A glass half full…..

May 24, 2013

Half our UK vacation is over but half is still to come.

Spring is late but the English countryside is lush and green.

Birmingham airport was rather inefficient but everybody was cheerily friendly.

Traffic was heavy but surprisingly non-aggressive.

It has not been very warm but the warmth of meeting old friends is palpable.

We have not seen much sunshine but we haven’t been drenched.

It is raining today but that allows me to write this post.

It is going to rain all day today but we will be in the British Museum.

Nothing is ever half-empty without also being half-full.

 

Language is a means to an end – not an end in itself

May 22, 2013

I was reading about the new grammar and spelling tests for 11-year-olds in England. I was a little surprised though at the apparent incoherence of politicians, teachers, teachers unions and even academics about the tests, why they were necessary and what they might help achieve. For the unions, of course, testing of any kind smacks of elitism and becomes an ideological issue. Even among the language professionals there seemed to be a fundamental lack of understanding of the importance – or otherwise – of grammar and punctuation and spelling. Ideology on the one hand versus muddled “keepers of the language” on the other.

Grammar and vocabulary are dynamic – in any living language. “Correct” grammar is a consensual thing – it is subservient to what is considered “acceptable”. What is acceptable grammar is subject to change; with time and subsequent to usage. There is no such thing as an absolute “correctness” of language. Whatever is acceptable is “correct”. No rule of grammar survives if it is continuously violated. Words are continuously absorbed into a language (from science or from other languages or from changes of behaviour or of technology). Words are invented and sometimes reach a critical mass of users and survive while other invented words disappear into oblivion. Some change their meanings over time by changed usage and some die through disuse. In fact it is the fact that a language is changing which defines that it is alive.

It is only for a “dead” language – no longer subject to change by usage – where the vocabulary and grammar are fixed and sterile.

Every language seems to have its share of “keepers of the language” who try and define “correct” grammar and dictionaries of “acceptable words”, their spelling and their meaning. Grammarians and lexicologists tend to overlook the fact that they are – for a living language always – and of necessity – behind the times. They have to be. Some finite time is always needed for the compilation of  their “Grammars” and their “Dictionaries” and – for a living language – the language will have moved on. What they actually achieve is a snapshot at a particular moment time of a living and moving thing. And by the time the snapshot is available, it is already out of date.

But I do believe grammarians and lexicologists are of great value even if language itself is only a tool for communication (no doubt the primary tool for humans – but a tool nevertheless and not an end in itself). But their value lies not (as they might think) in being arbiters of what is “correct” or “incorrect” but in establishing a reference point which then allows for the proper communication of meaning by language.

The purpose of vocabulary and grammar is clarity of what is expressed by language. And this clarity depends upon the commonality of meanings ascribed to words and the rules – the grammar and punctuation –  by which they are strung together. They become important only because an unknown recipient of the language may well have to assume the meaning of the words and their structure. But they are certainly not relevant for the judging of any intrinsic “rightness” or “wrongness”.

To take liberties with grammar and with vocabulary from some established norm is always available to a user of language. But he does need to know what the norm is to be able to take such liberties in the pursuit of an improved communication. The testing then – in my view – becomes simply a tool to ensure that 11-year-olds know what the current established norms are.

How “Retrospective Prediction” works

May 14, 2013

I have posted earlier about Climate Science being reduced to “Retrospective Predictions”.

This is how it works:

I missed a flight today. I had predicted that I would arrive  30 minutes before check-in closed. But I was wrong. I arrived 37 minutes after check-in had closed. My prediction model was just not good enough.

My prediction model assumed a certain average velocity for my car, an empirically determined period for parking the car and getting to the check-in desk, an allowance of 15 minutes to stop for coffee along the way and an allowance of 10 minutes for inaccuracy of calculation. This gave me my starting time which – in the event – led to my being 37 minutes late for check-in.

I now applied “Retrospection” to my “Prediction”. Effectively this meant choosing which of my assumptions was wrong and where I would apply a “fudge factor”. I realised that I had not accounted for road works along the way. I therefore added in a period for “delays due to road-works” such that my total transit time was increased by precisely 67 minutes.

