It is more than painfully apparent that when human political will fails, in trying to achieve an end deemed critical for survival, assorted rubbish is inserted instead. Thus, in the latest lead up to the Copenhagen Conference on Climate Change, the Zeitgeist now taking hold is that humans will have to adapt to the furiously warming planet, "like other animals".
According to Rajendra Pachauri of the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change:
"It's something that's been neglected, hasn't been talked about, and it's something the world wil have to do".
One illustration given of wildlife, is the rare Adonis butterfly which was about to vanish when, ta-da....it evolved longer thoraxes and wings allowing it to fly to more northerly latitudes which were cooler.
Trouble is, the evolution required for humans to survive what's coming (if the runaway greenhouse kicks in) would take millions of years, if ever. We are talking about being able to adapt to a virtual hell hole world not too different from Venus: daily temperatures approaching 150F, almost no water to speak of, massive crop and food shortages, and disease now proliferating because the warmer temperatures drive the "bugs" like kerosene accelerates fires. Trying to ferry north like the Adonis butterfly won't help, since the whole planet will be an equal opportunity hellhole by 2040. (The first year of no seasons)
I still recall a 1988 CNN Special, "Conversation with Carl Sagan" featuring Ted Turner and the great scientist whose Ph.D. paper was on the runaway greenhouse effect being responsible for Venus' abnormally high temperatures. (Venus' distance from the Sun at ~ 67 million miles could not account for them. Not to reach 460 C!) When Turner asked him about possibly adapting to the hotter world, or even if the runaway effect kicked in, Sagan merely smiled:
"Sure, you could adapt! A dead man can adapt to anything! He's the most adaptable man there is!"
This pretty much says the same for the current foolishness, that we can somehow tough it out if we are clever enough. No, we cannot. And trying to exploit this stupidity as an excuse to avoid doing the heavy lifting required is nothing short of abominable.
In his column in today's Financial Times, Martin Wolf notes continued efforts to limit CO2 concentrations to 450 parts per million. Right now, they are approaching 385 ppm. The European ENSEMBLES project and intercomparison climate model predicts 545 ppm by 2045. The runaway greenhouse effect is believed to kick in for sure at ~ 600 ppm, but it could well be lower, say 480 or 500 ppm, depending on the contributions of other greenhouse gases such as methane, water vapor.
While Wolf makes a good case for action, he is reluctant to go the whole hog:
"But we cannot and, self-evidently - should not, rely on economic armageddon"
But what if that is the only way? Wolf cites the increase in CO2 emissions from 20.9 gigatonnes in 1990, to 28.8 in 2007. That is an increase of nearly 42%! If we continue on in this dismissive status quo fashion, he notes the IEA (International Energy Agency) predicts we will reach 40.2 gigatonnes by 2030. Effectively doubling the 1990 emissions. Together with the methane we know is outgassing from permafrost (e.g. in Alaska), that means we may actually hit the runaway greenhouse effect by 2035 , if not sooner.
One way Sagan put it is: "What's more important, buying stuff, or staying alive?"
In this case, "buying stuff" translates into harnessing and expelling the trillions of gigatonnes of fossil fuels that were interred with the dinosaurs by the end of the Jurassic. Anyone know what the planet was like back then? Well, we are re-creating it now with each gigatonne of CO2 we excavate from oil wells and inject into our current atmosphere.
Basically, humans are conducting an uncontrolled experiment on their planet and themselves. The problem is that in this experiment there is no margin for error, none. Once that threshold for the runaway effect is hit, it's all over but the dirges. There is no going back. Entropy beyond a certain point won't be repealed and all the prayers in the world won't achieve it.
There is still time, but alas, this latest email -climate flap (now being exploited by skeptics as a further excuse to do nothing) may well be the death knell for any substantive efforts to lower concentrations, together with the reluctance of developing nations (China, India) to sacrifice themselves economically for the world's future.
To quote Martin Wolf in the same FT piece:
"Either we act soon- or we finally discover whether the skeptics are right. If we fail to act, as seems likely, I hope they are.
But I very much doubt it."
I do too.
Friday, December 4, 2009
Thursday, December 3, 2009
PLEASE! No more asset bubbles!
It is time nations take the bull by the horns and set up a system to prevent the malignant proliferation of yet more asset bubbles, leading to more economic collapses such as occurred last year. The latest news is not one to bouy hopes, as articulated in the article, 'Concerns Grow of Overheated Debt Market' in The Financial Times today.
As noted in the piece, three asset-metastasizing nasties are now breeding. These include: cov lites, pik toggle notes, and dividend recap exercises. To varying degrees, each of these critters played a role in inflating the assets during the credit bubble years which got pricked about a year ago - leaving people with deflated 401ks, etc. All of the techniques were used on Wall Street because in their various ways, they enticed companies and consumers into taking on crippling levels of debt. No surprise they have returned to the Street - ever wonder how the DOW is getting juiced toward 11,000?
Let's look at each in turn. In the cov lites, short for covenant light, borrowers are granted credit with few if any restrictions. Meanwhile, Pik toggle transactions allow debt to be "repaid" with MORE debt using a device called "payment in-kind notes". Then, in dividend recaps, businesses take on additional debt to pay dividends to share holders. Anything wrong with these pictures?
Why is it that these debt-tilted instruments are being seen again? The reason, primary, is that yields in normal instruments, facilities are so low that people are trying to jack up returns with risk- be- damned gambits. Blame the Federal Reserve for this, and their abnormally low interest rates, next to zero. If the Fed had the gumption to even raise the rates to just 0.50 to 0.75%, it would stave off a lot of this asset bubble building bunkum which puts us all at risk. At the same time, of course, the stock market and DOW would deflate a bit, but hey - the normal investors would be able to earn a little bit more in their money market accounts, funds, or bank CDs. As opposed to risking it with a ginned up stock market.
Such a move would also strengthen the dollar immediately. As a sign that dollar erosion is still having a vast effect on confidence, one need only check the most recent Gold prices - which have topped $1200 an ounce. Showing that those who can afford it trust bullion more than paper money bucks. Why do you think the sale of those gold American Eagles has been temporarily suspended?
In the minutes of the November Meeting (FT, ibid.) of the Federal Open Market Committee it was noted: "the possibility that some negative side effects might result from the maintenance of very low interest rates included the possibility of excessive risk taking."
Well, you don't say! And I wonder why that is? Maybe because many folks are tired of chasing yield in money markets and CDs?
Still, there are millions who won't be lured by the Siren call of the Wall Street gaming tables. As noted in today's Wall Street Journal ('Back to basics', p. R7), many wealth managers are now catering to people-investors who demand 'vanilla' approaches, as opposed to the glitzy, sexy but esoteric devices that spelled the end of Lehman and others. So, these financial advisors and managers are now fulfilling a need, to earn some yield but not using "nasties" that could blow up their nest eggs.
As the WSJ author of the piece observes:
"Of course, they can't tout that such ideas will yield double digit annual returns".
True, but neither can the brokers and FAs concerning STOCKS, at least over the past eleven years. Over this period, stocks, mutual funds have returned less than treasurys or CDs!
Bring on the vanilla!
Footnote:
A major impediment to improving the regulatory provenance for the OTC (over the counter) derivatives is the current contretemps between Europe and the U.S. While the U.s. wants the formation of a clearing house to process these OTC's, to reduce the counterparty risk, the Europeans do not. At least with a clearing house to process the OTCs, some closure must occur and the counterparty must provide it. As opposed to the open-ended nightmare that descended on us via the credit default swaps last year! (With nine of ten counterparties left holding empty bags).
Stay tuned!
As noted in the piece, three asset-metastasizing nasties are now breeding. These include: cov lites, pik toggle notes, and dividend recap exercises. To varying degrees, each of these critters played a role in inflating the assets during the credit bubble years which got pricked about a year ago - leaving people with deflated 401ks, etc. All of the techniques were used on Wall Street because in their various ways, they enticed companies and consumers into taking on crippling levels of debt. No surprise they have returned to the Street - ever wonder how the DOW is getting juiced toward 11,000?
Let's look at each in turn. In the cov lites, short for covenant light, borrowers are granted credit with few if any restrictions. Meanwhile, Pik toggle transactions allow debt to be "repaid" with MORE debt using a device called "payment in-kind notes". Then, in dividend recaps, businesses take on additional debt to pay dividends to share holders. Anything wrong with these pictures?
