RealClimate: Butterflies, tornadoes and climate modelling

Maurizio Morabito Says:
1 May 2008 at 7:11 PM

There is a simple way to settle the falsifiability issue. Could anybody at RC please post a blog clearly stating what would falsify the climate models? Say (just as a way of example) “if temperatures will be cooler than today’s in 2020″ or “if there is a sustained negative trend over the course of 25 years”. Those statements are simplistic: I am sure you can come up with something more sophisticated.

Alternatively, if such a clear-cut answer has already been the topic of one of your blogs, could you please provide the link. thanks in advance.

=======

7 May 2008 at 7:03 PM

Re #107

I am preparing a relatively long commentary on what I am learning from this blog and its comments. For now let me clarify that I do not think that current climate models are based on incorrect physics.

The black-body radiation equivalence still holds though, as what looked like a relatively minor nuisance (”noise”?) to your average XIX century physicist, was the basis for a whole new understanding of the whole science of physics.

Think of genetics: yesterday’s “junk DNA” is (in part) today’s “gene switches”. Who knows what tomorrow will bring.

As for the comments policy, in the past I have seen some thoughts of mine not published, for whatever reason. I am pleasantly surprised that nothing of the sort is happening this time around, and hopefully the situation won’t change.

Leucophaea: Ci Risiamo Con il Global Warming

(commento a “Ci Risiamo Con il Global Warming“): E adesso che anche Nature pone l’interruzione del riscaldamento come possibilita’ realistica, a chi chiederai di zittire chi non la pensa come te?

Climate Skeptic: Are Climate Models Falsifiable?

Posted by: Maurizio Morabito | April 25, 2008 at 11:05 PM

It would be interesting if “Scientist” would come up with ways to falsify the climate models, since as we know the people at RealClimate won’t. The “weather vs. climate” picture confirms my point: as long as there is _any amount_ of “warming”, the climate models will be considered _right_ (in the sense of “not false”).

One can imagine a period of 20 years of cooling dismissed out of hand as “aerosols” or “soot” or whatever else: with the climate models still “right”, no matter what.

On the other hand when, say, James Hansen talks about “tipping points” he is not referring to changes that will be visible only after 10 or more years of statistics: rather, to spectacular modifications of the world as we experience it. Am I mistaken on this point?

So please, if you can, try to be explicit about what observations would make you change your mind.

As I mention in my Moon Hoax blog, the difference between a dogmatic and a honest debater is that the former invariably never ever reveals what evidence would convince them to change their mind.

http://omnologos.wordpress.com/2008/04/21/phil-plaits-moon-hoax-london-speech-report/

Under the Jacaranda Tree: Bart Simpson and Jin Jing’s spin-doctors

omnologos Says:
22 April, 2008 at 10:39 pm

At the end of the day, it doesn’t matter any longer. The pictures are out there. There are two assaults, not just one. Ms. Jin’s facial expression is that of a person in distress, or an unexpectedly great actress.

So obscure photographic analysis and talks about the behaviour of foreigners marching towards a demo in Paris, won’t do the trick. You may as well try to stop a tsunami with a teaspoon.

The Economist: The return of Silvio Berlusconi

The Economist has devoted so much ink to Berlusconi during the election campaign (compared, say, to Veltroni), one would be tempted to think the esteemed magazine pretends to hate the guy but it’s actually in love with Silvio…

I firmly believe Veltroni had no intention to win this time around (with a Party still in its infancy, and no definite opinion on any topic, still half-way between the Christian Democrats and the Communists of old). Veltroni’s main (and achieved) aim was to kill off everything on his left.

Berlusconi on the other hand in all likelihood will never again have to run for popularly-elected office: he now has three to four years to gather enough support in Parliament to become President of the Italian Republic, so it would be rather foolish for him to run down the country.

