Has The Pandemic Really Bought Us Some Time In terms of Climate Change-Global Warming?

Incredibly,  the take of many in the media now is that - thanks to the pandemic - we can breath a bit easier regarding the pace of global warming.  This was after the International Energy Agency reported the sharpest reduction in greenhouse  emissions on record. Namely that global CO2 emissions are forecast to fall by nearly 8 percent compared to 2019. Further, according to the United Nations Environment Program that tracks almost exactly with what's needed, i.e. if the planet is to have any chance of stopping the global average temperatures from rising more than 1.5 C.

In a recent WSJ column (May 29, p. A2, 'Slower Emissions Track Buys Some Time') Greg  Ip  cites Univ. of Colorado professor Roger Pielke Jr. who in an interview, claimed that "because of Covid 19 the real world and IPCC's scenarios are diverging further." Adding "This buys us some time". But does it really?

Under the IPCC "high emission" scenario (denoted RCP 8.5) temperatures will likely rise to 4 C by 2011, which would be disastrous. (Other models, and research from the experts at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists put the increase closer to 6C, or near the threshold for the runaway greenhouse effect)  Even the lower threshold, as Mr.Ip describes it, is a "dire outlook".

But according to Zeke Hausfather (director of climate and energy at Breakthrough Inst.) also interviewed by Ip:

"Business as usual is more like 3 degrees but that's still more than the 1.5 to 2 degrees he world targeted in the Paris climate accord."

But does all this really stand up to scrutiny?  It is well to point out that Mr. Ip himself issues a cautionary note, i.e. :

 "Locking down isn't a sustainable way to reduce emissions, and this drop is almost certainly temporary. Second, it is the cumulative buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution that, among other tings, influences global warming. So if annual emissions continue - even at a lower level - CO2 concentrations and temperatures will continue to rise."

This is critically important and clearly glossed over by Pielke Jr. and Hausfather.  But I have written about the cumulative effect in previous posts.

CO2 accumulates because earlier depositions remain even as new burdens are added yearly. Thus, the CO2 warming we’re now experiencing is not the result of just one year – but  100 years’ accumulation. The process may be described something like a series with terms being added, viz: to describe the CO2 content now in the atmosphere, we must initiate the series with n= 1 (for 1920), viz.


CO2( 2020) =   x  ₁  + x  ₂ +  x  ₃ +   x  ₄ +.............+  x  _{1 00} 

E.g. terminating at the last term 100 years later. Here each ‘x’ denotes the CO2 burden added for each year in succession.

Thus, the CO2 effect for a given year is not just for that year, but rather inclusive of the cumulative additions for all the years - starting up to 100 years before!

This means things can only get worse. It also means Hausfather's belief that 3 C is more reasonable peak by 2100 is nonsense.  It can't be because of the cumulative amounts of CO2 already in the atmosphere.   In addition, CO2 concentration, which determines the potential for temperature increase, will not go down. Well, not unless we can mount the equivalent of 9-10 years of an emissions shutdown.


Indeed, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has accelerated from 400 ppm in 2013 to 415 ppm now. That is an approximately 6 year interval for a per year change in concentration of :

(415 ppm - 400 ppm)  / 6 yr  =   15 ppm / 6 yr  =  2.5 ppm/  yr.

This is 25 % higher than the previous average rate of increase, i.e. 2.0 ppm/ yr. Given we know that every increase in CO2 concentration by 2 ppm increases the radiative heating effect by 2 W/ m²,  we also know that the associated radiative heating is now significantly higher.  This accounts for a major part of the increase of atmospheric temperature with CO2 concentration.

While it is true that  there is a yearly rise and fall   in CO2 concentration and May is usually the peak month for atmospheric CO2, we have also seen each yearly peak is inexorably higher than the last one.  This behavior has been noted for decades and hearkens back to the well -known Keeling curve, e.g.                       

Also forgotten or neglected in the happy talk is the 2nd law of thermodynamics or entropy law.  This states that for a closed system the entropy - or state of disorder- will remain constant or increase. But it cannot decrease. While the Earth is not a totally closed system, it is certainly a partially closed one - since the CO2 greenhouse blanket effectively retains a good deal of IR solar radiation preventing its escape back into space.

But the point is, given this condition, it is not feasible for the entropy in the form of added heat to the atmosphere, to now decrease or for the CO2 concentrations to decrease, given the cumulative effects of increase.

As physicist Charles Kittel has also noted - in his 1969 edition of 'Thermal Physics' (John Wiley & Sons, p. 65):

The entropy is constant in a closed system, that is, in a system of constant energy and constant number of particles. The Sun, for example, is not a closed system: it loses energy by radiation and is cooling down. It is not clear, according to geophysicists, whether the total entropy of the Earth is increasing or decreasing at this moment

However, 16 years later in discussions  at the UAF Geophysical Institute with atmospheric scientist Gunther Weller,

 he noted his  conclusion that Earth's total entropy was indeed increasing!

