australian TV to a great deal of hoo-ha. Martin Durkin said that the film survived the mauling it received.
Roger Pielke Snr continues to post on the failure of the IPCC to address the issue of land use and its effect on climate. This post has a huge list of papers that were ignored.
Next week should see a lot of interest in a new paper from two German scientists, Gerlich & Tscheuschner. They claim to have refuted the greenhouse theory of climate change once and for all.
And lastly, this letter to the FT:
From Mr Ake Nilson.
Sir, In your editorial "It's time to plan for the next deluge" (July 25) you say that "it is now scientifically incontrovertible that global warming is making heavy rain fall more frequently across the world's temperate latitudes". But less than a year ago, on August 10 2006, you reported: "This year's hot, dry summer will be repeated many times in the future and will become normal in the next 40 to 50 years if climate scientists are correct."
Please could you make up your mind as to the effect of global warming?
Ake Nilson
Bishop Hill Jul 27, 2007 Greens A couple of weeks ago a body calling itself the Optimum Population Trust called for families in the UK to limit themselves to a single child. The Times had this to say:
Britain’s birthrate, growing at its fastest for nearly 30 years – at 1.87 children per couple – is, says the author of its report, Professor John Guillebaud, an environmental liability. “Each new UK birth, through the inevitable resource consumption and pollution that UK affluence generates, is responsible for about 160 times as much climate-related environmental damage as a new birth in Ethiopia.”
Professor Guillebaud has three children. As does Sir Crispin Tickell, a patron of the Trust. The majority of the other patrons, and Prof Guillebaud's co-chair, Val Stevens, have two children each.
Bishop Hill Jul 26, 2007 Civil liberties A commenter on the Bill of Rights thread reckons my current wording is open to abuse. At the moment it reads as follows:
The theory is that speech needs to be defined, and I can see the point. While the US courts have adopted a wide definition of speech (covering writing and other media) it is probably wise to make that clear. I think we might adopt something along the lines of "the free exchange of information, opinion and ideas". Information covers us on fact, opinion on things which are less settled, and ideas on the purely speculative.No law or regulation is permitted that restricts the right to freedom of speech or limits the freedom of the media.
The other area which is problematic is the extent to which the clause should cover commercial speech. The US Constitution is silent on this aspect, but the courts have found that while commercial speech is covered by the first amendment, the protections are less than those offered to non-commercial. Essentially speech regarding illegal products is out, as is deceptive speech.
Speech regarding illegal products seems a bit of a red-herring to me. You are hardly going to advertise your cocaine prices because it points the police straight to you.
Deception is different though. This is potentially a very risky area, since one man's "deceptive" is another's "true".
A thought occurs to me as to how we might get out of this, though. Since commercial speech forms part of a contract - the requirement to refrain from statements which are deceptive is contained in the common law. I wonder if we can distinguish between laws (written) and the common law (unwritten) in such a way as to prevent government from making laws that breach the principle of free speech and allowing common law to protect consumers.
So here's a revised suggestion:
Government shall make no law or regulation that restricts the free exchange of information, opinion and ideas, or limits the freedom of the media.
I've been planning a separate document on interpretation, and I think that this will be the place to make it clear that this does exactly what it says - ie it protects all speech including commercial speech.
So. What do you think?
Bishop Hill Jul 24, 2007 Greens So says Jesse Ausubel of Rockefeller University in New York, writing in the International Journal of Nuclear Governance, Economy and Ecology. The paper appears to be an analysis of the amount of land required per Watt of energy produced.
Biomass energy is also horribly inefficient and destructive of nature. To power a large proportion of the USA, vast areas would need to be shaved or harvested annually. To obtain the same electricity from biomass as from a single nuclear power plant would require 2500 square kilometers of prime Iowa land. "Increased use of biomass fuel in any form is criminal," remarks Ausubel. "Humans must spare land for nature. Every automobile would require a pasture of 1-2 hectares."
Obvious to everyone except greens.
