Friday, March 13, 2009
It's so hard to find good help these days
The Obama Administration's woes in filling political appointees are getting a lot of attention in the media. However, it should be noted that Obama is doing better than average when compared to previous presidents.
Much of the problem is that Obama's ethical standards are so stringent that qualified candidates with relevant experience are forced to screen themselves out of consideration. For example, Obama's ban on lobbyists sounded great in theory, but often people with the right skills do have lobbyist gigs on the side. There's a good story at NPR on this, too.
Plus, there's a decent amount of scalp-hunting at work here that ultimately goes against our national interest - as Megan McArdle puts it,
Much of the problem is that Obama's ethical standards are so stringent that qualified candidates with relevant experience are forced to screen themselves out of consideration. For example, Obama's ban on lobbyists sounded great in theory, but often people with the right skills do have lobbyist gigs on the side. There's a good story at NPR on this, too.
Plus, there's a decent amount of scalp-hunting at work here that ultimately goes against our national interest - as Megan McArdle puts it,
This new tradition of bulldogging every appointee in the hope of embarrassing the president has to stop. We should be focusing on whether or not the nominee can do the job, not whether there is some small breach of an onerous regulation in his history that can possibly be dug up. It feels good in the short term, but when ability to find a native-born nanny becomes a more important qualification for the presidential candidate than experience relevant to the job to be done, it's time for a national rethink.
Labels: President Obama
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Global warming: is relative humidity increasing or decreasing? http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5416
I am not a global warming expert but I do follow the debates with reasonable attention to detail. I think my scientific training provides me the tools to assess the scientific claims to a reasonable degree even though I lack the training to go much deeper than abstracts, figures, and conclusions of papers on the topic.
Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit (the global warming skeptic's counter-site to the Real Climate project) points to a new paper that purports to show that the relative humidity of the upper atmosphere is declining rather than increasing as one might expect based on climate models. The implication pertains to how much feedback there is with increase in atmospheric CO2 - a positive feedback (increasing relative humidity) would imply greater temperature change per doubling of CO2 concentration increase, ie making global warming worse, whereas a negative feedback would imply the opposite, that global warming is less of a threat. Note that the debate is only about the magnitude of the increase in temperature change with increased CO2, not a repudiation of global warming outright. In fact the whole issue of relative humidity essentially validates the main assumption of global warming as caused by CO2 in the first place.
Still, the paper is getting attention from committed GW skeptics like Dave Price at Dean's World, who interprets the results as a "collapse" of a "central pillar" of global warming theory. Anthony Watts, another GW skeptic, also suggests that the paper's findings "could be significant". However, a reading of the paper's abstract and conclusions show a far milder assertion, related to data collection protocols using balloons in the atmosphere, rather than any such monumental toppling of the central GW dogmas.
The paper makes the following claims (see the abstract reprinted at Climate Audit):
- relative humidity has been thought to be increasing with global temperature (ie, positive feedback)
- in the upper atmosphere, according to balloon data, the paper reports that relative humidity has actually been decreasing (ie, negative feedback, with the warming trend that the authors explicitly acknowledge exists)
the authors themselves do acknowledge in the abstract itself that balloon data must be "treated with great caution, particularly at altitudes above the 500 hPa pressure level", though Anthony Watts does not mention this admission in his summary. The abstract only reports a negative feedback trend above 850 hPa for the tropics and southern midlatitudes, and above 600 hPa for the northern midlatitudes. The abstract goes on to explicitly state that the humidity trend is "significantly positive below 850 hPa in all three zones" - which is where the vast bulk of the water vapor in the atmosphere resides.
the main conclusion of the paper is not as bold as Dave implies - they merely state that the data suggests that there might need to be a review of data collection protocols using balloons, since the data is so iffy indeed and at odds with satellite measurements (which contrary to Watts' assertion, are probably more accurate for annual average measurements than spot measurements by balloon. see notes below for an analogy as to why). Here's the first paragraph of the conclusion proper from the article full text (courtesy of Watts):
emphasis mine. The conclusion goes on to state that "trends of water vapor shown by the NCEP data for the middle and upper troposphere should not be “written off” simply on the basis that they are not supported by climate models". I agree, but they should heed their own advice when they state a few sentences later, "it is important that as much information as possible be retrieved from within the “noise” of the potential errors." If the balloon data is inherently noisy (partly due to collection protocols that the authors themselves acknowledge must be refined and reviewed) then making claims about the trends of relative humidity from that data alone is essentially treating noise as data. In light of the problems with the balloon data - again, explicitly acknowledged by the authors in their own abstract and conclusion - it's perfectly reasonable that review papers continue to assert that there is a scientific consensus that water vapor provides a positive feedback.
The authors have made a good case for a review of balloon data collection protocols, but have made no claims on whether the data we have from balloons so far is of any value. The "central pillar" (not really) of GW theory has certainly not been "collapsed" by this paper in any sense.