His work on Arctic ice cores has disclosed that over the past 800,000 years the CO2 concentration of  300 ppm was never crossed until after the advent of the Industrial Revolution and the burning of fossil fuels.  Further, it has been found that no Ice ages have occurred whenever the CO2 concentration exceeded 200 ppm.  This means that climate change cannot be a “natural ongoing process.´ How can it when the greatest spike in CO2 concentration (now approaching 415 ppm) occurred after the human-instigated Industrial Revolution? 

Grep Ip is correct then when he writes near the end of his piece:

"Meeting that (3C) target will require emissions to head much lower"

The question is 'How much lower to offset the increased entropy already affecting our atmosphere?''

See also:

Climate Obfuscator Roger Pielke Jr. Strikes Again ...

And:

Climate report understates threat

Excerpt:

"So far, average temperatures have risen by one degree Celsius. Adding 50 percent more warming to reach 1.5 degrees won’t simply increase impacts by the same percentage—bad as that would be. Instead, it risks setting up feedbacks that could fall like dangerous dominoes, fundamentally destabilizing the planet. This is analyzed in a recent study showing that the window to prevent runaway climate change and a “hot house” super-heated planet is closing much faster than previously understood."

Why Lawrence Krausse Is Wrong On The "Doomsday Clock" - Why It Needs To Keep Ticking

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists website recently warned ('Why The World Is Closer Than Ever To Doomsday'')

"On Thursday, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, which takes stock of the threats posed by nuclear war and climate change each year, moved the Doomsday Clock to 100 seconds before midnight. We are now measuring how close the world is to catastrophe in seconds -- not hours, or even minutes. It is the closest to Doomsday we have ever been since the clock was created in 1947.

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, which was founded by those who worked on the Manhattan Project during World War II, and now includes 13 Nobel Laureates on the board, issued a statement on Thursday that read, "Humanity continues to face two simultaneous existential dangers—nuclear war and climate change—that are compounded by a threat multiplier, cyber-enabled information warfare, that undercuts society's ability to respond. The international security situation is dire, not just because these threats exist, but because world leaders have allowed the international political infrastructure for managing them to erode." 

But physicist Lawrence Krausse isn't buying it (WSJ, 'Time To Stop The Doomsday Clock', Jan. 23), p. A15, writing:

"The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists is resetting its “Doomsday Clock,” which has stood still since 2018 at two minutes to midnight. I was a member of the Bulletin’s Board of Sponsors for a dozen years and chaired it from 2009 through 2018, and I think it’s time to retire the clock."

He then quotes founding editor Eugene Rabinowitch, who explains the clock's purpose:

“The Bulletin’s Clock is not a gauge to register the ups and downs of the international power struggle. It is intended to reflect basic changes in the level of continuous danger in which mankind lives in the nuclear age.”

Let's also note that no serious scientist treats it as an exact quantitative measure of danger. It is more  an analog -based estimate of probability embodied in an image anyone can grasp.  (Much like the descending ball in NYC on New Year's Eve is purported to be a chronological countdown to the New Year.)   The Doomsday Clock then embodies a potential countdown for humanity's end (as opposed to the end of an expired year) - factoring in the differing probabilities for the cumulative threats facing us.  

A more precise interpretation might be as an analog estimate of the multiple correlation of mounting dangers to the time we have left to address them,  before they lead to our extinction.   One can even conceive of the clock as a kind of pictorial - image based multiple regression scenario of the cumulative threats at a given time, t. In this latter one is aware of not one but multiple (regressor) variables in relation to the predicted danger of "doom",  D.  These regressors  constitute  a set of threat variables, ranging from a Torino 9 asteroid  strike ('x1'), to all - out nuclear war ('x2'), to runaway greenhouse effect, 'x3', to uncontained bird flu pandemic 'x4', etc.

Krauss continues:

"Early on, it often did. It moved forward in 1953, after the U.S. and the Soviet Union developed the hydrogen bomb, or in 1974, when missiles with multiple warheads became a reality. But gradually it broadened focus beyond the physical dangers of nuclear weapons and began taking account of political questions such as arms-control treaties and tensions between India and Pakistan, and, since 2007, of other military threats such as bioterrorism, as well as the global existential dangers of climate change. The 2019 announcement also cited “fake news” and Donald Trump."

Here, Krausse seems to want to sideline these political threats but they are very real.  For example, the nuclear threat  involving India and Pakistan could easily expand to a larger nuclear war.  Bioterrorism also is not to be underplayed, given we would not like to see the release of a weaponized smallpox or Ebola virus - or the bubonic plague. 

 As for Trump, common sense would alert the sentient citizen to the intolerable risk of a narcissist egomaniac who has control of nearly 6000 nuclear warheads- but no control of himself, or self-awareness in respect of his limitations.  In a real manner of speaking, so long as Trump is around we are all living with a ticking human time bomb - and no one knows when it will go off, or what will set it off.

