Stoat - Details

The latest crop of links-n-stuff. First up is this superb photo - ht TS's google reader feed. It won second prize but for my money is far and away better than any of the others (higher-res version- thanks BD). Its tagged as a "condensation rainbow" but it isn't, I think (wrong shape). It is probably diffraction not refraction - see [[Iridescent cloud]]. Tom saidI saw this elsewhere (can't remember where) and I think the explanation given was that the plane was making a sharp turn and adiabatic expansion resulting low pressure one side of the wing lowered the temperature enough for an ice(?) cloud to form. It seemed a reasonable explanationso I'll go with that. The same photographer, Bernardo Malfitano, has another good one athere.

Meanwhile, on the perennial issue of the costs of GW:A new mechanism to consider when measuring climate impacts on economies.

On the very very silly end of GW, on wiki we've been having a Big Argument about [[Climate change alarmism]]. What became really weird was me having to explain (seehere) that yes indeed my own paper really wasn't a good source for what the septics were trying to push (here). This appears to have been so extreme that it has even got through toat least some parts of arbcomm.

And for all you physicists out there, an old favourite I ran across again recentlyHow to do physics.

Melting Rate of Icecaps in Greenland and Western Antarctica Lower Than Expectedsays ScienceDaily but its wrong: what it means is, less than previously measured. The GRACE folk have recalibrated their isostatic rebound, it seems.

Knolis a "new" thingy from google. Actually not very new, but this is the first time I've noticed it.Wikihas some ruminations on it. It appears to have the advantage that you can write what you like, untramelled by the trolls. But the disadvantage that the trolls can write what they like, uncontrolled by the sane. And there is no structure.

Heiaheiais yet another track-your-fitness website that AN inveigled me onto, but it is cute and funky and brightly coloured. Hopefully they'll integrate it to garmin connect sometime.

Down at the scummy end:In particular, any "predictions" and "projections" about the future must be entirely based on observations. A must-read. As are the latest episodes ofHarry Potter and the methods of rationality(up to 46 at last count).

Local news: I've just done my first erg for ages (7606) and Phoebe is a fleabag.

Finally, and belatedly, the LOLcat bible:Nebuchadnezzar sed: "ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US"

Special bonus pic at the end (saintgasolinevia 4chan):

[Update. Oh, and I forgot the ridiculous kerfuffle about Hawking's latest. SeePenrose in the FT(the after-coffee anecdote makes Penrose sound like a twat, which for all I know he may be, but the rest is OK) orWoit rip Hawking to shreds. Just because you're in a wheelchair doesn't make you right.

Listening: Martin Carthy:Famous flower of serving men.

More late stuff:Science scornedsays Nuture (Volume: 467 ,Page: 133 Date published: (09 September 2010)):There is a growing anti-science streak on the American right that could have tangible societal and political impacts on many fronts... Denialism over global warming has become a scientific cause célèbre within the movement.(ht:Romm).
]

So, I didn't like theIAC prescription for the IPCC. So I need my own. And I forgot that I already had one. PK said it well in the comments:

How many IPCC reports does it take to screw in a light bulb? The bureaucratic solution for inefficient bureaucracy always seems to be more bureaucracy. If the purpose of the IPCC is to inform governments on climate change and its possible impacts, the job is pretty much done. If the purpose is to provide a rationale for global taxation and control of CO2, we'll be arguing over the results of AR15.

but it bears repeating and expanding. No number of IPCC reports is going to convince people who don't want to know, that the science is good and, yes, to use that term that everyone hates, settled - at least in the basics. You can - if you hold your nose - visit any number of septic blog sites and find people arguing passionately for positions totally divorced from scientific knowledge. These people don't argue against what is in the IPCC reports, because they have never read them or anything vaguely based on them. Producing another bigger fatter more up to date version will not sway them. That is fine really - such people aren't the target audience. But they are voters, and politicians can't be too bold while their constituents believe twaddle.

Some people still seem to hold the belief that the *next* IPCC report - which will be even more unequivocal on the-temperature-is-going-up-and-it-is-our-fault - will change peoples mind. I'm very dubious about that. For that kind of thing, we have all the evidence that is required (disclaimers: I'm only really speaking about WGI stuff, because it is the only thing i have a clue about, and I'm not saying we should shut down all the physical climate change research. There are plenty of exciting and interesting things to discover. But they won't change the big picture). This is, I think (but can't be bothered to look up) the RP Jr viewpoint: that doing something about GW is a political problem, not a scientific one (in a way that it wasn't in, say, 1990, when the scientific field was far more open).

So while I stick bywhat I said a while backI think then I didn't really understand what I would now take to be the key point: which is to stop trying to make WGI policy relevant. Make the WGI report much smaller; less bureaucratic; put fewer people on it. Report on less research. There is no need at all for it to summarise everything, or even try to. Put a note on the front page: "This is a research report. If you care about the politics, go elsewhere. We've already told you all you need to know".

See also

*IPCC troubles in context: Some good Dutch media coverage
*A modest proposal for the IPCC- page limits are a good start, and hive off detail. I'd make them stricter.

Or rather,Parkrunwhich D+A introduced me to. Thats me, the one on the right: I wanted to be that dog, at least for the race. It looks so focussed and determined, even if it is just chasing a stuffed electric hare.

And the running is good, so I'll tell you all about it so you can play too. It is a series of regular free 5km runs at various places in the UK. You have to pre-register a tag, but from then on you just turn up at the start and run. TheCambridge oneis in Milton Country Park which is where I run at lunchtime, though on a different course.

Theresultsare now up: I came an unimpressive 69th, and in fact totally misestimated the field, startnig far too near the front. Which meant I found myself running at 3:05/km at one point, not a pace I can sustain. I dropped back to 4:45 fairly soon, which meant I spent the race beng overtaken, argh. Time: 22:45. That is my first timed run of 5km, let alone race. The full gory details are (probably; I think you're allowed to see)here, but happily I forgot my heart-rate monitor. Note that my GPS thinks the course was only 4:86; I;m sure it is wrong, because they measure the course carefully, so it has lost 140m in corner-cutting of my deduced track.