I then redid my calculation. Lo and Behold! My “Retrospective Prediction” was now spot on. It confirmed for me that I had been late for check-in.

(My addition of time for “delays due to road works” is a very simple but powerful factor and is given by the following equation:

delays due to road works (minutes) = 0.5 x number of days elapsed from 1st January to day of travel

In the present case, today being 14th of May it is the 134th day of the year and it is obvious that

delays due to road works = 0.5 x 134 = 67 minutes).

I am travelling tomorrow. So I shall be testing my new “Retrospective Prediction” in retrospect the day-after-tomorrow.

Tomorrow I will also try not to use the wrong departure time.

Merrie England

May 13, 2013

We are travelling to England for a few days looking up old friends and visiting old haunts.

But it is May, and it is England and there shall be rain.

Shrewsbury, Birmingham, Coventry, Stratford, and around London are the main ports of call.

Meeting up with old friends is always great fun but meeting some for the first time since graduation in 1972 should be especially fascinating.

Blogging will necessarily be light and may be even lighter depending upon

  1. the goodness of the weather, and
  2. the level of the revelries

Carbon dioxide concentration was at 500+ ppm already in 1860

May 13, 2013

This has been around for some time, but I have only just come across it.

It could be that GS Callendar’s 1957 paper about Global warming  cherry picked supportive data points and ignored inconvenient data.

Reblogged from JunkScience

Did one of the fathers of manmade global warming cherry-pick his data for a 1957 study?

Here’s the original data.

Source: Slocum, G., Has the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere changed significantly since the beginning of the twentieth century? Month. Weather Rev., 1955(October): p. 225-231.

Source: Slocum, G., Has the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere changed significantly since the beginning of the twentieth century? Month. Weather Rev., 1955(October): p. 225-231. 

Here’s the cherry-picked version.

Callendar graph

Read the full story at Tallbloke’s blog.

Related:

slocum 1955 carbon dioxide Slocum, G., Has the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere changed significantly since the beginning of the twentieth century? Month. Weather Rev., 1955(October): p. 225-231. 

Climate Change: Incorrect information on pre-industrial CO2

CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time

 

 

Climate “science” reduced to “Retrospective Predictions”

May 13, 2013

Hindsight science

Wow!

Nature and Climate Science are now reduced to publishing “Retrospective Predictions”.  And Predicting the Past is apparently good enough to get published! At least you can never make a prediction which is wrong!

It used to be called  hindsight!

 

Retrospective prediction of the global warming slowdown in the past decade

by Virginie Guemas, Francisco J. Doblas-Reyes, Isabel Andreu-Burillo & Muhammad Asif

Nature Climate Change (2013) doi:10.1038/nclimate1863

Despite a sustained production of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, the Earth’s mean near-surface temperature paused its rise during the 2000–2010 period. To explain such a pause, an increase in ocean heat uptake below the superficial ocean layer has been proposed to overcompensate for the Earth’s heat storage. Contributions have also been suggested from the deep prolonged solar minimum, the stratospheric water vapour, the stratospheric and tropospheric aerosols. However, a robust attribution of this warming slowdown has not been achievable up to now. Here we show successful retrospective predictions of this warming slowdown up to 5 years ahead, the analysis of which allows us to attribute the onset of this slowdown to an increase in ocean heat uptake. Sensitivity experiments accounting only for the external radiative forcings do not reproduce the slowdown. The top-of-atmosphere net energy input remained in the [0.5–1] W m−2 interval during the past decade, which is successfully captured by our predictions. Most of this excess energy was absorbed in the top 700 m of the ocean at the onset of the warming pause, 65% of it in the tropical Pacific and Atlantic oceans. Our results hence point at the key role of the ocean heat uptake in the recent warming slowdown. The ability to predict retrospectively this slowdown not only strengthens our confidence in the robustness of our climate models, but also enhances the socio-economic relevance of operational decadal climate predictions.

And how many reviewers saw nothing wrong with “Retrospective Predictions”?

