One extreme to another?

Andrew Glikson from ANU has a new article up at The Conversation, arguing that there is ample evidence of an increase in the number of anomalous weather events since the 1970's to be confident that they have been caused by the AGW that has presently only reached .8 degree.  Give the planet  another 1 or 2 degree increase, and things can be expected to be much worse.

But as for the attribution of any individual extreme events, that work is still tricky, and Nature last week noted that some climate scientists doubted whether it was really useful to try to make attribution claims at all.  The editorial thought this was too harsh, and in any event, it seems to me that it was more concerned with whether climate modelling could predict future individual anomalous events, rather than attribution in hindsight.

There certainly still seems to be a tension between some folk at NOAA who were very, very fast to claim the Russian heatwave was just one of those things, and other scientists who thought it was attributable in significant part to AGW.   Climate fake skeptics, like Anthony Watts, lap this all up as reason to do nothing, of course.

At the local level, Brisbane's weather, which was extremely wet and cloudy about two years, just seems to have had the water turned off like a switch over the last couple of months.    A month ago they said it had been 32 consecutive days without rain; I would say that it has effectively been extended to 62 days now, even if at Brisbane Airport they might have had a day with technically 1 mm of rain.   On the side of town where  I live, there was one day last week where a very fine spray came down for about 10 minutes,barely damping the bitumen before it evaporated.  I'm not counting that as break in the dry spell.  The small-ish water tank we have at home has emptied for the first time since it first filled 3 or 4 years ago.

Well, at least I expect it will be good weather to be a the beach this year; but I also expect more fires around Brisbane than usual.

Update:  After yesterday's complaint, Brisbane got its first widespread storm of the season, with a bit of hail thrown in.   We'll see how this changes things. 

Roger defects? Maybe not...

Why doesn't Roger Scruton want to be labelled as "of the right"?

Well,  England has still got something going for it when people there can go to a debate between Roger Scruton and Terry Eagleton.  The New Statesment notes that it was most interesting for the fact that Roger Scruton declared that he does not like being labelled as "of the Right" (although the magazine just uses small "r" right):

It was at this point that Scruton’s squirming began - both physically and rhetorically. He has, it turns out, a great aversion to being identified as “of the right”.

“People on the right don’t identify themselves as such, not as part of a group. We’re just holding on to the things we love,” he said, in what appeared to be a sleight-of-hand justification for secretly quite liking the Changing of the Guard.

“But you said of Thatcher...” Eagleton began, only to be interrupted as Scruton retorted: “I’ve grown up since then.”

I wonder what Scruton thinks of the Right as currently represented by the Republican Party. 

A good question

Christof Koch, Robert Sawyer: Could the Internet ever become conscious? - Slate Magazine

If memory serves me right, I think I suggested to friends years ago that you would know something was up with the internet when electronics factories start getting orders for chips and computers, and where to install them, but with only fake human authorisations.

I see that Robert Sawyer has novels about the internet becoming conscious.  I wonder if that happens in his stories.  Or did it happen in some short science fiction story I've read and forgotten about? 

Alternative ideas

Dark matter effect might be explained by modified way to calculate inertial mass

I've mentioned MOND theory from time to time as an alternative explanation for dark matter, but this MOND-ish proposal is possibly testable.

Furthermore, Mike McCulloch claims that his idea might explain the acceleration of the universe as well. 

Who is he, though?   Well, I would be a little surprised if stunning new understandings of physics come from some who works part time at the Plymouth University School of Marine Science and Engineering, and whose personal page features  cartoons of dubious quality (yes, I know - I should talk!) and bad short stories, but I should retain an open mind, I suppose.

Gopnick does fantasy

“The Lord of the Rings,” “Twilight,” and Young-Adult Fantasy Books : The New Yorker

The always readable Adam Gopnick has a discussion here about "high fantasy for young adults", and starts with a look at Tolkien in a way that I can almost approve (ie it's sort of disparaging.)

I liked the wittiness of this bit:

It’s true that his fantasies are uniquely “thought through”: every creature has its own origin story, script, or grammar; nothing is gratuitous. But even more compelling was his arranged marriage between the Elder Edda and “The Wind in the Willows”—big Icelandic romance and small-scale, cozy English children’s book. The story told by “The Lord of the Rings” is essentially what would happen if Mole and Ratty got drafted into the Nibelungenlied.

 this too:

Modernist ambiguity, or realist emotional ambivalence, is unknown to Tolkien—the good people are very good, the bad people very bad, and though occasionally a character may be tossed between good and evil, like Gollum, it is self-interest, rather than conscience, that makes him tip back and forth. Betrayal and temptation happen; inner doubts do not. 

and this:

What substitutes for psychology in Tolkien and his followers, and keeps the stories from seeming barrenly external, is what preceded psychology in epic literature: an overwhelming sense of history and, with it, a sense of loss. The constant evocation of lost or fading glory—Númenor has fallen, the elves are leaving Middle-earth—does the emotional work that mixed-up minds do in realist fiction. We know that Westernesse is lost even before we know what the hell Westernesse was, and our feeling for its loss lends dimension to those who have lost it. (There is also, in Tolkien, the complete elimination of lust as a normal motive in daily life. The wicked Wormtongue lusts for Éowyn at the court of Rohan, but this is thought to be very creepy.)

Of course, as I am happy to explain that I dismiss LOTR on the basis that I lost interest after about 100 pages both times I tried it, and found the first movie boring, I have no idea what characters Gopnick is talking about in that last sentence; but anything that criticises the book in any respect appeals to me.  It's very, very hard to find other people who share my attitude.   You try Googling for anti-Tolkien mutual support groups - it's been a while since I did, but I couldn't find one.

But seriously: I think Gopnick has given me better justification for my disdain, so for this he must be praised.