Why is it that these debt-tilted instruments are being seen again? The reason, primary, is that yields in normal instruments, facilities are so low that people are trying to jack up returns with risk- be- damned gambits. Blame the Federal Reserve for this, and their abnormally low interest rates, next to zero. If the Fed had the gumption to even raise the rates to just 0.50 to 0.75%, it would stave off a lot of this asset bubble building bunkum which puts us all at risk. At the same time, of course, the stock market and DOW would deflate a bit, but hey - the normal investors would be able to earn a little bit more in their money market accounts, funds, or bank CDs. As opposed to risking it with a ginned up stock market.
Such a move would also strengthen the dollar immediately. As a sign that dollar erosion is still having a vast effect on confidence, one need only check the most recent Gold prices - which have topped $1200 an ounce. Showing that those who can afford it trust bullion more than paper money bucks. Why do you think the sale of those gold American Eagles has been temporarily suspended?
In the minutes of the November Meeting (FT, ibid.) of the Federal Open Market Committee it was noted: "the possibility that some negative side effects might result from the maintenance of very low interest rates included the possibility of excessive risk taking."
Well, you don't say! And I wonder why that is? Maybe because many folks are tired of chasing yield in money markets and CDs?
Still, there are millions who won't be lured by the Siren call of the Wall Street gaming tables. As noted in today's Wall Street Journal ('Back to basics', p. R7), many wealth managers are now catering to people-investors who demand 'vanilla' approaches, as opposed to the glitzy, sexy but esoteric devices that spelled the end of Lehman and others. So, these financial advisors and managers are now fulfilling a need, to earn some yield but not using "nasties" that could blow up their nest eggs.
As the WSJ author of the piece observes:
"Of course, they can't tout that such ideas will yield double digit annual returns".
True, but neither can the brokers and FAs concerning STOCKS, at least over the past eleven years. Over this period, stocks, mutual funds have returned less than treasurys or CDs!
Bring on the vanilla!
Footnote:
A major impediment to improving the regulatory provenance for the OTC (over the counter) derivatives is the current contretemps between Europe and the U.S. While the U.s. wants the formation of a clearing house to process these OTC's, to reduce the counterparty risk, the Europeans do not. At least with a clearing house to process the OTCs, some closure must occur and the counterparty must provide it. As opposed to the open-ended nightmare that descended on us via the credit default swaps last year! (With nine of ten counterparties left holding empty bags).
Stay tuned!
Joining Heaven & Hell
Image from 'The Marriage of Heaven & Hell': A Demon (left) reaches out to his heavenly counterpart . In the background Angels and demons mix and match.Around 1790, one of the least known works of English literature was completed by William Blake, The Marriage of Heaven and Hell. Both poetic and well-reasoned in its own frame of reference, it was generally taken to be a humorous satire on religion and morality. However, at a deeper level, many scholars have come to understand it as a seminal work that expresses - with art and language- Blake's essential wisdom and philosophy. That is, that when one strips away the existential veneer of languages, personalities, egos and false opposition, there is only unity in the world.
Thus, as shown in the book frontispiece, a demon from the bowels of Hell can reach out and caress and clasp an angel in Heaven. Following which, the two may "transgress" into one another's domain. In the general sense, any devil or demon may transition to Heaven, and angels vice versa.
Blake's esoteric philosophy is told via a set of 'Proverbs of Hell' which examine the situation from a trapped demon's point of view. Each Proverb comes over as a kind of parable which purpose is to expose some of the hypocrisy of certain "spirits" on the other side, who don't yet appreciate that Heaven and Hell are one.
The separationist-isolation fallacy, which I earlier dealt with under the entry 'Hell as a Passing Fancy' - sought to look into the holistic nature of Being and exactly why separating it out into "saved" and "unsaved", "Heaven" and "Hell" amounted to the grossest error. Much of this is stated in Blake's lead-in, entitled, The Voice of the Devil:
"All Bibles have been the causes of the following errors:
- That Man has two separate principle, a Body and Soul
- That Energy, call'd Evil is alone from the Body
- That Reason call'd Good, is alone from the Soul
- That God will torment Man in Eternity for following his energies"
It is truly interesting that many of the latest findings and research in quantum mechanics, mainly to do with nonlocality, bear this out. Chief among these is that if a wave function for the universe is assigned in certain ways, the result is a holographic and hyper-dimensional basis that unifies consciousness, energy and all apparently distinct particles. This was elaborated in a fascinating series of papers published in Foundations of Physics in the 1980s by David Bohm and Brian Hiley (then of Birkbeck Collee, London) but also in Bohm's book, Wholeness and the Implicate Order. As Bohm expresses it on page 209:
"In the implicate order we have to say that mind enfolds matter in general and therefore the body in particular. similarly the body enfolds not only the mind but also in some sense the entire material universe."
This bears some further examination to make sure it's understood, especially the difference between Bohm's explicate and implicate orders. The first is fairly simple, and is just the external manifestation of physical distinctions, separability. We behold separate animals, humans, mountains, plants, and look farther to see separate planets, separate stars, galaxies and so forth. The entire universe appears to be a nearly limitless set of distinct individual objects with no apparent connections.
The relation of individuality of forms to Nonlocal-holographic and Implicate order might be depicted as I show below:
INDIVIDUAL FORMS (EXPLICATE ORDER)
___^___^___^___^___^___
DIRAC ENERGY SEA (IMPLICATE ORDER)
Now, the vast energy sea or Dirac Ether is equivalent to Bohm's Implicate Order, or what he calls "holomovement", and is a pure frequency domain (timeless). The ripples on this sea are the distinct material forms perceived as separate entities in the universe - because we are generally unaware of the implicate order.
Nonetheless, the remarkable insight is that within this order separate forms (individualities) emerge as purely illusory. By analogy, the separate waves one sees on the ocean surface are illusions - at least in the sense they cannot be removed and placed on the beach for inspection! So also, material forms cannot be abstracted from the energy background of the Dirac Ether.
Now, if the holographic Being or nonlocal Ether is true, as the twin photon experiments (such as Alain Aspect's in Paris) suggest (see bottom, Addendum), and if one may conclude that a more general or superior Being exists and is analogous (logically), then it follows that the superior Being must share the same holographic properties. In other words, it is one seamless whole, and indivisible. Since consciousness as a form of eenrgy is part of the Whole, it cannot be isolated from the superior Being either. In other words, there can be NO partitioning of the Being - under any false reasoning or even pseudo-faith, and especially ancient texts - whose writers barely could tell one star from another. Thus, all religions which teach "damnation" are in fact teaching error.
Again, all the above is under the proviso that the holographic Being reflects a superior Substrate Being that is the ground of itself. This is an assumption, and no Atheist I know adopts it. We (Atheists) simply say instead that, okay, the nonlocal unified nature of the cosmos is valid but it is all physical - since energy is physical whether vacuum energy (in the Dirace Ether) or other. There is no supernatural aspect for it or to it, and further it isn't necessary. All I am doing here is making the conjecture or extrapolation that sentience can be added to the "ultimate" holographic Being (which Bohm calls the holomovement) but even this does not confer supernatural properties.
Now, back to Blake. Devoid of any quantum mechanics, using only his insight and poetry, he appears to have come upon the unity of Being by pure inspiration. When one reads 'The Marriage of Heaven and Hell' he is then reading a paean to unity, nothing less. The contacts between demonic spirits and angels, God and Satan, are merely metaphors to evoke and show this unity - mainly by tearing down the most notorious barriers that existed at his time, in most men's minds.
Interestingly, when I had my first and only debate with an Anglican priest in Barbados in 1983, he mentioned a doctrine called 'Universal Salvation' whereby all individuals are eventually unified in one Deity - One Being (he didn't use the term "heaven" since the One Being is all there is. So, "heaven" is superfluous if one is already in the Being!) His opinion was that Blake's esoteric work helped spur on that doctrine which is now accepted by nearly all Anglican clergy though they still teach the childish "Heaven and Hell" because, as he put it, their minds would not grasp anything else. (Many Anglican seminaries, however, DO teach that a purification must occur to a soul before it can be integrated into Being. This would be analogous to the Catholic 'purgatory')
I assured that priest that, if I ever did embrace religion again - which was highly unlikely- it was his church I'd likely attend, if I attended any. But he'd have to leave out all the "hell" nonsense, or risk being laughed at out loud!
