Kinky stuff

Sorry, typo on the first letter, hope you aren’t too disappointed :-). And nothing to do with the video: which is just a song I’d forgotten how much I liked. We owe so much to YouTube. Anyway, on with the show:

James Annan is ranting about Climate sensitivity again. I wouldn’t normally bother remark something so commonplace (:-))) but he also disses the Lenton et al. paper that came up recently in comments and which I’ve snarked about before (summary for the New Bugs: does the concept of “tipping points” really mean anything and/or actually help you discuss these issues?).

DeepClimate is laying into McIntyre: auditing the “auditors” as I believe the phrase has it. They don’t like it up ’em, you know (summary: what happened post-1960? Not what McI would have you believe).

mt [Michael Tobis] is attempting to say intelligent things, but alas trying to say them to people for whom subtley and nuance are unfamiliar. Meanwhile CapitalistImperialistPig is trying to say intelligent things about intelligence.

More techy is the exciting story of the Ariane 5 disaster. I won’t spoil the fun by telling you the answer, but making sure that you don’t include pointless 10-year-old software that doesn’t know how to fail is a good idea.

Wiki rescue article of the week: [[Law of maximum entropy production]]. Don’t be frightened, you can’t make it worse.

[Note: post lightly edited for comprehensibility post-TS (;-) comments -W]

Adding Steve Easterbrook on tenure and switching fields. Oh, and Climate models are good quality code.

9 thoughts on “Kinky stuff”

  2. The use of initialisms should probably be avoided in public internet postings. Yes, I know it’s a long-established practice, but it hinders comprehension. I know who Michael Tobis is because I read his blog every other day, and I read James Annan’s about as often, but even so I didn’t understand who you were referring to until I clicked the links. Imagine how somebody unfamiliar with Michael and James would feel.

    You have linked to some interesting pieces there, but you don’t take the time to spell out what you mean in a way that will make it easily understood. The material may also be more difficult to index and rank on search engines because of your use of obscure initialisms.

    And yes, this is the same argument I trundle out on Wikipedia regularly, though there it has become futile. I still think it’s important, though.

    Like

    Reply

  3. Stoat: I think you have been listening to the creeekit. Last match they played that every time an Australian came out to bat. Worse was “Poker face” each time a 4 was scored. Can’t imagine why they thought that was a good idea.

    Tony: I thought it was just me being thick, so I am delighted to hear that other people also can’t understand some of Stoat’s blog posts. At least they are not twice as long as they should be (another common crime), so the pain is short-lived.

    [Jules – I no watchee the cricket. But I’m glad to hear it is still played. No comprendee? You diss my posts? Ha! -W]

    Like

    Reply

  4. You need to put a copyright mark next to that auditing the auditors. Oh yes, and send Eli some carrots. Jules and Tony should also admit that being a bit obscure is a feature not a bug.

    Like

    Reply

  5. Yes, OK. You can pretend that obscurity is a feature. I also go to considerable efforts to make my posts as incomprehensible as possible, but James’ pedants always beat me down. Long posts, are, however, inexcusable. People should take the time to make them short if they expect them to be read.

    Like

    Reply

  6. Re: “Law of Maximum Entropy Production” in Wikipedia:

    I agree with “Classialecon” that it should be redirected to “Extremal principles in non-equilibrium thermodynamics”. But I am not sure how to prevent disruption of that page by Swensonites.

    I hear about a principle of maximum entropy production (though with somewhat different terminology) since around 1980, as a theme of Paltridge’s work (1975, 1978), which well predates Swenson (1988 or 1989).

    Paltridge has become a climate change skeptic and published a book “Climate Caper” in 2009. (Incidentally, links from “Extremal …” article to his 1975 and 1978 articles are directed to Climate Audit, and now broken.)

    Nevertheless I think his theoretical work in the 1970s is genuine science. Ozawa’s review is in a sense a revision of Paltridge’s theory. I am not convinced that Paltridge or Ozawa demonstrated that a “MEP” principle is at work in the real world. But I do think that climate science should pay more attention to entropy production. (And I regret that I have no contribution, except that I commented on drafts of Ozawa’s review while both of us worked in Yokohama.)

    I have neither met nor read K. (=Koichiro) Matsuno who was once a co-author of Swenson. As I look at titles of his writings, his expertise was originally statistical dynamics, and shifted to biophysics, and the theory of complex systems broadly similar to Prigogine’s. Since around 1990 he writes more as a philosopher than as a scientist.

    [Thank yuo. Ia lso have some comments from Met Office people that may help. Re Paltridge: yes, I react badly to his name, and have to remember that his recent views don’t affect the validity or otherwise of his early work -W]

    Like

    Reply

  7. Maximum entropy production.

    Sometimes the early work is a good way into a subject and it is a pity that the references omit that. But I suspect that there is an error in some of it. No time for more now.

    Like

    Reply

  8. I am not sure what Tony’s concern is.

    “mt” is actually my name in that it is what my mental narrative uses to refer to myself. The more other people use it, the better, as far as I am concerned, and I am pleased that some are getting it.

    As for “JA”, that is obviously the Jefferson Airplane. To whom else could it possibly refer?

    Like

    Reply

Leave a comment