Krausse again:

"This multiplication of threats has heightened the sense of alarm. The Doomsday Clock time is now much closer to midnight than it was during the Cuban Missile Crisis (seven minutes), when the world really was on the precipice of a nuclear holocaust. At the same time, a clock that has moved back and forth while lingering frighteningly close to midnight for more than 70 years strikes many as crying wolf. At two minutes to midnight, the clock can’t move much further forward, even if threats increase."

Here I beg to differ with Lawrence that the Cuban Missile Crisis (which I lived through while living in Miami, FL in October, 1962) is equal to the nuclear threat that exists now.  The reason?  At the time the U.S. and USSR combined had a total of roughly 200 nuclear warheads- and long range ICBMs (e.g. Atlas missiles) to deliver them.  Cuba had an estimated 93 intermediate range missiles (IRBMs compliments of the Russians) which it was prepared to use IF the U.S. had tried to invade or attack. (Fortunately we had JFK at the helm and not the likes of the bellicose buffoon Trump.)  Had war been unleashed it would have been bad for sure - with up to 100 million dead or dying -but not anything near the 5 billion that would perish today  because of 10,000 nuclear warheads (in an all out nuclear war) and a likely "nuclear winter" to follow.

The back and forth movement of the clock to which Krausse refers is not "crying wolf" but simply acknowledging that the probability of  incipient threats can vary over a long time- and even year to year.   The proximity to midnight merely indicates  the variability of this threat potency and also  that we haven't done a damned thing to address the most catastrophic, namely proliferation of nuclear weapons, and the approaching runaway greenhouse effect.  Worse,  we now face the specter of hypersonic ICBMs which leave virtually no early warning time before nuclear strikes- radically amplifying nuclear threats.

Add in the latter, say the Russians - then the U.S. - developing thousands of them, and the clock can indeed move much closer to midnight - say 30 seconds or even closer. What else would you expect from thousands of such hypersonic weapons each with a megaton or larger warhead that could strike any U.S. city within minutes?  

"More to the point, the threats the clock now purports to measure are different in kind. Nuclear weapons could end human civilization in a day. The generation of greenhouse gases associated with human industrial activity won’t. It is increasingly likely to have devastating impacts, but these will emerge over the long term and be spread unevenly across the globe."

Krausse is right in a way, but not totally.  It is true nuclear weapons in general would have a more catastrophic (and immediate)  effect than climate change - but not necessarily.  It is conceivable an all out nuclear war - say carried out in hours - could take many lives but still leave 2-3 billion alive, for a time. However, if nuclear winter sets in those lives too would be snuffed out in 10-20 years.  Analogously, if climate change isn't controlled it may lead to the runaway greenhouse effect by the end of the century (say with a  6C increase in global mean surface temperatures) that could end the existence of most humanity within 10-20 years. 

"Psychologist Steven Pinker argues—and the bulletin admits—that the clock is anything but a scientific instrument. In Mr. Pinker’s view, the annual announcement is a publicity stunt that demeans the scientific community and makes the world seem more dangerous than it actually is."

I have already dispelled Pinker's Pollyannish views in a previous blog post, e.g.

• Steven Pinker's Mental Myopia Is Mind Boggling - T...

And shown the world is indeed as dangerous and replete with threats as it appears to the sentient and aware citizen. 

Back to Krausse:

"The clock is a publicity stunt—and a successful one. That was the point. The public hardly ever debates the ever-present danger of a world with 10,000 nuclear weapons. People would rather not think about it."

Yet there’s a deeper problem. Not only is the Doomsday Clock unscientific; the factors of its setting are now dominated more by policy questions than scientific ones. The former may be important, but claiming the authority of “atomic scientists” is appropriate only for the latter."

I totally disagree with Larry's take the clock is a "publicity stunt",  because there is no stunt aspect to it, as I described in my opening paragraphs.  If anyone wishes to behold a publicity stunt look no further than Trump's lawyers' performance at his Senate impeachment trial. There you will see a blizzard of lies, disinformation, distractions and propaganda the likes of which would do Goebbels proud. A publicity stunt for the ages and in the service of treason.

Krausse would do better to move away from his 'cartoon' view and see the clock instead  as a compact pictograph synthesizing  a multiple regression outcome for incipient threats at any one time. These threats are real - albeit variable in potency and imminence- hence the (visual) device which incorporates them is no "stunt". Further, it is based on rational interpretation and decision-making (including on policies that affect scientific quality, outcomes)  so shares with science - atomic,  astrophysics or other - the critical attribute of reason.