Bishop Hill Jul 23, 2007 Crime Via The Volokh Conspiracy, this is a database of the records of the Old Bailey from 1674 to 1834. It's extremely nifty in that it has a graphing tool so you can easily analyse crimes, verdicts and punishments. I used it to generate a graph of crimes involving killing by decade (all verdicts).
Click for full size image The results are quite interesting. Apparently the Old Bailey saw between 10 and 15 cases involving killing each year during this period. Call it one per month. I wonder how many it is now?
To get a handle on the answer to this question, I've searched the Google News archive for pleas to charges of murder in 2006 and come up with 27 stories. Some, however, are duplicates and others are not actually Old Bailey cases at all. The edited list looks like this:
I think it's fair to say that by the time you've added in the manslaughter charges (and possibly the attempted murder charges too - the definition used is not clear) the current figure will be well in excess of what we saw in previous centuries.
This all deeply unscientific of course, but interesting nevertheless.
Bishop Hill Jul 23, 2007 Climate Via A Blogassault of Global Warming we learn that...
Keifer Sutherland, a.k.a Jack Bauer, blames all of us for global warming.
Star Kiefer Sutherland has already filmed a public service annoucement which begins: "Global warming is a crime for which we are all guilty!" While on the set of "24" they plan on being carbon neutral by the end of the season.
Rumours that Sutherland is also going to offset rising sea levels by drinking every bar in Los Angeles dry are apparently without foundation.
Bishop Hill Jul 22, 2007 Climate: Surface This is odd. Or do I mean appalling?
When you measure the surface temperature, the data that comes out of the station network is poor, and has to be "fixed". This is done by means of a series of adjustments which are added stepwise to the raw data to give the final answer.
I've show below a graph of the difference between the raw temperatures measured in the USHCN surface station network, and the final temperature delivered as an output.
What this appears to show is that most of the observed warming is coming from the adjustments, not the weather stations. (I'm assuming here that the trend in the final temperature is not more than 0.6oC)
The page from which the graph is ripped explains what the adjustments are:
It also gives the impact of each. In the graph below, each line represents one of the adjustments.
From this, we can see that the warming trend is being produced by the time of observation adjustment (black) and by the station move adjustment (yellow).
I can think of no earthly reason why time of observation adjustments would produce this shape. The upward slope of the adjustment implies that there are many stations recording temperature at a time when it's colder than midnight. This means the wee small hours I guess. Why would this be? And why would the effect be increasing? I mean, over the last century more and more stations will be automatic, which presumably means that you could get temperature exactly when you want. Why then, does the raw data appear to be getting worse - ie the adjustment required to correct it is getting larger?
It all looks a bit fishy if you ask me.
Bishop Hill Jul 21, 2007 Labour Now that the CPS have decided that there is insufficient evidence to proceed with any prosecutions in the cash for honours affair, Guido is rounding up volunteers to back a private prosecution. While this is a great idea, there is a risk that the CPS take over the prosecution and then promptly drop it. The details of their powers in this respect are here; essentially they can drop the case if:
It looks to my untrained eye as if the CPS would struggle to make a decent case for dropping it. They have refused to prosecute themselves because they don't think they can get a guilty verdict (let's leave aside the absurdly high standard they have set themselves). This is not the same as having so little evidence that there is no case to answer.
I can't conceive of any argument they could make that the prosecution was against the interests of the public or of justice, so there doesn't appear to be an "out" for the crooks here either.
The other thing to think about is the political fallout of the CPS taking over and then dropping a case against close confidants of the prime minister. It would look nothing if not very, very corrupt. Would Brown really risk it rebounding on him now that Blair is long gone?
So all in all, it looks like it's worth a punt. We live in hope.
Bishop Hill Jul 21, 2007 Greens Further to my recent post on Scottish Power's plan to use 12% of agricultural land to grow biomass sufficient to power a couple houses in Linlithgow, the Englishman reports that Friends of the Earth are resisting the idea of using genetic modification to reduce food price inflation. They, of course, are in favour of organic farming (or "faeces farming" as I prefer to call it), which requires four times as much land as conventionial crops.