By the way, the rest of the article talks about other examples of fantasy that appeal to young adults, particularly the Eragon series, and even Twilight, and he makes some pretty good points that I think my regular reader Tim would like to see.  This part in particular:

 And the truth is that most actual mythologies and epics and sacred books are dull. Nothing is more wearying, for readers whose tastes have been formed by the realist novel, than the Elder Edda. Yet the spell such works cast on their audience wasn’t diminished by what we find tedious. The incantation of names is, on its own, a powerful literary style.

True, I think.   Although I did like what the Coen brothers did with the Odyssey.  :)

Yet more sound Republican judgement

Herman Cain: Let’s face it, I’d probably have a substantial lead right now if I was the nominee 

Are they competing for some sort of comedy award in the Republican Party at the moment?

Uh-huh

Rand Paul Says 2012 Election Over, Romney has Already Won

Even without his making silly statements like that, I still find Rand Paul's hair prevents me taking him seriously.  Curly hair on a male politician just has that effect on me.  I am not sure why...

Living forever...kind of...

Multiverse: A Religion ?

Why have I never paid much attention to the Science 2.0 site?   Somehow or other, I stumbled onto this recent blog post by particle physicist Tommasco Dorigo talking about whether the idea of the multiverse is popular with the public because it's a bit like religion-like:

The discussion was scheduled to last one hour, but we kept our audience glued to their chairs for almost two, without boring ourselves nor apparently them. Being unfamiliar with discussions of the multiverse in public, it was interesting to me to detect how the idea is fascinating to most laypersons. I believe one reason is the religious aspect of the whole thing.

Indeed, long ago man invented religion as a way to explain what he could not figure out by logical methods, as well as to accept his own mortality: religion made acceptable the concept of death, as well as give an explanation to other natural phenomena. And man is now inventing the multiverse in what appears to me a new, albeit well disguised, attempt in the same direction. One as reassuring and sweet as the idea of an almighty entity: because by throwing one's hands up with the idea of a landscape of universes with any possible combination of parameter values one relieves the pressure of feeling powerless, as of yet, in the task of understanding the new layer of mysteries that fundamental science has come to face.

 I think one additional appeal of the idea of a continuous birth of universes of all kinds is the built-in feature of an eternal comeback of the same initial conditions, or infinitely similar ones. We might be immortal after all, but not in the sense that Tipler figured out in his entertaining but crazy book "The Physics of Immortality" - a host of intelligent computers allowing the best of us to be reborn as emulations short before the big crunch. Rather, if we accept that the universe is a multiverse unlimited in time, with bubbles continuously regenerated, we must conclude that we are bound to live again not one, but an infinite number of times. Hopefully still with a choice of what to do with our lives.

 I have mentioned way back in 2007 that Hugh Everett, who came up with the "many worlds" interpretation of quantum physics actually thought it guaranteed him a type of immortality.   Seems to me that the multiverse could be argued to guarantee something more like re-incarnation. 

I must think about this more.

Stock up for the end of the world

Beer and the Apocalypse | Restricted Data

Cute post here from a pretty interesting looking blog (found via The Browser website - see link at the side) about how atomic tests in the 1950's did check to see if beer and soda would survive close to an atomic bomb.   It mostly did.  Cheers.

Brulee'd to death

How to cook perfect creme brulee | Life and style | The Guardian

Hey, time for another entry in Felicity Cloake's food blog where she spends an inordinate amount of time explaining the different recipe variations on a simple dish, and which variation she prefers.

It's always a case of "more than I ever really needed to know", but I still enjoy them, in a food porn sort of way.

Update:  I really shouldn't complain about Felicity's work.  I just noticed another recent article on the Guardian's site:  How to boil an egg.    Seriously....

New drug, new problem

Party's over: mephedrone causes memory impairment

Apparently known as Meow, this (relatively new sounding) party drug sounds like it has bad consequences for memory, and brain function generally.

I don't know why people are so keen to wander from the old, established and tasty means of mild mental modification known as alcohol.

An explanation...

With an operating history just marginally better than the Chernobyl power station, and currently in meltdown mode, I like to use the Catallaxy website (the preferred site for "libertarian and centre right" types who are actually fans of the way the American Right has run away from the centre at a rapid pace, and up and over the barrier at the edge of the cliff marked "Warning:  you are about to leave political, economic and scientific common sense") as an example of the way free enterprise sometimes stuffs some things up pretty spectacularly.   This is, perhaps, unfair;  it nonetheless amuses me and hopefully annoys some of them. 

This may mean that some will come here and make rude comments.  Bad language is never tolerated here, so they will be deleted when noted.

The Medium is the message

I've been forgetting to recommend the documentary series on SBS that was started last Monday - Derren Brown Investigates.  I am unfamiliar with Brown, but he appears to be a well known illusionist in England who specialises in faking psychic abilities.

This first episode was devoted to his following around a medium in Liverpool -  Joe Power - a middle aged man who seems to have a reasonable business at the local level in giving private readings and the occasional group show in smallish venues.

It was all pretty fascinating, as Derren dealt with the issue of whether Power was a fake or not in a polite but insistent way.   The show contained a great summary in the middle of the various techniques used in "cold readings". 

As the flakiness of Power became clearer and clearer through the show,  I almost started to feel sorry for him for not being bright enough to not put himself at risk of exposure.   You have to watch to the very last to find out the explanation as to how Power did his apparently successful reading at the start of the show.  (OK, there is no 100% proof against him; just an obvious way that he could have obtained the information.)

You can still see it on SBS on Demand for another week or so, if this is of interest, but the whole thing is also on Youtube.

The show also reminded of John Edward, who has obviously made a squillion from his mediumship shows, and how he is obviously open to the charge that he uses "cold reading" techniques, yet similarly seems to occasionally pull surprisingly relevant detail out of the air.

Given that he is such a "rich" target, and that his show obviously has so many people involved in its production, it is a wonder that there has never been anyone associated with it who has (to my knowledge) come out with explanations of how he has sometimes had convincing sounding "hits" on his TV or stage shows.

I remember reading somewhere that his Australian tours produced some pretty unconvincing shows.  I think he even claimed the problem was he often couldn't fully understand spirits with Australian accents! 

