Will "POTUS" Have A Trumper Tantrum Tonight - Or Act Quasi-Presidential?

You guys forced me to lose it! I demand you pay attention and not look at your phones when I can't tweet!

As Trump stands before congress tonight, the major question that must be asked is: Will he finally be composed, rational and presidential in bearing - or, will he once again come unglued and lose it like he's done in assorted press blabbings? Inquiring minds want to know!   All Trump's keepers and handlers are insisting he knows what's on the line and is prepared to turn the page to come over as a real president for a change. They ask everyone to give him a break.

All right, but I don't think it will matter. Trump can't help what he is. It's just that basic character, like a tiger's stripes, can't change at will. So the only way I'd be surprised tonight is if he doesn't lose it at some point and pitch a Trumper tantrum. That is, characteristic harangue laden with bombast and BS (with at least 5 referenced to "fake news" and five to Hillary) while lambasting the press as "the enemy of the people". Look, I can't predict at what junctures these neural embolisms will erupt  - only that they will.  Main reason? Trump is still wedded to campaign mode and hasn't yet made the transition to actually governing as a President.

Even in such a humble setting as the National Prayer Breakfast, Trump was unable to contain himself. This occasion - as described by Garrison Keillor (Denver Post, Feb. 9) as "one of those deadly official pieties, like sand burrs that you can’t get rid of", Trump was unable to stay fixed in the moment and occasion. No, as Keillor notes "he went on to gas about his agent and his TV show" and even complained about Arnold Schwarzenegger not getting the ratings for The Apprentice that he used to.  This at a National Prayer Breakfast, for god's sake!

So he's unable to stay appropriate for even a short, more or less informal speech. Why expect he'd be able to do it on the big stage?  I predict he can't because this autocrat narcissist is unable to rein in his ginormous ego.

Even in the context of simply delivering a relatively humble,  informal speech at an important but small venue, he's unable to pull it together. I speak here of his appearance at the CIA Memorial Wall last month - where dozens gave their life often in anonymity. As Keillor put it (Jan. 26, Denver Post):

"He stood before the memorial wall honoring the heroes who gave their lives in anonymity and he bitched about his newspaper coverage. ....Everyone knows that the man is a fabulator, oblivious, trapped in his own terrible needs."

In other words, Keillor knows as well as anyone else that Trump is essentially incapable of staying in a proper state of decorum for even five minutes. His "terrible needs" - in this case to stoke and satiate his ego - get the better of him.

But conservative WaPo columnist Charles Krauthammer probably delivered the most spot on reason why Trump is unlikely to remain in presidential mode tonight:

"it’s his chronic indiscipline, his jumping randomly from one subject to another without rhyme, reason or larger strategy. "

In other words, he lacks the mental discipline and forbearance to stay "on script" for any extended time. So I would be amazed if I actually saw him do it tonight. Oh, I'm not saying he might not be able to do it for five, ten minutes, even a half hour. But ultimately, like his first debate with Hillary at Hofstra University - he can't hold strain. As I wrote after that debate:

"Even long time Republican strategist Steve Schmidt noted how Trump had descended into "babbling and complete incoherence" by the end of the trade and tax segments.  Before that, Trump barely held his own ."

Of course, tonight's occasion is a speech before congress, not a debate. But as psychiatric Prof. Lance Dodes pointed out two weeks ago in an 'All In' appearance, the key attribute of a "psychopathic paranoid narcissist" is that he will often see enemies in a group where there aren't any.  Thus, the mere spectacle of Democrats from House and Senate seated before him will likely set him off if he spots even a single smile, or smirk - far less a hint of laughter. His lack of impulse control will then leave him unable to contain himself and he'll respond in his template Trumper tantrum default mode that we have all come to recognize. Heck, he ought to brand it and sell it to his groupies - via CDs. (At least they may back off from their current knuckle-headed boycotts of malls selling anti-Trump wares.)

Which closely resembles all the hallmarks of two year old who just crapped in his diapers and can't get mommy to change them, e.g.

Will we see this reversion to full infancy again tonight in a guy that's supposed to be of presidential timbre? I predict we will.  Okay, I predict there is at least a solid  (60%?)  chance given Trump plans to propose a $54 billion increase in military spending while cutting other agencies'  (e.g. EPA) support.  This will at the very least be likely to prompt Dem boos, refusals to clap at key junctures, and no standing for applause. Particularly when it is grasped that cutting EPA funds for climate science research IS defense!