Any referendum on continued EU membership only makes sense after invoking Article 50

May 13, 2013

My opinion on whether the UK should remain within the EU or leave has no locus standi and, in that sense, is irrelevant. But I find the sham promises of an EU referendum by politicians is behaviour which is interesting.  Anything which curbs the growth of the EU bureaucracy and the European Parliament is – I think – a good thing. I certainly think that the UK – and Sweden – should continue to stay well clear of the Euro where I think the experiment is failing.

The current noise in the UK around a future referendum about staying in or leaving the EU seems very contrived to me. Prime Minister Cameron promises an EU referendum after the next election only to try and gain the anti-EU support for the purposes of the election. He has no real intention of allowing any referendum to come to a decision to leave and everybody knows it. Any cosmetic re-negotiation of terms of membership will be known by all parties to be cosmetic and will have little focus.

The only way that I can see that any such referendum would be meaningful – in any member state –  is if it is held after the member state invokes Article 50 to leave the EU. The subsequent negotiations for an Agreement to Leave would then have a 2 year time limit and would have no option but to be sharp and focused. There would be no difficulty in withdrawing the invocation of Article 50 provided the referendum was held within the two year dead-line and decided that membership would continue.

Any member state which really wishes to have meaningful negotiations about EU membership must first invoke Article 50. Both options would then be truly open. Without this any referendum would be without teeth and any result “to leave” would be a hollow one.  By far the best negotiating position for a member state would be with an invocation of Article 50 to be followed by immediate negotiations and a referendum about 20 months later.

A parliamentary vote to invoke Article 50, then negotiations culminating in a referendum towards the end of the 2-year period would be the proper way to go.

Lisbon Treaty: Article 50

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it. A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.

A scientist, a scholar, a researcher and an Engineer ..

May 12, 2013

A scientist, a scholar, a researcher and an Engineer appeared at the Pearly Gates simultaneously. (Well not quite simultaneously but sufficiently after the previous batch of applicants for entry had been dealt with and close enough in time to be taken as the next batch for consideration of their entry applications).

Saint Peter (who was the Lean Gatekeeper with the task of ensuring that Heaven’s Quality Standards were not only maintained but were subject to Continuous Improvement) looked them over dubiously.

“We don’t have many of your kind here”, he said. “Your lot are all atheists or unbelievers or skeptics. And those few of you who do believe are never satisfied; always looking for something new, always climbing on the shoulders of people who have been here for eternity, always turning the heat up or down and generally making trouble in one way or another. Are you sure you wouldn’t be better off at the Other Place? They have Special Offers for New Entrants you know”.

But the scientist, the scholar, the researcher and the Engineer were quite sure and absolutely adamant. “Now see here”, said the Engineer, “it’s Heaven we chose on the After Life web-site and it’s Heaven which confirmed that space was available. Don’t you try and fob us off! We’re here to do the Entry Test, so get on with it. We may have Eternity but time is still of the essence. Your Process Cycle Time has considerable room for improvement. We can just as easily do the test for Paradise, you know.”

(For those who may be uninitiated, He had decided that some competition was needed to maintain Standards and Performance. Paradise and Heaven were therefore set up as competitors and every aeon or so Audited Performance Reports were filed. The better performer of the two received additional benefits in the form of an increased dosage of Ecstacy for all inhabitants).

Saint Peter was more than a little miffed at this since he took Cycle Time very seriously indeed. In fact he bench-marked his Cycle Time for Entry regularly against those for Paradise, Purgatory and the Other Place.  In any event Cycle Time for Entry was one of his critical Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) which he had to report on weekly to Him. At the last Divine Review he had been much quicker than Purgatory, just slightly ahead of Paradise but he had quite some distance to go to be as quick as the Other Place.

(Other KPIs that Saint Peter was judged on included

  • Number granted entry who later left voluntarily (to Paradise)
  • Number granted entry who were expelled for incompatibility (to Purgatory or the Other Place)
  • Number enticed away from Paradise to enter Heaven
  • Cost of supplying Ecstacy to maintain Bliss – the lower being the better
  • Net Growth Rate – number of inhabitants/aeon
  • EBIT – Ecstasy and Bliss before Inhabitant Tax

Of course Taxes are necessary even here for His Administration Costs were very worrying and His Overheads were always increasing).