But as far as mediums go, I do find him a bit unusually likeable in demeanour.   Joe Power seemed a bit of a sad, arrogant type who lived alone. 

Re-visiting Titus-Bode

Spacewatch: The Titius-Bode Law | Science | The Guardian

I haven't thought about the Titus-Bode law for some time, but the above post gives a good summary of it:

Nasa's Dawn probe has now left Vesta, its ion thrusters accelerating it gently towards the dwarf planet Ceres. It was back on the first day of the 19th century that Ceres became the first object to be discovered in what we now know as the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter.

That something was orbiting in that gap was suspected because of a numerical curiosity noticed a few years before. Known as the Titius-Bode Law, it begins with the sequence 0, 3, 6, 12 etc, where each number after the 3 is double its predecessor Add 4 to each and divide by 10 to arrive at 0.4, 0.7, 1.0, 1.6, 2.8, 5.2, 10.0, etc. To within 5% or so, these correspond with the distances of the known planets at the time when expressed in astronomical units (AU), the unit of the Earth's average distance from the Sun. Mars sits at almost 1.6AU and Jupiter at 5.2AU, but nothing was known at 2.8AU. Belief in the law was boosted, though, when Uranus was discovered in 1781 very close to the next-predicted distance of 19.6AU.

Ceres fitted the 2.8AU slot almost exactly and when other bodies began to be found at similar distances the idea grew that these are the debris from a single shattered planet. We now realise that Jupiter's powerful gravity has never allowed the material there to coalesce into a single object. Whether the Titius-Bode Law is anything more than a coincidence is still debated, but its prediction of 38.8AU fails for the outermost planet, Neptune, which orbits at close to 30AU.

For a co-incidence, it seems a fairly curious one.  If God, or the alien solar system builders, were trying to tell humans something, it turned out to be just a touch too subtle.  Or maybe, now that I think about it, along the lines of 2001 A Space Odyssey, is the missing planet spot where Neptune should be where humans are expected to go to see what's waiting for us there?   Has someone else suggested this before?  (My vague hopes of having an important original thought continue unabated.)

Southern ice

unknowispeaksense has an excellent post explaining that what's going on in Antarctic sea ice is not inconsistent with AGW.  

Antarctica was never expected to react in the same way to AGW as the Arctic.  Fake skeptics need to be reminded of that, even though they will ignore it again within the next 10 minutes.  They have short attention spans.

How's that slushy pole going?

Like this:

Improbable sounding reason for going to the Moon

 Build a supercomputer on the moon

NASA currently controls its deep space missions through a network of huge satellite dishes in California, Spain and Australia known as the Deep Space Network (DSN). Even the Voyager 1 probe relies on these channels to beam data back to Earth as it careers away into space. 

But traffic on the network is growing fast, at a rate that the current set-up can't handle. Two new dishes are being built in Australia at the moment to cope with the extra data, but a researcher from University of Southern California has proposed a slightly more radical solution to the problem. 

In a presentation to the AIAA Space conference in Pasadena, California, last Thursday, Ouliang Chang suggested that one way to ease the strain would be to build a supercomputer and accompanying radio dishes on the moon. This lunar supercomputer would not only ease the load on terrestrial mission control infrastructure, it would also provide computational power for the "first phase of lunar industrial and settlement development".

Chang suggests that a lunar supercomputer ought to be built on the far side of the moon, set in a deep crater near a pole. This would protect it somewhat from the moon's extreme temperature swings, and might let it tap polar water ice for cooling.

 Well, I have suggested before that the Moon be used as a biological and information lifeboat for the Earth, so I guess the supercomputer could fulfil part of that task. 

The Gaffe-tastic Mr Romney

I didn't really think much about Mr Romney before this election campaign.  As a moderate Republican governor who reformed health care and seemed to say the right things about climate change, I thought he might be OK in a head to head with a President who has, basically, had to learn on the job.

But really, who knew he could be so incredibly gaffe-tastic?  Not just when talking to the media (dissing England, sounding silly on Russia, jumping in too early on Muslim ) but put him behind closed doors and what the insults to half the US population fly.

There's so much commentary on how stupid his comments make him sound, it's hard to pick a favourite.  David Brooks in the NYT with "Thurston Howell Romney" was pretty good.  His concluding paragraphs are generous:

 Sure, there are some government programs that cultivate patterns of dependency in some people. I’d put federal disability payments and unemployment insurance in this category. But, as a description of America today, Romney’s comment is a country-club fantasy. It’s what self-satisfied millionaires say to each other. It reinforces every negative view people have about Romney.

Personally, I think he’s a kind, decent man who says stupid things because he is pretending to be something he is not — some sort of cartoonish government-hater. But it scarcely matters. He’s running a depressingly inept presidential campaign. Mr. Romney, your entitlement reform ideas are essential, but when will the incompetence stop?

And I guess this is consistent with a piece in Bloomberg yesterday.  The problem might not be Romney per se, but the way his Party has become entrenched in simplistic ideology to the extent they have stopped making sense and don't care about things like (as Bill Clinton said) arithmetic or (as I say) other evidence on something like climate change:

Most of Romney's troubles stem from his inability to shed a broad range of toxic Republican dogmas. The rhetorical and policy workarounds required for him to be both a loyal Republican and a viable candidate for the presidency have stretched him thin and pretzelly.

Why is Romney unable to discuss health care policy -- his most significant government success -- with any coherence or conviction? Because Republicans told their base that Obamacare was the devil's spawn and Romney (who originated the role of the devil in this theater of the absurd) must maintain the fiction.

Why is the most salient aspect of Romney's budget the gaping hole at its center? Because contemporary Republicans like to play fantasy league politics, in which vast swaths of government are magically excised by a legion of Randian Harry Potters. Voters, however, lack a similar imagination. If they saw real numbers signifying real cuts, they would punish Romney. So the numbers stay hidden and Romney's rhetoric and budget documents appear untrustworthy.