---
Addendum: Basics of the Aspect Experiment:
The general layout is sketched in the schematic diagram below:
A1 (+ ½ ) <-----------[D]----------->(- ½ )A2
The above scene captures the instant just before each detector intercepts an atomic magnet from the device. The quantum state observed is described by the spin number, which is (+ ½ ) for A1 and (-½) for A2, corresponding to the spin up and spin down orientations respectively. It is important to understand that these values can only be known definitely at the instant of observation. (Actually, in the real world these are more likely to be cos (45) functions to denote tilts of the polarizers)
Prior to the observation (actual detection), neither spin value can be known according to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Mechanics. That is, while the atomic magnets are in transit - from device to either detector - there is no definite information concerning which spin is going where. Say, twenty successive detections are made and we obtain, at the respective analyzers (where a ‘1’ denotes a +1/2 detection and a ‘0’ a (-1/2):
A1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
A2 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
Then, on inspection, there is a 100% 'anti-correlation' (negative correlation) between the two and an apparent nonlocal connection. In practice, the experiment was set out so that four (not two - as shown) different orientation 'sets' were obtained for the analyzers. These might be denoted: (A1,A2)I, (A1,A2)II, (A1,A2,)III, and (A1,A2)IV.
Each result is expressed as a mathematical (statistical) quantity known as a 'correlation coefficient'. The results from each orientation were then added to yield a sum S: S = (A1,A2)I + (A1,A2)II + (A1,A2,)III + (A1,A2)IV In his (1982) experiments, Aspect determined the sum - with its attendant uncertainty - to be: S = 2.70 ± 0.05
What is the significance? In a landmark theoretical achievement in 1964, mathematician John S. Bell formulated a thought experiment based on a design similar to that shown. He made the basic assumption of locality (i.e. that no communication could occur between A1 and A2 at any rate faster than light speed). In what is now widely recognized as a seminal work of mathematical physics, he set out to show that a theory which upheld locality could reproduce the predictions of quantum mechanics. His result predicted that the above sum, S, had to be less than or equal to 2 (S < /= 2). This is known as the 'Bell Inequality'.
Thus, as shown in the book frontispiece, a demon from the bowels of Hell can reach out and caress and clasp an angel in Heaven. Following which, the two may "transgress" into one another's domain. In the general sense, any devil or demon may transition to Heaven, and angels vice versa.
Blake's esoteric philosophy is told via a set of 'Proverbs of Hell' which examine the situation from a trapped demon's point of view. Each Proverb comes over as a kind of parable which purpose is to expose some of the hypocrisy of certain "spirits" on the other side, who don't yet appreciate that Heaven and Hell are one.
The separationist-isolation fallacy, which I earlier dealt with under the entry 'Hell as a Passing Fancy' - sought to look into the holistic nature of Being and exactly why separating it out into "saved" and "unsaved", "Heaven" and "Hell" amounted to the grossest error. Much of this is stated in Blake's lead-in, entitled, The Voice of the Devil:
"All Bibles have been the causes of the following errors:
- That Man has two separate principle, a Body and Soul
- That Energy, call'd Evil is alone from the Body
- That Reason call'd Good, is alone from the Soul
- That God will torment Man in Eternity for following his energies"
It is truly interesting that many of the latest findings and research in quantum mechanics, mainly to do with nonlocality, bear this out. Chief among these is that if a wave function for the universe is assigned in certain ways, the result is a holographic and hyper-dimensional basis that unifies consciousness, energy and all apparently distinct particles. This was elaborated in a fascinating series of papers published in Foundations of Physics in the 1980s by David Bohm and Brian Hiley (then of Birkbeck Collee, London) but also in Bohm's book, Wholeness and the Implicate Order. As Bohm expresses it on page 209:
"In the implicate order we have to say that mind enfolds matter in general and therefore the body in particular. similarly the body enfolds not only the mind but also in some sense the entire material universe."
This bears some further examination to make sure it's understood, especially the difference between Bohm's explicate and implicate orders. The first is fairly simple, and is just the external manifestation of physical distinctions, separability. We behold separate animals, humans, mountains, plants, and look farther to see separate planets, separate stars, galaxies and so forth. The entire universe appears to be a nearly limitless set of distinct individual objects with no apparent connections.
The relation of individuality of forms to Nonlocal-holographic and Implicate order might be depicted as I show below:
INDIVIDUAL FORMS (EXPLICATE ORDER)
___^___^___^___^___^___
DIRAC ENERGY SEA (IMPLICATE ORDER)
Now, the vast energy sea or Dirac Ether is equivalent to Bohm's Implicate Order, or what he calls "holomovement", and is a pure frequency domain (timeless). The ripples on this sea are the distinct material forms perceived as separate entities in the universe - because we are generally unaware of the implicate order.
Nonetheless, the remarkable insight is that within this order separate forms (individualities) emerge as purely illusory. By analogy, the separate waves one sees on the ocean surface are illusions - at least in the sense they cannot be removed and placed on the beach for inspection! So also, material forms cannot be abstracted from the energy background of the Dirac Ether.
Now, if the holographic Being or nonlocal Ether is true, as the twin photon experiments (such as Alain Aspect's in Paris) suggest (see bottom, Addendum), and if one may conclude that a more general or superior Being exists and is analogous (logically), then it follows that the superior Being must share the same holographic properties. In other words, it is one seamless whole, and indivisible. Since consciousness as a form of eenrgy is part of the Whole, it cannot be isolated from the superior Being either. In other words, there can be NO partitioning of the Being - under any false reasoning or even pseudo-faith, and especially ancient texts - whose writers barely could tell one star from another. Thus, all religions which teach "damnation" are in fact teaching error.
Again, all the above is under the proviso that the holographic Being reflects a superior Substrate Being that is the ground of itself. This is an assumption, and no Atheist I know adopts it. We (Atheists) simply say instead that, okay, the nonlocal unified nature of the cosmos is valid but it is all physical - since energy is physical whether vacuum energy (in the Dirace Ether) or other. There is no supernatural aspect for it or to it, and further it isn't necessary. All I am doing here is making the conjecture or extrapolation that sentience can be added to the "ultimate" holographic Being (which Bohm calls the holomovement) but even this does not confer supernatural properties.
Now, back to Blake. Devoid of any quantum mechanics, using only his insight and poetry, he appears to have come upon the unity of Being by pure inspiration. When one reads 'The Marriage of Heaven and Hell' he is then reading a paean to unity, nothing less. The contacts between demonic spirits and angels, God and Satan, are merely metaphors to evoke and show this unity - mainly by tearing down the most notorious barriers that existed at his time, in most men's minds.
Interestingly, when I had my first and only debate with an Anglican priest in Barbados in 1983, he mentioned a doctrine called 'Universal Salvation' whereby all individuals are eventually unified in one Deity - One Being (he didn't use the term "heaven" since the One Being is all there is. So, "heaven" is superfluous if one is already in the Being!) His opinion was that Blake's esoteric work helped spur on that doctrine which is now accepted by nearly all Anglican clergy though they still teach the childish "Heaven and Hell" because, as he put it, their minds would not grasp anything else. (Many Anglican seminaries, however, DO teach that a purification must occur to a soul before it can be integrated into Being. This would be analogous to the Catholic 'purgatory')
I assured that priest that, if I ever did embrace religion again - which was highly unlikely- it was his church I'd likely attend, if I attended any. But he'd have to leave out all the "hell" nonsense, or risk being laughed at out loud!
---
Addendum: Basics of the Aspect Experiment:
The general layout is sketched in the schematic diagram below:
A1 (+ ½ ) <-----------[D]----------->(- ½ )A2
The above scene captures the instant just before each detector intercepts an atomic magnet from the device. The quantum state observed is described by the spin number, which is (+ ½ ) for A1 and (-½) for A2, corresponding to the spin up and spin down orientations respectively. It is important to understand that these values can only be known definitely at the instant of observation. (Actually, in the real world these are more likely to be cos (45) functions to denote tilts of the polarizers)
Prior to the observation (actual detection), neither spin value can be known according to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Mechanics. That is, while the atomic magnets are in transit - from device to either detector - there is no definite information concerning which spin is going where. Say, twenty successive detections are made and we obtain, at the respective analyzers (where a ‘1’ denotes a +1/2 detection and a ‘0’ a (-1/2):
A1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
A2 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
Then, on inspection, there is a 100% 'anti-correlation' (negative correlation) between the two and an apparent nonlocal connection. In practice, the experiment was set out so that four (not two - as shown) different orientation 'sets' were obtained for the analyzers. These might be denoted: (A1,A2)I, (A1,A2)II, (A1,A2,)III, and (A1,A2)IV.