“Very well then”, he almost snarled standing up to his full imposing height, “here’s your test. Only the winner shall enter. The losers automatically forfeit entry to Heaven and Paradise and will be transported to Purgatory where they may crave entry. Thereafter those who fail may apply to the Other Place. Failure to secure entry even there will lead to integration with the Universe and loss of Eternal Life. Are you all ready?”

The applicants nodded. They were sobered by the harsh countenance of the Gatekeeper and the realisation that failure carried some long-term consequences. Even the belligerent Engineer was cowed as he swallowed and nodded.

“There”, said Saint Peter, pointing with his beard, “a mere twenty Holy Stadia distant lies the Tree of Life. To that Tree is shackled the most desirable Companion for Eternity that any of you could possibly imagine. The first one of you to reach and kiss her/him shall enter with her/him through the Pearly Gates for Eternal Ecstasy and Bliss. He/She is a variable and morphs automatically to match the particular (or peculiar) desires of the winner”.

As they looked a small mushroom-like cloud imploded and gave way to a shimmering Tree of Life and, clearly visible, encased in shackles of light, they could each see the most beautiful, the most desirable, the most perfect Companion for Eternity they could possibly imagine.

“But there is an impediment” shouted Saint Peter and broke rudely into their rapturous contemplation each of their Ideal. “Every step you take towards him/her shall of necessity and by the curious Laws of Time and Motion in Heaven, necessarily be precisely half the length of the previous step. But the length of the step you begin with – within the bounds of your capability – can be any length you choose. You shall begin on my command”.

“Ready, Steady, GO!” boomed Saint Peter (because as is well known, all firearms including starting pistols violate the Eleventy-ninth Amendment of the Heavenly Constitution and are forbidden in Heaven).

The following events ensued:

  1. The scientist had too many parameters and too many degrees of freedom available. He could not be sure that what was, was. He felt compelled to consider the possibility that what was, was not. Could there be a finite resolution in time of an infinite series of distance? He theorised that his apparent Companion for Eternity might morph into a Serpent with an Apple. He considered which null hypothesis might best allow of being proven false to his eventual advantage. Who would be the peer reviewers when he was ready to publish? He decided to make some approximations and develop a mathematical model. We leave him lost in contemplation of his navel for he has no further part in this story.
  2. The scholar consulted the literature as scholars are wont to do. Of course, he had instantaneous – but temporary – access to all the Heavenly Databases of the Past. Since these began at the beginning of time with the Big Bang and encompassed everything in the known – and unknown – Universes, he had much information to be digested and synthesised to come to the most probable course of action. We must, alas, leave him still studying the early seconds after the Big Bang.
  3. The researcher was of a more practical bent. He set to measuring all the possible lengths of step he could take. It was obvious that he needed to establish the minimum length of step he could take – and small steps would become necessary – and clearly this could not be zero. Moreover he needed to then find the maximum length of step possible so he could then establish the governing max/min ratio of step. We have to leave him massaging his thighs for his maximum step experiment led to an involuntary and unexpected performance of the splits which entailed the stretching of his thigh muscles beyond what was comfortable.
  4. The Engineer leaped into his first step. “Four steps and I reckon I’ll be close enough to her do my will” he exclaimed as he set off. 

We leave the Engineer carrying his Companion for Eternity across the threshold of the Pearly Gates singing “The Engineer’s Song”.

The moral of this story is: The Engineer is the one with the Capital E.

When the ice age starts…….

May 12, 2013

Probably the first indications that an ice age has begun will be with a series of long winters – not necessarily the coldest – together with late springs and cool summers. The key factor will be that snow from one winter remains and does not melt before the next winter brings more snow. It will therefore be successions of long winters and cool summers which will allow for the sufficient accumulation of snow and the growth of the area under snow cover. Cold winters and heavy snowfall can surely help but it it is the accumulation of snow from one year to the next which will determine. Old snow will become ice. For negative feedbacks to be triggered the surface area covered by snow and ice must be sufficient that – say – the albedo of the northern hemisphere is altered such that the amount of solar radiation being reflected is itself increased and the surface area under snow/ice cover increases.