In my Nov. 16, 2015 post, I cited the April 24 'Defense, National Security And Climate Change Symposium' held in Washington, D.C.  At the Symposium Brigadier General Stephen Cheney stepped up to the podium to discuss 'Conflict and Climate Change'. Cheney, like some other speakers- zeroed in on climate-driven migration, asserting:

"We know for a fact that climate change is already driving internal and cross border migration"

Cheney's presentation tagged a number of conflict climate triggers, including the desertification in the borderlands between Chad and Nigeria which "has caused a lot of migration". He also indicated that the terror organization Boko Haram "is simply taking advantage of that".

Other aspects of Cheney's talk cited beefing up military infrastructure at home and abroad to be resistant to harsher climate. The army, in fact, has adopted a 'Net Zero' initiative to make its U.S. bases water and energy independent.

The point missed by the deranged fool Trump is that climate change is intermeshed with national security. Cut the resources to research the impacts of the former (as conducted by the EPA) and you then reduce the latter. If anything, Trump ought to be increasing EPA spending. These EPA cuts, therefore, are something I trust will draw energetic Dem boos.

The main thing for the Democrats to bear in mind is that this is a pretender President, who isn't even up to disentangling himself from his businesses, far less doing the job of running a country. This guy has never really worked at a real job outside of owning his family branding business and being a real estate weasel who used bankruptcy (of multiple casinos) to make more $$$.  He's even bawled that the presidency had  turned out to be too much for him to deal with. Too many details, too much stuff to master for an extensive government bureaucracy.  Hence, his penchant for becoming a cable TV and tweet addict. See e.g.

http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/donald-trump-stunned-to-learn-presidency-is-an-actual-j-1792215349

A doofus who can't handle the pressures of BEING President is not worthy of occupying the office - or demanding respect for his office-  no matter what his delusional followers and voters (many actually "registered Democrats") believe.   The Dems would do well to remember that tonight. Keep a measure of decorum with civil opposition when appropriate. I am sure the Donald will eventually pitch his Trumper tantrum and show everyone - even the Repuke toady gallery - how unqualified he really is.

Climate Change Deniers Still Don't Get Its Connections to National Security

 Kurds caught in sand tornado after streaming into Dikmetas, Turkey from Syria. Severe climate change -driven events in recent years, have also forced rural residents into Syrian cities helping to spark the civil war there. (Photo from National Geographic)


It boggles the mind how assorted right wingers, encapsulated in their assorted mental bubbles,  still can't process aspects of climate change, including: 1) the direct connection to national security matters (including terrorism), and 2) the nature of climate science itself, i.e. that it is not contingent merely on computer models but on actual observations.

In an ordinary, fully educated nation with a minimum of "low information voters" there wouldn't be controversy on either aspect. Citizens would be knowledgeable enough to have read and understood that climate change is a vastly more dramatic and catastrophic threat to humanity as a whole than a gaggle of half assed terrorists, or even 50,000 of them. Also, that climate science isn't simply based on computer models, or whether a powerful hurricane veers off its forecast computer track. (Which is actually in the domain of weather predictions, i.e. by meteorologists, not climatologists!)

In respect to the last no truly intelligent person who grasps the science would make such lame remarks as "there is no empirical evidence for it" or "there is no established science". (In fact, over 15,000 peer reviewed papers, many of which I've cited on this blog, show the extent of the established science in premier journals. That these critics are unable to read the papers or understand them doesn't make them any less established science with empirical evidence (see also (2) below)

If they make any such statements, in the course of recklessly popping off on their blogs,  they don't know the first thing about climate science and probably need a crash course or to spend a lot less time doing blogging in a vacuum and instead visiting:

www.realclimate.org

Thus it is well for us to consider the Right's hollow, propaganda-based challenges to each of these in turn. (At the end is a thermal physics test to ascertain if they're qualified to spout on or comment on climate change at all!)


1) Sanders' claim that climate change is a foremost security threat:

I had noted two posts ago how Bernie Sanders correctly tagged climate change as the number one national security issue. This isn't exaggeration nor is it in any way daft or "dumb" as the dumbo denier contingent would have us believe. They clearly are unable to fathom how the destruction of crops, arising from warming climate and accompanied by drought - could also drive a Syrian civil war. They instead drag in red herrings like "there's been no mass starvation" - well, DUH - because the residents fled those affected regions into the urban areas so they wouldn't starve!  Nor does it occur that repeated monster sand storms - such as shown in the image above - would have eradicated whatever topsoil was left for agriculture- hastening the migrations.

