Archive for the ‘Science’ Category

Granularity

Monday, March 15th, 2010

The American Thinker has a great graphic showing the distribution of the weather stations used to record climate data:
ISH-station-map-1986-thru-2009-6-hrly-w
[Click for full-size, full resolution.]

Hm, almost nothing in the southern hemisphere. Almost nothing over the oceans. Guess those areas really don’t matter.

A commenter for this article suggests using GPS data which records atmospheric drag on the GPS satellite flock. That drag increases and decreases according to the size of the atmosphere, which in turn varies according to temperature. It really is a global average.

Scales

Sunday, February 7th, 2010

I’ve linked before to the Eames’ mind-opening short film, Powers of Ten.

Here’s another incarnation of the Eames’ idea, with updated physics, interactive display, and simply lovely music. No kidding, follow the link for the music alone.

Usability note: The link takes you to what appears to be a game-oriented bulletin board. The post itself contains a large, gaudy ad for some random game. Don’t click in that. Instead, click on the word “Play” underneath it, displayed in plain white type against a dark gray background.

Unlike the Eames movie, this demo does not play itself, despite the music. You must move the slider to change scales. I recommend the left/right arrows on your keyboard rather than your mouse.

It’s more work, yes, but gives you much more control over the pace of the thing.

Error Cascades, Green Shirts, and Zombies

Wednesday, February 3rd, 2010

I’m more than a little rushed this morning, but I have to point to Eric S. Raymond’s excellent analysis of the collapse of the Anthropomorphic Global Warming movement, calling for “The Naming and Shaming the AGW Fraudsters”:

The best reason not to relent, to name and shame the fraudsters and shatter their reputations and humilate them — ideally, to the point where there’s a rash of prominent suicides as a result — is this:

If we don’t destroy them, they’ll surely ramp up yet another colossal, politicized eco-fraud.

The segment Raymond has identified as zombies and greenshirts I’ve heard elsewhere named as watermelons: green on the outside, red on the inside.

Oh, and don’t miss his conclusion:

The key point — and the reason the AGW frauds need to be shamed and punished — is that the political background conditions favoring this kind of fraud are still in place.

That is, the zombies and green-shirts still have a powerful interest in magnifying scientific errors that suit their agendas into politicized crusades that could produce error cascades just as huge. Somewhere out there, there are now-innocent scientific research groups who could become the next decade’s version of the “team”, degenerating into fraudulent conspiracies as careerism draws them in, the political villains cheer them on to rationalize the power-grab of the week, and the Gaianists gamely but stupidly try to do the right thing.

I’m even prepared to hazard a guess where the next fraud would be ginned up from: environmental toxicology and what are called “endocrine disruptors”.

[Emphasis ESR's]
Absolutely, read the whole thing. This is one of those lens articles that brings an entire scene into focus.

update:
From the Devil’s Kitchen, an excellent explanation of the decision tree we should be using :
AGW-DecisionTree

and the very simplified tree actually in use:
AGW-DecisionTree-InUse

A Crisis of Faith

Tuesday, December 22nd, 2009

I recently added Instapunk to my feed reader. Good thing, because it just now pointed me to the ‘Punk’s crisis of faith.

The Punk starts with James Cameron’s Avatar, which I guess I’m going to have to see, because even people who hate it and its message are using it as an anchor for all kinds of useful and interesting discussions, plus it’s supposed to be really pretty.

He pulls in an essay “by the new enfant terrible of the conservative elitist class, Ross Douthat“, which makes the point that

“Avatar” is Cameron’s long apologia for pantheism — a faith that equates God with Nature, and calls humanity into religious communion with the natural world.

and which concludes by “[framing] an existential crisis for anyone who’s paying attention”:

The question is whether Nature actually deserves a religious response. Traditional theism has to wrestle with the problem of evil: if God is good, why does he allow suffering and death? But Nature is suffering and death. Its harmonies require violence. Its “circle of life” is really a cycle of mortality. And the human societies that hew closest to the natural order aren’t the shining Edens of James Cameron’s fond imaginings. They’re places where existence tends to be nasty, brutish and short.

Religion exists, in part, precisely because humans aren’t at home amid these cruel rhythms. We stand half inside the natural world and half outside it. We’re beasts with self-consciousness, predators with ethics, mortal creatures who yearn for immortality.

This is an agonized position, and if there’s no escape upward — or no God to take on flesh and come among us, as the Christmas story has it — a deeply tragic one.

Pantheism offers a different sort of solution: a downward exit, an abandonment of our tragic self-consciousness, a re-merger with the natural world our ancestors half-escaped millennia ago.

But except as dust and ashes, Nature cannot take us back.

Now, I am not a Christian. I am a militant skeptic. A friend of mine was shocked recently to learn that although my father is a priest, I haven’t even been baptized. (Why not? When I was born, my father was in a church that did not believe in infant baptism, and by the time I was old enough, I didn’t want to be. Why not? Flippant version: “Because I don’t believe in an invisible superhero from outer space who cares, intimately and personally, about my sex life.” Serious version: Because I’d have to stand up and take the Nicene Creed in public, and the Nicene Creed neatly summarizes all the magical crap I explicitly believe is not true. “We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.” Really? How the hell can you take that seriously?)