 Further, policy decisions can and do impact scientific ones - often adversely.  For example, Krausse cannot deny that the Trump cabal's policies, e.g.  on climate change,  have actually worsened the climate situation globally.   The dilution of many regulations including allowing more CO2 and methane to be discharged into the atmosphere, not to mention easing of water pollution standards for rivers, streams,  are not in anyway helpful to averting the worst climate scenarios - including the runaway greenhouse effect.

Add in the Trumpists' savage attack on the ACA ("Obamacare") which could conceivably leave up to 30 million without any health care and you have the makings of a human catastrophe set to become vastly larger in the event of the next flu pandemic.  See e.g.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/07/health/flu-pandemic-sanjay-gupta/index.html

Krausse again:

"But today the clock’s setting is determined more by concerns about how superpowers can engage in arms-control talks, about potentially reckless statements by world leaders, or about what policies would best reduce carbon emissions. These are important questions, but not ones on which scientists can claim special authority."

OK, admittedly they are not questions on which scientists can claim an exclusive  ("special") authority - but they are certainly ones on which they can claim a pre-eminent authority. Hence, would in general carry much more insight than a politician's - say in terms of how carbon emissions beyond a certain threshold would lead to the runaway greenhouse effect. Or how the future failure of arms control talks - say to do with hypersonic ICBMs- may pave the way for much greater likelihood of a nuclear holocaust

"The group announcing the clock reset includes a former president of Ireland, a former United Nations secretary-general and members of the Elders, an organization founded by Nelson Mandela that describes itself as “independent global leaders working together for peace and human rights.” These like-minded people—along with various intelligence and climate policy experts, and one atomic scientist—can make informed recommendations, and I largely agree with them. But this is public policy, not science."

Again, Krausse confuses the clock with an actual scientific  paper, argument or measuring device -  which it is not. It is a quasi scientific, public policy tool that adopts an easy to grasp visual representation  ("clock") to estimate the variable probability of humanity's proximity (in time) to ultimate perdition.  

"So why not retire the clock? An icon with some fixed value, say, five minutes to midnight, might serve as a permanent reminder of a dangerous world. Nuclear weapons aren’t disappearing any time soon, and climate change is already occurring on a massive scale. Other threats will emerge, even as technology creates opportunities for revolutionary improvements in the human condition."

The clock cannot be retired precisely because leaving it at a fixed position (say 5 minutes to midnight) would erroneously convey the message of a fixed probability for  future collective threats. Thus, a 5 minutes to midnight full stop would lull most citizens of the planet into thinking all further movement toward midnight had ceased. So all is well and let's party! 

This then would also ensure the world more likely falls into a complacent attitude and makes no attempt to curb nuclear proliferation or significantly reduce carbon emissions hurling us toward the runaway greenhouse.  It is exactly the wrong thing to do and I am amazed a guy that actually was part of the process at one time would advocate this.

No, nuclear weapons aren't "disappearing" anytime soon, but that doesn't mean inroads can't be made, say in halting or removing the threat of hypsersonic delivery systems.  And while climate change is indeed already occurring on a massive scale there is still time to avoid the calamity of the runaway greenhouse - if we act now to do so.  But fixing the clock at one position is an invitation to do nothing because well, 'Hey look! It ain't moving any closer to the witching hour so why worry?'

"The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists can continue to play a useful role by focusing on providing accurate information on technology and science to be used as a basis for public policy. Or it could rename itself The Bulletin, acknowledge that it is an advocacy organization, and make the best case for its well-intentioned proposals."

This is a non-starter. "The Bulletin"?   Seriously? People who thrive on 'clickbait'  and spend most days buried in their smart phone screens for the latest buzz would simply yawn and move on.  The power of the doomsday clock is precisely because the IMAGE of motion toward midnight catches attention.  And attention in these hurly- burly,  distracted times is hard to capture.  Hence, Krauss'e prescriptions here are basically equivalent to remaining silent (or out of sight) in spite of the  sundry variable threats and their changing probabilities.

Sorry, no can do, Lawrence.

The Doomsday Clock: Now Moved To Two Minutes To Midnight

Today The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists moved the "Doomsday Clock" 30 seconds closer to midnight then it had been one year ago.   As I noted at that time (Jan.. 26 blog post):

This morning at 10:00 Eastern time, in news that ought to send chills down ever citizen's spine, The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists moved the second hand of the Doomsday Clock another half minute closer to midnight. Hitherto it had been set at 3 minutes to midnight, since 2015.  The new setting marks metaphorically the acknowledgement of the highest danger facing the planet since 1953, when the U.S. and U.S.S.R. conducted multiple H-bomb tests in the atmosphere.
A global failure to fight climate change and concern over Donald Trump’s cabinet picks were cited as reasons for the increased threat to the planet.

