Blogger slightly broken

Sorry about the paragraph breaks; blogger seems to be inserting random div tags that don't show up on the preview. This makes the gap between paragraphs somewhat random.

Yet another "hey Google" thing...

Anyway I am probably going to move this blog once; when do you suppose I should give up hope for an invite from SciBlogs? Having experienced more powerful blogging platform via correlationsblog.com I am ready to make the shift but I don't want to do it twice.

Not that Blogger is a bad thing. Until this current bug it was easy and functional.

Update: I suspect the bug is Safari-specific.

Update 1/24: The brazenly whinged-for SciBlogs invite has arrived! There is apparently a contract involved. I suspect I will sign it; I will certainly read it!

A Brief History of US AGW Politics

Some useful background on climate change history and politics in the US focusing on Hansen, on DKos.

UNEP Maps the Anthropocene

You can get a random graphic of the day from the United Nations Environment Programme.

If you use iGoogle, here's a widget link. Else you can use the RSS feed .

It's a nice feed to follow if you like to think about, you know, the rock you are astonishingly hurtling through space upon.

---

I'm scratching my head a bit over this one: River fragmentation and flow regulation.

It "indicates the areas which are most affected by river channel fragmentation and flow regulation. River fragmentation is defined as the interruption of a river's natural flow by dams, inter-basin transfers or water withdrawal, and is an indicator of the degree to which rivers have been modified by human activity." The extent of regions where rivers are unimpeded is a bit shocking. (Note that the grey and pink areas are "don't know", only the very pale green are places where hydrology is "known to be in a natural state".) (Paging Dr. Tufte...)

Welcome to the anthropocene.

This picture is an example of why it bothers me when people are so adamant about "thinking local". A dam here, a dam there, this tends to strike me as fine. The idea that almost all the rivers in the world have been replaced by plumbing, on the other hand, is at least something that bears thinking about.

Computing and Climate Threads

So as not to bore the broader audience intended for this blog, I am going to move my comments on more technical matters over to pencilscience.blogspot.com and I'm turning comment moderation back on here for a bit. I very much welcome discussion on the technology of climate science over there.

I'll be rearranging the column on the right soon to indicate when I have articles elsewhere, for those who are inclined to follow bit would rather not add another feed.

Meanwhile, there's one there now.

What Will You Believe You Now Believe?

Not surprisingly, but to perhaps a surprising extent, people's opinions of their prior opinions are biased.

Science and Politics Intersecting, Correlating etc.

Via email from Sheril:

Hey folks,

Today at 2pm, listen in on NPR's Science Friday with Ira Flatow on the Call for a Science Debate:

Friday, January 11th, 2008
Hour One- 2pm EDT
The Call for A Science Debate

"Should the presidential candidates participate in a debate focusing on science, technology, and the environment? A group of voters has started a petition movement calling for a science debate."

Details on today's program here:
http://www.sciencefriday.com/program/archives/200801111

On a related note, Atmoz spots a good starting point at Physics Today, compiling candidates'
positions on science-related matters.

Fresh Air

Jim Hansen was on “Fresh Air” today and Terry Gross asked him what the one most important thing we could do about the climate problem would be. Hansen answered correctly that we need to stop building new coal plants unless they have CCS.

Well, you know, I haven’t built one of those lately, at least not personally.

As Gore points out in 18 point text as my current blog slogan, the only way out of this mess is through cooperation at all levels, including national and global. Only governments capable of competent, careful, serious and quantitative thinking can save us, and if we don't have them, we need to create some.

Ms Gross had an interesting follow-up, which was whether Hansen was going beyond his charter as a scientist in recommending policy. His answer was a very polished and polite dance around the fact that if the scientists don’t come out and say this blazingly obvious fact in the clearest possible terms, the politicians won’t manage to figure it out.

Click the link and give a listen. Thanks Howie, for the tip, and thanks again to Terry Gross for yet another remarkably insightful interview.

Staying Geeky

Most scientists, especially climate scientists, know next to nothing about what is actually happening in computing.

Most computer people, even academics, know next to nothing about what climate people consider standard practice.

The gap is enormous. You'd think someone who speaks both languages might be able to get some steady work... The trouble is that the customer still has very little idea of what is possible and the vendor still has very little idea what is needed. I'm trying to occupy a middleman position that neither side perceives quite rightly. It's not at all certain that I'll get to do that in any official capacity.

Failing that I will have more time and less resources, but I'll probably have a climate modeling project anyway, probably with a more didactic spin.

Anyway I'm going to be starting to look to my readership for advice or assistance. How do I keep my science gig going (small inputs of reasonably relevant funding through academic channels in the near term would be hugely helpful) else how do I keep myself doing something useful if the science thing sputters out again. Any advice welcome here or in email.

See also related articles:

Excised Paragraphs
Why is Climate Modeling Stuck?
NCAR vs Google

Nice Carbon Proposal

Via Dot Earth via On the Commons by Peter Barnes, a way to both carbon taxes and cap-and-trade that's less difficult to swallow than either of them alone.

"+1"

NCAR vs Google: Place your Bets

Sticking with a technical theme for a bit, and following onto my most recent previous article, I'd like to further address what I perceive as the limited productivity of climate modeling as an enterprise.

---

Getting software right is a very subtle skill. In general it is much easier to write barely useful software than to write powerful software, and broken software is easier still. On the other hand, observing that it is possible to do much better than has been done in the past has become trivially easy.

That is is possible to get software right is proven daily in the commercial sector. In my commercial career and especially more recently in the Chicago Python group I have been exposed to extremely talented programmers, some of whom are literally orders of magnitude more productive than ordinary programmers.

They are very particular regarding their choice of tool as any highly talented and productive person is, and many of them tend to choose Python or similar tools for most of their work. Of course, I cannot paint like Rembrandt even given the finest brushes and paints, but that doesn't mean brushes and paints don't matter. The tool isn't the point, though. The point is that a new approach has emerged.

You don't have to take my word for it anymore. The consequences of these capacities, interestingly developed almost entirely outside the academic sector, are increasingly visible through the productivity of Google, the largest collection of people with this sort of talent. Many smaller companies and organizations also partake of this cluster of techniques, but the remarkable productivity of Google is visible to anyone who cares to look.

So let me flip my question from the previous article, which was, whether computational technique can help to increase the rate of progress in climate modeling? Here is a recasting of that question:

Can we be sure that the greatly improved methodologies recently developed in the private sector can't be applied to climate modeling and related endeavors?

It seems to be obviously premature to say so.

The question, then, is whether climate modeling (and computational science, at least as applied to complex natural systems) matters. If it doesn't, we should all take up macrame or real estate. If it does matter, we should be paying very close attention to what works elsewhere. Not everything will apply, but what will apply will not be nothing, either.

Should Silicon Valley folks just build a climate model? It's a risky endeavor and I don't see a viable business proposition, but maybe, maybe somehow.

Should they just fund a climate model and not get involved? No. Foundation money directed toward software is probably even more likely to go astray into worthless boondoggles than government money.

Should they just shrug and forget the whole sorry business, accept that CO2 is a major forcing, and get on with other things? Maybe but I hope not. This abandons the adaptation side which is going to matter, trust me.

So I think the problem is institutional and motivational, not technical.