... or as the U.S. military calls it, degrading the enemy narrative. It's particularly amusing that, by using sock puppet systems where one person can pretend to be many (with very thorough work done to make sure that's undetectable), they aim to "follow the admonition we practiced in Iraq, that of trying to be 'first with the truth'." One's truthiness is a little compromised if you lie about who you are. (Guardian story. )

Persona management software is catching on more generally, and the idea of pretending to be someone you're not isn't new (recent example). I wonder, though, whether there's a tendency for square-eyes like myself who spend too much time on blogs to overplay the importance of online comments for actual opinion forming. The implicit idea behind one person managing many personas seems to be that heavy information assault can work just like any other artillery. To an extent, that must be the case, but I hold out a perhaps forlorn hope that in some things, reasonable people can shortcut hegemonic assault with, you know, reason and shizzle.

Well, not quite. Here's the Inhofe-Upton energy tax prevention act. My favourite part: "The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the law is wrong." Separation of powers schmeparation of powers. Via Wonk room (where there's a video), here's Ed Markey:

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to a bill that overturns the scientific finding that pollution is harming our people and our planet. However, I won’t physically rise, because I’m worried that Republicans will overturn the law of gravity, sending us floating about the room. I won’t call for the sunlight of additional hearings, for fear that Republicans might excommunicate the finding that the Earth revolves around the sun. Instead, I’ll embody Newton’s third law of motion and be an equal and opposing force against this attack on science and on laws that will reduce America’s importation of foreign oil.

This bill will live in the House while simultaneously being dead in the Senate. It will be a legislative Schrodinger’s cat killed by the quantum mechanics of the legislative process. Arbitrary rejection of scientific fact will not cause us to rise from our seats today. But with this bill, pollution levels will rise. Oil imports will rise. Temperatures will rise. And with that, I yield back the balance of my time. That is, unless a rejection of Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity is somewhere in the chair’s amendment pile.

Obviously at this point in the PhD I should be avoiding climate blogs, and mostly I'm managing. But I just fell off the wagon slightly, and had a gentle saunter around Watts Up With That. In the words of Father Dougal Mcguire, I'm now hugely confused.

So: the office of inspector general just completed Senator Inhofe's request to investigate CRU-related malfeasance. Here's the (nice and short) report. Predictably, both 'sides' interpret the outcome completely differently. But WUWT - following hot on the heels of Inhofe himself - gets in there with the headline:

Inspector General Finds NOAA Climategate Emails Warranted "Further Investigation"

Inhofe promises to follow up on this to 'ensure taxpayer dollars are being spent according to federal law'.

Perhaps you wouldn't know if you hadn't read the report's summary, or the report itself (it's not linked to in the WUWT story) - but those emails are investigated, in the report. That's one of the main things the report does. It was just saying, 'there were a lot of emails, we've picked out eight to concentrate on. We do that now.'

I can't quite bring myself to seek out anyone claiming the cold proves climate change isn't happening - as if foreign weather doesn't count somehow. But I thought it worth ending the year with a quick note on two of 2010's most striking climatic occurances. The common theme emerging this year: if a complex system is changing, how do you measure when specific events mean anything? Ultimately, the answer is: for any one 'event', you can't, but you can say pretty definitively that climate change = climate disruption, and the definition of 'extreme' will shift as the variance changes.

First-off were two stories that were actually one, connected story from the summer: Russian drought and Pakistani floods. Initforthegold is as good a place as any to start with that, including a good discussion of the difference between loading the dice and changing them for ones with higher numbers. The weather underground has some good graphics showing the jetstream changes tying the two together. Russia lost a quarter of its grain crop. In Pakistan, two and a half million people were affected.