So if they get their way, there won't be any land left to grow the trees to make power for Linlithgow, or anywhere else for that matter.
Whoops.
Bishop Hill Jul 21, 2007 Climate: Cuttings Welcome to the sixth edition of climate cuttings, in which I round up interesting postings in the world of global warming.
Reaction to the Lockwood paper, which claims that the sun can't be causing recent warming, rumbles on.
Climate scientist Eduardo Zorita describes a Nature post lauding the results as "an example of what science journalism should not be". He goes on to explain why the Lockwood paper might be considered superficial.
Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist and co-author of a book on the solar theory of climate change with Henrik Svensmark, is interviewed in the London Book Review. He points out that the earth has stopped warming despite continued rises in CO2, a fact that supports the solar theory better than the CO2 one.
John Brignell of Numberwatch, in common with other commentators, takes issue with the odd smoothing algorithm used by Lockwood.
Astronomer David Whitehouse weighs in too.
Anthony Watts of surfacestations.org (15% of the network now surveyed!) has been investigating the impact of the paint used on climate stations. This was originally specified as whitewash, but because this is no longer available, latex paint is now used instead. He thinks that this may have introduced a warming bias into the data and has designed an experiment to find out if he's right. Why has nobody done this before?
Glacier melt has been something of a theme for the week. Roger Pielke notes a paper describing the advance of the Siachen glacier in the Himalayas, and points out that this evidence needs to be taken into account when considering the oft-repeated claims that glaciers are retreating everywhere. William Connelly says that nobody is saying this. Lonnie Thompson (a man who is perhaps best known for not archiving his data) then somewhat takes the ground from under Connelly's feet when he is quoted in the New York Times as saying that glacial ice loss is “a repeating theme whether you are in tropical Andes, the Himalayas or Kilimanjaro in Africa.”
Roger Pielke has also been highlighting the issue of land use and its effect on climate. This is an area which is not well captured by climate models.
Not climate, but weather - a distinction lost on most of the MSM - but it's been remarkably cold in many parts of the world, particularly in the southern hemisphere.
First snow in Buenos Aires for nearly a century
Cold snap in Peru prompts emergency
Savage cold snap has brought record low temperatures to Australia
It's also been wet and not very warm in the UK. The Met Office had predicted a hot dry summer, so they've now decided to hedge their bets about the outlook for the winter. It will be wetter, but dryer. Perhaps. This is the Gypsy Rose Lee school of weather forecasting, I guess.
An environmentalist went for a swim near the north pole, claiming that this was only possible because of recent climate change. It was widely pointed out that this wasn't true.
Bishop Hill Jul 20, 2007 Liberalism Jock Coats has a very good article up on what he calls the "neo-puritans" - those who would roll back relaxation of the cannabis laws, twenty-four hour drinking and so on.
On drugs, Ming and Clegg should speak out right now, while the issue is to the fore, about our own party policy for decriminalization and social supply of cannabis and a full commission on the best way to handle all drugs in future.
We know that up to 80% of property crime at least in some places is related to the illegal drugs industry. We can wipe that out almost entirely almost instantly, and save billions - perhaps the equivalent of a fifth of the public sector budget.
With the savings we can be harsher on people who use their new freedoms to harm others.
Which is the crux of the matter of course. When Joe Public sees people fighting and puking in the streets at two in the morning, or selling drugs of streetcorners, his natural reaction is that twenty-four hour drinking is a nonsense. He wants to see the status quo ante restored and views any argument to the contrary as, well, liberalism gone mad. So when Jock says that we can be "harsher" on people who abuse their new freedoms, he's right, but this point needs to be expanded. The whole argument will be shot down in flames unless it is explained to people why it will be safe to go out on the streets at night after the repeal of the drugs laws. What exactly is the proposal for dealing with drunken yobs? Why will drugs not be sold at my childrens' school gates?