Each result is expressed as a mathematical (statistical) quantity known as a 'correlation coefficient'. The results from each orientation were then added to yield a sum S: S = (A1,A2)I + (A1,A2)II + (A1,A2,)III + (A1,A2)IV In his (1982) experiments, Aspect determined the sum - with its attendant uncertainty - to be: S = 2.70 ± 0.05
What is the significance? In a landmark theoretical achievement in 1964, mathematician John S. Bell formulated a thought experiment based on a design similar to that shown. He made the basic assumption of locality (i.e. that no communication could occur between A1 and A2 at any rate faster than light speed). In what is now widely recognized as a seminal work of mathematical physics, he set out to show that a theory which upheld locality could reproduce the predictions of quantum mechanics. His result predicted that the above sum, S, had to be less than or equal to 2 (S < /= 2). This is known as the 'Bell Inequality'.
Since Aspect's result violated the Bell Inequality, it meant that either: a) there were no known local theories that could explain it and QM was thus incomplete, or b) only nonlocal theories can be accepted as consistent with QM.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Return to Cosmic Fractals
Having dealt at some length with basic cosmic fractal features, then basic fractals and how to obtain their dimension and density, we now go back to cosmic fractals in more detail. What I will do is examine an ideal example of a type of simple topological fractal which, with suitable adaptation and modification (mostly by including many self-similar, complex parts) could double as a basic "cosmic fractal". I will then show an actual cosmic fractal (or perhaps more accurately what might be considered as such ) and how it compares to the ideal case. These fractal applications are important because they serve to enable us to perceive the cosmos in a new and more practical light, with centers of self-similarity and non-linear complexity that may explain some large scale cosmic attributes, up to an including (maybe) cosmic accelerated expansion.
In the figure, the basic template fractal is shown in 1A. Actually, it is a composite with two deterministic and two stochastic contributions. The deterministic fractals are the shaded and unshaded segments of the circle with radius r in the upper left of the sector. The stochastic parts refer to the fully shaded circle within the sector and and the (open space) set intersection between it and the other shaded deterministic part. The radius R_s may be thought of as an applicable scale for the whole, which also subtends an angle theta in arc measure.
In Fig. 1B, the reader will see a sector subtending about five hours (~ 75 deg) of Right Ascension. This is a cosmic snapshot of galaxy distribution obtained using the Two Degree (2dF) sky survey. One comparative aspect immediately visible is the difference in void distribution between the ideal and actual cosmic case. To fix ideas, the void in the ideal fractal sector is more or less uniformly distributed, at least around the circular stochastic element. In the real 2dF sector, the void is distributed toward the periphery of the field. There is much greater fractal density and complexity toward the center of the sector.
Early on, fractal researchers and investigators like Benoit Mandelbrot realized that fractal dimension, D, was not adequate to to accurately assess or determine the topology. A new measure was needed that reckoned in void extent, and that was defined by Mandelbrot as the lacunarity. One may define the lacunarity, L, to be:
L = Nr(k> R_s)/ R_s^-D
Here, I have taken the liberty of using R_s in the abstract case (1A) to double as the scale size for the radius of the actual cosmic sector in 1B. There is no loss of generality here, though Mandelbrot used the capital Greek letter LAMBDA to denote it. Readers may substitute LAMBDA for R_s if they are more comfortable doing so. Nr is a product of objects and linear space but which can be generalized into a sector volume, in 3D. If one wants, he may think of it as a kind of proxy for fractal density.
Okay, let's examine the two figures-fractal sectors, ideal and actual - and see if the comparative lacunarity can be assessed, if only roughly. First, we are already asserting that R_s = Lambda in both cases. Thus, R_s is the same for each, and for simplicity, call it 1. The dimension, D, is more difficult, but if we understand that we are projecting (essentially) 3D objects into (or onto) a 2D space then we also understand if a fractal dimension is projected from a d=3 to d=2 subspace the result will be close to D' = 2.5. So, in this case, we call D= D' = 2.5. In terms of 'N', the actual cosmic sector holds about 100,000 galaxies so N = 10^5. By comparison, the "objects" in Fig. 1A correcting for the spaces and density of deterministic and stochastic fractals are N ~ 10^2.
Now, the denominators for both are respectively, R_s^-D = (1)^2.5 = 1
Thus, the lacunarity is solely dependent on N, and for the real cosmic case, the ratio of it lacunarity to that of the abstract or ideal example is:
L_c/ L = (10^5)/ 10^2 = 10^3
Thus, the number of voids is about 1000 times higher. This should not be astounding if one closely inspects 1B. Going through the sector we behold innumerable tiny white spaces , many more than in 1A. Again, for lacunarity, size of the voids is not the issue so much as the frequency of voids overall within the fractal structure.
What does all this have to do with parsing actual cosmic structure? Only that fractal analysis may be of some use in ferreting out the dynamics of cosmic expansion, say, and in particular why interspatial topology alters at a much more rapid rate than appears to be dictated by red shift measurements. Thus, although redshift (Hubble law) calculations show a universe 13.7 billion light years across, the actual radius is more like 46 billion light years- because of the accelerating interspace dimensions.
One of the projects I am currently pursuing is how to make this interspace difference more understandable from a fractal perspective.
In terms of dimensionality, it may be necessary to imprt different fractal dimensions to associate with physical dimensions. For example, assign a galaxy point status so it is 0D. (Zero dimensional). Then assign long cosmic filaments or "ripples" denoting the COBE (density perturbation) structures as 1D, and immense plasma current sheets in intergalactic space as 2D, while the spherical galaxy clusters are 3D. This all adds lots of hierarchical complexity, especially to the calculations.
Will it be worthwhile? I hope to soon find out, and then do a later blog entry on it!
In the figure, the basic template fractal is shown in 1A. Actually, it is a composite with two deterministic and two stochastic contributions. The deterministic fractals are the shaded and unshaded segments of the circle with radius r in the upper left of the sector. The stochastic parts refer to the fully shaded circle within the sector and and the (open space) set intersection between it and the other shaded deterministic part. The radius R_s may be thought of as an applicable scale for the whole, which also subtends an angle theta in arc measure.
In Fig. 1B, the reader will see a sector subtending about five hours (~ 75 deg) of Right Ascension. This is a cosmic snapshot of galaxy distribution obtained using the Two Degree (2dF) sky survey. One comparative aspect immediately visible is the difference in void distribution between the ideal and actual cosmic case. To fix ideas, the void in the ideal fractal sector is more or less uniformly distributed, at least around the circular stochastic element. In the real 2dF sector, the void is distributed toward the periphery of the field. There is much greater fractal density and complexity toward the center of the sector.
Early on, fractal researchers and investigators like Benoit Mandelbrot realized that fractal dimension, D, was not adequate to to accurately assess or determine the topology. A new measure was needed that reckoned in void extent, and that was defined by Mandelbrot as the lacunarity. One may define the lacunarity, L, to be:
L = Nr(k> R_s)/ R_s^-D
Here, I have taken the liberty of using R_s in the abstract case (1A) to double as the scale size for the radius of the actual cosmic sector in 1B. There is no loss of generality here, though Mandelbrot used the capital Greek letter LAMBDA to denote it. Readers may substitute LAMBDA for R_s if they are more comfortable doing so. Nr is a product of objects and linear space but which can be generalized into a sector volume, in 3D. If one wants, he may think of it as a kind of proxy for fractal density.
Okay, let's examine the two figures-fractal sectors, ideal and actual - and see if the comparative lacunarity can be assessed, if only roughly. First, we are already asserting that R_s = Lambda in both cases. Thus, R_s is the same for each, and for simplicity, call it 1. The dimension, D, is more difficult, but if we understand that we are projecting (essentially) 3D objects into (or onto) a 2D space then we also understand if a fractal dimension is projected from a d=3 to d=2 subspace the result will be close to D' = 2.5. So, in this case, we call D= D' = 2.5. In terms of 'N', the actual cosmic sector holds about 100,000 galaxies so N = 10^5. By comparison, the "objects" in Fig. 1A correcting for the spaces and density of deterministic and stochastic fractals are N ~ 10^2.
Now, the denominators for both are respectively, R_s^-D = (1)^2.5 = 1
Thus, the lacunarity is solely dependent on N, and for the real cosmic case, the ratio of it lacunarity to that of the abstract or ideal example is:
L_c/ L = (10^5)/ 10^2 = 10^3
Thus, the number of voids is about 1000 times higher. This should not be astounding if one closely inspects 1B. Going through the sector we behold innumerable tiny white spaces , many more than in 1A. Again, for lacunarity, size of the voids is not the issue so much as the frequency of voids overall within the fractal structure.
What does all this have to do with parsing actual cosmic structure? Only that fractal analysis may be of some use in ferreting out the dynamics of cosmic expansion, say, and in particular why interspatial topology alters at a much more rapid rate than appears to be dictated by red shift measurements. Thus, although redshift (Hubble law) calculations show a universe 13.7 billion light years across, the actual radius is more like 46 billion light years- because of the accelerating interspace dimensions.