Incidentally there is a lot more information about humidity and water vapor effects available from other science bloggers. See:
As far as the meta arguments about science go, note that the paper in question was accepted but according to Watts is being "ignored". As far as i am aware, publication is the exact opposite of being "ignored". One of the authors of the paper in question points to a single vitriolic and political comment by a reviewer as evidence that the paper's refusal at a more prestigious journal is evidence of a deeper agenda at work; he may not be aware that reviewers are also human, that sometimes prestigious journals refuse perfectly valid papers for trivial reasons. Since they haven't released the full text of the reviewers' comments, we are not able to discern whether there were perhaps more substantive reasons for the refusal of the paper at the big journal.
At any rate the simple fact of the paper being accepted (granted, by a "lesser" journal than the author's ego would prefer) puts the truth to the lie that anti-GW skeptics are being shut out by the all-powerful, money-grubbing GW consensus conspiracy.
finally, one note regarding satellite vs balloon measurements for long term averaged regional data. Balloons provide a single spot measure whereas satellites can integrate over a far larger area. The former are very vulnerable to local variation and noise whereas the latter can average these out by simple virtue of broader field. It's like trying to assess whether a patient has fatty infiltrating liver disease by taking a liver biopsy: you take a tissue sample over here, but what if the diseased tissue is over there? if you image the whole liver at once (analogous to satellites), then you get the broad picture and can make a global (liver) assessment more accurately and safe from measurement variation.
Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit (the global warming skeptic's counter-site to the Real Climate project) points to a new paper that purports to show that the relative humidity of the upper atmosphere is declining rather than increasing as one might expect based on climate models. The implication pertains to how much feedback there is with increase in atmospheric CO2 - a positive feedback (increasing relative humidity) would imply greater temperature change per doubling of CO2 concentration increase, ie making global warming worse, whereas a negative feedback would imply the opposite, that global warming is less of a threat. Note that the debate is only about the magnitude of the increase in temperature change with increased CO2, not a repudiation of global warming outright. In fact the whole issue of relative humidity essentially validates the main assumption of global warming as caused by CO2 in the first place.
Still, the paper is getting attention from committed GW skeptics like Dave Price at Dean's World, who interprets the results as a "collapse" of a "central pillar" of global warming theory. Anthony Watts, another GW skeptic, also suggests that the paper's findings "could be significant". However, a reading of the paper's abstract and conclusions show a far milder assertion, related to data collection protocols using balloons in the atmosphere, rather than any such monumental toppling of the central GW dogmas.
The paper makes the following claims (see the abstract reprinted at Climate Audit):
- relative humidity has been thought to be increasing with global temperature (ie, positive feedback)
- in the upper atmosphere, according to balloon data, the paper reports that relative humidity has actually been decreasing (ie, negative feedback, with the warming trend that the authors explicitly acknowledge exists)
the authors themselves do acknowledge in the abstract itself that balloon data must be "treated with great caution, particularly at altitudes above the 500 hPa pressure level", though Anthony Watts does not mention this admission in his summary. The abstract only reports a negative feedback trend above 850 hPa for the tropics and southern midlatitudes, and above 600 hPa for the northern midlatitudes. The abstract goes on to explicitly state that the humidity trend is "significantly positive below 850 hPa in all three zones" - which is where the vast bulk of the water vapor in the atmosphere resides.
the main conclusion of the paper is not as bold as Dave implies - they merely state that the data suggests that there might need to be a review of data collection protocols using balloons, since the data is so iffy indeed and at odds with satellite measurements (which contrary to Watts' assertion, are probably more accurate for annual average measurements than spot measurements by balloon. see notes below for an analogy as to why). Here's the first paragraph of the conclusion proper from the article full text (courtesy of Watts):
It is of course possible that the observed humidity trends from the NCEP data are simply the result of problems with the instrumentation and operation of the global radiosonde network from which the data are derived. The potential for such problems needs to be examined in detail in an effort rather similar to the effort now devoted to abstracting real surface temperature trends from the face-value data from individual stations of the international meteorological networks. As recommended by Elliot and Gaffen (1991) in their original study of the US radiosonde network, there needs to be a detailed examination of how radiosonde instrumentation, operating procedures, and recording practices of all nations have changed over the years and of how these changes may have impacted on the humidity data.
emphasis mine. The conclusion goes on to state that "trends of water vapor shown by the NCEP data for the middle and upper troposphere should not be “written off” simply on the basis that they are not supported by climate models". I agree, but they should heed their own advice when they state a few sentences later, "it is important that as much information as possible be retrieved from within the “noise” of the potential errors." If the balloon data is inherently noisy (partly due to collection protocols that the authors themselves acknowledge must be refined and reviewed) then making claims about the trends of relative humidity from that data alone is essentially treating noise as data. In light of the problems with the balloon data - again, explicitly acknowledged by the authors in their own abstract and conclusion - it's perfectly reasonable that review papers continue to assert that there is a scientific consensus that water vapor provides a positive feedback.
The authors have made a good case for a review of balloon data collection protocols, but have made no claims on whether the data we have from balloons so far is of any value. The "central pillar" (not really) of GW theory has certainly not been "collapsed" by this paper in any sense.