In a published report appearing in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences the authors compiled detailed statistics showing that water shortages in the Fertile Crescent in Syria, Iraq and Turkey, killed livestock, drove up food prices, sickened children and forced 1.5 million rural residents to the outskirts of Syria's jam-packed cities - just as the country was exploding with immigrants from the Iraq War. The stage was literally set for a human tinderbox.

NO one, obviously, is saying the mass migrations from rural areas was the sole or exclusive cause. But it was what we call the primary and immediate trigger, in what is a disjunctive plurality of causes - owing to the fact hard core Assad supporters were then brought into close contact with opponents (the ones mainly coming from the rural regions).

But the Syrian mass migration is merely the tip. It is estimated that as temperatures and droughts ramp up over the next thirty-odd years up to 200 million will be forced to flee -most from the African Sahel region and the Middle East. How will this mass be contained? Where will they go?  

Meanwhile, few ordinary citizens are aware that on April 24 this year the 'Defense, National Security And Climate Change Symposium' was held in Washington, D.C.  At the Symposium Brigadier General Stephen Cheney stepped up to the podium to discuss 'Conflict and Climate Change'. Cheney, like some other speakers- zeroed in on climate-driven migration, asserting:

"We know for a fact that climate change is already driving internal and cross border migration"

Referencing here, for example, that in Bangladesh - the 'ground zero' of global warming- rising sea levels could displace 15 million by 2050. Oxford University's Norman Myers has projected there could be as many as 200 million climate refugees by mid-century.

Cheney's presentation tagged a number of conflict climate triggers, including the desertification in the borderlands between Chad and Nigeria which "has caused a lot of migration". He also indicated that the terror organization Boko Haram "is simply taking advantage of that".

Other aspects of Cheney's talk cited beefing up military infrastructure at home and abroad to be resistant to harsher climate. The army, in fact, has adopted a 'Net Zero' initiative to make its U.S. bases water and energy independent.

Less well known is the Dept. of Homeland Security's Climate Action Plan. In effect since 2013, the Plan acknowledges that it may be necessary to prepare U.S. border for "frequent, short term, disaster driven migration".  The Plan anticipates legal and illegal movements across the U.S. border because of "severe drought and tropical storms".

More unsavory, the presence of over 100 military weapons vendors at the 9th annual 'Border Security Expo' in Phoenix in April - all slavering at the potential to make war on climate refugees - which would spell profitable business opportunities.

Climate change - global warming, never mind the seemingly small increments (which delude too many into complacency), is the most serious threat humans face. While terror wars may claim 100,000 - in the worst case scenarios over the next 15 years - look for climate change to claim five to six times that number either in the spread of tropical diseases (like dengue fever) to previous unaffected areas in the north, to heat exhaustion and heat deaths from prolonged heat waves lasting months instead of weeks, to diseases borne from more polluted food and water.

A shocking stat that put this into perspective for me was one given in The Economist (Nov. 7-13) noting that the percentage of humans now living in cities or urban areas stands at 54 percent of the global population - up from 40 percent  in the 1950s-60s.

Almost all of this altered population distribution is a result of climate change affecting those regions,  And we know from projections, e.g. from the Hadley UK Center, that those changes will become much more pronounced, even as 2014 broke all standing mean global temperature records, e.g.




2) The notion that climate science is all based on computer models.

We can't say for certain where or how this horse pockey originated, probably in one or more fermented brains, but it's clearly been regurgitated in sundry brain farts or blurtations from conservo dunces like Bret Stephens (or one of his cronies at the WSJ like Holman Jenkins) We refer to this cult of ignoramuses as agnotologists, because their emphasis is not on any science but on preserving the wanton consumption supporting the GDP and the hyper-capitalist state to keep banks, brokers and business making dough while others go into debt.

Stanford historian of science Robert Proctor has correctly tied it to the trend of skeptic science sown deliberately and for political or economic ends . In other words, the supporters of agnotology - whoever they may be- are all committed to one end: destroying the science to enable economic profit and hence planetary ruin. Proctor also notes these special interests are often paid handsomely to sow immense confusion on the issue.

 See e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/01/as-i-noted-in-earlier-blog-httpbrane.html

The nonsense that climate change is all based on "computers" and computer models is disproven on its face by anyone who has been able to travel to climate -affected glaciers such as Janice and I did on visits to Switzerland and Alaska, e.g.


A view of the receding Eigergletscher - seen from our train en route up to Jungfraujoch, Switzerland, in Sept. 2014, is seen above. This was not the only receding glacier we beheld but it unnerved us because it was the one we most recalled - from our previous trip to the same region in 1978. At that time (August, 1978) the glacier had extended all the way to the edge of the hill incline to the lower right.

