iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-05-07--Through A Glass, Weekly

Through A Glass, Weekly

A couple of days ago , I got to looking at the daily record of US deaths from the coronavirus .
It ’ s shown in Figure 1 below : Figure 1 .
US daily deaths .
Created on May 5 , but shows May 4th data .
So … have the US deaths peaked , and if so when ?
Hard to tell .
However , I looked at that graph in Figure 1 and I thought “ It looks like the data might be reflecting lower counts on the weekends ” .
Now , my go-to method for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amplitude of underlying repeating cycles in a dataset is the curious method called “ CEEMD ” .
That stands for Complete Ensemble Empirical Mode Decomposition .
I discuss the method here .
It is a way to decompose a signal into underlying signals .
It ’ s called “ complete ” because when you add all the underlying signals back together , it gives you back the original signal .
Once all possible underlying cycles have been removed from the data , what remains is called the “ CEEMD Residual ” .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overall trend of the data .
Here is an overview of the CEEMD decomposition of the daily deaths data shown in Figure 1 .
Figure 2 .
CEEMD complete decomposition of the data shown in Figure 1 .
The top panel is the raw data .
Panels C1 to C4 are the empirical modes .
Finally , at the bottom is the CEEMD residual .
As you can see , two of the four empirical modes ( C2 and C4 ) are weak , with very low amplitude .
Modes C1 and C3 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a much stronger signal .
We can see the periods and strengths of each of the empirical modes C1-C4 in Figure 3 , which shows the periodogram of each of the empirical modes C1-C4 .
Figure 3 .
Periodograms of each of the empirical modes shown in Figure 2 .
The strongest signal is the seven-day signal , showing that my guess about weekends was likely correct .
There is also a significant amount of energy in the first overtone of the 7-day signal , with a period of 3.5 days .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in practice ?
Here is the same data as in Figure 1 , along with the CEEMD residual .
Figure 4 .
US daily deaths , along with the CEEMD residual .
Data from May 4th , analyzed May 6th .
Well , I ’ d have to say that that looks like good news … it would be excellent if we were indeed 20 days past the peak .
And here is a look with the underlying 7-day signal overlaid on the daily data .
Figure 5 .
As in Figure 4 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mode signal ( Mode C3 ) .
The overlaid empirical mode C3 is shown for illustrative purposes only .
You can see that when the empirical mode is added to the residual it will be a good match to the data .
This is a most interesting result .
It shows one of the reasons that I use the CEEMD analysis—it breaks the raw data down into meaningful underlying signals .
In this case , early in the spread of the virus at the left-hand side of the graph , the 7-day signal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But now that there are a large number of deaths the 7-day signal is much larger .
It is this kind of a result that is unobtainable by say standard Fourier analysis .
Finally , I prefer the CEEMD residual method over say a Gaussian smooth because it goes all of the way out to both the start and finish of the data .
Not only that , but the information out near the ends is meaningful .
Here ’ s a comparison of the CEEMD residual with a Gaussian filter .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ CEEMD residual , and 7-day Full-Width to Half Maximum ( FWHM ) Gaussian smooth of the data .
This is data from May 4th , processed on May 6th .
Treatment of the Gaussian smooth near the endpoints is discussed in the Appendix here .
As you can see , the Gaussian smooth is high at the start of the daily deaths data , and low at the end of the data .
The Gaussian smooth is dropping at the right-hand end , and the CEEMD Residual is turning upwards .
And two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ situation : Figure 7 .
More recent data , from May 6th , daily deaths and CEEMD Residual At the right-hand end of the graph , the CEEMD residual was already foreshadowing the turn from decreasing to increasing , at the same time that the Gaussian smoothing was wrongly indicating a further decrease ( see Figure 6 ) .
As I said , the CEEMD residual contains important information out at the ends .
Conclusions ?
Well , my first one would be that attempting to analyze coronavirus death data without removing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I ’ ll call it “ overly optimistic ” and leave it there .
My next conclusion is that the CEEMD residual is an excellent indicator of the ever-changing and oft-deceptive central tendency in time series data .
Next , about a week ago the CDC changed its guidance on the reporting of deaths involving the COVID virus .
Rather than make an explicit distinction between deaths WITH coronavirus and deaths FROM coronavirus , they said to enter COVID-19 on the death certificate if the physician SUSPECTS that the coronavirus MIGHT have CONTRIBUTED @ @ @ @ @ @ @ virus might have contributed ” to the death ?
?
?
Could they possibly be more vague ?
The size of the effect of this change on the way the US reports the death count is unknown , but it can only increase the purported count , not decrease the count .
As a result , we can not be sure that the increase in deaths is real and not just a change in reporting Finally , it appears that the US has peaked in terms of daily deaths .
Might be another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more peaks , might be no more peaks , but in any case but it appears we ’ ve passed the first peak .
Stay well , dear friends .
When I was a young man , an old geezer ( who was likely about my age now ) told me “ Son , when you have your health you have everything !
” PLEASE : Quote the exact words you are discussing in your comment .
This avoids endless misunderstandings and problems .

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
A couple of days ago, I got to looking at the daily record of US deaths from the coronavirus. It’s shown in Figure 1 below:
Figure 1. US daily deaths. Created on May 5, but shows May 4th data.
So … have the US deaths peaked, and if so when? Hard to tell. However, I looked at that graph in Figure 1 and I thought “It looks like the data might be reflecting lower counts on the weekends”.
Now, my go-to method for determining the existence, period, and amplitude of underlying repeating cycles in a dataset is the curious method called “CEEMD”. That stands for Complete Ensemble Empirical Mode Decomposition. I discuss the method here. It is a way to decompose a signal into underlying signals. It’s called “complete” because when you add all the underlying signals back together, it gives you back the original signal.
Once all possible underlying cycles have been removed from the data, what remains is called the “CEEMD Residual”. This residual is an excellent indicator of the overall trend of the data. Here is an overview of the CEEMD decomposition of the daily deaths data shown in Figure 1.
Figure 2. CEEMD complete decomposition of the data shown in Figure 1. The top panel is the raw data. Panels C1 to C4 are the empirical modes. Finally, at the bottom is the CEEMD residual.
As you can see, two of the four empirical modes (C2 and C4) are weak, with very low amplitude. Modes C1 and C3, on the other hand, show a much stronger signal. We can see the periods and strengths of each of the empirical modes C1-C4 in Figure 3, which shows the periodogram of each of the empirical modes C1-C4.
Figure 3. Periodograms of each of the empirical modes shown in Figure 2. The strongest signal is the seven-day signal, showing that my guess about weekends was likely correct. There is also a significant amount of energy in the first overtone of the 7-day signal, with a period of 3.5 days.
So … how does this analysis work out in practice? Here is the same data as in Figure 1, along with the CEEMD residual.
Figure 4. US daily deaths, along with the CEEMD residual. Data from May 4th, analyzed May 6th.
Well, I’d have to say that that looks like good news … it would be excellent if we were indeed 20 days past the peak.
And here is a look with the underlying 7-day signal overlaid on the daily data.
Figure 5. As in Figure 4, but overlaid with the seven-day empirical mode signal (Mode C3). The overlaid empirical mode C3 is shown for illustrative purposes only. You can see that when the empirical mode is added to the residual it will be a good match to the data.
This is a most interesting result. It shows one of the reasons that I use the CEEMD analysis—it breaks the raw data down into meaningful underlying signals. In this case, early in the spread of the virus at the left-hand side of the graph, the 7-day signal (blue line) was quite small. But now that there are a large number of deaths the 7-day signal is much larger. It is this kind of a result that is unobtainable by say standard Fourier analysis.
Finally, I prefer the CEEMD residual method over say a Gaussian smooth because it goes all of the way out to both the start and finish of the data. Not only that, but the information out near the ends is meaningful. Here’s a comparison of the CEEMD residual with a Gaussian filter.
Figure 6. Daily US deaths, CEEMD residual, and 7-day Full-Width to Half Maximum (FWHM) Gaussian smooth of the data. This is data from May 4th, processed on May 6th. Treatment of the Gaussian smooth near the endpoints is discussed in the Appendix here.
As you can see, the Gaussian smooth is high at the start of the daily deaths data, and low at the end of the data. The Gaussian smooth is dropping at the right-hand end, and the CEEMD Residual is turning upwards.
And two days later, here’s the situation:
Figure 7. More recent data, from May 6th, daily deaths and CEEMD Residual
At the right-hand end of the graph, the CEEMD residual was already foreshadowing the turn from decreasing to increasing, at the same time that the Gaussian smoothing was wrongly indicating a further decrease (see Figure 6). As I said, the CEEMD residual contains important information out at the ends.
Conclusions? Well, my first one would be that attempting to analyze coronavirus death data without removing the repeating weekly variations is … well, I’ll call it “overly optimistic” and leave it there.
My next conclusion is that the CEEMD residual is an excellent indicator of the ever-changing and oft-deceptive central tendency in time series data.
Next, about a week ago the CDC changed its guidance on the reporting of deaths involving the COVID virus. Rather than make an explicit distinction between deaths WITH coronavirus and deaths FROM coronavirus, they said to enter COVID-19 on the death certificate if the physician SUSPECTS that the coronavirus MIGHT have CONTRIBUTED to the death … “suspects the virus might have contributed” to the death??? Could they possibly be more vague?
The size of the effect of this change on the way the US reports the death count is unknown, but it can only increase the purported count, not decrease the count. As a result, we cannot be sure that the increase in deaths is real and not just a change in reporting
Finally, it appears that the US has peaked in terms of daily deaths. Might be another peak to come, might be two more peaks, might be no more peaks, but in any case but it appears we’ve passed the first peak.
Stay well, dear friends. When I was a young man, an old geezer (who was likely about my age now) told me “Son, when you have your health you have everything!”
But back then, I didn’t understand …
w.
PLEASE: Quote the exact words you are discussing in your comment. This avoids endless misunderstandings and problems.