For background reference, the group was founded in 1945 by University of Chicago scientists who helped develop the first atomic weapons as  commissioned by the Manhattan Project.  Two years later the "Doomsday clock" was created using the imagery of a clock striking midnight (translated into apocalypse) and the contemporary idiom of a nuclear explosion to convey threats to humanity and the planet.   The decision to move (or to leave in place) the minute hand of the Doomsday Clock is made every year by the Bulletin’s Science and Security Board in consultation with its Board of Sponsors, which includes 15 Nobel laureates. The Clock has become a universally recognized indicator of the world’s vulnerability to catastrophe from nuclear weapons, climate change, and new technologies emerging in other domains.

Each year the basis for moving the minute hand is given in an accompanying statement. This year's statement is given below:

To: Leaders and citizens of the world Re: Two minutes to midnight Date: January 25, 2018:

In 2017, world leaders failed to respond effectively to the looming threats of nuclear war and climate change, making the world security situation more dangerous than it was a year ago—and as dangerous as it has been since World War II.

The greatest risks last year arose in the nuclear realm. North Korea’s nuclear weapons program made remarkable progress in 2017, increasing risks to North Korea itself, other countries in the region, and the United States.  Hyperbolic rhetoric and provocative actions by both sides have increased the possibility of nuclear war by accident or miscalculation.

But the dangers brewing on the Korean Peninsula were not the only nuclear risks evident in 2017: The United States and Russia remained at odds, continuing military exercises along the borders of NATO, undermining the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), upgrading their nuclear arsenals, and eschewing arms control negotiations.

In the Asia-Pacific region, tensions over the South China Sea have increased, with relations between the United States and China insufficient to re-establish a stable security situation.  In South Asia, Pakistan and India have continued to build ever-larger arsenals of nuclear weapons.

And in the Middle East, uncertainty about continued US support for the landmark Iranian nuclear deal adds to a bleak overall picture.

To call the world nuclear situation dire is to understate the danger—and its immediacy.

On the climate change front, the danger may seem less immediate, but avoiding catastrophic temperature increases in the long run requires urgent attention now. Global carbon dioxide emissions have not yet shown the beginnings of the sustained decline towards zero that must occur if ever-greater warming is to be avoided. The nations of the world will have to significantly decrease their greenhouse gas emissions to keep climate risks manageable, and so far, the global response has fallen far short of meeting this challenge.

Beyond the nuclear and climate domains, technological change is disrupting democracies around the world as states seek and exploit opportunities to use information technologies as weapons, among them internet-based deception campaigns aimed at undermining elections and popular confidence in institutions essential to free thought and global security.

--------------------------\

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Science and Security Board believes the perilous world security situation just described would, in itself, justify moving the minute hand of the Doomsday Clock closer to midnight.

But there has also been a breakdown in the international order that has been dangerously exacerbated by recent US actions. In 2017, the United States backed away from its long-standing leadership role in the world, reducing its commitment to seek common ground and undermining the overall effort toward solving pressing global governance challenges. Neither allies nor adversaries have been able to reliably predict US actions—or understand when US pronouncements are real, and when they are mere rhetoric. International diplomacy has been reduced to name-calling, giving it a surreal sense of unreality that makes the world security situation ever more threatening.

Because of the extraordinary danger of the current moment, the Science and Security Board today moves the minute hand of the Doomsday Clock 30 seconds closer to catastrophe. It is now two minutes to midnight—the closest the Clock has ever been to Doomsday, and as close as it was in 1953, at the height of the Cold War.

The Science and Security Board hopes this resetting of the Clock will be interpreted exactly as it is meant—as an urgent warning of global danger. The time for world leaders to address looming nuclear danger and the continuing march of climate change is long past. The time for the citizens of the world to demand such action is now:  #rewindtheDoomsdayClock.

The untenable nuclear threat. The risk that nuclear weapons may be used—intentionally or because of miscalculation—grew last year around the globe.

North Korea has long defied UN Security Council resolutions to cease its nuclear and ballistic missile tests, but the acceleration of its tests in 2017 reflects new resolve to acquire sophisticated nuclear weapons. North Korea has or soon will have capabilities to match its verbal threats—specifically, a thermonuclear warhead and a ballistic missile that can carry it to the US mainland. In September, North Korea tested what experts assess to be a true two-stage thermonuclear device, and in November, it tested the Hwasong-15 missile, which experts believe has a range of over 8,000 kilometers. The United States and its allies, Japan and South Korea, responded with more frequent and larger military exercises, while China and Russia proposed a freeze by North Korea of nuclear and missile tests in exchange for a freeze in US exercises.

The failure to secure a temporary freeze in 2017 was unsurprising to observers of the downward spiral of nuclear rhetoric between US President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. The failure to rein in North Korea’s nuclear program will reverberate not just in the Asia-Pacific, as neighboring countries review their security options, but more widely, as all countries consider the costs and benefits of the international framework of nonproliferation treaties and agreements.