Climate Feedback: Gulf Stream revisited

I am appalled at the poor quality of this blog entry on Climate Feedback. Is this the standard expected from Nature?? Please do check facts a little better, next time.

http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2008/03/14/gulf-stream-myths/ http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2008/03/14/gulf-stream-myths-2/

Razionalismo vs. Religione: Rai: condannata per puntata di AnnoZero sulla copertura dei preti pedofili

Marzo 17, 2008 alle 8:32 pm

La Pagina: Elezioni 2008: etica e politica

17, Marzo, 2008 a 12:21 pm E’ appunto perche’ a parlare sono i fatti e non le chiacchiere che si puo’ dire che il Governo Prodi sia stato il piu’ clericale della storia della Repubblica. Non una sola iniziativa e’ arrivata a termine, se i vescovi hanno detto di no.

Infatti chi e’ il secondo partito clericale d’Italia adesso, se non il PD (dopo l’UDC)? E in quale partito e’ permesso di pensare liberamente sull’etica, se non nel PDL?

Oca Sapiens: Messina, V puntata

BBC News: Can’t Anybody Understand Science?

(message sent to the BBC)

The unsigned article on congestion charge and health is highly misleading to say the least. As one of the report’s authors, Cathryn Tonne, told internet publication “spiked online”, “the average increase in life expectancy suggested by the report is 14 hours per person - over their entire lifespan!”.

One worries about the level of scientific understanding when 14 hours are reported as 1,888 years…

IHT: Opining without Reading

Dear Editors

Wouldn’t it be wiser for columnists to read first about what they want to write, rather than rely purely on soundbites and media-generated hearsay?

Mona Eltahawy, in “Delusions in Canterbury” (IHT, Feb 15) says about the Archbishop of Canterbury’s ideas on Shari’a law that “words are especially cheap“, and “he probably thinks his ‘tolerance’ for Shariah is progressive“. She even wonders “whose version of Shariah he meant“.

There is no need for wondering or probability. Archbishop Williams originally gave a thoughtful lecture on the topic, as part of a series, on February 7. The lecture is available online and consists of 8 densely-written pages, where many if not all of the objections have already been answered.

Perhaps it was the length, combined with the complexity of the topic: or perhaps it was the objective difficulty in translating a long and reasoned argument into a few journalistic words. In any case, anybody reading the original will be able to understand how much the Archbishop’s thoughts have been distorted in hundreds and hundreds of reports.

Shari’a law, Muslim integration in Europe, the status of women and gays are very serious topics. I just wish Ms Eltahawy and everybody seriously considering them will make a point of finding the time to explore proposals such as Archbishop Williams’ fully and on the original sources, instead of by whatever appears on TV or newspapers.

Accuweather Global Warming: Cause of Massive Ice Shelf Collapse Questioned

BrooklineTom

I’d certainly do without the Nazis but…why shouldn’t I be able to answer oranges with oranges, so to speak??

There is an overwhelming consensus that the expression “Global warming denier” has been deliberately coined to equate AGW heretics to people denying the Holocaust.

And “Denier” is often repeated by people fully aware of the horrible connotations around it.

Check what happened on CBS around a year ago. Or the stuff this article, some mainstream media pieces making more or less the same point.

In any case, Goebbels’ words have been used in all sort of propaganda tricks, not just to build the Holocaust.

Hey, am I accusing you of participating in the killing hundreds of millions of people or what?

(and that’s an argumentum ad absurdum, if you don’t get it)

Perdukistan: Englisharia

mauriziomorabito said…

Solo per dire che il problema non e’ (stato) l’Arcivescovo di Canterbury, ma (a) i giornalisti che, incapaci di leggere le otto pagine fitte fitte di parole scritte da Williams, ne hanno distorto il pensiero completamente in un “soundbite” insensato. E (b) tutti quei politici, prelati e gente di esperienza varia che hanno immediatamente espresso la loro opinione: ma invece di leggere il testo originale, si sono basati sul “soundbite”.

A controprova: a parte il fatto che la polemica si e’ sgonfiata dopo qualche giorno (si vede, il tempo necessario a leggere otto pagine di testo), lo stesso Cardinale O’Connor sembra aver cambiato opinione da un giorno all’altro (presumibilmente, dopo aver finalmente letto il testo).