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-05-07--Aussie Resources Minister on the Green Covid-19 Recovery: “Coal can power the restart”

The global academic and mainstream media campaign for Covid-19 recovery funds to be spent on useless green energy projects just received a major setback .
Coal can power the restart , not divestment : Pitt Federal Resources Minister Keith Pitt has lashed the ” misguided ” lenders that have vowed to abandon coal , saying new mining and energy projects will be crucial in waking the economy from its coronavirus slumber .
Mr Pitt urged lenders to act in the best interests of their “ bottom lines ” and shareholders , saying Australia needed to get as many resources projects @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this included further thermal coal mines in Queensland ’ s Galilee Basin , where Adani is building the $ 2 billion Carmichael project .
” Every single job in the future is critical and needs to be delivered , so whatever we have in our project list , we need to get over the line , functional , operational , and paying Australians to go to work , ” he said .
” Adani is another great project for Australia as we move into an economic recovery phase from COVID .
We are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other resource developments to get us back to a pre-COVID footing .
” It is disappointing that some banks and financial institutions continue to indicate their intention to withdraw support for our resources sector through misguided ideological reasons to appease green shareholder activists .
I would strongly encourage them to look to their bottom lines and act in the best interests of all shareholders .
”

Guest essay by Eric Worrall
The global academic and mainstream media campaign for Covid-19 recovery funds to be spent on useless green energy projects just received a major setback.
Coal can power the restart, not divestment: Pitt
Peter Ker
Resources reporterMay 6, 2020 – 12.01am
Federal Resources Minister Keith Pitt has lashed the ”misguided” lenders that have vowed to abandon coal, saying new mining and energy projects will be crucial in waking the economy from its coronavirus slumber.
Mr Pitt urged lenders to act in the best interests of their “bottom lines” and shareholders, saying Australia needed to get as many resources projects into development as possible.
He said this included further thermal coal mines in Queensland’s Galilee Basin, where Adani is building the $2 billion Carmichael project.
…
”Every single job in the future is critical and needs to be delivered, so whatever we have in our project list, we need to get over the line, functional, operational, and paying Australians to go to work,” he said.
”Adani is another great project for Australia as we move into an economic recovery phase from COVID. We are going to need more Carmichael mines and other resource developments to get us back to a pre-COVID footing.
”It is disappointing that some banks and financial institutions continue to indicate their intention to withdraw support for our resources sector through misguided ideological reasons to appease green shareholder activists. I would strongly encourage them to look to their bottom lines and act in the best interests of all shareholders.”
…


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-05-07--Like sabotage? The UK has locked down its people but still has open borders

Figure that UK residents can be fined for gathering in a group of three in the park across the road , but can legally travel to Tehran or Moscow if they reckon it ’ s essential ( though the Russians might not let you in ) .
Coronavirus is raging in Moscow but Russians can fly to Heathrow for a bargain next week .
For seven weeks of lockdown people have been flying straight in without even a temperature check .
Though Healthrow just announced it will trial some thermometers and ask people to wear masks .
Bravo , eh @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their homes but letting planes come and go is so bizarrely strange it didn ’ t even occur to me .
The US appears largely the same The good news is this explains why the UK is stuck in Viral-Neverland , with cases not declining , despite the lockdown .
It ’ s something that can be fixed .
The bad news is that Brits have been wasting weeks in lockdown running to stand still , instead of crushing the curve .
The awful news is that it says something dreadful about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rot run deeps in the hallowed institutions .
In the UK , 18 million people arrived from [ … ]

Figure that UK residents can be fined for gathering in a group of three in the park across the road, but can legally travel to Tehran or Moscow if they reckon it’s essential (though the Russians might not let you in). Coronavirus is raging in Moscow but Russians can fly to Heathrow for a bargain next week.
For seven weeks of lockdown people have been flying straight in without even a temperature check. Though Healthrow just announced it will trial some thermometers and ask people to wear masks. Bravo, eh?
The idea of keeping people in their homes but letting planes come and go is so bizarrely strange it didn’t even occur to me.
The US appears largely the same
The good news is this explains why the UK is stuck in Viral-Neverland, with cases not declining, despite the lockdown. It’s something that can be fixed. The bad news is that Brits have been wasting weeks in lockdown running to stand still, instead of crushing the curve.
The awful news is that it says something dreadful about the health advice Boris is getting. The rot run deeps in the hallowed institutions.
In the UK, 18 million people arrived from […]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
via JoNova
https://ift.tt/3ceJYfI
May 7, 2020 at 01:55PM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-05-07--CCC Warns Govt Over Coronavirus Climate Trap

Harrabin gives the latest advice from the Committee on Climate Change ( CCC ) the usual uncritical coverage .
Note the wording under the photo : The government faces a post-lockdown choice between green growth or propping up polluting industries If that is deliberately disingenuous , I don ’ t know what is !
The UK must avoid lurching from the coronavirus crisis into a deeper climate crisis , the government ’ s advisers have warned .
They recommend that ministers ensure funds earmarked for a post-Covid-19 economic recovery go to firms that will reduce carbon emissions .
They say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ possible ; and to walk or cycle .
And investment should prioritise broadband over road-building , the Committee on Climate Change ( CCC ) says .
People should also be encouraged to save emissions by continuing to consult GPs online .
The government will reply later , although the Energy Secretary Alok Sharma has already spoken in favour of a green recovery to the recession .
In a letter to the Prime Minister , the committee says jobless people should be re-trained for work in geographically-spread labour-intensive “ green ” industries such as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ restoration .
It makes a veiled reference to the current discussions over a potential government bailout to save jobs in aviation , which is struggling in the crisis .
The letter says : “ Many sectors of the UK economy do not currently bear the full costs of emitting greenhouse gases .
Revenue could be raised by setting or raising carbon prices for these sectors.
” Green groups say any bailout should include a condition that the industry shrinks until it finds a technological solution to its carbon emissions .
The letter also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ risk .
It says the Covid-19 crisis has highlighted inequalities , with poorer people more in danger .
The committee notes : “ The response to the pandemic has disproportionately affected the same lower-income groups and younger people – who face the largest long-term impacts of climate change .
“ The benefits of acting on climate change must be shared widely , and the costs must not burden those who are least able to pay or whose livelihoods are most at risk as the economy changes .
“ It is important that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be replaced by those created by the new , resilient economy.
” The committee says the government must produce policies that allow the UK to reduce emissions to Net Zero in an orderly way – unlike the chaos of the Covid-19 crisis .
The CCC Chairman , Lord Deben , said : “ The Covid-19 crisis has shown the importance of planning well for the risks the country faces .
“ Recovery means investing in new jobs , cleaner air and improved health .
The actions needed to tackle climate change are central @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government must prioritise actions that reduce climate risks and avoid measures that lock-in higher emissions.
” The reason , of course , is to save the planet , as Deben explains : But Britain only accounts for 1 % of the world ’ s emissions of carbon dioxide , so whatever we do will have no effect on the world ’ s weather whatsoever .
There is a lot of twaddle in the report , but the core proposal is to pour whatever bail out money there is into “ green ” industries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economy to fend for itself .
This logic , however , is fundamentally flawed .
The CCC talk about home insulation , tree planting and peatland restoration as examples .
But these have little or no economic value .
If families are struggling to put food on the table , it won ’ t be much consolation to know that peatlands have been restored !
Home insulation may , in theory , save a tiny amount on energy bills , but studies regularly show that the cost of installing serious insulation is far @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all of these jobs have to be paid for by somebody , making the country poorer as a result .
The CCC even have the nerve to suggest that jobless workers should be retrained to work in these “ labour intensive green industries ” .
Try telling a skilled , well paid employee in , say , an oil refinery or car factory that he has got to relocate to the Highlands to plant trees !
As a country , we have to import much of what we need , including food .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ we have no exporting industry left ?
Harrabin makes a particular reference to aviation , suggesting that any bailout should include a condition that the industry shrinks .
But this would simply mean that overseas airlines took up the slack , along with thousands of jobs .
Other proposals include working from home , or walking and cycling to work .
It may well be that the coronavirus encourages more homeworking , as employers find their fears assuaged .
But governments can not order this .
Besides , the vast majority of jobs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And very few people live within walking or cycling distance of their work .
The CCC also want to prioritise broadband over road building .
But universal roll out of full fibre broadband is already happening .
That should not be allowed to prevent investment in the road network , which is vital for the nation ’ s productivity .
For some reason , the CCC ’ s letter also tackles “ broader social themes of fairness and risk ” .
Quite what this has to do with the CCC is beyond @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are well paid jobs and lower household bills .
They will be the ones who suffer most from higher energy bills , brought about by expensive renewable energy , which is already subsidised to the tune of £12bn a year .
And they will also be the ones who suffer most when they find their jobs have disappeared .
The stark reality is that there are few sectors of the economy which are not struggling financially as a result of the coronavirus .
Whatever bailout money is available must be used to keep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ road , thus protecting jobs and the contribution they make to the overall economy .
To let them go to the wall and instead throw money at worthless green hogwash would be sheer madness .
via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood
h/t Philip Bratby
Harrabin gives the latest advice from the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) the usual uncritical coverage. Note the wording under the photo:
The government faces a post-lockdown choice between green growth or propping up polluting industries
If that is deliberately disingenuous, I don’t know what is!
The UK must avoid lurching from the coronavirus crisis into a deeper climate crisis, the government’s advisers have warned.
They recommend that ministers ensure funds earmarked for a post-Covid-19 economic recovery go to firms that will reduce carbon emissions.
They say the public should work from home if possible; and to walk or cycle.
And investment should prioritise broadband over road-building, the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) says.
People should also be encouraged to save emissions by continuing to consult GPs online.
The government will reply later, although the Energy Secretary Alok Sharma has already spoken in favour of a green recovery to the recession.
In a letter to the Prime Minister, the committee says jobless people should be re-trained for work in geographically-spread labour-intensive “green” industries such as home insulation; tree-planting; and peatland restoration.
It makes a veiled reference to the current discussions over a potential government bailout to save jobs in aviation, which is struggling in the crisis.
The letter says: “Many sectors of the UK economy do not currently bear the full costs of emitting greenhouse gases. Revenue could be raised by setting or raising carbon prices for these sectors.”
Green groups say any bailout should include a condition that the industry shrinks until it finds a technological solution to its carbon emissions.
The letter also tackles broader social themes of fairness and risk.
It says the Covid-19 crisis has highlighted inequalities, with poorer people more in danger.
The committee notes: “The response to the pandemic has disproportionately affected the same lower-income groups and younger people – who face the largest long-term impacts of climate change.
“The benefits of acting on climate change must be shared widely, and the costs must not burden those who are least able to pay or whose livelihoods are most at risk as the economy changes.
“It is important that the lost or threatened jobs of today should be replaced by those created by the new, resilient economy.”
The committee says the government must produce policies that allow the UK to reduce emissions to Net Zero in an orderly way – unlike the chaos of the Covid-19 crisis.
The CCC Chairman, Lord Deben, said: “The Covid-19 crisis has shown the importance of planning well for the risks the country faces.
“Recovery means investing in new jobs, cleaner air and improved health. The actions needed to tackle climate change are central to rebuilding our economy.
“The government must prioritise actions that reduce climate risks and avoid measures that lock-in higher emissions.”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-52547885
The reason, of course, is to save the planet, as Deben explains:
“The government must prioritise actions that reduce climate risks “
But Britain only accounts for 1% of the world’s emissions of carbon dioxide, so whatever we do will have no effect on the world’s weather whatsoever.
There is a lot of twaddle in the report, but the core proposal is to pour whatever bail out money there is into “green” industries, and leave the rest of the economy to fend for itself.
This logic, however, is fundamentally flawed.
The CCC talk about home insulation, tree planting and peatland restoration as examples. But these have little or no economic value. If families are struggling to put food on the table, it won’t be much consolation to know that peatlands have been restored!
Home insulation may, in theory, save a tiny amount on energy bills, but studies regularly show that the cost of installing serious insulation is far greater than any benefits accruing.
And all of these jobs have to be paid for by somebody, making the country poorer as a result. The CCC even have the nerve to suggest that jobless workers should be retrained to work in these “labour intensive green industries”. Try telling a skilled, well paid employee in, say, an oil refinery or car factory that he has got to relocate to the Highlands to plant trees!
As a country, we have to import much of what we need, including food. How can we pay for that if we have no exporting industry left?
Harrabin makes a particular reference to aviation, suggesting that any bailout should include a condition that the industry shrinks. But this would simply mean that overseas airlines took up the slack, along with thousands of jobs.
Other proposals include working from home, or walking and cycling to work. It may well be that the coronavirus encourages more homeworking, as employers find their fears assuaged. But governments cannot order this. Besides, the vast majority of jobs cannot be carried out at home.
And very few people live within walking or cycling distance of their work.
The CCC also want to prioritise broadband over road building. But universal roll out of full fibre broadband is already happening. That should not be allowed to prevent investment in the road network, which is vital for the nation’s productivity.
For some reason, the CCC’s letter also tackles “broader social themes of fairness and risk”. Quite what this has to do with the CCC is beyond me. Nevertheless what poorer people need are well paid jobs and lower household bills.
They will be the ones who suffer most from higher energy bills, brought about by expensive renewable energy, which is already subsidised to the tune of £12bn a year. And they will also be the ones who suffer most when they find their jobs have disappeared.
The stark reality is that there are few sectors of the economy which are not struggling financially as a result of the coronavirus. Whatever bailout money is available must be used to keep these otherwise perfectly viable companies on the road, thus protecting jobs and the contribution they make to the overall economy.
To let them go to the wall and instead throw money at worthless green hogwash would be sheer madness.
via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
https://ift.tt/2WbBGzo
May 7, 2020 at 01:15PM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-05-07--Scientists explain magnetic pole’s wanderings

