Global warming in the news

DavidTanzer · January 2013

Created a page Global warming in the news, with notable quotations by public figures acknowledging the reality of global warming.

Here is my take on all of this. The reality of climate change is becoming more and more evident to the public. This is well indicated by Obama's statement in his inaugural speech:

Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms.

That does carry some significance, and weight in shaping the public discourse.

And as extreme weather events continue, this will continue all the more so. Denialism will be on the retreat, towards positions that will be clearly recognized as absurdist.

So this case is in the process of being won, by forces of testimony from experts, evidence, common sense, and self-interest.

I know that this struggle is not over, but the balance is tipping. Yes, there is work to be done to finish of the case for AGW, but as it gets easier to persuade people that climate change is real, it means that we have the opportunity to make further advances. I don't have an agenda to put forward in this regard, but I did want to raise the topic.

For one thing, continued and better funded research is of course critical, and it should be easier to promote and develop in an atmosphere of public support. We need more scientists, more research, and more people to participate in the amateur science discussions that are taking place everywhere. Last night I overheard my daughter listening to some youtube video that was singing about global warming. By promoting education at the "amateur base" we are providing elements for some new professionals to arise from their ranks. Azimuth can help with all of this, by presenting clear, informative and interesting reports from the research frontier.

DavidTanzer · January 2013

Note the quote from Governor Christie:

I can’t claim to fully understand all of this...Certainly not after just a few months of study. But when you have over 90 percent of the world’s scientists who have studied this stating that climate change is occurring and that humans play a contributing role it’s time to defer to the experts.

If he spent a few months studying the issue, then probably he would be interested to browse through the pages of Azimuth, if he knew about them.

More generally speaking, I think that the day when policy makers would want to consult the Azimuth wiki is much closer to the present than the future.

What can we do to announce the existence of the project, to broader circles of readers? What about a press release? Is some kind of news event required. Some kind of initiative, like No Tree Left Behind. Another approach would be postings about Azimuth on discussion groups about environmental policy. Especially ones that are closer towards the government.

Is there anyone here who has experience as a publicist?

Frederik De Roo · January 2013

Just an outsider's note, Global warming in the news seems to take an implicit U.S. American viewpoint. That's not really a problem, I just found it remarkable.

I have the impression that the discussion in Europe right now is rather: does it make sense if we continue to handicap our industry if none in the world will follow...

DavidTanzer · January 2013

Not in principle.

I just created the page today, and added the quotations that I myself had on file. The page is just an enumeration of quotations, with the following statement at the top:

This is a page for notable acknowledgements of global warming in the mainstream press. These quotations give a “pulse” on the progress of public awareness.

It would be great to get a world-rounded perspective, so please anybody who has quotes on file, contribute. It might make sense to break them down by country.

nad · January 2013

Created a page Global warming in the news, with notable quotations by public figures acknowledging the reality of global warming.

It sounds useful to collect quotes of "opinion makers" to bring global warming more into public attention, however the Azimuth Wiki currently doesn't look too appropriate for that purpose, since it is not broadly disseminated and graphically unappealing. I.e. one would rather have some kind of quote-tag cloud, where people would like to play with and explore, maybe country based. It would actually be a nice task for some data journalists. Moreover if you do things like this, it would also be useful to include climate change deniers into the cloud, like with a different color (like the red and blue state thing) and then e.g. watch how the cloud changes color, I could also imagine it interesting if one could visualize the discourse, like seeing arguments bouncing back and forth (from the respective sides) like in a soccer game and seeing quote-players change colours.

In general however I think it is also urgent to find more out about what kind of policies to install in order to mitigate climate change. Or blatantly formulated: If people would see that most of their "opinion leaders" do finally think that something has to be done then the next question of "what" and "how" has to be adressed as well and I find that this question hasn't been yet disussed thouroughly enough.

What can we do to announce the existence of the project, to broader circles of readers? What about a press release? Is some kind of news event required.

I think one should first think more about the organisatorial form of Azimuth, before presenting it. But I had said this already a couple of times here in the forum.

John Baez · February 2013

Nad wrote:

It sounds useful to collect quotes of “opinion makers” to bring global warming more into public attention, however the Azimuth Wiki currently doesn’t look too appropriate for that purpose, since it is not broadly disseminated and graphically unappealing.

The point of the Azimuth Wiki is not to disseminate information to a maximal audience, but rather to store it in a way that lets us deploy it when needed.

For example: when I get into arguments I often need to prove that a huge majority of climate scientists believe in human-caused global warming. I got tired of looking up the evidence every time I needed it. So, I wrote Global warming - scientific opinions. Now I can just go there and grab text whenever I need it!

I will create a link from our Global warming page to Global warming in the news. We will someday have lots of specialized global warming pages, with links from Global warming to all these pages.

Nad wrote:

In general however I think it is also urgent to find more out about what kind of policies to install in order to mitigate climate change.

Yes, this is very important. The United States has been stuck in an argument over whether global warming is 1) real, 2) human-caused, 3) a serious problem. This leaves people very little time to think about the next question: WHAT SHOULD WE DO ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING???