Why must Romney, a multimillionaire, push for highly unpopular tax cuts for the wealthy in an era of guilded inequality? Because his base demands it. If such cuts are bad economics (see the Bush administration, 2001-2009), bad fiscal policy (ditto) and unpopular with the broad electorate, so what? The Republican nominee must support tax cuts for the wealthiest -- no matter how much it costs him in credibility or votes.

The list goes on and on. Indeed, Romney's ill-fated foreign policy attack this week may be derived from the same impulse to appease the fantasies that have taken root in the Republican base, which clings to its belief that Obama is anti-American and vaguely in cahoots with terrorists (though presumably not the ones he has had assassinated).

Romney was a fairly successful governor who made a valuable breakthrough in an extremely complex policy arena: health care. His particular brand of business success would probably not be an unmitigated political boon under any circumstances. But any positive political effects have been buried amid Republican protests that the very wealthiest require additional tax breaks and the poorest need more "skin in the game."

But then again, maybe it is Romney after all.

Eating London rat

BBC News - Cane rat meat 'sold to public' in Ridley Road Market

Well, I didn't expect this.  There's quite a problem with illegal meats being sold in London: 

Cane rats and "shocking" quantities of illegal and "potentially unsafe" meat have been sold to the public in east London, a BBC London undercover investigation has found.

Secret filming in one of the capital's busiest food markets has revealed butchers and food stores prepared to sell large quantities of meat that breaks food safety laws. 

West African and environmental health officer sources told the BBC the Ridley Road Market, in Dalston, was a known hotbed of illicit meat activity, including sales of illegal "smokies", a delicacy made by charring sheep or goat with a blow torch.

 What's this about "smokies"?  The background is even stranger than eating a cane rat:

The practice of creating "smokies" is outlawed under UK and European food laws amid fears about public safety and animal welfare. 

It has also been linked to mafia-style gangs in Wales who steal sheep and goats, slaughtering them in unlicensed abattoirs. 

Dr Yunes Teinaz, a chartered environmental health practitioner, said: "Behind the underground trade in smokies are criminals who don't observe the law and are just after financial gain.

Gosh.  Why hasn't Scorsese  made a mafia movie about the sheep stealing (and burning) gangs of Wales? 

They grow up so fast...

Taken this morning, when possum and child suddenly re-appeared:

Neighbourhood Flying Foxes

For a year or more, at the edge of a golf course in my local area, a fairly large flying fox colony has taken up residence in some trees which are clearly visible from a road I drive along nearly every day.

I've been meaning to tax some photos, which I finally got around to doing on Sunday.  First a few zooming in on the colony:

And now a short bit of video:

One thing I don't understand about flying foxes is this:  they are black winged and dark furred, yet they are happy to roost in these trees which don't provide shade.  In Brisbane, if I wore a black leather coat and hung in the sun for the entire daylight hours, I would expect to be way too hot for about 90% of the year.   Why don't these animals find shade? 

I see from a bit of Googling this book section about their thermoregulation (and other matters):

Somewhat interesting, but instead of all that wing fanning and (according to another website, body licking) that they do to keep cool, why not just find more shade?

Modern weapons woes

Microwave weapons: Wasted energy : Nature News & Comment

This article in Nature, of all places, notes how the US has been looking into High Powered Microwave weapons for some time (including EMP "e-bombs") but apparently with limited success.

That seems a pity.  I would have assumed that the e-bombs to fit inside a cruise missile would be working well by now.   

Commentary as approved and disapproved by me

I liked William Saletan's piece explaining to Muslims that the internet means there are always going to idiots seeking to bait them into rioting, and doing so only satisfies the provocateurs. 

Waleed Aly was pretty good in The Age this morning too, with a very similar line.

But not good enough for Andrew Bolt:

That’s the usual Aly stuff. Unrepresentative minority. Understand the anger. See what you’ve done to provoke it. Let’s not question the faith itself. Yada yada yada.

I think this is a completely unfair reading of the Aly piece, but Andrew has to throw some meat to his readers. 

The wingnutty side of the Right is upset that this particular provocateur is questioned with much publicity about a technical way in which he may have broken the law.  Big deal.  As I noted before, the guy has possibly put the lives of a bunch of naive actors at risk too, and it would seem the LA sheriffs let him hide his own identity, which was kind of them.  I find it extremely hard to be upset with this.

As to the other Right wing commentary that is blaming all of this on Obama for being too soft on Islam, it was vaguely encouraging to read that George Will  rejected such simplistic claims over the weekend, in response to a Romney adviser's claim that a President Romney would have prevented this:

 Referring to the unrest over the last week, Williamson said, "[t]here's a pretty compelling story that if you had a President Romney, you'd be in a different situation."

"Is there?" Tapper asked Will.

“No,” Will told Tapper. “The great superstition of American politics concerns presidential power, and during a presidential year that reaches an apogee and it becomes national narcissism. Everything that happens anywhere in the world, we caused or we could cure with a tweak of presidential rhetoric.”

But Will was also critical of the White House, noting that Jay Carney, Obama's press secretary, also misunderstood the situation in the Middle East when he said the riots weren't about U.S. policy, but an anti-Islam video. 

"Actually, they're about neither," Will said. "If the video hadn't been the pretext, another one would have been found."

He added: “There are sectarian tribal civil wars raging across the region that we neither understand nor can measurably mitigate."

 Sounds about right to me.  Just as anyone who thought Obama could magically resolve all of Muslim World's problem by simply being nicer than George W was surely deluded,  the idea of a President Romney equally being able to settle everything down in the Middle East by talking, um, tougher, is equally stupid.

You do better, then...

Crying out for a speech bubble

Unhelpful

Slate has a report on tracking down the creator of the stupid video which has led to riots in the Middle East. 

The worrying part of the video for the actors involved is how it appears the most offensive lines were dubbed over their actual taped lines later.  As someone in the comments thread at Slate says, can't these actors sue this guy for putting their lives at risk?

If idiots want to put American lives at risk, I wish they would at least do it via their putting own face to their material and take the consequences personally.