They have a go at doing so , anyway .
To make it more complicated , the South Magnetic Pole is also moving , but at a much lesser rate .
European scientists think they can now describe with confidence what ’ s driving the drift of the North Magnetic Pole , says BBC News .
It ’ s shifted in recent years away from Canada towards Siberia .
And this rapid movement has required more frequent updates to navigation systems , including those that operate the mapping functions in smartphones .
A team , led from Leeds University , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ competition of two magnetic “ blobs ” on the edge of the Earth ’ s outer core .
Changes in the flow of molten material in the planet ’ s interior have altered the strength of the above regions of negative magnetic flux .
“ This change in the pattern of flow has weakened the patch under Canada and ever so slightly increased the strength of the patch under Siberia , ” explained Dr Phil Livermore .
“ This is why the North Pole has left its historic position over the Canadian Arctic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Northern Russia is winning the ‘ tug of war ’ , if you like , ” he told BBC News .
Earth has three poles at the top of the planet .
A geographic pole which is where the planet ’ s rotation axis intersects the surface .
The geomagnetic pole is the location which best fits a classic dipole ( its position alters little ) .
And then there is the North Magnetic , or dip , Pole , which is where field lines are perpendicular to the surface .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doing all the movement .
When first identified by explorer James Clark Ross in the 1830s , it was in Canada ’ s Nunavut territory .
Back then it didn ’ t wander very far , very fast .
But in the 1990s , it took off , racing to ever higher latitudes and crossing the date line in late 2017 .
In the process , it came to within just a few hundred kilometres of the geographic pole .
Using data from satellites that have measured the evolving shape of Earth ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years , Dr Livermore and colleagues have attempted to model the North Magnetic Pole ’ s wanderings .

They have a go at doing so, anyway. To make it more complicated, the South Magnetic Pole is also moving, but at a much lesser rate.
European scientists think they can now describe with confidence what’s driving the drift of the North Magnetic Pole, says BBC News.
It’s shifted in recent years away from Canada towards Siberia.
And this rapid movement has required more frequent updates to navigation systems, including those that operate the mapping functions in smartphones.
A team, led from Leeds University, says the behaviour is explained by the competition of two magnetic “blobs” on the edge of the Earth’s outer core.
Changes in the flow of molten material in the planet’s interior have altered the strength of the above regions of negative magnetic flux.
“This change in the pattern of flow has weakened the patch under Canada and ever so slightly increased the strength of the patch under Siberia,” explained Dr Phil Livermore.
“This is why the North Pole has left its historic position over the Canadian Arctic and crossed over the International Date Line. Northern Russia is winning the ‘tug of war’, if you like,” he told BBC News.
Earth has three poles at the top of the planet. A geographic pole which is where the planet’s rotation axis intersects the surface. The geomagnetic pole is the location which best fits a classic dipole (its position alters little). And then there is the North Magnetic, or dip, Pole, which is where field lines are perpendicular to the surface.
It is this third pole that has been doing all the movement.
When first identified by explorer James Clark Ross in the 1830s, it was in Canada’s Nunavut territory.
Back then it didn’t wander very far, very fast. But in the 1990s, it took off, racing to ever higher latitudes and crossing the date line in late 2017. In the process, it came to within just a few hundred kilometres of the geographic pole.
Using data from satellites that have measured the evolving shape of Earth’s magnetic field over the past 20 years, Dr Livermore and colleagues have attempted to model the North Magnetic Pole’s wanderings.
Continued here.
via Tallbloke’s Talkshop
https://ift.tt/35M78rh
May 7, 2020 at 01:00PM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-05-07--Claim: Antarctic Sea Ice Growth Caused by Meltwater

According to climate scientists , less dense meltwater on the surface of the Antarctic ocean reduced convection between the surface and ocean depths , leaving heat trapped in the depths .
One small area of ocean not changed by global warming Climate and marine scientists are observing pervasive warming of the ocean and the land surfaces across the globe .
Since the middle of the 19th century , the average global temperature recorded on the land surface has risen by around one degree centigrade , and by 0.6 degrees across the ocean surface .
Global warming has been most pronounced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
A few years ago , Haumann and Gruber and various colleagues already discovered the reason for this expansion of sea ice in the Southern Ocean .
They noticed that stronger southerly winds over this period propelled more of the sea ice that is being formed along the coast out into the open sea , enhancing the melting there .
The resulting stronger conveyor belt enhanced the transport of freshwater from near the continent out into the open ocean .
This is because when sea ice is being formed from seawater , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the sea ice melts in the summer well away from the coast , the freshwater is released into the surface , reducing the salinity of the seawater there .
This reduction in surface salinity strengthened the vertical stratification of the seawater : the fresher , and in this part of the ocean lighter water stays in the upper 100 m , while the denser saltier water remains below .
In general , the saltier and colder the water , the greater its density and the greater its depth in the ocean .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between the deeper layers and the surface water , causing the heat to remain trapped at depth .
In addition , the air above the Southern Ocean during winter is generally colder than the temperature of the seawater .
Combined with the reduction of the vertical exchange of heat in the ocean , this ultimately created the observed situation where the surface water cooled and the subsurface warmed .
In addition , the current study went only up to 2011 .
“ We have observed a trend reversal since 2015 .
The sea @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to recede at a rapid rate , ” says the ETH Professor .
“ And this is very much in line with the overall trend of continuing global warming.
“