And given that, I’m missing about half of his crisis; I had it and dealt with it when I was in kindergarten, and no one, not even my father (who is a learned man, if not quite a scholar, and a pretty right guy) could answer my kindergarten questions about who made God, and what happens, really, when we die, and most of all, how do you know all that for sure?

Instead, I find myself approaching his crisis from the opposite side: I want to be baptized, I want to join in the Church, I want to take Communion from my father’s hand before he dies and make Confession and all the rest, and I can’t, because I’d have to lie to do it.

I’m looking for something to believe in, something to anchor me, and all I have at this point is scepticism, an unquenchable need to ask the next question and do my best to refute the answer.

I’m begging the Christians around me to come up with something better than the Nicene Fourth Century Crackpot Superstition that I can swear to as I am baptized and take Communion. Please. I’m dying here.

Gregory Bateson has some of the pieces, a vague outline of The Sacred, and a couple of handles: “The Pattern That Connects” and “A Necessary Unity”. He understood things in terms of feedback loops, and was most interested in systems controlled by feedback, particularly informational feedback, as opposed to those controlled by mere physics, chemistry, and thermodynamics. He talked about evolution and the mind, how both are driven by feedback, and how evolution gives rise to mindfulness, both in the large scale of biology and the small scale of the workings of your own brain. (I’m crudely summarizing some fairly subtle ideas; expounding on Bateson is far beyond the scope of my rambling here.)

The Anchoress is a regular read of mine, precisely because she’s the exemplar of people I know seeking the Numinous, and doing their best to live their lives accordingly. She, too, subscribes to a pack of nonsense, but somehow sees through it to the truth it shrouds about how we should live our lives with love and grace. Her view even makes sense of transubstantiation.

And today, Instapunk in his agony shines light on another small but crucial facet:

What is with this idiotic notion that Nature is good and Mankind is bad? Fact is, Nature is cruel, even demonstrably vicious, and Mankind is, uh, more kind than not. That’s why Mankind has prospered and proliferated. DUH. Consider this: Christianity is the biggest ever departure from Nature. Its central premise is that we all matter. Odd. Wrong? Perhaps. But absolutely right in human terms. It has led to the extension of human thought, lifespans, and a kind of beauty and accomplishment no other culture has ever dreamed of. No other kind of human philosophy has produced such sheer gorgeousness. Now we are being asked to regard ourselves as vile, a scientifically verifiable pollution on the face of the earth, something akin to the AIDS virus. The President of the United States subscribes to this view. Let me repeat that. The President of the United States subscribes to this view.

While I am struggling on matters of faith, patriotism, and survival. My response? Fuck him and the horse he rode in on. The Split does matter. Not just because I’m going to die, but because we all know we’re going to die and we all still care about what happens after Human religion is by definition the Split with Nature, the proof that we are better than lions, hyenas, wolves, and black mambas. Most of us live every day with the proof — the species that remade themselves just for the privilege of living with us and acquired a moral sense along the way — dogs.

[Bold mine.]

There. “We all matter.” Not that we’re all equally qualified. Not that we’re all entitled to equal outcomes. Not that we’re all just as good, or just as bad, as everyone else. But in some sense, we all matter, for good or ill, even in the face of the awful scale of Time, The Universe, and Everything, even God Itself, whatever It is. And we should all strive, as hard as we can, to lift each other up and away from Nature’s savage muck, away from superstition, and towards the numinous, the sacred.

Even though we create it, not the other way around.

Heinlein said it, and he didn’t mean it as compliment or blessing: “Thou Art God”.


Late thought:

[Christianity] has led to the extension of human thought, lifespans, and a kind of beauty and accomplishment no other culture has ever dreamed of.

What, exactly, in the scriptures, led to this?

I’m reminded of how our slave-owning founders, such as Jefferson, managed to produce the greatest framework for liberty ever devised.

Meet the State’s Witnesses at Your Murder Trial

Monday, December 21st, 2009

Change blindness:

[Via Radley Balko at The Agitator.]

The experimenters note that they don’t know whether this shows differences between the subjects, or just random chance.

Trials aside, this is also relevant to any kind of fact-finding process — including science itself. It’s a big part of the reason that safeguards such as double-blinds and repeatability are so crucial.

I’ve seen demands that police lineups prohibit detectives familiar with the case from participating, from being in the viewing room with the witness.

Suggestion for crime lab directors: don’t hand a sample to your squint and ask “did this come from Mr. I-have-a-lawyer-and-powerful-friends in our holding cell?” (Much less something like, “We really need to find this thug’s blood on this dress, or we’re going to have to let him go.”) Instead, try something like “Here’s six samples in rack A, and six samples in rack B. Do any of the As match any of the Bs?”

Should we talk about attorneys presenting highly refined, well groomed evidence to juries? How about putting jurors through little demonstrations showing just how fallible their perceptions are, how much their prejudices affect their judgement?