Also, unlike when we were there in 1978, the powers-that-be had roped off the entire plateau area at Jungfraujoch and posted signs to warn visitors not to jump over the ropes or to go beyond (see image below). The supporting surface was too melted, soft and treacherous. With no such rope boundaries in '78,  we managed to hike far beyond those confines to the top of a steep slope nearly parallel with the Sphinx Observatory (upper far right) :

When we traveled to Alaska, in March, 2005, we saw similar unnerving sights. Many of these while we traveled in a small 'flightseeing' plane from Anchorage to Mount Denali. (Below, about to enter the plane at Anchorage Air Field):


One view from the cockpit of the plane is shown below:













The original deal was that we were supposed to land on a glacier near the peak and be able to walk around and see Denali up close and personal. This was the package promised. However, after several swoops low over the area the pilot warned he wouldn't be able to fulfill it. His 27 years of experience and hawk eyes informed him the supporting snow and ice was much too treacherous to sustain even a small plane landing. Did we really want our "money's worth"? Uh no.  What we saw, however, was enough to show us that those who denied global warming were spouting bollocks. Indeed, when I was at the University of Alaska over 1985-86  on a research sabbatical it was none other than Prof. Gunter Weller who had first shown how the Arctic was warming much more rapidly than the lower continent - and this was part of anthropogenic warming predictions.

This was based on the careful analysis of ice core samples directly extracted from surface and subsurface ice in Alaska, not simply "computer models"

Prof. Gunther Weller at the Geophysical Institute

Prof. Gunther Weller at the University of Alaska- Fairbanks first presented this in his detailed ice core measurements in a 1987  research report and showed that the Arctic temperatures (then) were some 7F warmer than rest of the world. The ice cores available at his Atmospheric Physics lab (part of the Geophysical Institute in Fairbanks) were extracted from Arctic ice at depths corresponding with geological time frames dating back over 80,000 years. His results showed that the greatest ambient temperatures corresponded to the highest CO2 concentrations in the ice cores. Also the largest increases in ambient temperatures have occurred over the past 50-60 years, during which the CO2 increases have been largest. Since then this relationship has only been further corroborated.

For example, Prof. Gale Christianson notes for example (in 'Greenhouse', Penguin, 1999, pp. 171):

"Never has the Earth remained cool when the CO2 concentration was high. Conversely there is no record of an ice age except when CO2 levels dropped below some 200 ppm."

The evidence is there, and before us - staring us in the face- at least for those of us who've gone to Alaska and Switzerland and seen first hand the negative effect anthropogenic warming is having on key attractions, events and even buildings. Those unable to travel to such places can still see the current rapid melting of glaciers world wide at this link:

http://video.pbs.org/video/1108763899

In other words, there really is no excuse not to be aware.

Assorted dunderheads and climate know- nothings can attack Sanders all they want but only reveal their own level of undiluted ignorance. Especially when most have never taken a physics course in their lives so wouldn't know the difference between objects in thermal contact and diffusive contact.

Lastly, no one should be bloviating on climate change - a branch of thermal physics - at all, unless he or she can first pass a test (with at least aa 70 percent) on basic thermal physics!

If you think you're able, go for it here:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2009/12/thermal-physics-test-for-skeptics.html

If you're not able you need to put a cap on climate change blather and stick to what you know.

Separating REAL Threats To Human Existence From Specious Ones: The Case Of WR 104

The object WR 104. Why are so many more concerned about it than global warming?


An interesting question directed at me, and received at ALL Experts barely a week ago, concerned how to "defend" against a monster gamma ray burst from the object WR 104. Evidently, this possible event (supernova)  has been on a number of questioners' minds for at least seven years now. It reflects again the inability of the human species to distinguish distant, improbable threats (and events) from much more dangerous proximate ones that concern us in the here and now.

Of course, in the fantasy world of pie-eyed optimists no one would fret about any cosmic threat - or even the Earth getting a little warmer (in their minds). We should all just enjoy the lives we have and simply dismiss all such concerns, understanding that compared to the brutish, short lives of past humans we are living the 'life of Riley'.

Alas, the sober realist, and especially those of more serious scientific bent, can't be so blase.

Anyway, getting back to the question, I had to inform the person that those in the know (astronomers and astrophysicists)  ascribe a large uncertainty to powerful gamma rays bursts from WR 104 . In fact, most of the popular accounts that insist it's "coming" really mean any time from today to 500,000 years from now. That's how much uncertainty is attached to the potential event.