Guest essay by Eric Worrall
According to climate scientists, less dense meltwater on the surface of the Antarctic ocean reduced convection between the surface and ocean depths, leaving heat trapped in the depths.
One small area of ocean not changed by global warming
Date:May 6, 2020
…
Climate and marine scientists are observing pervasive warming of the ocean and the land surfaces across the globe. Since the middle of the 19th century, the average global temperature recorded on the land surface has risen by around one degree centigrade, and by 0.6 degrees across the ocean surface. Global warming has been most pronounced in the alpine regions and the Arctic.
…
A few years ago, Haumann and Gruber and various colleagues already discovered the reason for this expansion of sea ice in the Southern Ocean. They noticed that stronger southerly winds over this period propelled more of the sea ice that is being formed along the coast out into the open sea, enhancing the melting there. The resulting stronger conveyor belt enhanced the transport of freshwater from near the continent out into the open ocean. This is because when sea ice is being formed from seawater, the salt is left behind, whereas when the sea ice melts in the summer well away from the coast, the freshwater is released into the surface, reducing the salinity of the seawater there.
This reduction in surface salinity strengthened the vertical stratification of the seawater: the fresher, and in this part of the ocean lighter water stays in the upper 100 m, while the denser saltier water remains below. In general, the saltier and colder the water, the greater its density and the greater its depth in the ocean.
Smaller heat exchange between the water layers
The stronger stratification reduced the exchange of heat between the deeper layers and the surface water, causing the heat to remain trapped at depth. In addition, the air above the Southern Ocean during winter is generally colder than the temperature of the seawater. Combined with the reduction of the vertical exchange of heat in the ocean, this ultimately created the observed situation where the surface water cooled and the subsurface warmed.
…
In addition, the current study went only up to 2011. “We have observed a trend reversal since 2015. The sea ice around the Antarctic is now starting to recede at a rapid rate,” says the ETH Professor. “And this is very much in line with the overall trend of continuing global warming.“


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-05-07--Global Land & Ocean Air Cooling in April

With apologies to Paul Revere , this post is on the lookout for cooler weather with an eye on both the Land and the Sea .
UAH has updated their tlt ( temperatures in lower troposphere ) dataset for April 2020 .
Previously I have done posts on their reading of ocean air temps as a prelude to updated records from HADSST3 .
This month also has a separate graph of land air temps because the comparisons and contrasts are interesting as we contemplate possible cooling in coming months and years .
Presently sea surface temperatures ( SST ) are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gained or lost from earth ’ s climate system .
Enthalpy is the thermodynamic term for total heat content in a system , and humidity differences in air parcels affect enthalpy .
Measuring water temperature directly avoids distorted impressions from air measurements .
In addition , ocean covers 71 % of the planet surface and thus dominates surface temperature estimates .
Eventually we will likely have reliable means of recording water temperatures at depth .
Recently , Dr. Ole Humlum reported from his research that air temperatures lag 2-3 months behind changes in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in CO2 atmospheric concentrations lag behind SST by 11-12 months .
This latter point is addressed in a previous post Who to Blame for Rising CO2 ?
HadSST3 results were delayed with February and March updates only appearing together end of last month .
For comparison we can look at lower troposphere temperatures ( TLT ) from UAHv6 which are now posted for April .
The temperature record is derived from microwave sounding units ( MSU ) on board satellites like the one pictured above .
The UAH dataset includes temperature results for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should be most comparable to the SSTs .
There is the additional feature that ocean air temps avoid Urban Heat Islands ( UHI ) .
In 2015 there was a change in UAH processing of satellite drift corrections , including dropping one platform which can no longer be corrected .
The graphs below are taken from the new and current dataset , Version 6.0 .
The graph above shows monthly anomalies for ocean temps since January 2015 .
After all regions peaked with the ElNino in early 2016 , the ocean air temps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same low anomaly August 2018 .
Then a warming phase ensued which seems now to peak in February 2020 .
As was the case in 2015-16 , the warming was driven by the Tropics and NH , with SH lagging behind .
We sometimes overlook that in climate temperature records , while the oceans are measured directly with SSTs , land temps are measured only indirectly .
The land temperature records at surface stations sample air temps at 2 meters above ground .
UAH gives tlt anomalies for air over land separately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ updated for February 2020 is below .
Here we have freash evidence of the greater volatility of the Land temperatures , along with extraordinary departures , first by NH land with SH often offsetting .
The overall pattern is similar to the ocean air temps , but obviously driven by NH with its greater amount of land surface .
The Tropics synchronized with NH for the 2016 event , but otherwise follow a contrary rhythm .
SH seems to vary wildly , especially in recent months .
Note the extremely high anomaly last @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and then again a spike in April .
With its smaller land mass , SH fluctuations have less impact on the Global results .
The longer term picture from UAH is a return to the mean for the period starting with 1995 .
2019 average rose but currently lacks any El Nino to sustain it .
TLTs include mixing above the oceans and probably some influence from nearby more volatile land temps .
Clearly NH and Global land temps have been dropping in a seesaw pattern , more than 1C lower than the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ several months .
TLT measures started the recent cooling later than SSTs from HadSST3 , but are now showing the same pattern .
It seems obvious that despite the three El Ninos , their warming has not persisted , and without them it would probably have cooled since 1995 .
Of course , the future has not yet been written .

With apologies to Paul Revere, this post is on the lookout for cooler weather with an eye on both the Land and the Sea. UAH has updated their tlt (temperatures in lower troposphere) dataset for April 2020. Previously I have done posts on their reading of ocean air temps as a prelude to updated records from HADSST3. This month also has a separate graph of land air temps because the comparisons and contrasts are interesting as we contemplate possible cooling in coming months and years.
Presently sea surface temperatures (SST) are the best available indicator of heat content gained or lost from earth’s climate system. Enthalpy is the thermodynamic term for total heat content in a system, and humidity differences in air parcels affect enthalpy. Measuring water temperature directly avoids distorted impressions from air measurements. In addition, ocean covers 71% of the planet surface and thus dominates surface temperature estimates. Eventually we will likely have reliable means of recording water temperatures at depth.
Recently, Dr. Ole Humlum reported from his research that air temperatures lag 2-3 months behind changes in SST. He also observed that changes in CO2 atmospheric concentrations lag behind SST by 11-12 months. This latter point is addressed in a previous post Who to Blame for Rising CO2?
HadSST3 results were delayed with February and March updates only appearing together end of last month. For comparison we can look at lower troposphere temperatures (TLT) from UAHv6 which are now posted for April. The temperature record is derived from microwave sounding units (MSU) on board satellites like the one pictured above.
The UAH dataset includes temperature results for air above the oceans, and thus should be most comparable to the SSTs. There is the additional feature that ocean air temps avoid Urban Heat Islands (UHI). In 2015 there was a change in UAH processing of satellite drift corrections, including dropping one platform which can no longer be corrected. The graphs below are taken from the new and current dataset, Version 6.0.
The graph above shows monthly anomalies for ocean temps since January 2015. After all regions peaked with the ElNino in early 2016, the ocean air temps dropped back down with all regions showing the same low anomaly August 2018. Then a warming phase ensued which seems now to peak in February 2020. As was the case in 2015-16, the warming was driven by the Tropics and NH, with SH lagging behind.
Land Air Temperatures Showing a Seesaw Pattern
We sometimes overlook that in climate temperature records, while the oceans are measured directly with SSTs, land temps are measured only indirectly. The land temperature records at surface stations sample air temps at 2 meters above ground. UAH gives tlt anomalies for air over land separately from ocean air temps. The graph updated for February 2020 is below.
Here we have freash evidence of the greater volatility of the Land temperatures, along with extraordinary departures, first by NH land with SH often offsetting. The overall pattern is similar to the ocean air temps, but obviously driven by NH with its greater amount of land surface. The Tropics synchronized with NH for the 2016 event, but otherwise follow a contrary rhythm. SH seems to vary wildly, especially in recent months. Note the extremely high anomaly last November, cold in March 2020, and then again a spike in April. With its smaller land mass, SH fluctuations have less impact on the Global results.
The longer term picture from UAH is a return to the mean for the period starting with 1995. 2019 average rose but currently lacks any El Nino to sustain it.
TLTs include mixing above the oceans and probably some influence from nearby more volatile land temps. Clearly NH and Global land temps have been dropping in a seesaw pattern, more than 1C lower than the 2016 peak, prior to these last several months. TLT measures started the recent cooling later than SSTs from HadSST3, but are now showing the same pattern. It seems obvious that despite the three El Ninos, their warming has not persisted, and without them it would probably have cooled since 1995. Of course, the future has not yet been written.
via Science Matters
https://ift.tt/2xITx7F
May 7, 2020 at 09:56AM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-05-07--Victoria – Coldest in 60 years forecast

Victoria – Coldest in 60 years forecast

Of course the media calls it a ‘ cold snap.
’ A complex multi-centred low pressure system has converged on Australia , causing both record-breaking rain and in Victoria and the coldest in 60 years .
April 30 was set to be the coldest day , with parts of northern South Australia , northwest NSW and southwest Queensland forecast to record their coldest April day since the 1960s or 70s .
Meteorologist Dr Adam Morgan said maximum temperatures could plunge between 8C-14C below average for this time of year .
“ This is a very strong and widespread cold outbreak @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Meanwhile Victoria has been pummeled by record-breaking rainfall .
Melbourne ’ s 2020 totals have already reached almost 400mm — surpassing the total amount for last year .
The Bureau of Meteorology also warned blizzards were likely in alpine areas above 1800m from Thursday evening .
Queensland cold breaks 30-year-old record in state ’ s south In outback Queensland , Thargomindah yesterday broke the 1989 record for the coldest April day when the maximum temperature only reached 18.5C .
Birdsville also beat its 2015 record with a 20.6C day , and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ day , with 18.9C , since monitoring began there 18 years ago .
Thanks to Thomas Krassman for these links The post Victoria – Coldest in 60 years forecast appeared first on Ice Age Now .

