Hot Curry Easter Egg

The American Physical Society has released its draft Statement on Climate Change to the APS membership. This after a protracted episode of internal politics in which a ‘traditionalist’ cadre tried to reformulate the old statement from 2007 to include a more ‘skeptical’ nuance.
After due deliberation the APS has rather predictably drafted a statement of the mainstream position on climate science. Dr Judith Curry is clearly not amused.


On Climate Change:- Earth’s changing climate is a critical issue that poses the risk of significant disruption around the globe. While natural sources of climate variability are significant, multiple lines of evidence indicate that human influences have had an increasingly dominant effect on the climate warming observed since the mid-twentieth century. Although the magnitudes of future effects are uncertain, human influences on the climate are growing. The potential consequences of climate change are great and the policies of the next few decades will determine human influences on the climate for centuries.”

As a APS member of the Topical Group on the Physics of Climate, elected to the Executive Committee, Dr Curry thinks she should have been consulted rather more than just being asked for names of experts. And hints that the consulting procedure is biased. But then the APS did start out asking for input from Lindzen, Christy and Spencer, so perhaps she did have some influence!  Eli has the some of the details here. And back here.

However in the light of the APS reporting that the vast body of scientific opinion on this matter agrees, and that ongoing improvements only further validate its suggestion of further research and the warning made in the 2007 statement.

On Climate Action: The APS reiterates its 2007 call to support actions that will reduce the emissions, and ultimately the concentration, of greenhouse gases, as well as increase the resilience of society to a changing climate. Because physics and its techniques are fundamental elements of climate science, the APS further urges physicists to collaborate with colleagues across disciplines in climate research and to contribute to the public dialogue.”

Dr Curry is clearly hot about this. Her complaint seems to be that because the minority and least representative views on climate science were not included in a report of the mainstream consensus, it is the work of superficial idiots. – “no one on the POPA seems to understand any of these issues beyond a superficial level (after Koonin and Rossner departed from the POPA), and that their statements are naive and unprofessional,”

The attack, started by Dr Curry, and continued with relish by many of her posters, is that the report does not include the scientific uncertainties and doubts about the severity and magnitude of AGW held by the rejectionist fringe. True, but then it is a short summary of the mainstream view, not a detailed dissection of the whole issue. Thats is why it references the IPCC reports for the full science. Of course for Dr Curry and many of her blog denizens, invoking the IPCC is prima facie evidence of malfeasance. Dr Curry generally restrict her attacks on the IPCC science as being constrained by group-think. Or that the existing consensus is somehow self-reinforcing. Despite the fact that science is the human institution least prone to group-think and most open to contrary evidence.

However many of her blog commenters jump right from doubts about the scientific accuracy to the conclusion that a statement by the APS that;-

On Climate Science: As summarized in the 2013 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), there continues to be significant progress in climate science. In particular, the connection between rising concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases and the increased warming of the global climate system is more certain than ever. Nevertheless, as recognized by Working Group 1 of the IPCC, scientific challenges remain to our abilities to observe, interpret, and project climate changes. To better inform societal choices, the APS urges sustained research in climate science.”

Must be the result of a conspiracy between scientists who want more research money and political utopians who want a ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT. Or at least want to take more tax… Conspiracy theories abound! Part driven by complaints about the procedure used by the APS to develop this (draft) statement. Ironic that the original motivation to update the 2007 statement was engineered by internal politicking by AGW rejectionists (Koonin  and Rossner) who wanted to water it down.

The importance of this, at least for the climate science rejectionist ‘side’, is that it is more confirmation of the strong agreement about the science within the scientific field. For those who oppose the idea that BAU is not viable and something significant will have to be done about fossil fuel emissions to avoid probable problems, the release of another statement of the mainstream science is not welcome. Complaining that it fails to include the crank fringe views is silly. Asserting that reporting the real agreement is evidence of the ideologically driven hoax of Lysenkoist proportions is worse. But then the original intention of updating the document was to include those fringe views to spread doubt and imply a weaker consensus that actually emerges from the observational research.

Meanwhile the El Nino seems to be finally getting into gear after the longest absence in the historical record. It is ‘only’ a natural variation, but is likely to push up temperatures beyond the point where there will be any silly quibbling about how certain it was the hottest year as happened for 2014. There is growing evidence that the Atlantic Meridional overturning circulation is slowing. This was predicted long ago as a consequence of melting Greenland ice, but confirmation of this shift in ocean circulation looks increasingly certain. Another reminder that AGW does more than just increase the global average temperature. It is a useful global metric, but fails to capture a fraction of the complex consequences locally and temporally of the AGW effects.

 And Coal continues to die.

 My recent, and first tryout of the full music and editing system got little attention, apart from a nice comment from Ozboy and an accusation it was ‘too psychodelic’… but the graphics and music were not that well integrated, the riff is in 9/4 at 60bpm so there ‘should be a 270-540 frame loop somewhere in the visuals…

So after a lazy Easter, other commitments and a complete failure to get any freeware screen video capture software to work so that I can do a video tutorial about this stuff;
Here’s a remix of the visuals, doubled-down on the psycodelia, but the same ‘busy’ bass playing, of the Easter Hay track.!


5 responses to “Hot Curry Easter Egg

  1. Lars Karlsson

    Apparently she thinks that Koonin, who left the committe and wrote an editorial for the WSJ, had a much better understanding than the rest of the committee…


  2. I know the other group member who is mentioned, Robert Rossner, is a cosmologist and has no history of research in climate science. I have been unable to find out what research Koonin did beyond mentions of theoretical physics involving the ‘many body problem,’ so again a climate science naive’.

    Koonin does seem to have had a career advising big organisations how to do science. At BP and for the US government he has apparently abandoned the science of the many body problem for the more difficult task of herding cats. As the many-body problem of managing scientists is sometimes called.


  3. A mere “remix” of the visuals? It appears to me to be a very different composition. Actually quite a bit better than the last one IMHO (which seemed to throw out lots of swastikas that gave me nightmares).

    I am hesitant to hand out any further advice on the bass track; I presume it is your Dean upright? Don’t take my “busy” comment too much to heart. It may be merely a matter of personal taste.


  4. @-Ozboy
    Yes the video does look very different, I have been working on different ways to get elements within the visual to react to the sound, hence the field of blobs and obelisks jerking to the volume, and the swirly clouds of colour that move to the different frequencies in the background. But the background, or ‘sky’ is the previous video….
    As to the bass part, I would like to claim that it is the Zappa guitar part from the song. At least that is the music I had in front of me, the Steve Vai transcription –

    But given my skills I can claim that I did play all the right notes… just not necessarily at the right time and in the right order!


  5. That explains it – I’m not really a Zappa man 🙂


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s