Millenarial Movements

The Historian Norman Cohn, in his 1957 book, The Pursuit of the Millennium: Revolutionary Millenarians and Mystical Anarchists of the Middle Ages, found that Millenarian movements always picture salvation as:

• Collective, in the sense that it is to be enjoyed by the faithful as a collectivity.
• Terrestrial, in the sense that it is to be realized on this earth and not in some other-worldly heaven.
• Imminent, in the sense that it is to come both soon and suddenly.
• Total, in the sense that it is utterly to transform life on earth, so that the new dispensation will be no mere improvement on the present but perfection itself.
• Miraculous, in the sense that it is to be accomplished by, or with the help of, supernatural agencies.

It might have been expected that millenarian thinking would disappear with the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason. But Cohn found that these ideas and the manias they inspired reemerged in the twentieth century’s secular totalitarian and revolutionary movements.

In what could be a description of the Green New Deal (USA), Cohn argued that these movements felt themselves to be engaged in a struggle of unique importance, “different in kind from all other struggles known to history, a cataclysm from which the world is to emerge totally transformed and redeemed…this is the essence of the recurrent phenomenon of revolutionary millenarianism.”

Now tell me that this does not largely describe those young, easily-led, desperate-to-be-Liked Youf who recently lay about various places to draw attention to Weather in 2100.....

The mathematical futility of long-term climate projections

The entire climate-prediction edifice as currently promoted, is founded on quicksand, as time-series research at LSE demonstrates - the Hawkmoth Effect rules. The issue comes down to several Inconvenient Modelling Facts:

• Complex systems do not generally have the mathematical property of Structural stability. This leads to quite different projections, using the same initial conditions, even if two models differ to a minute degree - the poster at the link graphically illustrates this.
• Models used for projections simplify real phyical processes (for tractability) and make assumptions (for tuning) - both of which cause structural inadequacy by incomplete description of the phenomena being modeled.
• Turbulent/chaotic systems are pointless to model over long time series if accurate projections are expected: each time-slice depends on the output of the former slice as initial conditions and projections thus rapidly depart from sensible physical-result boundaries as model-time progresses
• The real physical world, as best can be gleaned from observation of history, has close-to-absolute boundaries on temperature = +/- 2-3 degrees Centigrade, and two dominant Attractors: Ice Age and InterGlacial. There have been more than enough long-tail (extremely low- probability) perturbations in the past (vulcanism, comet strikes) to supply a record of any vast excursions from these boundaries. The bounds seem to hold, regardless
• The 'Escape from Model-land' LSE paper suggests that consistency with the past, use of long-tail (very low probability) inputs and expert judgement as to model applicability and utility in the first place, is the only way out of Model-Land
• "The utility and decision-relevance of these model simulations must be judged based on consistency with the past, and out-of-sample predictive performance and expert judgement, never based solely on the plausibility of their underlying principles or on the visual “realism” of outputs."

The two turbulent/chaotic systems which climateers attempt to model are, of course, Atmosphere and Ocean. 

Essentially, they are trying to predict the weather on 27 March, 2119, when predicting the weather on 27 April 2019 is clearly a nonsense: a coin-toss or a dartboard are more useful Models. Next weekend's weather - a reasonable prediction is likely. Tomorrow - the prediction will be close to spot-on. 

Models are always wrong, but mostly they are Useful.....except for the Far Future.  Mathematics rules.

Schadenfreude over Energiewende

Sacrificed Landscapes – How the Energiewende Is Destroying our Landscapes.  Book (in German, initially) soon to be published:  author is Georg Etscheit.

In the book’s promotion video, a number of Germany’s leading environmental experts are seen denouncing Germany’s Energiewende, as they are aghast at what is going on.

Prof. Dr. Niko Paech, sustainability scientist, says:

"What’s awful about the destruction of the landscapes and the government is that all of it has a legitimization.”

and

"The German Energiewende has become a justification for destroying our last remaining natural landscapes.”

and

"Science is legitimizing a rampage against nature. We destroy the landscape while we claim it is serving the ecology. It’s a cannibalism by the measures. Climate protection is the aim that justifies the means to destroy all other remaining environmental media.”