I've always wanted to move onto this question, but somehow when people hear I'm a mathematician interested in climate science they think I should think about climate models and 3 questions I listed. And to some extent I've made the mistake of spending time on these questions.

I don't think it's a complete mistake, because if you can't prove you understand something about these questions, they won't pay attention when you start talking about WHAT SHOULD WE DO ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING.

However, I feel really bad, very often, because I haven't put enough time into talking about what we should do!

It's very hard to tackle this question, especially if we want to make suggestions that are realistic. But we have to try.

John Baez · February 2013

Frederik de Roo wrote:

Just an outsider’s note, Global warming in the news seems to take an implicit U.S. American viewpoint. That’s not really a problem, I just found it remarkable.

American "mainstream media" almost never say anything about European attitudes to global warming. Most Americans are completely ignorant of what the EU is doing about this problem. I hope some non-US members of the Azimuth Project add useful quotes from famous people in other countries!

John Baez · February 2013

I added a great quote from Jerry Brown's 'state of the State' speech, expanded the quote from Barack Obama's inaugural address, and said which states the various quoted governors are from, since many non-US citizens probably won't know.

In fairness we should also include quotes from climate skeptic politicians... these could be interesting too.

Frederik De Roo · February 2013

I hope some non-US members of the Azimuth Project add useful quotes from famous people in other countries!

Well, I may be wrong, but I have the impression that not so many people speak out in public anymore in Europe, it was more a topic before the financial crisis of 2008. I think most people accept that something needs to be done (or that this is the mainstream view which they don't want to row up against) but they would feel easier if it needn't be done. Only Green Parties sometimes still speak, because it's part of their core business.

The only time I hear something in the news it's rather like "we can't save the world on our own, and meanwhile we're ruining our industry by being more restrictive than elsewhere in the world"

John Baez · February 2013

It's sort of unfortunate that Europeans have stopped talking much about global warming because almost all of them agree it's a problem, while Americans don't yet agree on this.

JimStuttard · February 2013

If it's newsworthy shouldn't it be posted on +Azimuth for the ~1,600 subscribers there?

+Azimuth needs at least a few more posters; if you're not on it, join G+ and message +Azimuth for posting rights; then just post anything you find relevant and surprising.

If it's important enough then a more detailed page can be created on the wiki.

John Baez · February 2013

I'll be glad to let David Tanzer post to G+ under the Azimuth name if he wants.

DavidTanzer · February 2013

What is the scope that you envision for our postings on G+? How much should be focused on news items, and how much room do we have for "idea" posts, say about Petri nets, or our programming efforts?

I would like to have the posting ability -- thanks -- though I can't commit much time to it, or to responding in real time.

Here is my honest appraisal of the current state of our Azimuth channel: too much information, a little bit too much like the news blips on a Bloomberg terminal. The news is full of environmentally relevant events, and if we reported them all, it would be a torrent. Also, I am frustrated with the standard Google interface to it, which suffers like the wordpress blog from a lack of table of contents, and a way to keep track of where you are in the sequence of messages, and how much you have read so far. Or am I not using it correctly? I tried reading backwards in time, and there was a lot of mileage just to go five days back, and then I lost track of where I was.

If, for example, a bird habitat gets lost in a particular country, then in principle I agree that it is an Azimuth-related event, but in practice it information at too granular a level for us to process -- and we can't even see it in a chronological G+ index (or can we?) If we decide that we don't want to be more selective, and post less frequently, then I suggest that we have two channels, the current Azimuth news channel, and another one, which is broader in scope, and includes, in a balanced fashion, major news events, conceptual items, questions, reports on our modelling projects, etc. In fact, I'm proposing this now, and this is the channel that I'd be most interested in posting to.

Thanks!

DavidTanzer · February 2013

I do realize that it is a different medium than a blog, and it is meant to contain medium-sized "blips" of information. So part of the issue may be my being slow to adapt.

Nevertheless, I still suggest that we either ask Rasha Kamel to be more selective in posting, or else to set up a separate Azimuth news channel.

Just think what it will be like if more of us start adding into the channel.

DavidTanzer · February 2013

John wrote:

I hope some non-US members of the Azimuth Project add useful quotes from famous people in other countries!

I agree. It would be interesting to hear perspectives from Japan and China. I'm thinking of the Japanese awareness of the issue, and of the generally large impact of China in matters of global concern.

John Baez · February 2013

What is the scope that you envision for our postings on G+? How much should be focused on news items, and how much room do we have for “idea” posts, say about Petri nets, or our programming efforts?

At this point I'd say all these are fine; we should try things and see what people like. G+ seems to work best for items that are one or two short paragraphs, together with an eye-catching picture.

Nevertheless, I still suggest that we either ask Rasha Kamel to be more selective in posting, or else to set up a separate Azimuth news channel.