Of course the media calls it a ‘cold snap.’
A complex multi-centred low pressure system has converged on Australia, causing both record-breaking rain and in Victoria and the coldest in 60 years.
April 30 was set to be the coldest day, with parts of northern South Australia, northwest NSW and southwest Queensland forecast to record their coldest April day since the 1960s or 70s.
Meteorologist Dr Adam Morgan said maximum temperatures could plunge between 8C-14C below average for this time of year.
“This is a very strong and widespread cold outbreak across southeast Australia,” he said.
Meanwhile Victoria has been pummeled by record-breaking rainfall.
Melbourne’s 2020 totals have already reached almost 400mm — surpassing the total amount for last year.
The Bureau of Meteorology also warned blizzards were likely in alpine areas above 1800m from Thursday evening.
https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/nsw-sa-victoria-weather-coldest-temperatures-in-60-years-forecast/news-story/25e2f245da5f383a277133b5e4d7563c
Queensland cold breaks 30-year-old record in state’s south
In outback Queensland, Thargomindah yesterday broke the 1989 record for the coldest April day when the maximum temperature only reached 18.5C.
Birdsville also beat its 2015 record with a 20.6C day, and the Ballera Gas Fields had its coldest April day, with 18.9C, since monitoring began there 18 years ago.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-05-01/bom-brisbane-weather-queensland-southern-downs-record-cold-snap/12204438
Thanks to Thomas Krassman for these links
The post Victoria – Coldest in 60 years forecast appeared first on Ice Age Now.
via Ice Age Now
https://ift.tt/3bcpsLd
May 7, 2020 at 09:07AM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-05-07--Oil Is Critical To U.S. Survival: Why China Is Pushing The Paris Agreement (On Their Rivals)

China has a strong vested interest in ensuring that the world adheres to the Paris Accords , which effectively limit fossil fuel use .
All the while the PRC clearly does not adhere to those Accords , which it champions for everyone but itself .
One more word on Beijing ’ s plans leading up to , and during , the 2020 crisis .
This crisis was to be the pivotal point for the Communist Party of China .
If the People ’ s Republic of China ( PRC ) could not compete economically with the U.S. under the terms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rules-based world order ” , then those terms of engagement would have to be changed .
If the PRC economy could not grow in terms defined by the West , then the West ’ s economies would have to be reduced .
The 2020 crisis would potentially “ level the playing field ” : flattening the terrain of strategic engagement .
An integral byproduct of this was the reality that the 2020 crisis also lowered an already depressed global demand for energy , particularly fossil fuels which had come to be the primary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Oil , in particular , had been the great underpinning of 20th Century growth .
As a result of the lowered demand for oil and gas , those states which were primarily dependent upon the export of fossil fuels would see — as 2020 proved — a catastrophic reduction in market demand and therefore a reduction in the value of their exports .
This meant that the first casualty of the crisis would be those states the wealth and power of which depended on the sale of oil and gas .
That included @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries ( OPEC ) .
But not all .
And for as long as Beijing was able to halt or change the Western-defined “ rules-based world order ” those affected states would see their golden ages eclipsed .
But , again , not all : ancient and entrenched societies such as Persia ( Iran ) and Russia , although damaged , would retain viability because of historical social patterns and because of a level of diversification of economic survival patterns .
They had firm agricultural and manufacturing bases , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could benefit from their own low petroleum costs .
The future , however , was to become , for them , less expansionist and more about rebuilding the security of their own nation-states .
For Beijing , this meant that Russia could possibly be humbled to true supplicancy to the PRC ; to become a tributary state of the Middle Kingdom .
This era of “ cheap oil and gas ” — unsustainable for producers — could arguably have been seen as the removal of one impediment to the cost of economic growth… @ @ @ @ @ @ @ production meant that it was no longer readily available .
That situation would , of course , and under normal circumstances , automatically impel a cyclical rise in the price of oil and gas… Unless demand remained low because of Beijing ’ s success in continuing to depress global economic growth for its own strategic reasons .
There was no question , even in 2020 , that the short-term economic depression would be partially overcome and that some revived energy demand would be evident in the near term .
Prices would start to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enough to restore the economic fortunes of Saudi Arabia , Kuwait , the United Arab Emirates , Venezuela , Nigeria , Angola , and so on .
Their fates would , to varying degrees , become parlous once their sovereign wealth funds became depleted .
But at what cost to the world ?
My old colleague , mentor , and partner , Stefan Possony , told me in 1972 — and I am sure wrote it somewhere in the pages of our Defense & Foreign Affairs publications — that all great powers ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through history as being the most profligate users of energy in their respective eras .
It was this “ waste ” of energy which enabled the creation of strategic advantage .
From the cooking of healthier food diets to the creation of sufficient light by which to extend the hours of learning and production .
And certainly to forge better metals , from the creation of bronze from copper and tin , to the smelting of iron to the creation of steel , and so on .
Possony , and co-author Jerry Pournelle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its advantage in resources and technical capacity , the U.S. was lagging behind the Soviet Union in key areas of the technology war .
And yet , within 20 years , the U.S. had emerged as the dominant strategic power and the USSR had collapsed .
Much of it was because the U.S. could be profligate in the resources under its command .
Continued protection and development of U.S. shale oil resources , then , is a critical U.S. national security priority in the post-COVID-19 space , and it would not be illogical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ situation so that a stable domestic supply of oil and gas remains economically feasible for commercial producers .
The question , then , is whether the U.S. and its allies allow themselves to be reduced on this occasion because of the adoption of strategies which embrace reduced energy use .
Clearly , the PRC has a strong vested interest in ensuring that the world adheres to the Paris Accords , which effectively limit fossil fuel use .
All the while the PRC clearly does not adhere to those Accords , which it champions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ why Beijing claims exemption from the Paris Accords because the PRC , in its own words , is not yet a “ developed nation ” .
The post Oil Is Critical To U.S .
Survival : Why China Is Pushing The Paris Agreement ( On Their Rivals ) appeared first on The Global Warming Policy Forum ( GWPF ) .

China has a strong vested interest in ensuring that the world adheres to the Paris Accords, which effectively limit fossil fuel use. All the while the PRC clearly does not adhere to those Accords, which it champions for everyone but itself.
One more word on Beijing’s plans leading up to, and during, the 2020 crisis. This crisis was to be the pivotal point for the Communist Party of China. If the People’s Republic of China (PRC) could not compete economically with the U.S. under the terms of the existing, Western-created, “rules-based world order”, then those terms of engagement would have to be changed.
If the PRC economy could not grow in terms defined by the West, then the West’s economies would have to be reduced. The 2020 crisis would potentially “level the playing field”: flattening the terrain of strategic engagement.
An integral byproduct of this was the reality that the 2020 crisis also lowered an already depressed global demand for energy, particularly fossil fuels which had come to be the primary energy driver of global economic growth. Oil, in particular, had been the great underpinning of 20th Century growth.
As a result of the lowered demand for oil and gas, those states which were primarily dependent upon the export of fossil fuels would see — as 2020 proved — a catastrophic reduction in market demand and therefore a reduction in the value of their exports. This meant that the first casualty of the crisis would be those states the wealth and power of which depended on the sale of oil and gas.
That included most of the state members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). But not all. And for as long as Beijing was able to halt or change the Western-defined “rules-based world order” those affected states would see their golden ages eclipsed.
But, again, not all: ancient and entrenched societies such as Persia (Iran) and Russia, although damaged, would retain viability because of historical social patterns and because of a level of diversification of economic survival patterns. They had firm agricultural and manufacturing bases, domestic consumer economies, and at least could benefit from their own low petroleum costs. The future, however, was to become, for them, less expansionist and more about rebuilding the security of their own nation-states.
For Beijing, this meant that Russia could possibly be humbled to true supplicancy to the PRC; to become a tributary state of the Middle Kingdom.
This era of “cheap oil and gas” — unsustainable for producers — could arguably have been seen as the removal of one impediment to the cost of economic growth… unless the economic unsustainability of fossil fuel production meant that it was no longer readily available. That situation would, of course, and under normal circumstances, automatically impel a cyclical rise in the price of oil and gas… Unless demand remained low because of Beijing’s success in continuing to depress global economic growth for its own strategic reasons.
There was no question, even in 2020, that the short-term economic depression would be partially overcome and that some revived energy demand would be evident in the near term. Prices would start to haltingly rise a little, albeit not enough to restore the economic fortunes of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Venezuela, Nigeria, Angola, and so on.
Their fates would, to varying degrees, become parlous once their sovereign wealth funds became depleted.
But at what cost to the world?
My old colleague, mentor, and partner, Stefan Possony, told me in 1972 — and I am sure wrote it somewhere in the pages of our Defense & Foreign Affairs publications — that all great powers (and notably Rome) have been hallmarked through history as being the most profligate users of energy in their respective eras.
It was this “waste” of energy which enabled the creation of strategic advantage. From the cooking of healthier food diets to the creation of sufficient light by which to extend the hours of learning and production. And certainly to forge better metals, from the creation of bronze from copper and tin, to the smelting of iron to the creation of steel, and so on.
Possony, and co-author Jerry Pournelle, in 1970 discussed how, despite its advantage in resources and technical capacity, the U.S. was lagging behind the Soviet Union in key areas of the technology war. And yet, within 20 years, the U.S. had emerged as the dominant strategic power and the USSR had collapsed. Much of it was because the U.S. could be profligate in the resources under its command.
Continued protection and development of U.S. shale oil resources, then, is a critical U.S. national security priority in the post-COVID-19 space, and it would not be illogical for Washington to ringfence the U.S. energy situation so that a stable domestic supply of oil and gas remains economically feasible for commercial producers.
The question, then, is whether the U.S. and its allies allow themselves to be reduced on this occasion because of the adoption of strategies which embrace reduced energy use. Clearly, the PRC has a strong vested interest in ensuring that the world adheres to the Paris Accords, which effectively limit fossil fuel use. All the while the PRC clearly does not adhere to those Accords, which it champions for everyone but itself. Which is why Beijing claims exemption from the Paris Accords because the PRC, in its own words, is not yet a “developed nation”.
Full post
The post Oil Is Critical To U.S. Survival: Why China Is Pushing The Paris Agreement (On Their Rivals) appeared first on The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF).
via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
https://ift.tt/2Wa3bcE
May 7, 2020 at 08:48AM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-05-07--Rupert Darwall: Net-Zero and Extinction Capitalism