Dr. Gerhard Gronauer, pastor:

Climate protection that uses technical means against nature is a contradiction in itself.”

“Greatest fraud project”

Jörg Rehmann, journalist and author:

"If we want to survive on this planet, we need an Energiewende. But what the policymakers have made of it is not an Energiewende, rather it is the greatest fraud project since the end of the second world war.”

and

"Serious science has long proven that the Energiewende cannot in any way reach its targets. Society has to bear billions in costs, already energy prices are exploding, and policymakers are driving us further into a nuthouse in the clouds.”

Hmmmm.......

New renewable energy source

In a discussion about the EPA's approval to 'regulate' carbon doixide (that gas we all breathe out all the time), I came upon this priceless comment...

..harnessing the rotational energy of Grave-Spinning-Founding-Fathers.

Mind you, this can only last the term of the current Prez.

AGW as a belief system

Comment over on WUWT thread about AGW and its current, shall we say, terminal thrashing about.

The middle of the road stance is, surely, adaptation. And there are some unlikely allies in this: read Stewart Brand's latest 'Whole Earth Discipline', and it is clear that there is a splintering of the entire movement from within.

Brand advocates moving to cities (concentrate service delivery, allow opportunity, release women from rural idiocy, and generate real wealth), nuclear power (deal with concentrated waste instead of millions of smokestacks) and generally drives a Sherman tank through a whole bunch of environmental shibboleths.

Add to this the 'Resilient Community' effort from John Robb and crew, and we have a large part of the adaptation recipe right there before us.

The analogy here should be to the Reformation, which blew apart a corrupt and arrogant medaeival Catholic Church for ever. Climategate is about 1517 on that scale: the nailing up of Luther's theses. There's a bit of water to go under the bridge until we get to the 1520's, when Henry VIII figured out that he could get a twofer: his old marriage declared null, and (by declaring himself head of the Church in England), he could clip the ticket on the Church's takings. Which he finally got, 100%, by the dissolution of the monasteries, in 1536-8.

The AGW frenzy is fed by funding, just as was the Catholic Church. It's fun and cathartic to do the iconoclastic stuff - tear down the brazen images, paint over the elaborate frescoes, and generally try to eradicate the outward vestiges of the belief system.

But it's a better ploy, after that emotion subsides, to go after the AGW funding. Cut off the oxygen. The neat thing is, it makes better economic sense, too. Instead of wasting a lot of scarce dollars on researching 'the effects of climate change on the mating habits of the Greater Nebraskan Loon', it would be better use of that dosh to get one of Henry VIII's twofers: say, accelerate production of electric cars/build many small-scale nuclear plants And stop giving petrodollars to unfriendly regimes.

Oh wait. 'Accelerate'. My bad. Work on the braking software, too.

Accounting for Temperatures

I’ve had a good deal of experience with accounting systems, and it has just struck me that the whole global temperature database should be constructed in a transactional fashion.

To wit:

Each station in the record has an ‘account’ – a GUID if you will, and all temperature values and adjustments for a given station are recorded as transactions for that account, assigned to a date (and even time), and classified as some Type of transaction.

Types of transactions (trx) could usefully be globally codified: as it’s clear that a potent source of confusion is just what value adjustment happened to what data, when. The analogy here is to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) which rules the accounting world. Sorely needed in the world's temperature records....

Accounting systems which use the ’single-table’ approach and are in essence just a big bucket of transactions thereby, could in fact be adapted for this sort of recording. I've worked with SunSystems, Coda and Kypera - all are of this type. There are probably many others.

Trx types would obviously include:

- RAW measurement
- UHI adjustment
- EQP equipment change/calibration etc
- LOC location change adjustment

and so on.

Then, every Step in any process which causes value adjustments to be made to any data point (account/station, day) could be traced, and most importantly, added as a new trx, thus leaving the raw data strictly alone.