I understand your feeling here, but I'm a bit reluctant to have people who aren't posting things to G+ to act as 'supervisors' to the one who is, telling her to post less. If you can post more interesting things than her, it will soon be apparent by the higher +1 score, and then it may make sense to ask her to be more selective.

Right now I'm in a bit of a dilemma. I sometimes feel like posting more to the Azimuth group on G+. But 25,000 people have circled "John Baez" on G+, while only 1,600 have circled "Azimuth". So, I feel that anything really important posted to Azimuth should also posted under my own name, so more people will read it. But this creates a vicious circle, since it means that my own posts tend to stay more interesting than Azimuth.

Also, I am frustrated with the standard Google interface to it, which suffers like the wordpress blog from a lack of table of contents, and a way to keep track of where you are in the sequence of messages, and how much you have read so far. Or am I not using it correctly? I tried reading backwards in time, and there was a lot of mileage just to go five days back, and then I lost track of where I was.

I read Google+ between once every 20 minutes and once every 5 hours, depending on what else I'm doing. I rarely bother reading things that are 5 days old. So I think it's for people who want to tune in and see what's going on now, not people who want to engage in long conversations or develop serious ideas. If I had an interesting idea about Petri nets I would blog about it and then perhaps post a link to that on Google+.

John Baez · February 2013

Here's an idea: we could create an Azimuth 'community' on G+. Communities make it easy for lots of people to post in one 'place', and also to segregate these posts into different classes. For example, the Mathematics community has classes of posts including:

Math Questions
Videos / Pictures
Jokes

etc.

However, it's not clear that creating this community would help Azimuth much. For serious discussions, this forum here seems better in many ways: the ability to use LaTeX, the ability to create 'threads' of discussion, etc. Google+ seems better for announcements.

Frederik De Roo · February 2013

@ David Tanzer : one important thing to do would be to write your own name under a post if you post something.

It is also possible to delete or correct posts if you feel they're irrelevant or not accurate. John told me if I did this then I should provide the author of the post feedback.

nad · February 2013

John wrote:

For example: when I get into arguments I often need to prove that a huge majority of climate scientists believe in human-caused global warming. I got tired of looking up the evidence every time I needed it. So, I wrote Global warming - scientific opinions. Now I can just go there and grab text whenever I need it!

From the scientific opinions:

In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University.

poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman in Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists.

A 2010 paper by Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneider in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers

The scientists polled were members of the American Geophysical Union or the American Meteorological Society

I guess every climate sceptic would at this point infer that it is clear that those people (earth scientists, climate researchers etc.) have to approve climate change, since in some sense they often make their living by drawing attention to this problem.

And I think there is a point to this. Of course there is something as "scientific evidence" and one should hope that scientists are as neutral as possible when it comes to "evidence". However the fiercer the academic competition gets the more this may get "challenged". Furthermore I could imagine that a lot of those climate change deniers would change their minds if they would get a decent "way out" (of their opinion). That is on one hand there are concrete economic/selfish considerations playing a role in opinion building, i.e. if you are a boss of an oil company you want to sell that stuff (otherwise you loose your job) and on the other hand there are sociological considerations. Like if you polarize people on some topic you allow for a stronger social cohesion of an "opinion group". I guess one can see this to some extend at the example of the climate change funders:

Donors exhibit sharp differences of opinion on many issues, Ball said. They run the spectrum of conservative opinion, from social conservatives to libertarians. But in opposing mandatory cuts to greenhouse gas emissions, they found common ground.

Or simplified: the right feels "right" as a group thanks to the "feel" that climate change appears to them as "not real" and "made up by climate change researchers interest groups etc."

John wrote:

I don’t think it’s a complete mistake, because if you can’t prove you understand something about these questions, they won’t pay attention when you start talking about WHAT SHOULD WE DO ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING.

Concluding: For a climate science researcher a climate change denier may look "irrational" in the sense of denying scientific evidence. But how irrational really is it to say 1+1=0 if this is motivated by a huge self-interest or more politely: if this is fed by a strong need for self-preservation?

I think adressing these problems is crucial for getting to WHAT SHOULD WE DO ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING. And this refers not only to the question of acknowledging climate change but also to the question of why we got there on the first place. (thats by the way also the reason, why I am trying to filter out main mechanisms of such dynamics e.g. in Surplusses and Exchange and think on how to adress them in a game draft)

nad · February 2013

I wrote

why I am trying to filter out main mechanisms of such dynamics e.g. in Surplusses and Exchange and think on how to adress them in a game draft)

I want to point out that I find this "filtering" is rather strenous and that writing this draft takes thus quite some time and energy. I am also currently asking myself wether I should keep doing this and if to which extend. That is although as pointed out above I find these issues are rather important and although that I find that some people adress them in a way I do not necessarily agree with (see also e.g. this randform post) I have the feeling that even if there should be a (for me) satisfying "result" in the "end" - that it may not be worth the effort. That is if there are not enough people/some important people interested in this work then this kind of work would be some kind of strange "strenous soliloquy", which I should better not keep doing for too long.....

Frederick wrote:

@ David Tanzer : one important thing to do would be to write your own name under a post if you post something.