Nuclear risks have been compounded by US-Russia relations that now feature more conflict than cooperation. Coordination on nuclear risk reduction is all but dead, and no solution to disputes over the INF Treaty—a landmark agreement to rid Europe of medium-range nuclear missiles—is readily apparent. Both sides allege violations, but Russia’s deployment of a new ground-launched cruise missile, if not addressed, could trigger a collapse of the treaty. Such a collapse would make what should have been a relatively easy five-years ago unimaginably more intractable.
------------------------------------

Let's hope that all citizens and leaders pay attention to these threats and seek to turn the hands of this clock backward instead of forward.  But we'll have to strive for a rewind despite the news of a leaked Pentagon draft describing additions to the U.S.  nuclear arsenal including: 'low yield' (tactical) nukes that can be mounted to Trident submarines and a new submarine launched cruise missile (SLCM).  These new weapons are estimated to cost $1.2 trillion over the next 30 years to build and maintain according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Any College Prof Who Equates Trump's Tweets To Proper Writing Ought To Be Fired!

Twitter Troll Trump is spewing cartoon garbage in his tweets - not "poetry" or "concise writing" according to one demented professor.

When Trump's last stream of tweets received segment attention on the NBC Saturday evening news - criticizing the NFL and its players who refuse to stand for the national anthem, wifey had had enough. Sitting across in her recliner, she spat: "The day that tweets get the same respect as regular prose is the day we are all for the high jump!"  "High jump" a Bajan expression for "the end' as in jumping off a high cliff or tall building.

I couldn't bear to tell her that in the weekend WSJ (Sept. 23-24, p. A13) one idiot professor (Crispin Sartwell) at Dickinson College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, actually tried to make that ignorant case ('Texting and Twitter Make This A Golden Age For the Written Word').   The title alone had me prepared to lose my breakfast, but I felt this fool at least deserved a chance to make his case. Within three paragraphs I was forced to lump him with the other extremist contrarians who need to create unhinged arguments of absurd positions to rise above the attention din.  They reason that too many write about the same things so why not pick out a fringe idea to get reads or clicks and defend it with sophistry and specious analogies. 

Such was the case with Sartwell's piece, as when he writes:

"Texting - to say the obvious - is writing. Snapchat conversations are written with thumbs, but they are written. Twitter seems to be getting blamed for many ills, including those of the Trump administration. But whatever else the president does as he tweets, he is definitely writing. Barack Obama composed a couple of decent memoirs, but he is not as prolific an author as Mr. Trump, a master of his chosen genre.

It strikes me that Twitter is not only a social media platform, it is a poetic form, like haiku or a sonnet."

At this point I had to wonder what Sartwell was on when he wrote this unmitigated hogswill. I suspect it must have been a combination of MJ edibles and maybe booze. No sane human, certainly not a professor, could compare a bunch of incomprehensible, misspelled,  cartoon tweets to Obama's memoirs - unless he wasn't in his right mind.  And to compare a tweet to a sonnet carries false analogy to the same level as comparing a can of Alpo to a 5-course gourmet meal for a human. It is simply bare bollocks. Utter nonsense.

Sartwel's arguments fall on many grounds but I will confine attention to two: i) the danger of trying to make policy by tweet, and ii) the fact no university admissions office in its collective right mind would accept a tweet or series of text messages as a substitute for an admissions essay.

The first is most important, and I refer here to an earlier post in which I  made reference to Trump's "verbal looseness"  epitomized by his  reckless December tweet on expanding U.S.  nuclear capacity, e.g.

"We need to strengthen and expand nuclear capacity until the world comes to its sense regarding nukes."

What the hell is he yapping about? Expand nuclear capacity? Is he nuts, ignorant or just stupid? As a number of strategic analysts have pointed out, including staff from The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the U.S. already has just under 5,000 nuclear warheads in its active arsenal and more than 1,550 deployed strategic warheads. This is more than enough to turn the world to ash about six times over.

Meanwhile the clueless media, especially on TV, kept showing the tweet on large HD screens in bold relief, as they scratched their heads, openly wondering what the hell he meant. No surprise here. As I pointed out earlier (Nov. 23rd  post) Twitter is essentially a cartoon language medium by which I mean its 140 character limit basically excludes any complex thought. and most facts.  Or, I might add, any basis for proper explication of what one is communicating.  One is basically reduced to the equivalent of a series of language cartoons.  This also harkens back to the medium used  constituting the basis of the message, as Marshall McLuhan first pointed out in Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. 

Thus, no surprise the Trump team itself was scurrying to impose some semblance of meaning on the word jumble expelled.  In fact, as a Denver Post release noted, the "Trump team offered only slightly more explanation of the comment later in the day when communications director Jason Miller said Trump was 'referring to the threat of nuclear proliferation and the critical need to prevent it'"


Well, if that is what he meant, why didn't he write in a proper written format?  Well, because he's a lazy sot and can't even read properly!  The tweet then is the lazy person's form of writing, and certainluy no sonnet or haiku even.   The use of emojis also, which Sartwell defends (comparing them to Egytpian hieroglyphs, if you can believe it) is a shortcut to proper communication offered in actual cartoon form.