Downton discussed

Since I never got around to watching Downton Abbey (series 1 or 2), I won't bother embedding the David Mitchell gripe about what happened to show.  It did amuse me, though.  I wonder if he right when he says the second series went nuts.

As found on coffee tables in Poland

Exorcism boom in Poland sees magazine launch – The Express Tribune

WARSAW: With exorcism booming in Poland, Roman Catholic priests here have joined forces with a publisher to launch what they claim is the world’s first monthly magazine focused exclusively on chasing out the devil.

“The rise in the number or exorcists from four to more than 120 over the course of 15 years in Poland is telling,” Father Aleksander Posacki, a professor of philosophy, theology and leading demonologist and exorcist told reporters in Warsaw at the Monday launch of the Egzorcysta monthly.

 Gee.  I wonder if it's available on Zinio for iPad yet?  More from the article:

According to both exorcists, depictions of demonic possession in horror films are largely accurate.

“It manifests itself in the form of screams, shouting, anger, rage – threats are common,” Posacki said.
“Manifestation in the form or levitation is less common, but does occur and we must speak about it — I’ve seen it with my own eyes,” he added.

With its 62-page first issue including articles titled “New Age — the spiritual vacuum cleaner” and “Satan is real”, the Egzorcysta monthly with a print-run of 15,000 by the Polwen publishers is selling for 10 zloty (2.34 euros, 3.10 dollars) per copy.

My personal views on exorcism are tentative and cautious, but I will leave the explanation for another day.  I'm still amused that there should be a magazine devoted to it.

Talking about the Arctic Ice

Ice loss shifts Arctic cycles : Nature News

 A good article here about the loss of Arctic ice.  The uncertainties in the modelling are noted:

Computer models that simulate how the ice will respond to a warming climate project that the Arctic will be seasonally ‘ice free’ (definitions of this vary) some time between 2040 and the end of the century. But the observed downward trend in sea-ice cover suggests that summer sea ice could disappear completely as early as 2030, something that none of the models used for the next report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change comes close to forecasting¹.

“There’s a tremendous spread between observations and model projections,” says Serreze. “It might be that natural variability is larger than assumed, or perhaps models don’t get the change in ice thickness right.” Uncertainty also remains over the strength of various natural ‘feedbacks’. For example, an exposed ocean is darker than an ice-covered surface and so absorbs more solar heat, causing yet more warming and melting.

A lack of fine detail about circulation patterns in the Arctic Ocean could also be throwing off the models. For example, a survey carried out in 2008 revealed 20 formerly unobserved eddies, each some 15 to 20 kilometres in diameter, in waters north of Canada. “Whether these are new features, and what role they might play for ocean-mixing processes, we don’t know yet,” says Yves Gratton, an oceanographer and Arctic researcher at the National Institute of Scientific Research in Montreal, Canada.

 Ice loss could also accelerate if the ice pack’s underlying waters warm up. Unlike in most of the world’s oceans, the coldest water in the Arctic, at −1 °C to −2 °C, is at the surface; below a depth of 200–300 metres, saltier and warmer water of about 1 °C flows in from the Atlantic. The cold surface layer — called the halocline — isolates the sea ice from the warmer water below.

But the halocline is vulnerable to warming from above, says Henning Bauch, a marine geologist at the GEOMAR research centre in Kiel, Germany. A thinning halocline — something that has not yet been observed — would not only jeopardize the sea ice but could also melt the carbon-rich permafrost beneath shallow coastal waters², releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

 The article also notes that it may well mean a lot of snow this winter in the US or Europe.

This and that

Really interesting stuff seems a bit hard to find lately, so I'm going for a handful of moderately interesting things today:

*   Bryan Appleyard had an interview with poor old Clive James in August which I missed (being in the Sunday Times and all), but it is available via Appleyard's website.

Clive says (amongst various other health problems) that he had a complete stoppage of the waterworks.  How often does that happen to men who keep putting off prostate operations, I wonder.   Sounds extremely unpleasant, but surely you have plenty of warning?

Everyone seems to like his "Cultural Amnesia" book.   Maybe I should try it?

*  Can't say I know much about the Texas "bone wars" of the 19th century.  Physorg has an article about some historical letters which shed a bit of light on the intrigue, described as follows::

Jacobs describes the late 1800s as a period of intense fossil collecting. The Bone Wars were financed and driven by Cope and his archenemy, Othniel Charles Marsh. The two were giants of paleontology whose public feud brought the discovery of dinosaur fossils to the forefront of the American psyche.

Cope, from Philadelphia, and Marsh, from Yale University, began their scientific quests as a friendly endeavor to discover fossils. They each prospected the American frontier and also hired collectors to supply them with specimens. Cope and Marsh identified and named hundreds of discoveries, publishing their results in scientific journals. Over the course of nearly three decades, however, their competition evolved into a costly, self-destructive, vicious all-out war to see who could outdo the other. Despite their aggressive and sometimes unethical tactics to outwit one another and steal each other's hired collectors, Cope and Marsh made major contributions to the field of paleontology, Jacobs said.

 There's no doubt a book out there somewhere about this.

*   In climate change news, Murray Salby last year got some notoriety by giving a lecture to a skeptic friendly crowd (most of whom, I am sure, could not really make head nor tail of the detail of his argument) about how he had shown that CO2 had little to do with increasing temperatures.  He promised a paper was going to be published about it, but it has not appeared.  From what I can gather, a paper just published from some other scientists runs pretty much the same argument.  Real Climate looks at it and finds the obvious flaws (similar to those that had been pointed out after Salby outlined his idea last year.)

Back to the drawing board, skeptics.

*  The transparently misleading spin put on climate change by The Australian continues, with a subheading to a report about Kurt Lambeck winning a prize for his work in the field as follows:

CLIMATE change moves at a glacial pace, according to an Australian researcher whose work has been recognised with one of the world's richest science prizes.

 Given that Lambeck has had opinion pieces saying things like this:

The independent messages from the four academies and the geological society are consistent and urgent....