It is also possible to delete or correct posts if you feel they’re irrelevant or not accurate. John told me if I did this then I should provide the author of the post feedback.

I do think that Azimuth posts should bear the name of the author at the very beginning. Currently one has to scroll down or even expand a post in order to see this "posted by"

john wrote:

I understand your feeling here, but I’m a bit reluctant to have people who aren’t posting things to G+ to act as ’supervisors’ to the one who is, telling her to post less. If you can post more interesting things than her, it will soon be apparent by the higher +1 score, and then it may make sense to ask her to be more selective.

Yes filtering is strenous (see above) and as I wrote already earlier that you should discuss this issue with rasha. She needs a true feedback. I had commented on a few posts on AzimuthG+, which I found very counterproductive, but I have currently given up. I stopped to read Azimuth on Google+.

John wrote:

Right now I’m in a bit of a dilemma. I sometimes feel like posting more to the Azimuth group on G+. But 25,000 people have circled “John Baez” on G+, while only 1,600 have circled “Azimuth”. So, I feel that anything really important posted to Azimuth should also posted under my own name, so more people will read it.

In principle I guess the amount of people who reads your posts may be less important than who reads your posts, but in the comparision of your personal G+ account and that of Azimuth G+ I would think too that it is more important to post on your account.

Frederik De Roo · February 2013

I do think that Azimuth posts should bear the name of the author at the very beginning. Currently one has to scroll down or even expand a post in order to see this “posted by”

Well, usually it's half clear from the style who it is, and I think we want to draw more attention to the message than to who actually posted it.

And I think there is a point to this. Of course there is something as “scientific evidence” and one should hope that scientists are as neutral as possible when it comes to “evidence”. However the fiercer the academic competition gets the more this may get “challenged”.

If you're talking about job offers or publications, my impression (I'm working in Earth Sciences) is that this would be nonsense. As far as I know no jobs are assigned on the basis "how much do you believe in AGW". Of course too much academic competition may sometimes lead to hurried research and not-so-good papers, but bad papers can be written by skeptics as well as by AGW believers (or people pretending to believe, if you're hinting at that). In fact, I've seen more bad papers written by skeptics (maybe because these circulate more fiercely on the net).

Furthermore, I think that most earth scientist scientists (those who do not directly work on climate change themselves to be aware of every fine point) do the most "scientifically rational" in these matters, they simply trust what the majority of the experts claims and not discuss about the subjects they don't know enough about to go into every fine point.

JimStuttard · February 2013

I think we want to draw more attention to the message than to who actually posted it.

+1

nad · February 2013

Well, usually it’s half clear from the style who it is, and I think we want to draw more attention to the message than to who actually posted it.

It doesn't seem to me that "Azimuth" (whatever it is....) is always unanimous on all issues, in particular there are definitely messages on Azimuth G+ which I wouldn't sign.

So what is "the" Azimuth message?!

Frederik De Roo · February 2013

It doesn’t seem to me that “Azimuth” (whatever it is….) is always unanimous on all issues, in particular there are definitely messages on Azimuth G+ which I wouldn’t sign.

I agree with your sentiment about +Azimuth, not all messages on +Azimuth are always to my taste either.

But, well, we are a broad church, if I may quote someone from the blog.

Perhaps the easiest would be if Rasha followed the Forum, then we could discuss it further here (I once started a thread for this). But I think it already improved a lot. She is more selective than in the beginning and she quotes more carefully.

So what is “the” Azimuth message?!

I did not intend to give such an impression of a unique message, so I'll rewrite my sentence more accurately:

I think we want to draw more attention to the [particular] message [posted on a certain moment on +Azimuth] than to who actually posted [that particular message]

or shorter

I think we want to draw more attention to the messages than to who actually posted them

John Baez · February 2013

I think the current policy of putting the author's name at the end of posts on Azimuth is best, for the reasons already mentioned. I will send David Tanzer an invitation to post to Azimuth, even though he sounds too busy right now to do so.

John Baez · February 2013

I think the current policy of putting the author's name at the end of Azimuth G+ posts is best, for the reasons already mentioned.

Since David Tanzer has expressed an interest in posting to G+ under the Azimuth name, I've added him to the list of people who can do this... even though he sounds too busy right now. He should find that "Azimuth" now appears when he clicks his name at the upper right of any G+ page.

Frederik wrote:

Perhaps the easiest would be if Rasha followed the Forum, then we could discuss it further here (I once started a thread for this). But I think it already improved a lot. She is more selective than in the beginning and she quotes more carefully.

Rasha is a member of the Forum but apparently doesn't read it much. It would indeed be easier if she followed the Forum. I don't really feel like "forcing" her to read it, especially given how people here mainly mention her name when complaining about her work. I guess I'll invite her at some moment when I'm feeling in the right mood....

The good news is that her posts have indeed improved a lot, becoming better formatted and more focused on environmental issues.