Auditors love this sort of approach, and the SQL database engines which store and handle the data, make short work of the heavy lifting in terms of summing trx, adding trx, and consolidating data. Of course the database itself is typically chock full of compliance features (thanks to SarbOx).

As a final aid to traceability, each trx can be stamped with the process name that put it there, and even a description. And who…..

And the beauty of this is that the existing data-generation routines can still operate, but instead of altering arrays of values, they would be adding trx per single data point.

As the start of a Global Temperature Dataset, a transactional accounting-style structure would begin to address the ‘amateur hour’ data storage and versioning techniques we see in so much of the CRU dataset, thanks to Harry.

Harry Read Me - ClimateGate

An entertaining read. Harry has grave qualms about the data, the methods, and his own abilities, all written up in the ReadMe text file in unflinching fashion.

A lovely quote:

So, once again I don't understand statistics. Quel surprise, given that I haven't had any training in stats in my entire life, unless you count A-level maths.

An honest man in a den of vipers - I've just finished Wolf Hall, and the similarity between the climate crew and the post-Luther Catholic church is striking.

Climate crew:
- suspect data,
- data munges up the wazoo,
- academic echo chamber,
- currently facing funding cuts and fraud scrutiny,
- lashing out at critics (how Dare they - they aren't even Peer-Reviewed!).

Catholic Church:
- failing belief in the basic propositions by population,
- emergence of fanatical fringes of existing belief system,
- closed system of ecclesiastical courts (a state within a state)
- facing funding cuts as Henry VIII realises that if he can be Head of the Church and thus secure a ruling on his first 'marriage', he can also obtain the keys to the church's extensive coffers,
- burns critics at the stake after trials conducted by....priests!

I know analogies by example aren't scientific, but hey, it worked for carbon dioxide and AGW, d'innit?

AGW as Mass Delusion

Heh. Couldn't have put this better meself. There are two mass delusion abroad IMHO: AGW being one (natch) and the notion that financial Ponzi schemes will not cause pain, the other. Sigh. As Dylan sings (Things have Changed):

People are crazy and times are strange
I'm locked in tight, I'm out of range
I used to care, but things have changed

Another climactic known is revealed to be unknown

This leetle bombshell affects, oh, around half the marine organisms in the world. In essence, by omitting the 'assumed in the current paradigm' step of releasing oxygen while consuming carbon dioxide, these organisms have never done a darn thing in the carbon cycle.

That sound you may hear if you listen closely is a whole bunch of Gerbil Worming gravy train riders saying 'bugger' and re-calibrating their GCM's to show that We're All Freaking Doomed, still. Gotta keep them grant shekels flowing.

The shekel quote:

Wolf Frommer, director of the Carnegie Institution's Department of Plant Biology, agrees about the discovery's ground-breaking importance. "If we thought we have understood photosynthesis, this study proves that there is much to be learned about these basic physiological processes."

Solar is subject to Moore's Law

This piece (ht: Instapundit) is a useful reminder that the good ol' entrepreneurial business is the way forward. Earnest Gummint committess won't cut it. Bit like the UN in Darfur - no skin in the game, so no real incentive to step in and help.

Moore's law: explanation here - capability rises/price halves roughly every 18-24 months. Works for me.

The money quote:

"You may not like their politics, or their attitude, or their style. But if we really do have an energy revolution in this country and free ourselves from our addiction to fossil fuels, it will be because of hard-charging, take-no-prisoners entrepreneurs like T.J. Rodgers — not UN committees, environmental groups, or government officials."

I plan to fully solarise my house in 2-5 years time. Like, net grid-producer, not consumer. Bye-bye to power bills, and much more resilience. There is a host of up-and-coming firms making thin-film solar, and the grid-tie plus feed-in-tarriff contractual stuff is starting to get worked on by the more aware power companies.

I thus don't fret too much about the lakes, the need for more power stations burning whatever - plutonium, coal, natural gas - or the State of Fear pronouncements about pylons, wind power or draining Gaia of all her internal heat via geothermal take.