Recognising that the consequences of climate change are potentially global, serious and irreversible on human time scales, the Australian Academy of Science has published such an assessment, The Science of Climate Change: Questions and Answers.

I expect he might be a tad annoyed at the spin put on his cautious words about uncertainties regarding the future rate of sea level rises.

Krugman notes

Paul Krugman has a nice, clear writing style, doesn't he?   I note this passage today regarding Republicans not making sense:

Right now Mitt Romney has an advertising blitz under way in which he attacks Mr. Obama for possible cuts in defense spending — cuts, by the way, that were mandated by an agreement forced on the president by House Republicans last year. And why is Mr. Romney denouncing these cuts? Because, he says, they would cost jobs! 

This is classic “weaponized Keynesianism” — the claim that government spending can’t create jobs unless the money goes to defense contractors, in which case it’s the lifeblood of the economy. And no, it doesn’t make any sense.

What about the argument, which I hear all the time, that Mr. Obama should have fixed the economy long ago? The claim goes like this: during his first two years in office Mr. Obama had a majority in Congress that would have let him do anything he wanted, so he’s had his chance.

The short answer is, you’ve got to be kidding.

As anyone who was paying attention knows, the period during which Democrats controlled both houses of Congress was marked by unprecedented obstructionism in the Senate. The filibuster, formerly a tactic reserved for rare occasions, became standard operating procedure; in practice, it became impossible to pass anything without 60 votes. And Democrats had those 60 votes for only a few months. Should they have tried to push through a major new economic program during that narrow window? In retrospect, yes — but that doesn’t change the reality that for most of Mr. Obama’s time in office U.S. fiscal policy has been defined not by the president’s plans but by Republican stonewalling.

It's all connected

Climate extremes and climate change: The Russian heat wave and other climate extremes of 2010

This recent paper by Trenberth and Fasullo notes the combination of ENSO and AGW led to high sea surface temperatures which led to floods and heat waves, at least in part.   The abstract provides more detail:

Natural variability, especially ENSO, and global warming from human influences together resulted in very high sea surface temperatures (SSTs) in several places that played a vital role in subsequent developments. Record high SSTs in the Northern Indian Ocean in May 2010, the Gulf of Mexico in August 2010, the Caribbean in September 2010, and north of Australia in December 2010 provided a source of unusually abundant atmospheric moisture for nearby monsoon rains and flooding in Pakistan, Colombia, and Queensland. The resulting anomalous diabatic heating in the northern Indian and tropical Atlantic Oceans altered the atmospheric circulation by forcing quasi-stationary Rossby waves and altering monsoons. The anomalous monsoonal circulations had direct links to higher latitudes: from Southeast Asia to southern Russia, and from Colombia to Brazil. Strong convection in the tropical Atlantic in northern summer 2010 was associated with a Rossby wave train that extended into Europe creating anomalous cyclonic conditions over the Mediterranean area while normal anticyclonic conditions shifted downstream where they likely interacted with an anomalously strong monsoon circulation, helping to support the persistent atmospheric anticyclonic regime over Russia. This set the stage for the “blocking” anticyclone and associated Russian heat wave and wild fires.

 But nonetheless, the last line is:

Attribution is limited by shortcomings in models in replicating monsoons, teleconnections and blocking. 

The expectation is that 2013 will be hot.  It will be "interesting" to see what knock on effects it has for the climate.

Today's biology lesson - Part 2

There's been a show running on SBS on a Sunday night called Inside Nature's Giants, which involves dead animal dissection to learn about their odd biological features. 

Last night, it was the kangaroo's turn (even though I would hardly think they count as "giants"), but in any event I was reminded about the odd feature of how female kangaroos can keep an embryo in stasis in their uterus (of which they have two, as well as three vaginas) while they have a joey in the pouch. 

I was wondering how much is known about how the biology of that works, but Googling is not showing up all that much information on the topic.  Embryonic diapause has its own Wikipedia entry, but it's pretty brief.  It does show, though, that quite a lot of mammals can do this trick.

The whole topic reminded me of a later Heinlein novel, in which the heroine turns out to have been secretly carrying an embryo, at body temperature of course, in a small genetically engineered "pouch" in her navel.  I think it must have been Friday, but even that has little information on the Web.  Anyhow, I remember thinking at the time that body temperature stasis of a human embryo seemed a bit unlikely, but I don't recall if at the time I realised that there were local mammals doing this trick. 

I wonder how much biological study this has ever received.  It would be a good trick if it could be applied to human embryos, in lieu of freezing them.

Today's biology lesson - Part 1

My seminal link with manga god Osamu Tezuka | The Japan Times Online

Well, here's a strange column about the famous creator of Astroboy (there's a photo of him looking natty in a beret) and his background in science.  Previously thought to have studied medicine, it seems he might only have done a PhD in ... snail sperm.

Which leads the writer to then note his own experience in studying silkworm sperm.  It's odd:

I was looking at another species with unusual sperm: the silkworm, an insect that has been bred for more than 5,000 years in China.

They are amazing animals. They have been bred for so long by humans that they have lost the ability to reproduce on their own: They require humans to bring them together. They have also lost the ability to fly. But they still beat their wings, and when they crawl over your hand, you feel tiny gusts of wind from their wings, like mini fans directed at your skin....

And here's why I briefly studied them: Like all butterflies and moths, silkworms have two types of sperm, produced in a roughly 50:50 ratio of ones with cell nuclei containing the DNA needed to fertilize the egg, and ones containing no DNA that are therefore unable to fertilize eggs. A sperm that can't fertilize an egg! What good is that?

That's the mystery, and while there are lots of ideas — the best among them being that the dud sperm are used as some kind of soldiers to fight off the sperm from other males in order to give their DNA-carrying brothers a chance — there is no consensus on their function.

 Yes, when you raise silkworms at home, as I have done a couple of times with the kids (involving a drive every second day to a mulberry tree in a neighbouring suburb on a vacant block of land to fetch leaves), the moths that emerge look weak and pathetic as they merely flutter a bit and don't move much.   But, in fact, this is normal.  