John Baez · February 2013

I posted an article on G+ that should stir up controversy if anyone read it. Maybe this can be a test, to see how many people are paying attention. I also really want to know the answer to my question there!

nad · February 2013

I wrote:

It doesn’t seem to me that “Azimuth” (whatever it is….) is always unanimous on all issues, in particular there are definitely messages on Azimuth G+ which I wouldn’t sign.

Frederic wrote:

Perhaps the easiest would be if Rasha followed the Forum, then we could discuss it further here (I once started a thread for this). But I think it already improved a lot. She is more selective than in the beginning and she quotes more carefully.

Just to make sure: I am not referring to Rasha Kamel in particular, when I say:

in particular there are definitely messages on Azimuth G+ which I wouldn’t sign.

John wrote:

I think the current policy of putting the author’s name at the end of Azimuth G+ posts is best, for the reasons already mentioned.

This is not always the current policy, like who has posted this article??!

Concerning this article you mentioned on G+: The original article is not available for me and I find the article on realclimate which criticises it not very well understandable for an outsider, so I can only vaguely guess whats going on. What I sofar understood is that on the vertical axis ("12 months change of temperature (degree C unfiltered)" ) of the image you posted socalled DIFF12 values are displayed, which realclimate describes as

"which really is meant to describe the rate of changes in the original curves."

So it seems the "12 months change of temperature (degree C unfiltered)" is some kind of derivative of the corresponding absolute temperatures? I.e. do they display the speed of warming?

yes it would be good to have more discussions about that curves.

That article here however stirs also a lot of controversy up, at least with me.

nad · February 2013

Unfortunately I couldnt sofar find more curves on NOAA apart from this one: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/temperature-change.html (just for comparision).

nad · February 2013

would also be interesting to see the methane concentrations in that context. Wikipedia writes on that:

Methane is created near the Earth's surface, primarily by microorganisms by the process of methanogenesis. It is carried into the stratosphere by rising air in the tropics. Uncontrolled build-up of methane in the atmosphere is naturally checked — although human influence can upset this natural regulation — by methane's reaction with hydroxyl radicals formed from singlet oxygen atoms and with water vapor. It has a net lifetime of about 10 years,[39] and is primarily removed by conversion to carbon dioxide and water.

where [39] is: Boucher, Olivier; Friedlingstein, Pierre; Collins, Bill; Shine, Keith P (2009). "The indirect global warming potential and global temperature change potential due to methane oxidation". Environmental Research Letters 4 (4): 044007. Bibcode 2009ERL.....4d4007B. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/4/4/044007.

JimStuttard · February 2013

Nad, Any feedback on any of my posts would be most welcome, especially ones you don't like. You can always message me privately on G+ if you think I would be embarrased but public comments under the post would be fine by me. Cheers

DavidTanzer · February 2013

John wrote:

Since David Tanzer has expressed an interest in posting to G+ under the Azimuth name, I’ve added him to the list of people who can do this… even though he sounds too busy right now.

Things are better now. House structures have been stabilized, and we worked out a plan with the engineer for a long-term fix. The contractor just choose an unfortunate piece of wood for the replacement joist, which had fissures to begin with. Erg. Knots are also not acceptable in them. According to the contractor it is hard to find good quality wood these days -- in the past the wood was denser, because now it comes from trees that have just been regrown.

He should find that “Azimuth” now appears when he clicks his name at the upper right of any G+ page.

I don't see this. When I click on my name, a popup appears, which shows my name, my email, my non-existent photo, and buttons labeled Account and Privacy -- but no Azimuth. Do I have to take some action to link up with Azimuth?

How would I post to Azimuth? Do I "share what's new" and choose Azimuth as the destination? I do see Azimuth posts, and am able to select Azimuth in the share-what's-new dialog.

nad · February 2013

Nad, Any feedback on any of my posts would be most welcome, especially ones you don’t like. You can always message me privately on G+ if you think I would be embarrased but public comments under the post would be fine by me. Cheers

I haven't yet encountered posts by you, were I would have thought that a public comment from me would be too embarrassing for you (but I might be wrong.... :)) in fact as I said above I rather stopped reading Azimuth on G+, because it was getting too much. Moreover I don't comment on everything which I don't like (or like) even if I read it.

Like as I said that article stirs up controversy with me and I don't feel like commenting on it.

JimStuttard · February 2013

Hi Nad,

The culprit in the case of the anonymous G+ post you mentioned in your post #32 is one JB, testing for lerts as he says at his post #26. I ignored it as tl;dr.

Sadly I missed the pro-nuke economist post. IMHO it should have been flagged as an interview ie. number and citation free, and controversial.

That said, I learned a few thing from the comments on the original article.

If would have been good if you could have commented on the post directly. We need the feedback.

It would be great if you put your point of view against John Baez's pro-nuclear challenge page which is somewhere in the Azimuth blog, forum, wiki stew.:P

FWIW. I recently had dinner with Cancel Kizeltepe who's a VW economist standing for election to the Bundestag for the SPD in Berlin. She hates the Greens but wouldn't accept any of my least worst alternative arguments for nuclear power. It seems there might be a German consensus?

nad · February 2013

Jim, If you are interested in nuclear power generation you may read this randform post. And Prof. Chakravorty too. This is all so ugly.