Not that I am suggesting that this years long winter is the start of an ice age. Weather is not climate. But ice advancing into the gardens of lakeside homes from Lake Mille Lacs is just another reminder of the power in water (whether in the waters of the tsunami in Japan or as in this ice moving onto land from a lake).

This is reproduced from Watts Up With That

While ice fishing is still going on in some parts of Minnesota, other parts are having what looks like glacier advance in the back yards that is damaging some homes.

As for climate change worries, you can always figure out ways to keep cool, but getting out of the way of an advancing glacier is no easy task as this video shows. Watch this video of what happens in an “ice out” from the nearby lake Mille Lacs, you can actually watch the ice advance. In a matter of minutes the wind pushes the ice about 15 feet from the shore to the doors and windows of lakeside homes.

While this isn’t the same mechanism as ice-age type glaciation, it is fascinating to watch.

Shamans versus the witch-doctors: psychologists attack the psychiatrists

May 12, 2013

I have the clear perception that psychiatry has gone too far in trying to attribute all kinds of behaviour to being disabilities. The very influential American Psychiatry Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders DSM-5 is soon to be released and even describes grief and temper tantrums as disabilities and yet will no longer recognise Asperger’s! And the psychiatrists have the fundamental concept that all such disabilities are susceptible to medication.

Equally, while I recognise the importance of human psychology as a discipline I am less than impressed by the psychology and behaviour of psychologists and especially the academic gyrations of social psychologists.

So this headline in today’s Guardian conjures up images of a pitched battle between shamans and witch-doctors. I distinguish here between shamans who rely on various secret “medicines” to cure the afflicted, while the witch-doctors are the ones who engage in secret rites to free the patients from the spirits who are haunting them. I suppose in this analogy that the psychiatrists are the shamans and the psychologists are the witch-doctors. But the bottom line of course seems to be that psychologists wantb to adjust behaviour by adjusting other behaviour, and they feel threatened by the psychiatrists’ concept that all unwanted behaviour can be medicated away. The pharmaceutical industry – needless to say – tends to support the psychiatrists (what else?).

The Guardian: Psychiatrists under fire in mental health battle

British Psychological Society to launch attack on rival profession, casting doubt on biomedical model of mental illness.

There is no scientific evidence that psychiatric diagnoses such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder are valid or useful, according to the leading body representing Britain’s clinical psychologists.

In a groundbreaking move that has already prompted a fierce backlash from psychiatrists, the British Psychological Society’s division of clinical psychology (DCP) will on Monday issue a statement declaring that, given the lack of evidence, it is time for a “paradigm shift” in how the issues of mental health are understood. The statement effectively casts doubt on psychiatry’s predominantly biomedical model of mental distress – the idea that people are suffering from illnesses that are treatable by doctors using drugs. The DCP said its decision to speak out “reflects fundamental concerns about the development, personal impact and core assumptions of the (diagnosis) systems”, used by psychiatry.

Dr. Lucy Johnstone, a consultant clinical psychologist who helped draw up the DCP’s statement, said it was unhelpful to see mental health issues as illnesses with biological causes.

“On the contrary, there is now overwhelming evidence that people break down as a result of a complex mix of social and psychological circumstances – bereavement and loss, poverty and discrimination, trauma and abuse,” Johnstone said. The provocative statement by the DCP has been timed to come out shortly before the release of DSM-5, the fifth edition of the American Psychiatry Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. ….

…… The writer Oliver James, who trained as a clinical psychologist, welcomed the DCP’s decision to speak out against psychiatric diagnosis and stressed the need to move away from a biomedical model of mental distress to one that examined societal and personal factors.

Writing in today’s Observer, James declares: “We need fundamental changes in how our society is organised to give parents the best chance of meeting the needs of children and to prevent the amount of adult adversity.”

But Professor Sir Simon Wessely, a member of the Royal College of Psychiatrists and chair of psychological medicine at King’s College London, said it was wrong to suggest psychiatry was focused only on the biological causes of mental distress. And in an accompanying Observerarticle he defends the need to create classification systems for mental disorder.

“A classification system is like a map,” Wessely explains. “And just as any map is only provisional, ready to be changed as the landscape changes, so does classification.”