We’re right. You’re wrong. We’re in power. So there.

What could possibly be a more coherent, convincing and above all evidence-based argument than this?

SIR – You were wrong to attack the financial-transactions tax (FTT) that is being implemented by 11 European Union states (“Bin it”, February 23rd). You dragged up the bad experience of Sweden, which ditched its own FTT in 1991. But even the IMF has accepted that the Swedes had simply failed to design their tax well enough. As Algirdas Semeta, the EU commissioner on tax, recently said, Sweden invented a bicycle with square wheels.

We are campaigning to get the financial industry to pay for some of the damage it has caused. There are sensible arguments to have over the impact of an FTT on volatility, liquidity and the cost of capital. But the real issues at the heart of the matter are whether democracies control the capital markets or not, and whether finance serves the real economy or vice versa. The people are on our side. There comes a time when even The Economist should stop defending the indefensible.

Basically it amounts to “shut up, witches, or we burn you”.

Mind you, that’s not as Orwellian as “Exorbitance cannot be allowed in a free and socially minded society…” (my bold). Guess who.

Refs

* Dorks

Climategate 3.0?

Apparently, something called “climategate 3.0” has occurred. This caused massive excitement in the denialosphere for a day, but now everyone has quietly forgotten it. You can tell its a damp squib because the only even vaguely “mainstream” news report of it that WUWT can find is a blog piece by James Delingpole, a man so unimportant I haven’t even bothered call him a tosser. AW managed to find two emails that he thought were really interesting, but his slightly-more-on-the-ball readers pointed out they were already in v2. There’s a mildly interesting third one about Oreskes but: is that really it?

So, I think they have their numbering scheme wrong. Incrementing by integers is for major releases, not minor changes. This is really CruHack 1.0.2. Unless you want to argue that the original was just a beta, perhaps v0.9, what the denialists call v2 was 0.95; this might be the real v1.0. Perhaps something more interesting will emerge later, who knows.

For those too young to remember the original, see [[Climatic Research Unit email controversy]].

Early update: I should listen to Gavin, who points out how interesting google trends are on this. AW isn’t happy. This may require some playing with; last 12 months is also entertaining, though it is currently showing “Mar 10-16” as “incomplete data”.

Refs

* CRU tooo?
* Those CRU emails in full

Methane again

All over the world (my path: Timmy -> Torygraph -> google -> Nude scientist -> JOGMEC press release -> JOGMEC) there is excitement about “Japan cracks seabed ‘ice gas’ in dramatic leap for global energy”. Which is indeed interesting, but not quite as dramatic as suggested. Because as the pic of the flare makes clear, this is a very small flow. If you read the press release, is clear this is still experimental:

Methane hydrate (*1) receives attention as one of the unconventional gas resources in the future. During the period from FY2001 to FY2008, which is Phase 1 of the “Japan’s Methane Hydrate R&D Program” (*2) (Program), seismic surveys and exploitation drillings were conducted at the eastern Nankai trough, off the coast from Shizuoka-pref. to Wakayama-pref., as the model area, where a considerable amount of methane hydrate deposits is confirmed (*3).In Phase 2 of the Program starting from FY2009, aiming to develop a technology to extract natural gas through dissociation of methane hydrate, this is the first offshore test ever conducted (*4).The first offshore production test is planned over a span of two years.

In February and March last year, the preparatory works including drilling a production well and two monitoring wells were conducted. From
June to July, the pressured core samples were acquired from methane hydrate layers. In this operation, a flow test through dissociation of methane hydrate is conducted after the preparatory works including drilling and installing equipments for the flow test.

Preparatory drilling started: February 15, 2012
Came back to Shimizu Port: March 26, 2012
Operation to acquire pressured core samples: from June 29 to July 7, 2012
Started the operation at the test site: January 28, 2013
Started the flow test and confirmed gas production: March 12, 2013

Ending the flow test, retrieving test equipments: until end of March
Retrieving remained equipments from the site: August, 2013

Although the first offshore production test is not a commercial production and is an experimental operation as an activity in research, it will be a big progress in research and development of methane hydrate as a resource since precious data including dissociation behavior of methane hydrate under the sea floor, impact to the surrounding environment, and so on, would be obtained once this test ends in success. Based on accomplishment of the production test, it is also planned to proceed with the second offshore production test scheduled in Phase 2 and establishing the technological platform toward future commercial production in Phase 3 which is scheduled from FY2016 until FY2018.