Regarding this post by you on G+you may want to read this randform post.

Frederik De Roo · February 2013

It's going way off the orginal topic, but:

It would be great if you put your point of view against John Baez’s pro-nuclear challenge page

You mean the page Nuclear power? She already did that a long time ago. This actually raised a question to me, can we neutrally refer to articles we have actually posted ourselves?

you may read this

well, I understand your blog is also about art, but it doesn't help to give a neutral impression to depict a skeleton at the top.

I have the feeling most opinions with respect to nuclear power are based on emotions: "It's black magic!" But maybe that's based on my own experience. I used to be extremely against nuclear power as a child (especially when passing nearby a power station) out of fear from the unknown but during my studies I've actually put moderator rods into a (tiny) research reactor etc, and this helps to remove some of the emotions involved. (Actually, I find it funny to compare a clean room with a safe room, once you've been in both) But I've heard there's some theory in psychology about this, e.g. awareness about accidents like dam breaks, depending on the distance people live from the dam. Once they're close enough, they worry less again. But I wouldn't go so far as to conclude that experts cannot be trusted because of this.

I'd like to do without nuclear (I don't like to get X-rays either) but if more coal and brown coal are the alternatives, well... Besides, it appears to me a more clean resource than shale gas. There are too many people using too many resources, and it will be hard to convince them to do otherwise, so in a democratic society energy solutions will have to be pragmatic.

JimStuttard · February 2013

Tnx for the links, Nad and Frederick.

nad · February 2013

You mean the page Nuclear power? She already did that a long time ago. This actually raised a question to me, can we neutrally refer to articles we have actually posted ourselves?

I don't understand. What do you mean with neutral? I have an opinion about commercial nuclear power generation, I think its highly problematic and I indicated this. I am not against "nuclear power" per se. Please read the post.

It's up to you how you interpret a skeleton. You can view the skeleton as a symbol of the merits of xray or you can view it as a symbol of death. If people feel uncomfortable with the skeleton in the context of nuclear science then this is probably because even pro-nuclear people have secretely the feeling that nuclear power generation may not be so cozy as they may eventually want it to be. So if you feel uncomfortable about the skeleton you may ask yourself: why?

Frederik De Roo · February 2013

I don't feel uncomfortable about the skeleton as a symbol of death, it's just that I found it not neutral in my first impression, but I hadn't thought about it as symbolizing the merits of x-rays, so thanks for clarifying that. I don't consider myself to be pro-nuclear and I wouldn't say that nuclear power generation is cozy (this is not a secret). Actually I think the uranium mines are the worst part. But it also has merits compared to other technologies.

I don't understand. What do you mean with neutral? I have an opinion about [...]

My idea is that it there's a difference between person X adding to the wiki that person Y has opinion A, or person X adding to the wiki that person X has opinion A. Especially if person X writes about himself in a less nuanced manner:

This overview puts together scientific arguments in order to justify the claim that [...]

I don't want to doubt that you have some good arguments on your blog, but this sounds much less nuanced than the rest of the page. It hasn't got to do with the fact that this page is about nuclear power. It could have been about gmo's or whatever.

Please read the post.

I found it visually hard to read, so I must confess I gave up pretty soon.

John Baez · February 2013

nad wrote:

This is not always the current policy, like who has posted this article??!

I posted it. It is the current policy that people posting under the name Azimuth on G+ say who they are. However, I made a mistake. I fixed it.

It doesn’t seem to me that “Azimuth” (whatever it is….) is always unanimous on all issues, in particular there are definitely messages on Azimuth G+ which I wouldn’t sign.

That's one reason we should sign our posts on G+. I don't believe we should try to be unanimous on all issues. Even if it were possible, achieving consensus before posting any comment anywhere would take a long time. I think it's more fruitful for us to discuss issues on which we disagree - if we feel it's worthwhile, of course. We don't need to agree on very much to do useful things.

John Baez · February 2013

I wrote:

He should find that “Azimuth” now appears when he clicks his name at the upper right of any G+ page.

David Tanzer wrote:

I don’t see this. When I click on my name, a popup appears, which shows my name, my email, my non-existent photo, and buttons labeled Account and Privacy – but no Azimuth. Do I have to take some action to link up with Azimuth?

Since nobody has ever invited me to anything I don't know how it works from your end... but all this was apparently very painless for Jim Stuttard and Frederik de Roo. Can they explain what if anything they had to do, to get hooked up to Azimuth on Google+?

Hmm. I think I made a mistake, by inviting "david.tanzer@gmail.com" instead of inviting a person on Google+ named David Tanzer. I just checked and you were listed as "invited" rather than "manager". This suggests you got an invitation of some sort, to which you haven't responded. Probably in your email.