La morale e’ sempre quella: c’e’ ’sto benedetto internet, andatevi a leggere l’originale invece che dare credito al giornalista / commentatore/ parlatore di turno

7:20 PM

Classically Liberal: Archbishop says some Sharia law in England should be passed

The fact that the Archbishop’s words were condemned from each and every side should have alerted to the other fact, that he may have actually said something else, and something thoughtful.

http://omnologos.wordpress.com/2008/02/07/reactions-to-archbishop-williams-sharia-remarks-reveal-depth-of-islamophobia/

The “problem” is that the Archbishop explained his ideas in 8 pages full of words: and those were simply too much for journalists to comprehend. So they went for a completely misleading soundbite, and all sorts of people and politicians jumped in commenting: but they were commenting the soundbite, not the Archbishop’s thoughts.

As further evidence for this, with each passing day the brouhaha is steadily dying down: one wonders how many simply needed such a period of time, to read and digest the original speech.

Complex System of Pipes: Just Like Who?

 4 omnologos February 14, 2008 at 10:37 pm

Thank you for posting this. When I read the original news I had a feeling there was something wrong…

Let’s celebrate the fact that the police are improving their methods. Having killed Jean-Charles de Menezes, they “only” shot Mohammed Abdulkahar in the Forrest Gate fiasco.

This time around they “simply” “accompanied” people to the nearest Police Station (too bad for those broken doors). Phew!

And what about Roma communities “driving down house prices? Wasn’t that supposed to be a welcome thing, in all the stories about people getting priced out of the market? 8-P

 5 omnologos February 14, 2008 at 11:08 pm

Dave

Look at Google News…and despair…

http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&ned=uk&q=slough+roma&ie=UTF-8&scoring=d

“This is London”, “UK Express” and even Channel 4 have not changed their reporting a bit. Their readers will still be convinced the police raids were a good thing.

The BBC News web site itself, says nothing of the latest developments.

Accuweather Global Warming: Cause of Massive Ice Shelf Collapse Questioned

By the way…I liked (part of) Aaron’s comment so much, I blogged about it:

Me “Denier”? You “Goebbelite”!”

And I wouldn’t mind being called a heretic

Reason Magazine: Science Writer’s Motto: We Don’t Ask Questions. That Is Not Our Role.

I recommend reading the Skeptic Society’s essay:

“Journalist-Bites-Reality!
How broadcast journalism is flawed
in such a fundamental way that its utility as a tool for informing viewers is almost nil..”.

It explains many, many things…

http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2008/02/13/skeptics-society-how-broadcast-journalism-is-flawed/

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-02-13.html#feature

Complex System of Pipes: Hey Joe - Asian Babes, Honour Killings and Liberal Racism

Thank you Dave for the link.

I have published in the past my worries about the brewing of anti-Muslim sentiments

As for media bias, there is a very good essay from the Skeptics society I have just blogged about. It shows all that’s wrong with journalism, and not just on The Independent.

BBC Have Your Say: Should UK adopt aspects of Sharia Law?

Way too many people are ready to comment without bothering to read the original source. Dr Williams’ lecture is intelligent, thoughtful, humble, and single-handedly describes the basis for solving the Islamic Question in Western societies. Rarely have I seen a document more profoundly Christian, in the best possible sense of the word. The number and virulence of the ill-informed attacks against Dr Williams is a clear indication of how much Islamophobia has now become “mainstream”.

digitaltoast: Bash The Bishop

What I find supremely odd is that few have tried to read Dr Williams’ lecture.

No need to be upset: just make the effort of checking out what he’s said in the first place, will you?

Maurizio Morabito wrote a comment on February 8, 2008

> Is it possible that I might just have taken the time to listen to
> the full interview, and still be of the opinion that the Archbishop
> has said something incredibly divisive and foolish?