One of the projects I am currently pursuing is how to make this interspace difference more understandable from a fractal perspective.
In terms of dimensionality, it may be necessary to imprt different fractal dimensions to associate with physical dimensions. For example, assign a galaxy point status so it is 0D. (Zero dimensional). Then assign long cosmic filaments or "ripples" denoting the COBE (density perturbation) structures as 1D, and immense plasma current sheets in intergalactic space as 2D, while the spherical galaxy clusters are 3D. This all adds lots of hierarchical complexity, especially to the calculations.
Will it be worthwhile? I hope to soon find out, and then do a later blog entry on it!
Sunday, November 29, 2009
The Great E-Mail Climate Flap
All over the net immense outrage has erupted in the wake of the released content of a number of emails between climate scientist Phil Jones of East Anglia University in Great Britain, and a counterpart at Pennsylvania State (mainly) and other centers. Two weeks ago, evidently, the cleint server's network was hacked - at East Anglia- and the e-mails accessed. Never mind this is a felony, and possibly even terrorism, what mattered more to the climate skeptic brigade was the content of the e-mails uncovered.
At one point, for example, an e-mail referred to "using tricks" to conceal that the climate hasn't warmed for about ten years. The word was taken literally to mean "shenanigans" or deliberately faking something. Amazingly, none of the scolds and critics could avail themselves of their short term memories to recall the "tricks" used some eight years ago to conceal a climate warming trend by researchers Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon. The details of how the pair employed 30-year intervals in one of their studies, in order to conceal warming, can be found here:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0007A664-3534-1F03-BA6A80A84189EEDF
I tracked Baliunas' illustrious history since 1993 on Google, and evidently she's written for a lot of conservative-right wing rags masquerading as peer-reviewed scientific papers, including Capitalism Magazine and National Review. No matter, the outcry against them was next to nothing, compared to the outcry against East Anglia's Phil Jones.
In other e-mails name calling was dredged up, and epithets hurled by climate scientists against the skeptics, who are often called "idiots". Again, why the shock and disbelief? I myself have often called climate skeptics idiots, because to my mind that's what they are. They invoke a specious, transparent pseudo-science to sow doubts on man-made global warming that are really driven by political -economic agendas. Over time, frustration grows that they can make huge inroads into public consciousness (compliments of an unquestioning media) and this leads to outbursts like calling them "idiots" - if not in e-mails, then in blog pieces, or letters to the editor published in online fora.
In an earlier blog entry I referred to this process of deceiving the media and public as agnotology. This term was originally coined by Stanford historian of science Robert Proctor who identified it as the the trend of skeptic science sown for political or economic ends - e.g. in imparting ignorance and faux skepticism. It is achieved primarily by sowing the teeniest nugget of doubt in whatever claim is made (and as we know NO scientific theory is free of these 100%, even such rich theories as quantum mechanics and special relativity).
Agnotology is derived from the Greek 'agnosis' and hence the study of culturally constructed ignorance'. Proctor notes that when a society doesn't know something it is often because special (often paid) interests have worked hard to sow immense confusion on the issue. People read 'A' then see 'B' ostensibly refuting it, and without a hard science background themselves (at least two years of university physics or chemistry plus calculus), are "lost at sea".
90% of the most recent bout of agnotology has been connected to the "global cooling since 1998" meme. I believe this meme is what Phil Jones was attempting to counter in his e-mails, it's just that he chose the wrong language and procedure to do so.
How did this meme begin? Most likely, in a May, 2008, Nature paper written by Dr. Noel Keenlyside et al, and which made a tentative claim for monotonic global cooling since ca. 1998. This 'jumped the shark' and become embedded into the warming skeptics' arsenal of disinfo and set real global warming science education back at least a decade in my estimation. Now, every hack and wannabe hack from Fox News to Limbaugh to ordinary know-nothing blokes cite it as some kind of mantra that man-made warming is "disproven".
At the root of this misapprehension by the faux skeptics is misinterpretation of the data appearing in the paper - not at all helped by the mainstream media which have also misconstrued it. (Hardly surprising, since these incompetent cheerleaders also let pass the contrived paper by Hany Farid- claiming he'd exposed the alleged Oswald-backyard rifle photo as genuine. Only ONE single article- by Jim Marr and James Fetzer- was ever published challenging Farid's methods and assumptions , in any kind of substantive online vehicle).
Even Editors who fully know the actual original source for the cooling claim still couldn't be bothered to consult it, they preferred to get their info 2nd hand (like from the 'Investor's Business Daily') then bloviate how global warming is "wrong", or "hyped" in sundry editorials. People prone to the denial weltanschauung then read these superficial reports, missed the key core clues, and bruited it all about that they (deniers, skeptics) were right all along.
They could have studied the paper's key figure,(3), the one that looks at past and (forecast) future global temperatures, "Hindcast/forecast decadal variations in global mean temperature, as compared with observations and standard climate model projections". The first thing they’d have noted about the figure -- indeed, one major source of confusion -- is that each point represents a ten-year centered mean. That is, each point represents the average temperature of the decade starting 5 years before that point and ending 5 years after that point. Thus, the statistics for potential “cooling” could not possibly have been justifiably extrapolated beyond 1998 + 5 = 2003. Yet imbeciles all over the place have insisted it is ongoing.
Second, the skeptics would have spotted the red line in the Nature publication and – if bright enough – beheld that it was the the actual global temperature data from the U.K.'s Hadley Center for Climate Prediction and Research. They ought to have asked: Why does the red line stop in 1998 and not 2007? Again, it’s a running 10-year mean, and the authors use data from a Hadley paper that ends around 2003, In effect, they can't do a ten-year centered mean after 1998.
Lazy deniers, however, have parlayed this simple statistical peculiarity of the data into believing that global warming factually STOPPED in 1998! Third, at least one genius denier might have spotted the black line in the Figure, which was actually one of the IPCC scenario projections, labelled 'A1B.' It denotes a relatively high-CO2-growth model -- but actual carbon emissions since 2000 have wildly outpaced it. A further check by skeptics of the solid green line - the "hindcast" of the authors – e.g. how well their model compared to actual data (and the A1B scenario) could also be done. The lazy morons would have seen that, if extended (in dashes) through 2010 and finally to 2025, it JOINED up with A1B!
Another grievous source of confusion that has been misused by the deniers is the authors statement:
“Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming”
But what they really mean by that statement is not what a simple reading of that sentence would suggest: They did not mean that "the global surface temperature may not increase over the next ten years starting now." What they meant was what the lead author, Dr. Noel Keenlyside, later provided in a clarification letter to the publicaton: They are predicting no increase in average temperature of the "next decade" (2005 to 2015- relative to their data timeline) over the previous decade, which, for them, is 2000 to 2010!
And that is, in fact, precisely what the figure shows -- that the 10-year mean global temperature centered around 2010 is the roughly the same as the mean global temperature centered around 2005.
Now, instead of resorting to "tricks" in future statistical presentations, THIS is what Phil Jones and his cohort ought to have sought to make clear to an increasingly skeptical public. Thus, a better e-mail, more sensible - to his U-PA counterpart, Mann, would have been:
"You know, I think we need to go back to that Keenlyside paper and try to make its statistical content more understandable to the public. It'll take a lot of work but it will be worth it".
Alas, he chose not to do that, but to opt for short cuts, which is the human way.
At the end of the day, the science still holds irrespective of the e-mails. If it didn't, then the American Geophysical Union would have removed its position statement on climate - as the largest climate research scientific organization in the world. However, at last check, it is still up there - as it has been, and in the same words, for the past two years.
http://www.agu.org/outreach/science_policy/positions/climate_change2008.shtml
Of course, in the midst of the obfuscating political haze, it is not suprising many commentators got it wrong when they attempted to provide insight into the e-mails. For example, writing in The Financial Times, Christopher Caldwell (Nov. 28, p. 7) asserts that :
"The emails do not in themselves undermine the IPCC's science, but they are evidence of groupthink. "
To justify the latter, Caldwell then cites the email authors agreeing "to destroy their emails - to defend their work, not against error but against scrutiny"
This must be understood in context. No scientist I know of has any problems defending his or her work against the scrutiny of PEERS. However, vs. laymen with an agenda - decidedly political, is a different matter. For one thing, what quality can the scrutiny assure when it's driven by political or economic imperatives? In this case, ANY weakness at all will be construed as meaning the hypothesis itself is flawed and must be chucked. This is exactly the form of scrutiny I believe the climate e-mailers - already under siege from the skeptics- were prepared to dodge. Was it the noble thing to do? No, but it was the expedient and cheaper, easier thing, given the time consumed by typical scientific research.