It wasn't this hard for anyone else! The problem is that there are several people on Google+ named David Tanzer, and I don't know which one is you. this person? (Probably not.) This person? (No, you said you didn't have a photo.) This person? (There's no information at all about this one.) This person? (Also no information.) Or...?

Can you add a picture to Google, like your picture here? I think that would make this work a lot more easily.

DavidTanzer · February 2013

Hi, I uploaded the photo. I am this person.

BTW, I know you have my email, but for clarity, it is dave.tanzer, not david.tanzer. All this is making me think I should change my name to David A. Tanzer :)

Thanks

nad · February 2013

John wrote:

That’s one reason we should sign our posts on G+. I don’t believe we should try to be unanimous on all issues. Even if it were possible, achieving consensus before posting any comment anywhere would take a long time. I think it’s more fruitful for us to discuss issues on which we disagree - if we feel it’s worthwhile, of course. We don’t need to agree on very much to do useful things.

no we shouldnt try to be unanimous on all issues, but this "policy" has to be made clearly visible to the reader. that's why I wrote:

I do think that Azimuth posts should bear the name of the author at the very beginning. Currently one has to scroll down or even expand a post in order to see this “posted by”

but I can live with the "posted by" at the bottom, i.e. the way it is now, the crucial point is that there is an author name, i.e. that every post is signed and may be one could write some sentence like the posts reflect the authors views into the what seems to me an outdated info:

This Azimuth page here on Google+ lets you keep track of news related to energy, the environment and sustainability. Posts on this page are written by John Baez and Jim Stuttard, often based on posts by Rasha Kamel.

Frederik wrote:

I found it visually hard to read, so I must confess I gave up pretty soon.

What exactly was hard to read for you? The fontsize, the font itself, the breaks in between, which are due to the fact that it is just a collection of links with some short descriptions? The different colors and font emphasizes? Would be interesting to hear.

People react very differently to colors and breaks within a text.

The text is certainly no leaflet-style compendium. I was thinking about wether one should make everything more into an more easy read (I was also thinking about this in the context of the game article. However my missionary drive is currently not very developed (it is maybe in general not very developed). That is with telling people about what dangers I see there, I feel that I have sort of done my duty as a physicist.

And the game article is also not yet finished and the things there and the nuclear energy problems are interrelated.

Moreover I have currently also to do other things, like to find out how to mitigate my current outlook on old-age poverty.

nad · February 2013

Frederic wrote:

It could have been about gmo’s or whatever.

what is gmo ?

There are too many people using too many resources, and it will be hard to convince them to do otherwise, so in a democratic society energy solutions will have to be pragmatic.

bunga bunga Italia!

Frederik De Roo · February 2013

what is gmo ?

Just google "gmo wikipedia"

bunga bunga Italia!

If that's your first reaction, I gladly withdraw from discussing with you.

John Baez · February 2013

Dave Tanzer wrote:

Hi, I uploaded the photo. I am this person.

Thanks! But it turns out that wasn't necessary... only reassuring.

BTW, I know you have my email, but for clarity, it is dave.tanzer, not david.tanzer.

Oh! That was the problem: I'd sent an invitation to david.tanzer@gmail.com! Now I've sent one to you... it says the invitation was sent by email, so you should look for it... but I see something on G+ that says you've been invited, and it shows your picture, so that's reassuring.

(Sorry for the confusion, but it's been so long that I'd done this, and it was so unproblematic before, that I didn't remember exactly how it worked.)

Let me know if there's any further trouble.

John Baez · February 2013

nad wrote:

Concerning this article you mentioned on G+: The original article is not available for me and I find the article on RealClimate which criticises it not very well understandable for an outsider, so I can only vaguely guess what's going on.

Sorry. I originally thought that article was open-access. I have now sent a copy to lots of Azimuthers, including you.

(If anyone didn't get a copy and wants one, they should let me know!)

What I so far understood is that on the vertical axis ("12 months change of temperature (degree C unfiltered)" ) of the image you posted so-called DIFF12 values are displayed, which Realclimate describes as

"which really is meant to describe the rate of changes in the original curves."

So it seems the "12 months change of temperature (degree C unfiltered)" is some kind of derivative of the corresponding absolute temperatures?

Yes, Humlum et al use "DIFF12" to mean "the mean of a quantity for 12 months, minus the mean for the preceding 12 month period". In the paper I sent you, you can see - at the bottom of Figure 2 - a graph of DIFF12 for sea surface temperatures, global air temperatures, and carbon dioxide concentration. It's very interesting because the temperature DIFF12's change before the carbon dioxide DIFF12's do.

Climate skeptics are saying this means that carbon dioxide don't cause global warming! But the RealClimate article explains what is going on.

I would like to blog about this someday... but I feel I should first blog about "has global warming stopped?" which is a more basic argument that skeptics often make.

John Baez · February 2013

nad wrote:

maybe one could write some sentence like the posts reflect the authors views into the what seems to me an outdated info:

This Azimuth page here on Google+ lets you keep track of news related to energy, the environment and sustainability. Posts on this page are written by John Baez and Jim Stuttard, often based on posts by Rasha Kamel.