It certainly could be the case…however. it is quite unlikely, as there is no evidence you or any of the detractors I have seen on the BBC site have tried to quote or comment any of his actual arguments. Please let me know if and when that happens

 

Maurizio Morabito wrote a comment on February 8, 2008

> Is that the way to a sound multicultural society?

And why not? Of course with plenty of caveats regarding the implementation. For example a Sharia court could intervene only when both parties agree to that. And where Sharia law, as coded by British Muslim scholars and authorities, were to disagree with British law, the latter would prevail. And so on and so forth: all stuff that is quite common regarding Inuit communities in Canada. And nobody believes Canada is breaking apart.

Dr Williams has explicitly mentioned the possibility of moving post-Enlightenment law customs beyond their original anti-despotism stance. It is a definite possibility, to which he devotes a sizable part of his lecture. Please read, read, read!!

 

Maurizio Morabito wrote a comment on February 8, 2008

Last point for tonight: about the Islamophobia. Can’t you see the absolute disproportionate reaction to Dr Williams’ words? And one believed we were in a free society. Why all this mobbing, I cannot understand: or perhaps I can, if I see it as inspired by Islamophobia. People read “sharia”, think “Iran” or “Taleban”, and reply to that. Truly there is no space for an intelligent exchange.

BBC Any Questions: A future Holocaust of Muslims?

Posted on their website on Feb 11, 2006

HiThe Western reaction to the brouhaha about those idiotic Danish cartoons makes me worry that a Holocaust of Muslims is indeed a possibility

I am an European Christian and I do value freedom and freedom of expression. I have been supporting Amnesty International for most of the last 20 years

People talk about those cartoons as if they had come about out of thin air, but they haven’t.

For example, still to this day there is no Danish Muslim cemetery. Anti-immigration, hence anti-muslim parties are in the Danish government. And when Danish Muslims collected a 17,000-signature petition to protest about the original publication of the cartoons, all they got back was anonymous drawings of the Prophet Muhammad with the face of a pig

Those attitudes are not confined to Denmark. And the reaction of most people in the West has been indeed about flaunting the “superiority” of western culture to all others, and about making no distinction between millions and millions of peaceful Muslims and a handful of violent protesters

I haven’t seen a single analyst suggesting that there is indeed a Muslim Question now in Europe, akin to the Jewish Question of times past and ultimately linked to the fact that “superior Western Culture” (especially European) cannot deal with the concept of properly respecting, or even letting exist an “alien” minority in their midst

Look at what happened to indigenous Americans in the North and the South, to the Aborigines in Australia. Think what happened to the Jews.

And then you can start understanding why a “cartoon” is not the manifestation of freedom of speech, but further evidence that the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Muslims by fellow European countrymen is a distinct future possibility as the Crime of the XXI Century

Oca Sapiens: Mille dollari, più le spese

Guglielmo Picchi: In Serbia più Europa. Vince Boris Tadic

Maurizio Morabito ha detto…

Kostunica intanto minaccia gia’ una crisi, visto che non vuole essere lui il Primo Ministro quando il Kosovo diventera’ indipendente…

A questo punto occorrerebbe una decisa, unitaria, energica azione da parte della Unione Europea: la quale invece continua a tentennare sulla questione dei criminali di guerra ancora latitanti.

E non dico certo di lasciare Mladic e Karadzic liberi come fringuelli. Anzi: la responsabilita’ della loro cattura dovrebbe passare alla UE tutta, e non solo lasciata sulle spalle dei serbi.

Dico solo che se non si da’ alla Serbia un’opportunita’ veramente seria, magari di entrare nella Unione insieme alla Croazia nel 2010, non si fara’ certo il bene ne’ nostro, ne’ di alcuno dei popoli della UE.

6 febbraio 2008 6.51

The Reference Frame: RSS MSU corrections & record cold temperatures

It may or may not be of interest, but Western Europe has experienced quite a mild winter so far, and in the satellite pictures looks like a lonely spot of green surrounded by snow white all over the Northern Hemisphere…
Maurizio Morabito | Homepage | 02.06.08 - 11:04 am | #

Contrappunto: Mario Pannunzio arruolato nei teocon?