What is dismaying to those who have done the research is how deficient the average denier-skeptic is, and how difficult it is to impart correct interpretation of data minus the bogey of ideology which stalks every word written on global warming. (And as Prof. Porter has observed, agnotology always makes its greatest incursion into the most contentious issues - especially those with political or economic consequences. As one 'Physics Today' report noted two years ago, it is as if those political and economic facets actually trump the SCIENCE).
Better physics education may be needed, but I think a large dollop of critical thinking and training in scientific interpretation is also needed. We also desperately require a media less susceptible to political distortions, and especially the corruptness of think tank inputs. Since the Watergate era of the 1970s, mainstream papers - to survive- have gotten cheap in terms of process. By that I mean most now substitute PR flack pieces for hard news, and use widely circulated but "free" syndicated think tank pieces, churned out by the Hudson Institute, the American Enterprise Institute, the American Heritage Foundation, and the Independence Institute, as opposed to individual columns. Of course, the latter mean that decent payments must be made for the well thought out pieces. It is far cheaper and easier just to sign on to the circulated tripe from think tanks and let the chips fall where they may.
Those "chips" now constitute a largely brainwashed public - which grasps little or no science, but is prepared to be driven politically into one corner regarding global warming.
Alas, it is the wrong corner.
At one point, for example, an e-mail referred to "using tricks" to conceal that the climate hasn't warmed for about ten years. The word was taken literally to mean "shenanigans" or deliberately faking something. Amazingly, none of the scolds and critics could avail themselves of their short term memories to recall the "tricks" used some eight years ago to conceal a climate warming trend by researchers Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon. The details of how the pair employed 30-year intervals in one of their studies, in order to conceal warming, can be found here:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0007A664-3534-1F03-BA6A80A84189EEDF
I tracked Baliunas' illustrious history since 1993 on Google, and evidently she's written for a lot of conservative-right wing rags masquerading as peer-reviewed scientific papers, including Capitalism Magazine and National Review. No matter, the outcry against them was next to nothing, compared to the outcry against East Anglia's Phil Jones.
In other e-mails name calling was dredged up, and epithets hurled by climate scientists against the skeptics, who are often called "idiots". Again, why the shock and disbelief? I myself have often called climate skeptics idiots, because to my mind that's what they are. They invoke a specious, transparent pseudo-science to sow doubts on man-made global warming that are really driven by political -economic agendas. Over time, frustration grows that they can make huge inroads into public consciousness (compliments of an unquestioning media) and this leads to outbursts like calling them "idiots" - if not in e-mails, then in blog pieces, or letters to the editor published in online fora.
In an earlier blog entry I referred to this process of deceiving the media and public as agnotology. This term was originally coined by Stanford historian of science Robert Proctor who identified it as the the trend of skeptic science sown for political or economic ends - e.g. in imparting ignorance and faux skepticism. It is achieved primarily by sowing the teeniest nugget of doubt in whatever claim is made (and as we know NO scientific theory is free of these 100%, even such rich theories as quantum mechanics and special relativity).
Agnotology is derived from the Greek 'agnosis' and hence the study of culturally constructed ignorance'. Proctor notes that when a society doesn't know something it is often because special (often paid) interests have worked hard to sow immense confusion on the issue. People read 'A' then see 'B' ostensibly refuting it, and without a hard science background themselves (at least two years of university physics or chemistry plus calculus), are "lost at sea".
90% of the most recent bout of agnotology has been connected to the "global cooling since 1998" meme. I believe this meme is what Phil Jones was attempting to counter in his e-mails, it's just that he chose the wrong language and procedure to do so.
How did this meme begin? Most likely, in a May, 2008, Nature paper written by Dr. Noel Keenlyside et al, and which made a tentative claim for monotonic global cooling since ca. 1998. This 'jumped the shark' and become embedded into the warming skeptics' arsenal of disinfo and set real global warming science education back at least a decade in my estimation. Now, every hack and wannabe hack from Fox News to Limbaugh to ordinary know-nothing blokes cite it as some kind of mantra that man-made warming is "disproven".
At the root of this misapprehension by the faux skeptics is misinterpretation of the data appearing in the paper - not at all helped by the mainstream media which have also misconstrued it. (Hardly surprising, since these incompetent cheerleaders also let pass the contrived paper by Hany Farid- claiming he'd exposed the alleged Oswald-backyard rifle photo as genuine. Only ONE single article- by Jim Marr and James Fetzer- was ever published challenging Farid's methods and assumptions , in any kind of substantive online vehicle).
Even Editors who fully know the actual original source for the cooling claim still couldn't be bothered to consult it, they preferred to get their info 2nd hand (like from the 'Investor's Business Daily') then bloviate how global warming is "wrong", or "hyped" in sundry editorials. People prone to the denial weltanschauung then read these superficial reports, missed the key core clues, and bruited it all about that they (deniers, skeptics) were right all along.
They could have studied the paper's key figure,(3), the one that looks at past and (forecast) future global temperatures, "Hindcast/forecast decadal variations in global mean temperature, as compared with observations and standard climate model projections". The first thing they’d have noted about the figure -- indeed, one major source of confusion -- is that each point represents a ten-year centered mean. That is, each point represents the average temperature of the decade starting 5 years before that point and ending 5 years after that point. Thus, the statistics for potential “cooling” could not possibly have been justifiably extrapolated beyond 1998 + 5 = 2003. Yet imbeciles all over the place have insisted it is ongoing.
Second, the skeptics would have spotted the red line in the Nature publication and – if bright enough – beheld that it was the the actual global temperature data from the U.K.'s Hadley Center for Climate Prediction and Research. They ought to have asked: Why does the red line stop in 1998 and not 2007? Again, it’s a running 10-year mean, and the authors use data from a Hadley paper that ends around 2003, In effect, they can't do a ten-year centered mean after 1998.
Lazy deniers, however, have parlayed this simple statistical peculiarity of the data into believing that global warming factually STOPPED in 1998! Third, at least one genius denier might have spotted the black line in the Figure, which was actually one of the IPCC scenario projections, labelled 'A1B.' It denotes a relatively high-CO2-growth model -- but actual carbon emissions since 2000 have wildly outpaced it. A further check by skeptics of the solid green line - the "hindcast" of the authors – e.g. how well their model compared to actual data (and the A1B scenario) could also be done. The lazy morons would have seen that, if extended (in dashes) through 2010 and finally to 2025, it JOINED up with A1B!
Another grievous source of confusion that has been misused by the deniers is the authors statement:
“Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming”
But what they really mean by that statement is not what a simple reading of that sentence would suggest: They did not mean that "the global surface temperature may not increase over the next ten years starting now." What they meant was what the lead author, Dr. Noel Keenlyside, later provided in a clarification letter to the publicaton: They are predicting no increase in average temperature of the "next decade" (2005 to 2015- relative to their data timeline) over the previous decade, which, for them, is 2000 to 2010!
And that is, in fact, precisely what the figure shows -- that the 10-year mean global temperature centered around 2010 is the roughly the same as the mean global temperature centered around 2005.
Now, instead of resorting to "tricks" in future statistical presentations, THIS is what Phil Jones and his cohort ought to have sought to make clear to an increasingly skeptical public. Thus, a better e-mail, more sensible - to his U-PA counterpart, Mann, would have been:
"You know, I think we need to go back to that Keenlyside paper and try to make its statistical content more understandable to the public. It'll take a lot of work but it will be worth it".
Alas, he chose not to do that, but to opt for short cuts, which is the human way.
At the end of the day, the science still holds irrespective of the e-mails. If it didn't, then the American Geophysical Union would have removed its position statement on climate - as the largest climate research scientific organization in the world. However, at last check, it is still up there - as it has been, and in the same words, for the past two years.
http://www.agu.org/outreach/science_policy/positions/climate_change2008.shtml
Of course, in the midst of the obfuscating political haze, it is not suprising many commentators got it wrong when they attempted to provide insight into the e-mails. For example, writing in The Financial Times, Christopher Caldwell (Nov. 28, p. 7) asserts that :
"The emails do not in themselves undermine the IPCC's science, but they are evidence of groupthink. "
To justify the latter, Caldwell then cites the email authors agreeing "to destroy their emails - to defend their work, not against error but against scrutiny"
This must be understood in context. No scientist I know of has any problems defending his or her work against the scrutiny of PEERS. However, vs. laymen with an agenda - decidedly political, is a different matter. For one thing, what quality can the scrutiny assure when it's driven by political or economic imperatives? In this case, ANY weakness at all will be construed as meaning the hypothesis itself is flawed and must be chucked. This is exactly the form of scrutiny I believe the climate e-mailers - already under siege from the skeptics- were prepared to dodge. Was it the noble thing to do? No, but it was the expedient and cheaper, easier thing, given the time consumed by typical scientific research.