Shutting down the whole global economy is the only way of limiting global warming to 2 degrees Centigrade , Yvo de Boer , the former United Nations climate chief , warned in the runup to the 2015 Paris climate conference .
Thanks to COVID-19 we now have an inkling what that looks like .
The conference went further and chose to write into the Paris agreement an aspiration to pursue efforts to limit warming to 1.5°C .
The 1.5°C backstory reveals much about the quality of what passes for science and gets enshrined in U.N. climate treaties — and is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ find themselves on the front line of the climate wars .
Nine weeks before the Copenhagen climate conference , the one where Barack Obama was going to slow the rise of the oceans , President Mohamed Nasheed of the Maldives held the world ’ s first underwater cabinet meeting .
“ We are trying to send our message to let the world know what is happening and what will happen to the Maldives if climate change isn ’ t checked , ” Nasheed told reporters after resurfacing .
It was part of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ States claiming that climate change magnified the risk that their islands would drown .
The sinking-islands trope has been endlessly recycled by the U.N. for decades .
In 1989 , a U.N. official stated that entire nations could disappear by 2000 if global warming was not reversed .
Like so many others , that prediction of climate catastrophe came and went .
The failed prediction didn ’ t prevent the current U.N. secretary-general , António Guterres , from declaring last year , “ We must stop Tuvalu from sinking.
” There was no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Studies show , here and here , that the Maldives and Tuvalu have increased in size .
As the 25-year-old Charles Darwin might have told the U.N. , coral atolls are formed by the slow subsidence of the ocean bed .
Having incorporated 1.5°C into the sacred texts of the U.N. climate process , the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC ) was charged with coming up with a scientific justification for it .
In 2018 , the IPCC published its report on the 1.5°C limit .
It debunked the sinking-islands @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kept pace with rising sea levels .
The IPCC had a bigger problem than non-sinking islands .
The IPCC ’ s existing 1.5°C carbon budget — the maximum amount of greenhouse gases to keep the rise in global temperature to 1.5°C — was on the verge of being used up .
Like some end-of-the-world cult after the clock had passed midnight , it would find itself in a predicament that promised to be more than a little embarrassing .
Help was at hand .
As skeptics had long been pointing out , IPCC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ projections had been running too hot and that they had been forecasting too much warming since 2000 .
Together with some other handy adjustments , the IPCC managed to more than double the remaining 1.5°C budget .
Although it could muster only medium confidence in its revised carbon budget , the IPCC had high confidence that net emissions had to fall to zero by 2050 and be cut by 45 percent by 2030 .
In this fashion , net zero by 2050 was carved in stone .
That timeline is now being used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ business strategies with the Paris agreement and force them to commit to eliminating greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050 .
In fact , the text of the Paris agreement speaks of achieving a balance between anthropogenic sources and removals “ in the second half of this century.
” The net-zero target has no standing in American law or regulation .
Net zero is not about a few tweaks here and there .
It necessitates a top-down coercive revolution the likes of which have never been seen in any democracy .
This is spelt out in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which might as well serve as a blueprint for the extinction of capitalism .
The IPCC makes no bones about viewing net zero , it says , as providing the opportunity for ‘ intentional societal transformation.
’ Limiting the rise to rise in global temperature to no more than 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels — an ill-defined baseline chosen by the U.N. because the Industrial Revolution is our civilization ’ s original sin — requires ‘ transformative systemic change ’ and ‘ very ambitious , internationally cooperative policy environments that transform both supply and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have a foretaste of what the IPCC intends .
It envisages , for example , the industrial sector cutting its emissions by between 67 and 91 percent by 2050 , implying a contraction in industrial output so dramatic as to make the 1930s Great Depression look like a walk in the park , a possibility the IPCC choses to ignore .
The IPCC places its bets on a massive transition to wind and solar , but no amount of wishful thinking can overcome the inherent physics of their low energy density and their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the highest proportion of wind and solar on their grids also have the highest energy costs in the world .
One option the IPCC does not favor — a wholesale transition to nuclear power — seems unachievable anyway on the timetable it has in mind .
Nuclear power stations typically take well over five years to build , and not many are planned for now .
Germany is switching out of nuclear power , the Japanese are , to quote the New York Times “ racing to build new coal-burning .
.
.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of overdoing their nuclear construction because of the risk of accident .
Rather than address the possibility of a sustained slump in economic activity the IPCC ’ s approach is to say the benefits of holding the line at 1.5°C are — surprise , surprise !
— greater than at 2 degrees Centigrade while studiously ignoring the extra costs of the more ambitious target .
A few numbers show why .
A carbon tax sufficiently high to drive emissions to net zero would range up to $ 6,050 per metric ton , over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the Obama administration , indicating that the climate benefits of net zero are less than 2 percent of its cost .
In a rational world , discussion of net zero would end at this point .
You don ’ t have to be a Milton Friedman to fathom the incompatibility with free markets and capitalist growth of what the IPCC terms “ enhanced institutional capabilities ” and “ stringent policy interventions.
” So it ’ s easy to understand why the governments of the world have no intention of achieving net zero @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of the principal architects of the Paris agreement , remarked last November , “ there is a lack of political will in virtually every country , compared to what there needs to be.
” Led by Britain , several European countries have legislated net-zero targets without having a clue how they might meet them or their economic impact .
Indeed , Britain can claim to be the world ’ s leading climate hypocrite .
Having offshored its manufacturing base to China and the European Union , it is the G-7 ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dioxide emissions .
Before adopting its net zero target , the Committee on Climate Change observed that Britain lacked a credible plan for decarbonizing the way people heat their homes and that government policy was insufficient to meet even existing targets .
The post Rupert Darwall : Net-Zero and Extinction Capitalism appeared first on The Global Warming Policy Forum ( GWPF ) .