Personally, I would be in favour of corporal punishment, something that Chris Dillow argued for recently. I would have thought the reintroduction of the birch or the stocks would concentrate even the dullest minds among drunks and drug peddlers, and it would certainly reassure people that a liberal approach was not the same as anarchy.
Harsh punishment for people who abuse their freedoms is probably a necessary condition for a free society. We can have puritanism and soft punishments, or freedom and harsh ones. Proper liberals need to demonstrate that they understand this. Until they do they will be written off as "woolly liberals" by society at large.
Bishop Hill Jul 19, 2007 Greens Scottish Power has announced that it is going to convert two of its coal-fired power stations to burn wood - coppiced trees in other words. They aim to replace fully 5% of their coal requirement (that's their coal requirement, not the country's coal requirement, mind) with this "carbon neutral fuel".
In order to do this, they need to use 12% of the agricultural land in Scotland.
So it's an expensive, but meaningless gesture.
Update:
It's a very expensive meaningless gesture. According to this, biomass fuel is more expensive than oil or coal, even if set-aside subsidies are still paid!! It's daylight robbery!
Bishop Hill Jul 18, 2007 Greens The BBC's daily climate change scare for today is this:
Disastrous season for seabirds
Scotland's seabirds are having a "disastrous" breeding season, according to RSPB Scotland. It said mid-season reports had found cliffs, where there should be thousands of birds, almost empty.
You don't need to read the report to know that it's climate change to blame.
However, if you look carefully at the related stories bit in the margin you will also see the following:
From 18 September 2006
Seabirds found starving to death
...Over-fishing and global warming are thought to have been affecting the birds' normal food supply.
From 31 August 2005
Worst seabird season on record
Seabird colonies in Scotland have suffered one of the worst breeding seasons on record, experts have warned. Breeding has been poor in guillemot, puffin, kittiwake and razorbill colonies, particularly in the west coast reserves.This is the first time the west has been affected and we can only speculate as to why but climate change must be considered as a factor.
A little further digging reveals this from 28 July 2004
Experts warn over seabird numbers
Some of the most important seabird colonies in Western Europe are under threat because their main source of food seems to be disappearing.Shetland fishermen have stopped catching [sandeels], but scientists believe climate change could be to blame for their continued decline, which is causing the birds to starve.
Frankly it's amazing that there are any seabirds left at all, what with all the disasters befalling them in recent years. You have to wonder whether the PR department at the RSPB has a diary entry for every summer entitled "Seabird disaster (probably climate change) story".
Now of course we can't discount the possibility that there is a genuine problem with seabird numbers. With this in mind, I've taken a look at the official government numbers (yes, we have a government body responsible for counting birds) for one species which seems to have been particularly affected - the common guillemot.
The recent poor breeding success shows up clearly in their figures, but there's a bit of a mystery here. Breeding numbers are pretty stable
The graph starts at 1986. And here's another surprising thing - according to the same report in 2002, the 1987 population figure was itself up 118% on 1969.
So as far as I can tell, breeding numbers are stable, total population is way up on what it was in the past, but there's a bit of mystery about where all these birds are coming from. (Perhaps they're just hiding their eggs from all the bird counters?). And this is apparently a disaster which is yet more evidence of global warming.
Colour me unconvinced.
Bishop Hill Jul 17, 2007 Civil liberties The Graun carries a short report about a survey of householders which shows that one in three people keeps a makeshift weapon beside their bed as protection against burglars. It was also covered on 5Live this morning.
Householders confessed to putting items such as golf clubs, cricket bats and heavy torches within reach for self-defence from burglars, researchers found, and more than half said they were prepared to use them.
While this is a pretty damning indictment of where our society has got itself to, I was surprised that neither the Graun or the Beeb mentioned that keepting a weapon beside your bed is actually (IIRC) illegal. You are only allowed to use something to hand. Now obviously you can concoct an argument that the cricket bat/torch/steel bar that you used to brain the intruder was by your bed for completely innocent purposes, but itsn't it rather horrific that the state would rather turn a third of the population into liars rather than let them plan for their own self-defence?