What is dismaying to those who have done the research is how deficient the average denier-skeptic is, and how difficult it is to impart correct interpretation of data minus the bogey of ideology which stalks every word written on global warming. (And as Prof. Porter has observed, agnotology always makes its greatest incursion into the most contentious issues - especially those with political or economic consequences. As one 'Physics Today' report noted two years ago, it is as if those political and economic facets actually trump the SCIENCE).
Better physics education may be needed, but I think a large dollop of critical thinking and training in scientific interpretation is also needed. We also desperately require a media less susceptible to political distortions, and especially the corruptness of think tank inputs. Since the Watergate era of the 1970s, mainstream papers - to survive- have gotten cheap in terms of process. By that I mean most now substitute PR flack pieces for hard news, and use widely circulated but "free" syndicated think tank pieces, churned out by the Hudson Institute, the American Enterprise Institute, the American Heritage Foundation, and the Independence Institute, as opposed to individual columns. Of course, the latter mean that decent payments must be made for the well thought out pieces. It is far cheaper and easier just to sign on to the circulated tripe from think tanks and let the chips fall where they may.
Those "chips" now constitute a largely brainwashed public - which grasps little or no science, but is prepared to be driven politically into one corner regarding global warming.
Alas, it is the wrong corner.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
10 Things Atheists have to be thankful for
I'm often asked around this time of year if Atheists have any thing to be thankful for, especially living in a god-obsessed nation such as the U.S. of A. Well, actually there are - I can think of ten of them, and since Turkey Day is approaching, it is apropos to list them below:
1. According to the latest Pew Center Research Religious survey, Atheists now comprise 10% of the population of the U.S. This is up from barely 5% in the early 1990s. Of course, it can also mean more people are coming out and declaring themselves "Atheist" rather than hiding it. Still something to cheer about.
2. Atheist books are now among the hottest sellers on the web, the top three best sellers are: 'The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins, 'God is Not Great' by Christopher Hitchens, and 'The End of Faith' by Sam Harris.
3. This year, the 150th anniversary of Charles Darwin's 'The Origin of Species' - now sees evolution by natural selection taught at more schools, more universities than at any time past. The interested reader is rarely more than a few mouse clicks away from a video course or lecture. For example, an MIT video lecture on Population Genetics & Evolution can be found here:
http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Biology/7-014Spring-2005/VideoLectures/detail/embed31.htm
4. More and more teens are asking how to come out (as Atheists) to their over religious parents. I now receive an average of one question on an experts site per month from a youngster who wants to declare his or her Atheism, but is frightened that parents might react badly. This is a good sign for an Atheist future, and bodes ill for many religionists, especially fundies who firmly believe "the kids are in their corner". No, not quite!
5. Scientific advances for the first time have made possible the expeditious production of an influenza vaccine, against a virus (H1N1) that could easily mutate into a deadlier form. Now, more than a half billion people across the planet have already received it and this may be key to staunching an uptick of serious cases in the Spring. The virus, for those who don't know, is similar genetically to the H1N1 strain that claimed nearly 50 million lives in 1918- most by cyannosis and suffocation - the lungs so filled with fluid people literally drowned in their own bronchial fluids.
6. Again, thanks largely to scientific technology and the advances in anti-viral drugs, U.S. deaths from AIDS dropped 10% from 2006 to 2007 and they remain well below the 1995 peak.
7. According to recent stats, more and more graduating college students are turning away from careers on Wall Street (by a 2 to 1 ratio) and pursuing scientific careers, opportunities. This is a very good sign and means we have finally started to evolve away from being a nation economically governed by leverage and financial sharks. Of course, the market collapse last year may have had a lot to do with it!
8. 370 planets outside our solar system have now been discovered, and ten of these may be able to support life, including intelligent life. If and when that first contact comes, most psychologists predict it will finally mean the collapse of human -centered, anthropomorphic religions which regard "God" like some Giant Daddy in the Sky, or the Head of Cosmic Homeland Security. They also predict the first religions to go will be all the fundamentalist breeds whether Christian, Jewish, or Muslim.
9. The human genome findings and identification of most human gene functions, now means we can produce the most superior humans - capable of better adjusting to their environment, and with brains to match. One adventurous person has even predicted the end to all superstition within a generation.
10. Since the Obama election, and his inaugural address (where he directly referred to "unbelievers" in a positive light), the political influence of the Christian Right has waned to the point they don't even try to dispatch emissaries - like Rev. James Dobson- to White House ecumenical meetings any more. This is encouraging, but we must always be on guard for any new Christian Right "Caesar" who may want to get elected to the top spot. Think Sarah Palin.
That's a good start and more than enough to be thankful about. If the trend in all theses areas continues it will be cause for even more optimism next time.
1. According to the latest Pew Center Research Religious survey, Atheists now comprise 10% of the population of the U.S. This is up from barely 5% in the early 1990s. Of course, it can also mean more people are coming out and declaring themselves "Atheist" rather than hiding it. Still something to cheer about.
2. Atheist books are now among the hottest sellers on the web, the top three best sellers are: 'The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins, 'God is Not Great' by Christopher Hitchens, and 'The End of Faith' by Sam Harris.
3. This year, the 150th anniversary of Charles Darwin's 'The Origin of Species' - now sees evolution by natural selection taught at more schools, more universities than at any time past. The interested reader is rarely more than a few mouse clicks away from a video course or lecture. For example, an MIT video lecture on Population Genetics & Evolution can be found here:
http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Biology/7-014Spring-2005/VideoLectures/detail/embed31.htm
4. More and more teens are asking how to come out (as Atheists) to their over religious parents. I now receive an average of one question on an experts site per month from a youngster who wants to declare his or her Atheism, but is frightened that parents might react badly. This is a good sign for an Atheist future, and bodes ill for many religionists, especially fundies who firmly believe "the kids are in their corner". No, not quite!
5. Scientific advances for the first time have made possible the expeditious production of an influenza vaccine, against a virus (H1N1) that could easily mutate into a deadlier form. Now, more than a half billion people across the planet have already received it and this may be key to staunching an uptick of serious cases in the Spring. The virus, for those who don't know, is similar genetically to the H1N1 strain that claimed nearly 50 million lives in 1918- most by cyannosis and suffocation - the lungs so filled with fluid people literally drowned in their own bronchial fluids.
6. Again, thanks largely to scientific technology and the advances in anti-viral drugs, U.S. deaths from AIDS dropped 10% from 2006 to 2007 and they remain well below the 1995 peak.
7. According to recent stats, more and more graduating college students are turning away from careers on Wall Street (by a 2 to 1 ratio) and pursuing scientific careers, opportunities. This is a very good sign and means we have finally started to evolve away from being a nation economically governed by leverage and financial sharks. Of course, the market collapse last year may have had a lot to do with it!
8. 370 planets outside our solar system have now been discovered, and ten of these may be able to support life, including intelligent life. If and when that first contact comes, most psychologists predict it will finally mean the collapse of human -centered, anthropomorphic religions which regard "God" like some Giant Daddy in the Sky, or the Head of Cosmic Homeland Security. They also predict the first religions to go will be all the fundamentalist breeds whether Christian, Jewish, or Muslim.
9. The human genome findings and identification of most human gene functions, now means we can produce the most superior humans - capable of better adjusting to their environment, and with brains to match. One adventurous person has even predicted the end to all superstition within a generation.
10. Since the Obama election, and his inaugural address (where he directly referred to "unbelievers" in a positive light), the political influence of the Christian Right has waned to the point they don't even try to dispatch emissaries - like Rev. James Dobson- to White House ecumenical meetings any more. This is encouraging, but we must always be on guard for any new Christian Right "Caesar" who may want to get elected to the top spot. Think Sarah Palin.
That's a good start and more than enough to be thankful about. If the trend in all theses areas continues it will be cause for even more optimism next time.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Praying for Obama's Death? How low can they go?
President -Elect Obama at his victory speech in Chicago, in November,' 08. He couldn't know then how the unfathomable rage of the Right Wing Extremists would be raised against him. Now being expressed in odious bogus "prayers".I became severely upset this morning, after reading a piece in salon.com:
See:
http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2009/11/23/praying_for_obama_death/index.html
about certain so-called “Christian” pastors praying for President Obama’s death. According to the article by Lilly Fowler, assorted Pastors are invoking Psalm 109 -- in hopes of "saving our country, and our souls".