 For my odds, it is likely much later, and global warming is much more likely to take humans out than gamma rays from WR 104.  (Note the most recent data indicate that the mean global temperature rise by 2100 to be 4C-6c - in runaway greenhouse territory).  The worst effect of a gamma ray burst (GRB) from WR 104 would be violently eradicating up to 50 percent of the ozone layer, leading to much higher levels of UVB radiation being absorbed and a major uptick in skin cancers, as well as cataracts.

As for "defending" ourselves I  informed the questioner that I saw no technological way to do it. In fact the only moderate way to do it is passive: i.e.  to ensure we aren't enlarging the ozone hole over the Antarctic given any WR 104 GRB is estimated to take out 50 percent of the ozone layer.

Thankfully the cessation of use of CFCs (chloroflourocarbons) via the 1987 Montreal Protocol has caused human input of CFCs to stop - which were eroding the ozone layer. The bad news is that erosion is still going on because of the long length of time (up to 1,000 years) that CFCs remain in the atmosphere.  Still, recent research suggests that it is feasible all ozone hole erosion can be halted by 2070.

I then reiterated that it is much more important  we concern ourselves with the vastly more immediate threat for human extinction:  the runaway greenhouse effect. Are we talking about  a "little warmer Earth" to make us sweat a bit more and feel uncomfortable? No, we're talking about extinction level events and heat - with all existing human technological prowess reduced to useless dross, especially power grids.

We're talking of fires blazing across two thirds of the planet from dawn to dusk and temperatures topping 120F, or close to what New Delhi experienced for over a week earlier this month. Only this time going on for months. We're talking of little respite even at nightfall with temperatures still in the 100F -110F range. We're talking of millions dying, unable to get relief from the unbearable heat - or  even  to garner enough water because the electricity use will face such demand that even the pumps to bring up water into pipes will cease working.

Thus the Pope was absolutely correct in his encyclical when he warned:

"Climate change is a global problem with grave implications: environmental, social, economic, political and for the distribution of goods. It represents one of the principal challenges facing humanity in our day. Its worst impact will probably be felt by developing countries in coming decades."

The problem is that the onset of the runaway greenhouse may be as close as two decades.

However, the effects of unmitigated climate change are experienced in the here and now, and have drawn alarm in serious quarters. For example, both insurance and re-insurance companies (like Munich Re) are already factoring in major extreme weather events - such as the flooding in TX and drought in CA - as climate change related and computing current and future costs of premiums on this basis - as well as potential future payouts.

Meanwhile, few ordinary citizens are aware that on April 24 this year the 'Defense, National Security And Climate Change Symposium' was held in Washington, D.C.  At the Symposium Brigadier General Stephen Cheney stepped up to the podium to discuss 'Conflict and Climate Change'. Cheney, like some other speakers- zeroed in on climate-driven migration, asserting:

"We know for a fact that climate change is already driving internal and cross border migration"

Referencing here, for example, that in Bangladesh - the 'ground zero' of global warming- rising sea levels could displace 15 million by 2050. Oxford University's Norman Myers has projected there could be as many as 200 million climate refugees by mid-century.

Cheney's presentation tagged a number of conflict climate triggers, including the desertification in the borderlands between Chad and Nigeria which "has caused a lot of migration". He also indicated that the terror organization Boko Haram "is simply taking advantage of that".

Other aspects of Cheney's talk cited beefing up military infrastructure at home and abroad to be resistant to harsher climate. The army, in fact, has adopted a 'Net Zero' initiative to make its U.S. bases water and energy independent.

Less well known is the Dept. of Homeland Security's Climate Action Plan. In effect since 2013, the Plan acknowledges that it may be necessary to prepare U.S. border for "frequent, short term, disaster driven migration".  The Plan anticipates legal and illegal movements across the U.S. border because of "severe drought and tropical storms".

More unsavory, the presence of over 100 military weapons vendors at the 9th annual 'Border Security Expo' in Phoenix in April - all slavering at the potential to make war on climate refugees - which would spell profitable business opportunities.

Climate change - global warming, never mind the seemingly small increments (which delude too many into complacency), is the most serious threat humans face. Can humans still be happy with their situations and not be overtaken by constant misery? Of course! But it would be stupid to single-mindedly pursue a perpetual "happy"   while being oblivious to the calamity unfolding around us- to the extent of emulating the proverbial ostrich with head buried in the sand.