Does one really need an I.Q. higher than a hamster's to grasp that tweets  (and most texts) are an inappropriate medium for making nuclear policy Must it really be spelled out for Sartwell?

Let's be clear  that no sane person ought to be propounding nuclear policy via a cartoon language medium. The very choice to do so indicates that person lacks all his marbles. I would add that any person who defends such use also must be questioned as to his "lost marbles".

Trump's tweets, never mind their abbreviated form that Sartwell actually claims comports with the principles of The Elements of Style', lacked any inclusion of relevant facts  But this begs the question of how or why such a truncated medium would be able to to justice to facts in the first place.

In response to Trump's nuclear policy tweets, The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists replied:

We understand that Mr. Trump has been in office only days, that many of his cabinet nominees are awaiting confirmation and that he has had little time to take official action. But Mr. Trump’s statements and actions have been unsettling. He has made ill-considered comments about expanding and even deploying the American nuclear arsenal. He has expressed disbelief in the scientific consensus on global warming. He has shown a troubling propensity to discount or reject expert advice related to international security

This was part of  the Bulletin's basis for moving the Doomsday Clock closer to midnight. The fact an inept, ignorant fool was trying to tweet nuclear policy, devoid of facts, and subject to misinterpretation.

Lastly, I do give credit to Sartwell for at least offering one solid, sober perspective on what genuine authorship means, e.g. of real writing:

"Authorship, whether of great novels, fundamental works of history and philosophy, poems that set the soul afire,  or blog posts- can be a lonely journey, It's hard, but all truly rewarding things are."

Yes but that does not include tweets or texts which take minimal effort. The real message of what Sartwell is writing ought to be that those written contributions or communications that take great effort are worthy of being considered platforms for authorship.  Tweets and texts are not because the same effort doesn't go into a message that can be fired off in mere seconds or minutes. Am I saying genuine writing is proportional to the effort put into it? Yes, I am.  If it takes seconds or minutes to do sorry it is not really writing in the manner of actual, serious communication.

And as I pointed out, no college to my knowledge has yet accepted a series of tweets or texts as a substitute for its essay- composition requirement. Case closed!

Tweets may be cutesy modes of communication for the Millennials and many others but they don't make the cut as genuine writing -  any more than a dog's or ape's random paint splashes on a canvas make even a passable work of abstract art.

Trump The Tweeting Twit Gets His Comeuppance

Let us admit as a rational proposition, that no leader - or leader -elect- ought to be propounding nuclear policy via a cartoon language medium. I refer to Trump's nuclear policy tweet last week:

"We need to strengthen and expand nuclear capacity until the world comes to its sense regarding nukes."

What the hell is he yapping about? Expand nuclear capacity? Is he nuts, ignorant or just stupid? As a number of strategic analysts have pointed out, including staff from The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the U.S. already has just under 5,000 nuclear warheads in its active arsenal and more than 1,550 deployed strategic warheads. This is more than enough to turn the world to ash about six times over.

Meanwhile the clueless media, especially on TV, kept showing the tweet on large HD screens in bold relief, as they scratched their heads, openly wondering what the hell he meant. No surprise here. As I pointed out earlier (Nov. 23rd  post) Twitter is essentially a cartoon language medium by which I mean its 140 character limit basically excludes any complex thought.  Or, I might add, any basis for explication or interpretation of what one is communicating.  One is basically reduced to the equivalent of a series of language cartoons.  This also harkens back to the medium used  constituting the basis of the message, as Marshall McLuhan first pointed out in Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. 

Thus, no surprise as the Trump tweet left its point of origin, the Trump team itself was scurrying to impose some semblance of meaning on the word jumble expelled.  In fact, as a Denver Post release noted, the "Trump team offered only slightly more explanation of the comment later in the day when communications director Jason Miller said Trump was 'referring to the threat of nuclear proliferation and the critical need to prevent it'"

Well, if that is what he meant, why didn't he say it, errr.....tweet it? Well, because the medium is so truncated and terse it doesn't allow for such expansion. Ok, let me take that back. One can, of course, do multiple tweets. But given each such blurtation is really a cartoon mini-medium itself  (complete with Trump's cartoon visage attached) there is still the danger the entire message can be misconstrued because it is not given as a coherent whole. That is, as a complete formal statement from what we expect to be grown ups wearing big boy pants, not Pampers.

And given that Russia, according to the same strategic sources, "has 400 more nuclear warheads than the U.S. does", one might assume that Trump - via his tweet - really meant overtaking the Russians.  Or, it could have meant  tearing up the new START Treaty which limits strategic weapons to 1,550 each by February, 2018. At least these would be the possible interpretations IF one could also assume Trump knew that the Russkies had a 400 nuke advantage and also knew what the START Treaty is. But since he doesn't even read his daily briefs, that's unlikely.