As far us freezing our asses off - it was just listening to the news, and the impact the cold is having all across Europe that prompted me to write. There's one perfect graphic for this, via Peter Sinclair's blog. The NOAA has a pretty nifty live output showing the temperature anomaly over the Northern hemisphere. Compare also to this at init: most of the total anomaly is away from the equators, towards the poles. The NOAA anomaly graph shows some spots far North that are 15 degrees celsius warmer than the 68-96 average. Spending a few moments contemplating the breadth of the difference in both directions, and having a little think about how low and high pressure work, should be enough to get across that climate change was never going to mean an even increase.

There's no real need to make any specific claims about this being 'caused by' co2-induced climate change. The important question is: can we expect this sort of disruption to increase in the future? It's not rocket science, of course: if you push a complex dynamic system with any kind of forcing, it will attempt to get back to an equilibrium. In the meantime, you get disruption - and in chaotic systems, they'll manifest themselves in all sorts of exciting ways. We already have plenty of relatively well-understand oscillations, even if their timings - like the NAO - are never predictable. It would be one thing if we could expect to get this sort of winter regularly - that's something you can prepare for. But we actually have to prepare, as much as possible, for any eventuality, since there's no exact way of knowing how the system will eventually settle.

And that's presuming, of course, we decide it might not be a good idea to carry on pushing it. The more we do, the more the regional uncertainties increase (as well as uncertainties relating to feedbacks). That's an irony that MT over at initforthegold often points out: anyone claiming that uncertainty should mean inaction hasn't understood what's happening. Or they have, and they know that doubt, however slight, is a massively appealling get-out clause that many of us would dearly love to grab with both hands.

I went to hear Nicholas Stern speak a couple of nights ago: the subject was 'after Copenhagen'. It was a great talk; the man has the gift of speaking in a way that, written down, would make excellent reading. (A skill many politicians learn early.) But I was struck most forcefully again by timescales we now now talk about: what will happen in a hundred years? Current emission rates, according to climateinteractive, give a mean of 3.9 degrees. (OK, that's 90 years...) The spread's wide: if we're lucky, closer to 3, if we're unlucky, closer to 5. It hasn't been 5 degrees above current temperatures for 55 million years. Stern had a nice turn of phrase: these are the kind of changes that move people, move deserts, and are already manifesting as season creep (discussed in this recent paper that attempts a robust framework for analysing the impacts. No model in sight there: 30 years of data.)

One hundred years. Very few humans last that long. A hundred years ago, no first world war. The Los Angeles International Air Meet showcases some crazy new designs. The first commercial air-freight flight takes place - and the first commercial dirigible flight. (Now, this many flights happen in a 24 hour period.) Albania rises up against the Ottoman empire. George V becomes king. Wow - the Vatican makes all its priests take a compulsory oath against modernism. Mark Twain dies; 1.75 billion people live on.

It turns out the past is a different planet. Let's make a prediction: a hundred years hence, it'll be a different planet again.

I'm starting this blog entry with no idea what I'm actually going to say. I've never really been sure what the purpose of this blog was. For a while it was meant to help form thoughts for what is rapidly becoming the Never-Ending PhD. Well, today, what I'll do instead is be self-indulgent. More than usual. It's my blog after all; if anyone's reading, apologies - some vaguely connected thoughts follow; they'll all loosely related by a thread of cold icy chill. One chill from telly, one from history, one from the interwebnets, and I guess there's some snow there at the end, as well as the sun being destroyed. Which is must have been, cos it's dark. No real narrative thread.

Interwebnets first: I'm on academia.edu, and it turns out that it emails you when you're googled. This is only slightly more passively narcissistic than googling oneself directly, but it's been quite alarming. It should, of course, have been obvious, but since I decided to use my own surname (rather than my old secret leftie name you'll never ever find), every blog comment or appearance I make is viewable. When someone googles 'dan olner climate change' what do they find? Having not done a thorough survey, I suspect they find someone with inconsistent views, and venting more in comments than I would consider civil. A recent google of my name + 'economics' reveals more than I knew myself about the various places I've been posting, and that my Transitionista sympathies are on clear display. This is stuff to make sociologists wet themselves; we're all seeing each other now, consensually. I don't really feel like I consented, though sticking to my own name seems an honest choice, but it does look like I've ceded privacy by default. I can't recant anything. Luckily there are no awful, drunken diatribes out there - I don't think. Who knows?