Suggestion for these experimenters: Some interviewees should see the same guy both times. The interviewers must not know whether or not a given subject saw a different guy or not. Oh, and “guy”?

Suggestion for climate researchers: don’t do the data analysis yourself. Hand a bunch of datasets, some real, some dummy, some pure random noise to point up biases in your software, to a few statisticians, and ask them to (independently) report any trends they can find in the data. Don’t even tell them the variables or units involved.

I know there are huge problems with the crude approach I just outlined. I understand all too well that a certain amount of fudging and trickery is absolutely necessary during the investigative phase when the researchers may not know what they’re looking for, and are accounting for biases and errors they know their equipment and procedures show — but something like this as a sanity check ought to be required for any research underlying public policy.

[Edit 21 Dec 2009: fix some small problems in word choice and flow.]

Invertebrate Tool User

Wednesday, December 16th, 2009

Octopi carrying coconut shell armor.

How different is this, in principle, from hermit crab behavior? (Actually, quite a bit, I’d say, given how much the ‘pus manipulates the shell.)

Via More Words, Deeper Hole.

Mapping Asian Genetic Diversity

Sunday, December 13th, 2009

Sticky for self, a paper on how humans spread through Asia. Via More Words, Deeper Hole.

I have not read the article yet, and have no comment.

Climate Change In Context

Sunday, December 13th, 2009

An excellent graphic from Watts Up With That?
noaa_gisp2_icecore_anim3
Follow the link for more explanation, and for links to other versions of this graphic, including a Youtube version with useful annotations.

Everybody’s favorite weasel-girl did an early version of this using WUWT’s original charts.

Intro to Electronics

Thursday, December 10th, 2009

Glenn Reynolds put out a call to his readers for introductory texts on electronics, aimed especially at children.

This gives me the chance to recommend my favorite text on any subject [emailed to Reynolds, but a day late. Don't know if he'll get around to posting it.]

Stuart Hoenig and Leland Payne, How to Build & Use Electronic Devices Without Frustration, Panic, Mountains of Money, or an Engineering Degree
A very gentle introduction centered on wonderful little doodads called op amps, which vastly simplify the design of just about anything that handles analog signals. This was written just after IC op amps became widely and cheaply available at Radio Shack. Many chapters on various kinds of sensors, including some biomedical stuff.

There’s a chapter on discrete devices, such as naked transistors, “if you must use them”.

There’s a brief intro to digital interfacing, but this was before PCs became widely available, so the digital world gets very short shrift — and this is, in my opinion, a good thing. It trains you to deal with the real signals, the actual measurements. Digital should properly only be introduced after you have a solid grounding in analog. [Insert obvious CRU snark.]

HtBaUEDWFPMoMoaED is shamefully out of print, but many used copies are available. They shouldn’t be; they should all be grabbed up and militantly hoarded.

Hoenig and Payne need to either authorize a reprinting, or just put it on line. Yeah, it’s a bit out of date, but everything here still works.

This is my wilderness backpacking electronics text (you never know when you may need to fabricate a telemetry pack from a handful of bark, pebbles, and bear droppings) because it’s much smaller and lighter than the rightfully famous Art of Electronics, which is my preferred desktop reference as well, but which would be pretty heavy slogging for any but a fairly advanced teen.

“Science Is Dead”

Thursday, December 10th, 2009

Something I’ve been thinking for awhile now, but haven’t had the time to write down.

Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

I first became aware of this phenomenon in relation to gun control (which has almost no support beyond wishful thinking), but of course it also applies to socialism and global warming, that last being the author’s main example.

EP references Michael Crichton’s excellent analysis here.

(There’s a video clip of Crichton explaining why global warming is a religion floating around; if I can find it I’ll post it.)


EP’s post is primarily about the widespread failure to understand how science works, not global warming, but I do want to make a quick comment on the motley CRU data leak:

The emails, data files, and code that were released (likely by an internal source, not an outside hacker) were not, in my opinion, released to be the definitive, dispositive answer to the AGW debate.

They were a merely crowbar, intended to open up the can of very nasty worms that the AGW establishment is apparently riddled with, to force the full release of the data sets, emails, and code that are being used to hijack the world economy.

(A common defense against releasing all the data has been, “It’s proprietary; we’re contractually forbidden to release it.” Fine, but if you’re going to pass a bunch of laws that leave me shivering in the dark while you eat caviar in your private jet, you’d damn well better be willing to put it all out in the open. Don’t tell me I just need to trust you.)

The leaker is one of the great heroes of science, although they may have acted too late. I’m looking forward to finding out who they are.


I found this article on the Hacker’s News site, along with a link to the Wired article on The Psychology of Climate Change Denial, which, rather than argue cogently against very appropriate skepticism, simply labels skeptics as crazies, so they can be safely ignored.

Or, as Andrew Klavan says, Wired explains, “Shut up.”

[update: bad html hid parts of this post. Fixed, I think. Wordpress needs to put in some kind of horizontal rule thingie, so I don't have to do it by hand. Yes, I understand their objection. I don't care. ]