Shutting down the whole global economy is the only way of limiting global warming to 2 degrees Centigrade, Yvo de Boer, the former United Nations climate chief, warned in the runup to the 2015 Paris climate conference.
Thanks to COVID-19 we now have an inkling what that looks like. The conference went further and chose to write into the Paris agreement an aspiration to pursue efforts to limit warming to 1.5°C. The 1.5°C backstory reveals much about the quality of what passes for science and gets enshrined in U.N. climate treaties — and is directly relevant to American corporations that now find themselves on the front line of the climate wars.
Nine weeks before the Copenhagen climate conference, the one where Barack Obama was going to slow the rise of the oceans, President Mohamed Nasheed of the Maldives held the world’s first underwater cabinet meeting. “We are trying to send our message to let the world know what is happening and what will happen to the Maldives if climate change isn’t checked,” Nasheed told reporters after resurfacing. It was part of a campaign by the Alliance of Small Island States claiming that climate change magnified the risk that their islands would drown.
The sinking-islands trope has been endlessly recycled by the U.N. for decades. In 1989, a U.N. official stated that entire nations could disappear by 2000 if global warming was not reversed. Like so many others, that prediction of climate catastrophe came and went. The failed prediction didn’t prevent the current U.N. secretary-general, António Guterres, from declaring last year, “We must stop Tuvalu from sinking.” There was no science behind 1.5°C and the sinking-island hypothesis. Studies show, here and here, that the Maldives and Tuvalu have increased in size. As the 25-year-old Charles Darwin might have told the U.N., coral atolls are formed by the slow subsidence of the ocean bed.
Having incorporated 1.5°C into the sacred texts of the U.N. climate process, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was charged with coming up with a scientific justification for it. In 2018, the IPCC published its report on the 1.5°C limit. It debunked the sinking-islands scare, reporting that unconstrained atolls have kept pace with rising sea levels. The IPCC had a bigger problem than non-sinking islands. The IPCC’s existing 1.5°C carbon budget — the maximum amount of greenhouse gases to keep the rise in global temperature to 1.5°C — was on the verge of being used up. Like some end-of-the-world cult after the clock had passed midnight, it would find itself in a predicament that promised to be more than a little embarrassing.
Help was at hand. As skeptics had long been pointing out, IPCC lead author Myles Allen confirmedthat climate model projections had been running too hot and that they had been forecasting too much warming since 2000. Together with some other handy adjustments, the IPCC managed to more than double the remaining 1.5°C budget. Although it could muster only medium confidence in its revised carbon budget, the IPCC had high confidence that net emissions had to fall to zero by 2050 and be cut by 45 percent by 2030. In this fashion, net zero by 2050 was carved in stone.
That timeline is now being used to bully American corporations into aligning their business strategies with the Paris agreement and force them to commit to eliminating greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050. In fact, the text of the Paris agreement speaks of achieving a balance between anthropogenic sources and removals “in the second half of this century.” The net-zero target has no standing in American law or regulation. Net zero is not about a few tweaks here and there. It necessitates a top-down coercive revolution the likes of which have never been seen in any democracy. This is spelt out in the IPCC’s 1.5°C report, which might as well serve as a blueprint for the extinction of capitalism.
The IPCC makes no bones about viewing net zero, it says, as providing the opportunity for ‘intentional societal transformation.’ Limiting the rise to rise in global temperature to no more than 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels — an ill-defined baseline chosen by the U.N. because the Industrial Revolution is our civilization’s original sin — requires ‘transformative systemic change’ and ‘very ambitious, internationally cooperative policy environments that transform both supply and demand.’
Thanks to COVID-19, we have a foretaste of what the IPCC intends. It envisages, for example, the industrial sector cutting its emissions by between 67 and 91 percent by 2050, implying a contraction in industrial output so dramatic as to make the 1930s Great Depression look like a walk in the park, a possibility the IPCC choses to ignore. The IPCC places its bets on a massive transition to wind and solar, but no amount of wishful thinking can overcome the inherent physics of their low energy density and their intermittency, which explains why countries with the highest proportion of wind and solar on their grids also have the highest energy costs in the world. One option the IPCC does not favor — a wholesale transition to nuclear power — seems unachievable anyway on the timetable it has in mind. Nuclear power stations typically take well over five years to build, and not many are planned for now. Germany is switching out of nuclear power, the Japanese are, to quote the New York Times “racing to build new coal-burning . . . plants” and the Chinese are wary of overdoing their nuclear construction because of the risk of accident.
Rather than address the possibility of a sustained slump in economic activity the IPCC’s approach is to say the benefits of holding the line at 1.5°C are — surprise, surprise! — greater than at 2 degrees Centigrade while studiously ignoring the extra costs of the more ambitious target. A few numbers show why. A carbon tax sufficiently high to drive emissions to net zero would range up to $6,050 per metric ton, over 60 times the hypothetical climate benefits estimated by the Obama administration, indicating that the climate benefits of net zero are less than 2 percent of its cost. In a rational world, discussion of net zero would end at this point.
You don’t have to be a Milton Friedman to fathom the incompatibility with free markets and capitalist growth of what the IPCC terms “enhanced institutional capabilities” and “stringent policy interventions.” So it’s easy to understand why the governments of the world have no intention of achieving net zero by 2050. As Todd Stern, one of the principal architects of the Paris agreement, remarked last November, “there is a lack of political will in virtually every country, compared to what there needs to be.”
Led by Britain, several European countries have legislated net-zero targets without having a clue how they might meet them or their economic impact. Indeed, Britain can claim to be the world’s leading climate hypocrite. Having offshored its manufacturing base to China and the European Union, it is the G-7’s largest per capita net importer of carbon dioxide emissions. Before adopting its net zero target, the Committee on Climate Change observed that Britain lacked a credible plan for decarbonizing the way people heat their homes and that government policy was insufficient to meet even existing targets.
The post Rupert Darwall: Net-Zero and Extinction Capitalism appeared first on The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF).
via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
https://ift.tt/2zkbslg
May 7, 2020 at 08:41AM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-05-08--A Tale of Two Complexities

A Tale of Two Complexities

Since the dawn of time mankind has been faced with two brute facts : Nothing is straightforward and entropy is a bitch .
To address the former , and in apparent defiance of the latter , our species has benefitted from two developments that have broadly co-evolved : Complex brains and complex societies .
So much has been written about these two phenomena that one truly doesn ’ t know where to start evaluating the literature .
So I won ’ t .
Instead , I would like to share with you just a couple of papers I came across @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two complexities tends to pan out in the hands of the climate concerned .
Firstly , let us take a peek at the world of cognition .
As climate change ‘ deniers ’ we are all familiar with the sterling work undertaken by Lewandowsky et al in revealing the extent to which our cognitive abilities are ultimately limited by our conspiracist obsessions .
Even so , back in October 2019 , two business school lecturers succeeded in publishing a paper so ground-breaking and full of insights that even The Big Lewandowsky would surely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paper , published in the Journal of Environmental Psychology , has a number highlights .
I know this because the authors say so even before they present their abstract .
The first ‘ highlight ’ reads as follows : The second ‘ highlight ’ advances the above revelation as follows : “ Cognitive simplicity leads people to be skeptical about human-caused climate change.
” Which is to say , it fails to advance it at all .
In fact , I think it is fair to say we are still on our first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ second ) ‘ highlight ’ : “ Cognitive simplicity is a precondition when framing positive arguments is effective.
” To make sense of this gobbledygook you need to have first read the abstract that follows , which explains : “ We compared the two most common types of arguments in discussions of climate change : 1 ) Presenting facts about climate change on their own ( one-sided ) ; 2 ) Presenting opposing arguments ( i.e.
, misinformation ) together with the correct climate change facts ( two-sided ) .
Participants with lower @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in climate change when exposed to facts of climate change on their own compared to the two-sided , refutational [ sic ] combination of misinformation and facts… ” Basically , the cognitively simple respond better if you just say “ because I say so !
” The intelligent children , on the other hand , respond better if you reason with them .
Something like : “ Can you now see were you went wrong ?
Okay , run along and try to be a good boy/girl/it from now on.
” Or , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own words : “ …but those with higher cognitive complexity were more likely to believe in climate change when exposed to the refutational combination rather than facts alone.
” Which goes to explain the authors ’ final ‘ highlight ’ : “ Cognitive complexity can help deter the damaging impact of conflicting arguments.
” Now , if you are anything like me , there will be a number of questions in your head at this point .
For example : • What do the authors think they mean by ‘ cognitive complexity ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ?
• In what way does the concept of cognition lend itself to the demarcation of individuals into two neat groups : complex and simple ?
• What is it that they teach you in business school that qualifies you to make any of the above assessments ?
• What is it that they teach you in business school that qualifies you to determine that all opposing arguments to climate change belief can be assumed to be “ misinformation ” ?
• How do I get a grant to study the effects @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the misinformation that lies at the heart of many of today ’ s climate concerns ?
But , moreover , you are likely to be bristling over the fact that here , yet again , we have a study that treats climate change sceptics not as a group with which to engage but one to be studied like lab rats ( bless them ) struggling to escape a scientifically constructed maze .
In fact , the authors ( our two short planks , magically carved from the finest business school woodland ) would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ subjects than they would the squeaking of rats struggling with a pair of electrodes stuck up their arse .
Admittedly , in this instance , their subjects were actually primates .
But , even so , the scientific code is quite clear on this matter : Never have intercourse with your experiment .
Or , as Steve Martin in The Man With Two Brains explained indelicately , you can ’ t fuck a gorilla !
Thankfully , the paper itself is behind a paywall and so the pecuniary gods have stepped in to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the paper provides answers to all my questions but , in lieu of that , I have to be satisfied with the closing statement within the authors ’ abstract : “ Media and scientists need to consider the cognitive complexity of their audience when dealing with climate change.
” What it must be to enjoy such an evolutionary advantage .
I move on now to the second paper that caught my eye .
But , before I do , I need to introduce a bit of background theory .
This means I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( thanks to our business school duo ) I am now conscious of the potentially knuckle-dragging nature of my audience .
So , unless you are at the cognitively complex end of the pig shit spectrum , you might want to leave the room now .
Still with me ?
Great , but don ’ t tell me I didn ’ t warn you .
Ever since sociology first dare speak its name , it has been anxious to adopt whatever has been the scientific paradigm du jour , in order to bolster @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many years it adopted the Newtonian paradigm of a clockwork universe full of agents acting in a strictly deterministic manner amenable to reductionist analysis – basically because that is what the physicist were doing .
Of course , physicists were not saying that all systems could be treated in this manner – only that those that couldn ’ t , lay outside of their capacity to investigate and predict .
However , the fact that social groups would be one such class of system did not deter sociologists who , doing their best @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ methodological individualism ’ , in which the properties and behaviours of groups could be statistically determined from the properties of their constituent individuals .
Then the new scientific paradigm of complexity came along , in which disciplines such as network analysis , systems theory and non-linear dynamics started to play an important role .
In this new world view , reductionism and analysis were to be replaced by a holistic approach based upon synthesis .
Importantly , the relationships between agents became at least as pertinent as their inherent properties , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be explained using concepts such as the open , driven , non-linear system far from equilibrium .
That sounds good , thought the sociologists , and so was born the discipline of Social Complexity Theory , in which all things from the outbreak of social conflict to the emergence and demise of cultures and belief systems could be explained using mathematical models employing complexity theory ’ s precepts .
Given the nature of your average social agent , this newfound interest in complexity theory was understandable ; it was an approach that seemed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ social structure can spontaneously arise without the presence of a ‘ guiding hand ’ .
And it didn ’ t take too long before those sociologists and anthropologists with an eye on environmentalism took note .
Which brings me to my second paper , Making Complexity Your Friend : Reframing Social Theory for the Anthropocene , by Sandi Smith-Nonini of the Department of Anthropology , University of North Carolina .
As an overview of the development of complexity theory and its application within the fields of sociology and social anthropology it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is erudite , well-researched and clearly written and provides an interesting discourse on how homo sapiens , interacting with its ecological niche , can be viewed as a complex system .
To that extent , it is a worthy piece of work ; which already places it well above the efforts of our two business school Woodentops .
That ’ s not to say that I agree with its thesis , which is basically an anti-capitalist inspired attempt to persuade that Social Complexity Theory will provide the insights required to free ourselves from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ establish a new environmental justice and see us through our current ‘ existential crisis ’ .
As the author says : “ Networked politics is a politics of scale , and scaling must be “ glocal ” ( simultaneously up and down ) in order to transform new awareness into political capital and accelerate the cultural shift that we now know is inevitable.
” Stirring stuff , but there is one problem as far as I can see .
I discern nothing in the author ’ s thesis that acknowledges that applying the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ help bring about the cultural shift required to solve the problem , it could have also brought about a cultural shift that contrived an unreliable belief in the existence of the problem in the first place .
In that sense , the paper is no better than that produced by our cognitively simple business school chums .
The reality of ‘ the problem ’ is taken as axiomatic rather than something to be proven .
Consequently , the full might of the intellectual apparatus at the author ’ s disposal is used against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and perhaps should , be self-directed .
So I am afraid complexity , whether it be cognitive or social , is destined to remain a concept wielded in the name of the good fight , and forever withheld from those who would wish to counterbalance the arguments of the climate concerned .
If we have any cognitive complexity , it is just there to enable the concerned to better educate us .
And if we have any views regarding social complexity and how it , rather than solid science , may have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then we are perfectly entitled to keep them to ourselves .
Certainly , the other side has no use of them .