As you were....

You say "pomodoro", I say "tomato"

For some reason, this article from May was showing as special report on the SMH site this morning.  It's actually an interesting look at why Italian canned tomatoes are so cheap in Australia, and way outsell the home grown product.

I do sometimes buy Australian cans out of sympathy for a struggling industry, and I think it is true that their quality is now equivalent to the overseas ones.

Update:  here's a review of a book all about the history of the tomato in Italy.

Hard to disagree

Two conventions, two Americas. Seldom has the divide been greater | Michael Cohen | Comment is free | The Observer

This column begins with this:

Over the past two weeks, both major American political parties held their nominating conventions – and that's pretty much where the similarities end. After interminable speeches, cloying videos and occasional moments of rhetorical eloquence, the philosophical and tonal divide between them has never felt broader. Quite simply, Democrats and Republicans operate in two completely distinct realms, one that is defined by an attachment to reality and one that is increasingly detached from it.

If their three-day convention in Tampa is any indication, Republicans reside in a fantasy world where government plays no role but that of malevolence, where the free market is the salvation to all that ails this nation and where the country is locked in a Manichaean struggle between the forces of freedom and a failed, socialist interloper named Barack Obama.

It was a point driven home to me in Tampa when I overheard a Republican delegate declare in a sweet voice, reflecting more pity than anger: "There's a communist living in the White House."

 I find it hard to disagree (with Cohen, not the nutty Republican).

The bits of the conferences that I saw are reflected pretty accurately in this part of Cohen's piece:

Moreover, a party once derided for playing interest-group politics showed no hesitancy about going down that road in Charlotte. The convention was full of obvious appeals to women, gays, blacks, Hispanics, young people and, in the constant references to the successful bailout of the US car industry, organised labour. These are the groups that form the backbone of the Democratic coalition and are essential to the party's long-term success. Democrats far better than Republicans appreciate the destiny of demographics and they have done a far more effective job of cultivating these voters. Indeed, the contrast between the hues in Charlotte and Tampa was remarkable. The Democratic party is a party that looks like the palette of the American experience, not just in skin colour, but in class level. The Republican party (the one in the Tampa convention hall) is one that looks like Sunday brunch at a country club.

 And yet, you have right wing commentators like John Hinderaker scratching their heads over why the polling between Obama and Romney is close.  It should, according to JH, be an obvious walkover for Romney.

Funny, isn't it, how it doesn't seem to occur to those currently to the forefront of the Right in America that, you know, voters might actually be smart enough to realise that Republican policies such as:

a.   at a time of serious government budget deficits, the first step should be to reduce taxes, especially for the rich;

b.  at a time when both sides of politics agree that America is right to get out of Afghanistan, and defence spending should accordingly be able to be reduced,  a permanent and substantial increase in the defence budget is the right thing to do

don't make any sense at all.

Honestly, I can't recall the Right of politics in the US ever looking as stupidly ideologically driven as it does now. 

It surely cannot go on this way.

More HH amusement

On this week's episode of Horrible Histories, the kids and I were most taken by this segment:



And that was even before I Googled it to find what it was parodying:




All very amusing...

In further defence of Obama

I see that Charles Johnson has had a series of posts called "The Myth of Obama the Socialist", which argue that he is not the "big spending socialist" that Republicans claim.

Part III, which summarise his argument, and looks specifically at the debt he inherited, is here.   Interestingly, it's full of graphs and figures, some from what people would say are "suspect" sites (such as Think Progress), but also the Cato Institute (!) and the Ludwig von Mises Institute (!!).  

Johnson,  now loathed by the Right for his abandonment of them, seems to me to make a pretty good looking case.

Googling around, I also found this column by Ezra Klein in February this year, looking at the question of the Obama deficits.  He starts:

When Obama took office, the national debt was about $10.5 trillion. Today, it’s about $15.2 trillion. Simple subtraction gets you the answer preferred by most of Obama’s opponents: $4.7 trillion.

But ask yourself: Which of Obama’s policies added $4.7 trillion to the debt? The stimulus? That was just a bit more than $800 billion. TARP? That passed under George W. Bush, and most of it has been repaid.

There is a way to tally the effects Obama has had on the deficit. Look at every piece of legislation he has signed into law. Every time Congress passes a bill, either the Congressional Budget Office or the Joint Committee on Taxation estimates the effect it will have on the budget over the next 10 years. And then they continue to estimate changes to those bills. If you know how to read their numbers, you can come up with an estimate that zeros in on the laws Obama has had a hand in.

 It turns out to be a bit of a complicated question as to who to assign responsibility to for various things that affect the deficit, but the conclusion he reaches is this (my bold):

In total, the policies Obama has signed into law can be expected to add almost a trillion dollars to deficits. But behind that total are policies that point in very different directions. The stimulus, for instance, cost more than $800 billion. So did the 2010 tax deal, which included more than $600 billion to extend the Bush tax cuts for two years, and hundreds of billions more in unemployment insurance and the payroll tax cut. Obama’s first budget increased domestic discretionary spending by quite a bit, but more recent legislation has cut it substantially. On the other hand, the Budget Control Act — the legislation that resolved August’s debt-ceiling standoff — saves more than $1 trillion. And the health-care reform law saves more than $100 billion.

For comparison’s sake, using the same method, beginning in 2001 and ending in 2009, George W. Bush added more than $5 trillion to the deficit.

 My feeling that Obama has been relatively competent, as far as Presidents go, seems better justified than I realised.  

Mary and the Romans

I've been meaning to note that I quite enjoyed the 3 part doco series "Meet the Romans" on SBS the last 3 weeks.

Mary Beard wrote and hosted the series, and as I liked reading her Times columns, at least until they went behind a paywall, I was looking forward to seeing this.

That said, she did take a bit of getting used to as a host.  She was a bit repetitive, particularly in the first episode, and a bit, um, over enthusiastic at times; but by the last episode tonight I had become  accustomed to her style.