Incidentally there is a lot more information about humidity and water vapor effects available from other science bloggers. See:
- Water vapour: feedback or forcing? at Real Climate
- Evaporating the water vapor argument at Skeptical Science
- Anti-global heating claims: Myth #18 at Scholars and Rogues
As far as the meta arguments about science go, note that the paper in question was accepted but according to Watts is being "ignored". As far as i am aware, publication is the exact opposite of being "ignored". One of the authors of the paper in question points to a single vitriolic and political comment by a reviewer as evidence that the paper's refusal at a more prestigious journal is evidence of a deeper agenda at work; he may not be aware that reviewers are also human, that sometimes prestigious journals refuse perfectly valid papers for trivial reasons. Since they haven't released the full text of the reviewers' comments, we are not able to discern whether there were perhaps more substantive reasons for the refusal of the paper at the big journal.
At any rate the simple fact of the paper being accepted (granted, by a "lesser" journal than the author's ego would prefer) puts the truth to the lie that anti-GW skeptics are being shut out by the all-powerful, money-grubbing GW consensus conspiracy.
finally, one note regarding satellite vs balloon measurements for long term averaged regional data. Balloons provide a single spot measure whereas satellites can integrate over a far larger area. The former are very vulnerable to local variation and noise whereas the latter can average these out by simple virtue of broader field. It's like trying to assess whether a patient has fatty infiltrating liver disease by taking a liver biopsy: you take a tissue sample over here, but what if the diseased tissue is over there? if you image the whole liver at once (analogous to satellites), then you get the broad picture and can make a global (liver) assessment more accurately and safe from measurement variation.
Labels: global warming
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Do the Marines respect the Commander in Chief?
One of the strategies of the conservative right has been to try and politicize the military. The confuse their own military fetish and partisan self-interest with genuine patriotism and the public good (because in their view, they hold a monopoly on both). In so doing, they disrespect the very troops they allegedly revere. For example, the Bush Administration paid great lip-service to veterans on the field but left them hanging out to dry when they got home.
Now, the right is taking their insult to the military to new levels, by promoting this video which allegedly shows that the military does not respect Obama the way they did Bush:
At Redstate.com, the bloggers crow that this is the "Semper Fi Zone" which is about as gross an insult to the professional ethics of the Marine Corps as you can imagine. In the fevered imaginings of the conservative right, a military that shows a preference for one political party over another is actually a desirable thing, instead of the incredible threat to democracy it would actually represent. But turning America into a banana republic is apparently one of their political goals.
Grayhawk, one of the most level-headed military bloggers - and a genuine conservative instead of these Republican hacks at RedState - took serious issue with the video above:
Unfortunately, principled conservatives like Greyhawk are increasingly being drummed out of the GOP and the conservative ranks. He's feeling the pressure right on his own site.
And as far as the Marines go, they stand above these cheap attempts at stealing their honor for political gain. Here's the proof:
Now, the right is taking their insult to the military to new levels, by promoting this video which allegedly shows that the military does not respect Obama the way they did Bush:
At Redstate.com, the bloggers crow that this is the "Semper Fi Zone" which is about as gross an insult to the professional ethics of the Marine Corps as you can imagine. In the fevered imaginings of the conservative right, a military that shows a preference for one political party over another is actually a desirable thing, instead of the incredible threat to democracy it would actually represent. But turning America into a banana republic is apparently one of their political goals.
Grayhawk, one of the most level-headed military bloggers - and a genuine conservative instead of these Republican hacks at RedState - took serious issue with the video above:
I'm concerned it might be one compiled to give the impression that the current President of the United States lacks the support from the military his predecessor had. That is not the case, and to imply otherwise is an insult to the integrity of the US military, and in my mind reflects both wishful thinking and ignorance on the part of anyone making the claim.
...
it's worse than what I thought. The first video above is the cheapest of cheap shots. Marines in the Obama video have been clearly called to attention, and are standing at attention when he enters. Whooping it up for the Commander in Chief therefore is not an option. Period. As for the fadeout, cheers can be heard (and they aren't 'tepid') until the audio is cut to go "back to the newsroom".
Unfortunately, principled conservatives like Greyhawk are increasingly being drummed out of the GOP and the conservative ranks. He's feeling the pressure right on his own site.
And as far as the Marines go, they stand above these cheap attempts at stealing their honor for political gain. Here's the proof:
Labels: military, Obama Derangement Syndrome
Election 2008 feed
Nation-Building feed
Archives
Obama 2008 - I want my country back
About Nation-Building
Nation-Building was founded by Aziz Poonawalla in August 2002 under the name Dean Nation. Dean Nation was the very first weblog devoted to a presidential candidate, Howard Dean, and became the vanguard of the Dean netroot phenomenon, raising over $40,000 for the Dean campaign, pioneering the use of Meetup, and enjoying the attention of the campaign itself, with Joe Trippi a regular reader (and sometime commentor). Howard Dean himself even left a comment once. Dean Nation was a group weblog effort and counts among its alumni many of the progressive blogsphere's leading talent including Jerome Armstrong, Matthew Yglesias, and Ezra Klein. After the election in 2004, the blog refocused onto the theme of "purple politics", formally changing its name to Nation-Building in June 2006. The primary focus of the blog is on articulating purple-state policy at home and pragmatic liberal interventionism abroad.