Since the dawn of time mankind has been faced with two brute facts: Nothing is straightforward and entropy is a bitch. To address the former, and in apparent defiance of the latter, our species has benefitted from two developments that have broadly co-evolved: Complex brains and complex societies. So much has been written about these two phenomena that one truly doesn’t know where to start evaluating the literature. So I won’t. Instead, I would like to share with you just a couple of papers I came across recently that illustrate how consideration of these two complexities tends to pan out in the hands of the climate concerned. Firstly, let us take a peek at the world of cognition.
Two Short Planks
As climate change ‘deniers’ we are all familiar with the sterling work undertaken by Lewandowsky et al in revealing the extent to which our cognitive abilities are ultimately limited by our conspiracist obsessions. Even so, back in October 2019, two business school lecturers succeeded in publishing a paper so ground-breaking and full of insights that even The Big Lewandowsky would surely be forced into meek genuflexion. The paper, published in the Journal of Environmental Psychology, has a number highlights. I know this because the authors say so even before they present their abstract. The first ‘highlight’ reads as follows:
“Cognitive complexity is positively related to climate change belief.”
The second ‘highlight’ advances the above revelation as follows:
“Cognitive simplicity leads people to be skeptical about human-caused climate change.”
Which is to say, it fails to advance it at all. In fact, I think it is fair to say we are still on our first highlight. Then comes the third (second) ‘highlight’:
“Cognitive simplicity is a precondition when framing positive arguments is effective.”
To make sense of this gobbledygook you need to have first read the abstract that follows, which explains:
“We compared the two most common types of arguments in discussions of climate change: 1) Presenting facts about climate change on their own (one-sided); 2) Presenting opposing arguments (i.e., misinformation) together with the correct climate change facts (two-sided). Participants with lower cognitive complexity were more likely to believe in climate change when exposed to facts of climate change on their own compared to the two-sided, refutational [sic] combination of misinformation and facts…”
Basically, the cognitively simple respond better if you just say “because I say so!” The intelligent children, on the other hand, respond better if you reason with them. Something like: “Can you now see were you went wrong? Okay, run along and try to be a good boy/girl/it from now on.” Or, to put it in the authors’ own words:
“…but those with higher cognitive complexity were more likely to believe in climate change when exposed to the refutational combination rather than facts alone.”
Which goes to explain the authors’ final ‘highlight’:
“Cognitive complexity can help deter the damaging impact of conflicting arguments.”
Now, if you are anything like me, there will be a number of questions in your head at this point. For example:
What do the authors think they mean by ‘cognitive complexity’ and how did they go about measuring it?
In what way does the concept of cognition lend itself to the demarcation of individuals into two neat groups: complex and simple?
What is it that they teach you in business school that qualifies you to make any of the above assessments?
What is it that they teach you in business school that qualifies you to determine that all opposing arguments to climate change belief can be assumed to be “misinformation”?
How do I get a grant to study the effects of cognitive complexity when attempting to overcome the misinformation that lies at the heart of many of today’s climate concerns?
But, moreover, you are likely to be bristling over the fact that here, yet again, we have a study that treats climate change sceptics not as a group with which to engage but one to be studied like lab rats (bless them) struggling to escape a scientifically constructed maze. In fact, the authors (our two short planks, magically carved from the finest business school woodland) would no more consider listening to their experimental subjects than they would the squeaking of rats struggling with a pair of electrodes stuck up their arse. Admittedly, in this instance, their subjects were actually primates. But, even so, the scientific code is quite clear on this matter: Never have intercourse with your experiment. Or, as Steve Martin in The Man With Two Brains explained indelicately, you can’t fuck a gorilla!
Thankfully, the paper itself is behind a paywall and so the pecuniary gods have stepped in to protect me from further self-harm. Maybe, the paper provides answers to all my questions but, in lieu of that, I have to be satisfied with the closing statement within the authors’ abstract:
“Media and scientists need to consider the cognitive complexity of their audience when dealing with climate change.”
What it must be to enjoy such an evolutionary advantage.
Social Complexity
I move on now to the second paper that caught my eye. But, before I do, I need to introduce a bit of background theory. This means I have to use some big words and (thanks to our business school duo) I am now conscious of the potentially knuckle-dragging nature of my audience. So, unless you are at the cognitively complex end of the pig shit spectrum, you might want to leave the room now.
Still with me? Great, but don’t tell me I didn’t warn you.
Ever since sociology first dare speak its name, it has been anxious to adopt whatever has been the scientific paradigm du jour, in order to bolster its scientific kudos. Accordingly, for many years it adopted the Newtonian paradigm of a clockwork universe full of agents acting in a strictly deterministic manner amenable to reductionist analysis – basically because that is what the physicist were doing. Of course, physicists were not saying that all systems could be treated in this manner – only that those that couldn’t, lay outside of their capacity to investigate and predict. However, the fact that social groups would be one such class of system did not deter sociologists who, doing their best, came up with the notion of ‘methodological individualism’, in which the properties and behaviours of groups could be statistically determined from the properties of their constituent individuals.
Then the new scientific paradigm of complexity came along, in which disciplines such as network analysis, systems theory and non-linear dynamics started to play an important role. In this new world view, reductionism and analysis were to be replaced by a holistic approach based upon synthesis. Importantly, the relationships between agents became at least as pertinent as their inherent properties, and otherwise mysterious self-organization and emergent behaviours could be explained using concepts such as the open, driven, non-linear system far from equilibrium.
That sounds good, thought the sociologists, and so was born the discipline of Social Complexity Theory, in which all things from the outbreak of social conflict to the emergence and demise of cultures and belief systems could be explained using mathematical models employing complexity theory’s precepts. Given the nature of your average social agent, this newfound interest in complexity theory was understandable; it was an approach that seemed to throw light on how organization and social structure can spontaneously arise without the presence of a ‘guiding hand’. And it didn’t take too long before those sociologists and anthropologists with an eye on environmentalism took note.
Which brings me to my second paper, Making Complexity Your Friend: Reframing Social Theory for the Anthropocene, by Sandi Smith-Nonini of the Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina. As an overview of the development of complexity theory and its application within the fields of sociology and social anthropology it’s not such a bad paper. It is erudite, well-researched and clearly written and provides an interesting discourse on how homo sapiens, interacting with its ecological niche, can be viewed as a complex system. To that extent, it is a worthy piece of work; which already places it well above the efforts of our two business school Woodentops. That’s not to say that I agree with its thesis, which is basically an anti-capitalist inspired attempt to persuade that Social Complexity Theory will provide the insights required to free ourselves from the yoke of self-interested economic growth, establish a new environmental justice and see us through our current ‘existential crisis’. As the author says:
“Networked politics is a politics of scale, and scaling must be “glocal” (simultaneously up and down) in order to transform new awareness into political capital and accelerate the cultural shift that we now know is inevitable.”
Stirring stuff, but there is one problem as far as I can see. I discern nothing in the author’s thesis that acknowledges that applying the principles of complexity theory can not only help bring about the cultural shift required to solve the problem, it could have also brought about a cultural shift that contrived an unreliable belief in the existence of the problem in the first place. In that sense, the paper is no better than that produced by our cognitively simple business school chums. The reality of ‘the problem’ is taken as axiomatic rather than something to be proven. Consequently, the full might of the intellectual apparatus at the author’s disposal is used against the naysayer without recognizing how it can, and perhaps should, be self-directed.
So I am afraid complexity, whether it be cognitive or social, is destined to remain a concept wielded in the name of the good fight, and forever withheld from those who would wish to counterbalance the arguments of the climate concerned. If we have any cognitive complexity, it is just there to enable the concerned to better educate us. And if we have any views regarding social complexity and how it, rather than solid science, may have brought about our current eschatological convictions, then we are perfectly entitled to keep them to ourselves. Certainly, the other side has no use of them.