Questo paese migliorera’ quando uno potra’ esprimere la propria opinione senza che questa venga considerata un’offesa personale da qualcun’altro. In altre parole: quando si comincera’ a discutere del merito invece che solo del metodo.

Accuweather Global Warming: A Regional Assessment of Climate Change Impacts

There is a giant reporting bias in the MARA findings and I wonder if I am the only one able to spot it (or otherwise, if I am just very wrong on this point).

For example on “Human Health” there is no mention of the obvious reduction in cold-related deaths. At least, I hope there has been some reduction. Actually, if there has been none, THEN that would be a major finding on its own

The trouble is that one cannot simply say “let’s look at the changes” and then report _any_ change that is seen, and especially the bad ones. There is lots that keeps changing every day every where, but each particular item may or may not be of any significance.

Observations should follow some underlying hypothesis. Otherwise, everything that changes is going to be a “finding”: worse, there will be all the chance for a “pick and choose” of findinds in one direction or another.

Guglielmo Picchi: Perchè perdere tempo con Marini?

ma non sarebbe meglio cambiare il Porcellum, anche in misura minima,
come per esempio reintroducendo le preferenze e/o eliminando le candidature in piu’ di una circoscrizione elettorale?

Cosi’, giusto per dare un segnale che si cambia qualcosa rispetto alla debacle dell’ultima volta? A Radio24 ieri mattina e’ stato detto che in teoria basterebbero 4 giorni, due alla Camera e due al Senato, senza neanche aver bisogno di nominare un nuovo Governo

Letter to the BBC: Climate news bias (China vs Argentina)

Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007
From: Maurizio Morabito
Subject: Climate news bias (China vs Argentina)
To: Jonathan Amos, Richard Black

Dear Jonathan, dear Richard

Are some weathers more equal than others?

Why is it that if (A) it’s exceptionally warm in China, the news page on the BBC web site is graced by links to (anthropogenic) “Climate Change” and “Global Warming” but if (B) it’s exceptionally cold in Argentina, there is no recommendation at all to read further about climate change?

If you/the BBC believe that extreme weather events can be traced back to anthropogenic climate change (check the articles about the UK’s heat wave last April), then the same links should appear next to B just as next to A.

Otherwise, it will look like you’re suggesting that weather news are globally relevant only when they are about increased warmth.

That would be an unwelcome, blatant reporting bias.

In the meanwhile, pity those Southern Americans surely undergoing a bad case of “warming envy” at the moment.

Dany-log: Kerviel for dummies

Ci sono alcune differenze: la SocGen non ha mai rischiato la bancarotta, e a nessuno dei dirigenti attuali o passati verranno chiesti dei soldi indietro dai grassi bonus del passato. Al massimo “rischiano” di perdere il posto con una bella stretta di mano dorata, altri soldi in tasca loro.

In base poi a quanto riportato ieri (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/01/30/socgen_hack/ ) Kerviel non ha avuto bisogno di essere un genio della finanza o dell’informatica: ha semplicemente aggirato dei controlli deboli deboli. Per cui i “genitori” non solo amano il rischio economico, ma lasciano anche la cassaforte aperta…

================

A questo link la trascrizione in inglese dell’interrogatorio di Kerviel

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/30/business/transcript.php

Praticamente dice che il 31 dicembre 2007 era in attivo di 1.4 miliardi di euro (misteriosamente non dichiarati) e che e’ sopreso che nessuno si sia chiesto perche’ l’anno scorso ha preso solo quattro giorni di ferie (in UK e’ obbligatorio prendere due settimane di fila, anche per quelli come me che si occupano del lato informatico delle operazioni finanziarie)

William M. Briggs, Statistician: Is climatology a pseudoscience?

• 26. Maurizio Morabito  |  January 30th, 2008 at 3:35 am

  I wonder if Park’s warning signs 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 apply to several “anti-AGWers” aka “skeptics”?

  1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media
  2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work
  4. Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal
  5. The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries
  6. The discoverer has worked in isolation