Comment in response to Roger Pielke Jr. accusing Realclimate of becoming 'pathologically politicised':

If I may have a go at articulating why I think you're wrong? First-off, let me see if I've got your argument correct. You say Realclimate have politicised the science, and this is shown because they attack anyone who questions that the science of climate change is certain, like Sen. Inhofe, Fox News etc.

First point: there is probably scientific illiteracy right across the political spectrum - but the truth is, it tends to be right-leaning thinkers who question climate science. If you're interested, I've written about how this affectively hides most left-of-centre scientific illiteracy from climate arguments.

This means that one can imply Realclimate as 'taking a political position' by default. But I think you muddy the picture then: this most emphatically does not mean Realclimate writers are politicizing science. By your reasoning, the only way Realclimate could become politically neutral would be to "even themselves out" by arguing with left-of-centre climate skeptics. Obviously, that's ridiculous: Realclimate cannot be held responsible for who decides to question the science, and it's certainly false to assign them to a political position "by default" in the way you seem to be doing.

In all my banging on about good science yesterday, I realise on one thing I was being unscientific. A couple of links, to Next Left and Crooked Timber, wondered why there seemed to be such an anti-AGW consensus on the right. I speculated it may have something to do with a different assessment of the risks - but this is missing a basic question that could be asked. I'll ask it now, and then suggest that it doesn't matter anyway.

I believe that climate change is happening and that humans are mainly responsible because of greenhouse gases (GHGs) we're putting into the atmosphere. But the number of people who believe this has been going down, it seems - in the US, 20% less think the planet's warming than did so two years ago. (And that's before you've asked them whether they think it's natural variation.) Concern about climate change has, unsurprisingly, been affected by the economy, as the HSBC climate confidence monitor shows. (Opens PDF.) In this survey, people in the UK are the least concerned citizens anywhere in the world; we're second only to the US in thinking there are higher priorities for public spending - odd when you consider the level of state welfare we already have compared to other countries surveyed. There may be high scientific consensus - not so in public opinion.

Note: this is a long, rambling entry that swings from naval gazing to some interesting stuff on global energy futures.

Houmous

There's a gymball in my bedroom: silver, 800mm wide. Having stared at it for a while, I started to wonder - if the sun were that gymball, how big would the Earth be? A few sums later I got 7mm. Some frantic measuring of dried pulses followed, and a chickpea emerged as the perfect - if slightly lumpy - candidate for sitting on the floor next to the gymball. There it sits still, so every night I can stare at it and mutter to myself, 'that's just stupid.' I include a photo of chickpea on gymball. But photos, this description - they don't do it justice. Find a gymball of equal size, get a chickpea: hold it between thumb and forefinger, having made sure to watch a video of the sun first. (Some would argue 'blue marble' better captures the wonder of it; each to their own.)

Incidentally, you can scale to anything you like at this website. At the scale above, chickpea would be 85 metres away from gymball.

I've also been trying to wrap my noggin around our place on Chickpea Earth. This has included an alarming assault on my sense of Earthly security, such as a list of all the ways in which we might never have existed. Some of these were covered in rather sensationalist tone by Tony Robinson's channel 4 series, 'Catastrophe Earth'. This quote sums up the general approach:

85000 years ago, humans were just heading out of Africa; the meteoric rise of our species makes us feel indestructible. Yet we are more vulnerable than we might care to imagine. We live on a thin crust that floats on a sea of pressurised molten rock and we rely on the proximity of a star to keep temperatures optimal for life. Meanwhile our planet moves through space, which is populated by numerous flying objects.