The Sun will do it for me. Oh wait. It seems to be cooling. Toyota!

Weather cooling?

I follow Anthony Watts, and he's come across this, from the wonderfully named Joe Bastardi. JB sees a re-run of the early-50's pattern of a La Nina which stopped the global warming (which had peaked in the '30's) in its tracks.

Yup, we need to be more worried about cooling than warming. As someone who actually farms for a living notes, one nights cooling can kill your crop. One night's warming never can.

And as NOAA has just noted, this January of 2008 has been 0.35 F cooler than the 20th century average.

Hmm. Add a quiet sun (check the sunspot count and then go figure the Chilling Stars theory) - quiet sun, cool Earth.

Oh, and coolist or warmist, don't forget to Be afraid, be very afraid. After all, a State of Fear is the default setting for the zeitgeist, no?

The Food Channel strikes again

This little anecdote has to be one of this season's LOL hits....

How's about:

a huhu grub inside a
rifleman inside a
tui inside a
pigeon inside a
blue duck inside a
little bush moa inside a
New Zealand eagle

I'd just be exerting my customary/culinary/cultural rights.

Oh dear. Some of these here boids seem to have been extincificated.

Culinary rights clearly have a Lot to Answer For.

No, wait. Some of 'em went west during the Little Ice Age. So we'll blame a lack of Globble Warmening.

No, wait...

Abiotic Oil - Gaia's fruit after all?

This is the latest (and, to my mind, clearest) statement about the origin of Oil - it ain't a 'fossil' fuel at all, according to those contararian Ruskies. It's a natural product, created deep within the Earth and slow-erupted up into the crust. Where it can be found by following geological signs, but just not the ones the Western scientific world tends to use.

All this rather does blow a big hole in Peak Oil theories, and indeed in any theory which treats oil as a finite resource. According to the Asia Times article (and I guess, to the book behind it) by F. William Engdahl, the Russians have followed an abiotic-origin theory since Wegener's time - the 1930's. They find oil where Western geological wisdom says there shouldn't be any.

So cars, SUV's and other devil-spawn are going to have four energy sources in future:

1 - oil, the natural, Gaia-created product of the deep
2 - hydrogen - and note the recent breakthrough in making this directly from plant starch
3 - electricity - I'll have a Wrightspeed, please
4 - Liquid fuels with similar energy density to petrol, from biomass

Who says that science isn't fun? Or that it can't save us (yet again - remember that hysterical old ninny Paul Erlich, anyone? "The edge of the crisis - we describe our first encounters with the age of scarcity and outline the greatest threat in the immediate future: the food crunch" - chapter One heading from "The End of Affluence", 1974).

I'll take Science over State of Fear, any day.

Climate Change runs out of gas

This piece of actual science shows the value of actually doing the sums. Essentially, there jest ain't enough recoverable hydrocarbons in the entire world, to support assumptions made in the IPCC's climate model. Like, IPCC assume 11-15 trillion barrel-of-oil-equivalent (TBoe) is going to go up in smoke.

Bzzt...wrong. There's only 2.7-3.5 TBoe left in the whole freakin' world, according to this. That's (counts on fingers) only 38% (3.5/11 - the best case) of the IPCC assumption.

It's really embarrassing, if you are of the Chicken Little persuasion, or (needless to say) a UN bureaucrat or activist scientist on the Gerbil Worming Gravy Train, to trip over such a basic misapprehension about our world.

But wait, there's more.....

And, of course, the real story is well away from the neg-heads, over here. Solar (particluarly thin-film solar) is going to power us in a generation or so.

The Key to All Mythologies

This article (ht: Gods of the Copybook Headings) sums up my own attitude to The Gerbil Worming debate. A teaser quote:

"it speaks in the doom-laden accents of pure certitude of what will happen in 50 or 75 or a hundred years from now - and, with the same ferocious certitude, demands decisions of immense consequence be made now to forestall its bleak and definitive projections."

Right on, bro'.