Sure. I just updated this description and now it says the posts reflect the individual authors' views.

Frederik De Roo · February 2013

I would like to blog about this someday… but I feel I should first blog about “has global warming stopped?” which is a more basic argument that skeptics often make.

It's probably only a wild statement, but lately I was reading some financial pages of a newspaper and came across an analysis (well, it used sentences like "the gold market is trying to tell us something" so maybe analysis is an overstatement, though there seemed to be some content in the article too) of the timeseries of some product (well, gold), remarking that the price had dropped below some X-day-average for the first time in several years, and this reminded me somehow of skeptical arguments about temperature timeseries.

Perhaps some skeptics look upon a timeseries of temperature in the way they look upon the timeseries of a stock product? Which could be the source of some confusion (remember also that recent paper on the blog from some economists claiming that there is no correlation between temperature and carbon emissions). I'm in no way knowledgeable about trading, but it seems to me that the mechanisms behind the timeseries are very very different -- even though one could perhaps say that in both cases the mechanisms are antropogenic ;-) So what could perhaps be meaninfully ascribed as "the rising has stopped" in a market timeseries would not be a meaningful statement if the timeseries were about temperature.

PS I received an email from Azimuth saying that David (A) Tanzer has been added as administrator

nad · February 2013

Yes, Humlum et al use “DIFF12” to mean “the mean of a quantity for 12 months, minus the mean for the preceding 12 month period”. In the paper I sent you, you can see - at the bottom of Figure 2 - a graph of DIFF12 for sea surface temperatures, global air temperatures, and carbon dioxide concentration. It’s very interesting because the temperature DIFF12’s change before the carbon dioxide DIFF12’s do.

Sorry but this explanation is not enough for me:

"the mean of a quantity for 12 months, minus the mean for the preceding 12 month period" sounds to me as to get one value either for each year or for each measured value. Are the measured values equidistant in time? Like if I measure every month i a quantity "q_i" then this could be (leaving out the first and last year) something like

$Diff12(q_i)=1/12*Sum_{j=0}^11 q_{i+j}-q_{i-j}$

???

But on a first glance it doesnt look to me that the green curve in fig 1 (of the real climate article) produces a green curve as in fig 2. (of the real climate article) with such a formula....but then it is not clear wether the green curve in fig 2 of the real climate article is Diff12 of the co2 concentrations. They write:

Fig. 2: Reproduction of the lower panel of Fig 2 in Humlum et al (2012). Also shown is a 'DIFF12' for the Keeling curve (light green). Some of the strongest El Ninos are shown with grey hatching.

what is the "lower panel" ? Are these the two temperatures? (in fig 1 red and blue??) if yes where is the argument about the co2?

Moreover I see in the images smooth curves, so is there some interpolation in between? I briefly looked into the paper, but I couldnt find a formula. So I briefly looked at the r-code at http://www.realclimate.org/images//HSS2012.txt

which says for diff12:

  diff12 <- function(x,wfl=NULL) {
  yymm <- attr(x,'yymm')
  yy <- trunc(yymm)
  mm <- round(12*(yymm-yy) + 0.5)
  if (!is.null(wfl)) x <- filter(x,rep(1,wfl)/wfl)
  years <- as.numeric(row.names(table(yy)))
  fullyr <- as.numeric(table(yy))
  #print(years)
  years <- years[is.element(fullyr,12)]
  complete <- is.element(yy,years)
  mm <- mm[complete]
  yy <- yy[complete]
  x <- x[complete]
  #print(table(mm))
  #print(years)
  #print(fullyr)
  n <- length(years)-1
  diff12 <- matrix(rep(NA,n*12),12,n)
  for (m in 1:12) {
    ii <- is.element(mm, m) 
    #print(c(m,length(ii),sum(ii),length(diff12[m,]),length(diff(x[ii]))))
    diff12[m,] <- diff(x[ii])
  }
  diff12 <- c(diff12)
  attr(diff12,'yymm') <- yy[-(1:12)] + (mm[-(1:12)]-0.5)/12
  invisible(diff12)
}

so there is some rounding going on, but I don't understand the r-code syntax and and I do not understand all the variables, like what is NA?:

# Remove entries not yet filled in - set to NA.
  remove.sst <- (sst == 0) & (attr(sst,'yymm') >2000)
  sst[remove.sst] <- NA
  remove.t2m <- (t2m == 0) & (attr(t2m,'yymm') >2000)
  t2m[remove.t2m] <- NA

As said I don't understand the r-code syntax and I currently don't feel like learning it. If you understand what it does and whats going on here then please let everybody know.

But the RealClimate article explains what is going on.

Sorry but as said I have also problems to understand the real climate article.

Did you see that there is a project page on that issue? You may eventually explain there your findings.

Sorry I have no idea why the comment is invalid XML.

JimStuttard · February 2013

Here's a great picture of denier interpolation. Perhaps it should be called "Lindzen's ruler"?

Azimuth Forum

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

Global warming in the news

Comments