So, an important step but not yet commercial or even close (NS says “could start as early as 2018”).

Sweetly, JOGMEC cares about your safety:

Since this is a flow test of flammables, please do not approach to the site because of the safety reason.

Refs

* Arctic Methane Emergency Group?

Girding my loins: sea ice

This is not the sea ice post you were looking for. However, it is a placeholder for putting comments, including linking to previous comments.

If I’m feeling energetic I may even make the linkages myself.

The pic shows seaice at “normal” ish; but that means little, as 2012 was also “normal” at this time of year. PIOMASS might be more interesting (thanks CR) but a month of more will make that clearer.

Early update: Oh well, since its there, Open Mind’s Arctic Sea Ice Loss, part 1 is worth a look, esp. figs 2 and then fig 6 (though I don’t think the quadratic fit is meaningful. Unless you can bring yourself to believe that the implied long-term-trend was an increase in the early 80’s).

A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years?

Well, no-one has said what I wanted to say about this, so I thought I should. Click on the image for P3’s take. This is about Shaun A. Marcott, Jeremy D. Shakun, Peter U. Clark, Alan C. Mix‘s latest in Science. If you want to read some stupid things said about it, try Curry (surprise) or if you prefer your stupidity super-sized, then WUWT. And indeed, if you want to read drivel, why bother with watered down gruel?

The abstract has something for everyone:

Surface temperature reconstructions of the past 1500 years suggest that recent warming is unprecedented in that time. Here we provide a broader perspective by reconstructing regional and global temperature anomalies for the past 11,300 years from 73 globally distributed records. Early Holocene (10,000 to 5000 years ago) warmth is followed by ~0.7°C cooling through the middle to late Holocene (<5000 years ago), culminating in the coolest temperatures of the Holocene during the Little Ice Age, about 200 years ago. This cooling is largely associated with ~2°C change in the North Atlantic. Current global temperatures of the past decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial values but are warmer than during ~75% of the Holocene temperature history. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change model projections for 2100 exceed the full distribution of Holocene temperature under all plausible greenhouse gas emission scenarios.

If you’re the GWPF, then your headline is Earth cooler today than 28% of the past 11,300 years. If you’re Timmy getting climate wrong as usual, its What Excellent News: Earth Warmer Than in Most of the Past 11,300 Years. I’d probably go with RC’s take What If from 2005. But I’ll continue anyway.

Marcott The first thing that strikes me is that the error estimates look insanely tight, and constant. In fact they aren’t really error estimates, I think they are The gray shading [50% Jackknife (Jack50)] represents the 1s envelope when randomly leaving 50% of the records out during each Monte Carlo mean calculation. however I think people are inevitably going to interpret them as error estimates. And yet they don’t include sampling bias or any systematic problems with the datasets.

The second is the sparsity of sites, compared to Mann et al. I’d also whinge about the latitudinal bias of the the sites, too, except as the figure shows that also applies to Mann et al. too.

Point three would be caution in using figure S3, as EW does. That’s not all the records stacked together, as it rather looks like at first (it would be astonishing if it were, far far too tight; compare this).

I’d also read Michael Mann’s comments in Andy Revkin’s piece, in conjunction with pondering figure 2 I/J/K. Is the warmth biased by Northern high latitudes? I don’t know.

That wasn’t a terribly insightful analysis, was it? Well, its early days yet. That was mostly what I wanted to say: don’t over-interpret this picture or paper. I’m sure there’s a lot of more informed comment to come.

I cannot leave you without presenting what may become one of my favourite oh-dear-the-poor-darlings comments, from WUWT of course:

Although a list of sources of the data from the 73 sites is provided in an appendix, nowhere is any real data presented, so assessing the validity or accuracy of the original data is not possible without digging out all of the source papers.

If you need that interpreted, you’re lost, so I won’t try.

Refs

* Global Temperature Change — the Big Picture
* The Tick – Tamino again

How To Tell The Birds From The Flowers: A Manual of Flornithology for Beginners

From the bizarre discoveries file:

The Plover and the Clover can be told apart with ease,
By paying close attention to the habits of the Bees,
For en-to-molo-gists aver, the Bee can be in Clover,
While ety-molo-gists concur, there is no B in Plover.

and this is by Robert Wood, who did early work on the Theory of the Greenhouse.