The Psalm goes:
“Let his days be few: and let another take his office. Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow. Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg: let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places. Let the extortioner catch all that he hath; and let the strangers spoil his labor. Let there be none to extend mercy unto him; neither let there be any to favor his fatherless children. Let his posterity be cut off; and in the generation following let their name be blotted out….”
The horrendous psalm embodies all the vindictiveness, spite and rage redolent in the Old Testament authors (recall the story of the blind prophet "mocked" by children - who prayed that a She-bear be sent to rend them each limb from limb, which horror later transpired) which uniformly manifests in a kind of ongoing religious hate speech. It’s not something a person of faith should use in or out of context, or as a pithy political jab. Forget for the moment the original miscreant that could write such offal, but how could anyone even THINK of petitioning a god for all this to befall our president? One who has successfully turned back the worst economic crisis since the great Depression and sought to repair immense damage to the nation since the end of the unelected "Texass termite’s" reign of terror - from starting unprovoked wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that will empty our Treasury, to repealing the basis of all Western jurisprudence - habeas corpus via the Military Commissions Act of 2006.
How in hell can these degenerates, which is what they really are, call themselves "Christians"? One thing I do know, IF a historical Jesus existed, and if he could fast forward into the future and behold what these "followers" are doing, he'd disown them faster than a dog owner who discovered his pet had rabies....foaming at the mouth and ambling toward him.
These people are officially off the rails, and have lost all moorings, while they lost all civility long ago. I understand fully the cycle of mutual Right-Left hate that began with the persecution of Clinton over a sex act, but this is ridiculous! Where does it stop and when? How many cycles of hate must we as a nation go through? When do we all come together again as one nation, ONE PEOPLE, and follow our ONE president? Not follow blindly, obviously, but where criticism is needed- do it with some measure of civility or decorum, not hidden death threats!
Or, have we been so mercilessly reduced to mutual hatred that the only feasible solution is to partition Red and Blue states as Pakistan was partitioned in 1948 - separating warring Hindis from Muslims? Is this what it finally comes down to - the total separation of people because we can no longer live under one administrative, electoral "roof"?
I hope not. I seem to recall here the old words: "United we stand, divided we fall".
They may be as applicable now as ever, even as the President and congress make a final push to attaining something that all other civilized, western nations take for granted: affordable health care for all citizens, not just the wealthiest.
From an atheist point of view, thank goodness there's no actual God, so he-she-it won't be answering these hideous, imprecatory "prayers" any time soon. Some, of course, insist the prayers ought to be tolerated as "free speech", but I don't see them that way. I see them as incitement to assassination....a not so subtle invite to any screw loose moron to do serious harm to the President.
Make no mistake that it's a felony to threaten or incite violence against the President. That's what I believe these prayers are and why all those loudly invoking them need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, including for treason. Is there anyone with a working brain who doesn't see that these prayers are barely disguised marching orders to some Tim McVeigh in the audience to go out and be God's good soldier by carrying out an “executive action” on Obama? In much the same way, the looney right wingers in Dallas were incited to kill JFK in November, 1963? Firmly convinced in their self-righteous, delusional firmament that they were "killing a commie traitor" for Mom, Flag and apple pie.
I believe one can logically and compellingly argue that any "pastor" openly making such incendiary imprecations in public deserves a visit from the Secret Service and an investigation, at the very least. At the very most, death by hanging for treason – and in between – having all federal tax exempt status revoked one time.
Let's just hope that we can anticipate and prevent the inevitable psychopaths who think they're doing "God's work" by actively responding to the death prayers offered by psycho pastors for good people like President Obama. It's too late for Dr. Lawrence Tiller. It was way too late for JFK, who – days before – never knew about the ‘Wanted for Treason’ posters put up all over Dallas at the behest of oil tycoon, H. L. Hunt. Or the prayers Dallas' school children offered up for JFK's rapid demise- and for which they cheered jubilantly in the wake of their seeming reward - by their mock angry deity, when Kennedy's brains were blown out onto Elm Street.
Religion, as we behold from this sorry spectacle, is the greatest force for evil and destruction the world has ever seen. If that's not proof there's no God, I don't know what is.
See:
http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2009/11/23/praying_for_obama_death/index.html
about certain so-called “Christian” pastors praying for President Obama’s death. According to the article by Lilly Fowler, assorted Pastors are invoking Psalm 109 -- in hopes of "saving our country, and our souls".
The Psalm goes:
“Let his days be few: and let another take his office. Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow. Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg: let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places. Let the extortioner catch all that he hath; and let the strangers spoil his labor. Let there be none to extend mercy unto him; neither let there be any to favor his fatherless children. Let his posterity be cut off; and in the generation following let their name be blotted out….”
The horrendous psalm embodies all the vindictiveness, spite and rage redolent in the Old Testament authors (recall the story of the blind prophet "mocked" by children - who prayed that a She-bear be sent to rend them each limb from limb, which horror later transpired) which uniformly manifests in a kind of ongoing religious hate speech. It’s not something a person of faith should use in or out of context, or as a pithy political jab. Forget for the moment the original miscreant that could write such offal, but how could anyone even THINK of petitioning a god for all this to befall our president? One who has successfully turned back the worst economic crisis since the great Depression and sought to repair immense damage to the nation since the end of the unelected "Texass termite’s" reign of terror - from starting unprovoked wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that will empty our Treasury, to repealing the basis of all Western jurisprudence - habeas corpus via the Military Commissions Act of 2006.
How in hell can these degenerates, which is what they really are, call themselves "Christians"? One thing I do know, IF a historical Jesus existed, and if he could fast forward into the future and behold what these "followers" are doing, he'd disown them faster than a dog owner who discovered his pet had rabies....foaming at the mouth and ambling toward him.
These people are officially off the rails, and have lost all moorings, while they lost all civility long ago. I understand fully the cycle of mutual Right-Left hate that began with the persecution of Clinton over a sex act, but this is ridiculous! Where does it stop and when? How many cycles of hate must we as a nation go through? When do we all come together again as one nation, ONE PEOPLE, and follow our ONE president? Not follow blindly, obviously, but where criticism is needed- do it with some measure of civility or decorum, not hidden death threats!
Or, have we been so mercilessly reduced to mutual hatred that the only feasible solution is to partition Red and Blue states as Pakistan was partitioned in 1948 - separating warring Hindis from Muslims? Is this what it finally comes down to - the total separation of people because we can no longer live under one administrative, electoral "roof"?
I hope not. I seem to recall here the old words: "United we stand, divided we fall".
They may be as applicable now as ever, even as the President and congress make a final push to attaining something that all other civilized, western nations take for granted: affordable health care for all citizens, not just the wealthiest.
From an atheist point of view, thank goodness there's no actual God, so he-she-it won't be answering these hideous, imprecatory "prayers" any time soon. Some, of course, insist the prayers ought to be tolerated as "free speech", but I don't see them that way. I see them as incitement to assassination....a not so subtle invite to any screw loose moron to do serious harm to the President.
Make no mistake that it's a felony to threaten or incite violence against the President. That's what I believe these prayers are and why all those loudly invoking them need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, including for treason. Is there anyone with a working brain who doesn't see that these prayers are barely disguised marching orders to some Tim McVeigh in the audience to go out and be God's good soldier by carrying out an “executive action” on Obama? In much the same way, the looney right wingers in Dallas were incited to kill JFK in November, 1963? Firmly convinced in their self-righteous, delusional firmament that they were "killing a commie traitor" for Mom, Flag and apple pie.
I believe one can logically and compellingly argue that any "pastor" openly making such incendiary imprecations in public deserves a visit from the Secret Service and an investigation, at the very least. At the very most, death by hanging for treason – and in between – having all federal tax exempt status revoked one time.
Let's just hope that we can anticipate and prevent the inevitable psychopaths who think they're doing "God's work" by actively responding to the death prayers offered by psycho pastors for good people like President Obama. It's too late for Dr. Lawrence Tiller. It was way too late for JFK, who – days before – never knew about the ‘Wanted for Treason’ posters put up all over Dallas at the behest of oil tycoon, H. L. Hunt. Or the prayers Dallas' school children offered up for JFK's rapid demise- and for which they cheered jubilantly in the wake of their seeming reward - by their mock angry deity, when Kennedy's brains were blown out onto Elm Street.
Religion, as we behold from this sorry spectacle, is the greatest force for evil and destruction the world has ever seen. If that's not proof there's no God, I don't know what is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