Trump's lack of impulse control over his Twitter account also showed itself in other manifestations over the past few days.  The latest incident occurred on Friday when the Obama administration abstained from a United Nations Security Council vote that condemned Israel for Jewish settlements in the West Bank, and allowed the resolution to pass. The alternative would have been to issue a veto to kill it right there.

Now the interesting part: a day earlier, Trump via Twitter had publicly demanded that Obama veto the measure, even intervening with Egypt at the request of Israel to pressure the administration to shelve the effort. Understand here above all else, this is a guy who has absolutely no real power or leverage as yet. He hasn't been sworn in, and as numerous rational observers have pointed out, there can be only one President at a time. It is also somewhat hilarious to witness a character with the temperament of a colicky three year old sending tweets ordering a sitting President to obey him. I mean, are you shitting me?

Trump wrote on Twitter after the vote: "As to the U.N., things will be different after Jan. 20.” 

Maybe, Maybe not. But until that date (and actually beyond it) Trump needs to seal away and dispose of his Twitter account. The reason is very simple and ought to require little explanation: Presidents (as well as President -elects) - if one is going to insist on ""respect" - mandate via optics a certain level of decorum. This simply can't be achieved by tweets, unless one is willing to be viewed as an unreconstructed adolescent. So, like it or not, Trump- if he wishes to be taken seriously by those beyond his cartoon tweet and re-tweet community - will have to put on his big boy pants and put the Twitter away. Better yet, give his phone to Melania for safe keeping.

What has been immensely gratifying  was to finally see the Obama White House basically deliver a nice middle finger salute following Trump's original demand for UN veto tweet. Even if the WH and Trump camp haven't yet broken into open warfare, it was a gesture that warmed the cockles of every true liberal's heart.. Much of the blame of course must be on the twittering twit himself  who continues to demonstrate zero control of his impulses - a worrisome sign for a guy who will soon control the nuclear codes.

Of course, some academic dingbats - like Douglas G. Brinkley, a professor of history and a presidential historian at Rice University in Houston, have totally misinterpreted what's going on. Brinkley has insisted "Trump is neutering the Obama administration". But seriously, you can't "neuter" a sitting President using a device more apropos of horny adolescents eager to meet up with hot chicks. It just doesn't compute or work, unless these electronic burps are taken seriously, which no one in his right mind should - including Brinkley. The only one Trump is really neutering is himself, intellectually and by way of perception, because a serious "neuterer" would use the vehicle of a press conference, not a Twitter account.

Brinkley also hit the wrong note when he was quoted (by the NY Times) as saying:

"They’ve avoided personally attacking each other, but behind the scenes, they’re working to undermine each other, and I don’t know how the American people benefit from that.”

Uh, no, they can't, Brinkley. But for God's sakes put the situation in the proper framework as opposed to a "tail wags the dog" context.   It reminds me of another pretend historian - Robert Dallek - who once blurted about JFK (at least a tweet might be understandable): 'Why do we admire a president who did so little?'   Basically forgetting how Kennedy, by standing up to the Joint Chiefs during the peak of the October, 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis - prevented a nuclear exchange that would have left most of the world in ashes.

In this case of Brinkley's misfire, it is Trump working to undermine Obama, by interjecting himself into serious policy issues and matters when he has no standing to do so, none. Being "President -Elect" doesn't count.  So the true matter is that the American people are definitely not benefiting from Trump/s constant impulsive expulsions- especially on nuclear matters. Why this should be so difficult for a historian to grasp is beyond me, but hey- maybe they're no longer required to take logic courses en route to their advanced degrees.

If one isn't distracted by Trump's tweets, as no rational person (especially a historian) should be, then it makes eminent sense for Obama to conduct policy as he sees fit - without having to explain himself to a smarmy ass "backseat driver" with the impulses of a 3-year old. Thus,  on Tuesday Obama's administration  announced a permanent ban on offshore oil and gas drilling along wide areas of the Arctic and the Eastern Seaboard, invoking an obscure provision of a 1953 law, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. The administration  was also correct to claim that Trump had no power to reverse it. Technically he doesn't, but don't be surprised if the Trump Brigade and GOP accomplices find a whole raft of ways to overturn existing laws and precedents.

It is sad that a presidential transition has come to this: A petty, infantile narcissist with the emotional IQ of a sullen three year old, dispatching random tweets on a current administration's policy - each one  taken as holy writ by the media and even historians. If this is to be the template for the next four years, we are all in a deep sack of shit and probably can't rely on any public institutions to retain sanity. But never mind, I will expose nonsense, hijinks and inimical agendas, plans whenever I see them.

See also:

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/john-stanton/70454/emperor-twitteritus-trumparonious-birth-on-total-lunar-eclipse-666-signs