The theme of the series was to look at ancient Rome from the point of view of the day to day life of the ordinary folk:  the goings on in politics and emperors was definitely not the subject of the show.   Given that the Romans had a habit of writing their life story on their tombs, many of which are recorded or still standing, their stories are still very readily accessible.

Episodes 2 and 3 can still be viewed on line at SBS (for now), and I think large chunks of it may also be permanently on Youtube.  (This clip from tonight's episode showing a baby's cradle was touching.)

UPDATE:  soon after posting this last night, I checked my email account via which I get notice of comments left on posts, and found this:

 I'm not behind the paywall... easiest way to access is through the TLS website, totally free (glad you got to like the series) 

But it hasn't (at time of writing this) appeared in comments on the post, and I can't see why.    

In any event, thanks Mary.   Yes, her blog is here.  Silly me.

Taking plastic seriously

Catalyst: Plastic Oceans - ABC TV Science

I was quite surprised by this story on Catalyst earlier this week.  The link contains the video and transcript.

The first surprise:  that the shearwater birds that live on Lord Howe Island appear to frequently die of stomachs absolutely loaded with plastic - which they apparently mistake for fish in the ocean. 

Lord Howe Island is in the middle of the South Pacific and has a tiny population - it's about the last place you would expect serious problems from marine plastic rubbish to arise.

The second surprise:  this part of the story, where they start talking about plastics that eventually break up into tiny pieces are still a major concern for their toxic effect:

Dr Jennifer Lavers
They have what I call the invisible toxic effect. It, it's less easy to detect but equally as scary.
The plastic itself inherently contains a wide array of chemicals that are used during the manufacturing and processes. When the plastic is put out into the marine environment and it floats around in the ocean for let's say ten or forty years it really does last forever, it basically acts like a little magnet or a sponge and it takes all the contaminates that are out there in the ocean environment that are really diluted in the ocean water and it concentrates it up, onto the surface.
Plastic itself has up to a thousand times a higher concentration of containments on its surface than the surrounding seawater from which it came. And when the animal, whether it's a turtle or a seabird takes that into their body those contaminants leach out into the blood stream and is incorporated into the tissues.

NARRATION
Jennifer Lavers collects and weighs plastic from dead birds and sends the feathers off for lab analysis. They reveal what contaminants are in the body.

Dr Jennifer Lavers
The flesh footed shearwater on Lord Howe Island is officially the world's most heavily contaminated seabird just from mercury alone. So the toxic threshold that's widely regarded around the world for birds is four point three parts per million. Anything above that four point three PPM is considered toxic to the birds. Well flesh footed shearwaters on Lord Howe Island are between one thousand and three thousand parts per million.

 The story indicates that the problems with broken down plastics getting into the food chain (right from the plankton level!) is just starting to be widely recognized in research.

It's a cause for concern, by the sounds... 

Things you learn

I've just found something useful.

When you use a pc to try to watch Colbert or the Daily Show from their Comedy Central websites, you get blocked from watching the videos in Australia. You can use an overseas proxy server to get around this, I suppose, but I haven't bothered trying.

Mediate sometimes puts up some of the videos from those shows on their site, and they aren't region blocked, but they don't put up much.

I have just now learned that if you use an iPad, even just via a browser (ie, without loading the shows' apps), you can get an iPad digest version of the shows which contains videos you can watch from Australia.

It's a lot less content than from the normal website, but it's a lot more than I have been able to watch over the last year or so.

Fellow iPad users of Australia who did not realize this, you can thank me later....

A bad, bad look

Twitter Reveals an Ugly Underbelly of Misogyny | The Moderate Voice

Is it any wonder that women are leery of voting Republican?

The Clinton speech

The Bill Clinton speech at the Democrat convention is getting some rave reviews, and rightly so.

I have never thought Clinton a particularly gifted speaker, and I have quite neutral feelings about his presidency, but this speech really was something. He was articulate; gave detail where it was needed to counter Republican memes (and in particular, to summarise perfectly the problem with the Romney tax plan); and made several well deserved calls for the Right to come back to the centre for the good of the nation.

Former Bush aide Matt Latimer, clearly no fan of Clinton's style, still reached this conclusion, with which I thoroughly agree:

Here’s why I think Bill Clinton’s speech was successful. For all of his tortured arguments and wonky, ponderous asides, Bill Clinton made a substantive case. He dealt with facts and statistics. He made points and then explained why he made them. He had details. Boy, did he have details. In short, he did what almost no one at the Republican convention tried to do, what few conventions bother to do anymore. He treated the American people like thinking human beings.

The only problem I see with the speech was that it was so effective, where does it leave Obama to go in his acceptance?  I guess a nomination acceptance speech is not the place to be doing the sort of detail that Clinton managed anyway, but I think there is still a bit of danger in Obama sounding too full of mere "hope and change-y" rhetoric again.   In fact, I wouldn't think it a bad idea if Obama appeared somewhat contrite about not being able to live up to expectations that people had built up around him.   

One other point:  while I guess there are still ways for this convention to go sour for the Democrats, who can credibly argue that in both appearance and content it is not putting the Republican one to shame?  And this is driving the Right wing bloggers nuts, I reckon.   Unbelievably, Andrew Bolt  thought the Clint Eastwood empty chair routine was devastating (well it was, but not in the way Andrew thought):

Clint Eastwood didn’t just hit the ball out of the park at the Republican convention. He smashed it through the White House windows.

One of the most effective political speeches I’ve ever heard, although most of its power came simply from the man who delivered it.

Bolt hasn't commented on the Clinton speech yet, and as I say, it remains possible that the Democrats could try something that backfires on the last day as well.  But from this point in time, it's looking like the lingering impressions from the conventions are going to be from Clint and Clinton.

Andrew, if there is any faint glimmer of objectivity left in your head, which do you think is going to play well in history?

Update:  for some pretty funny stuff from Jon Stewart on the convention, you can see a 10 minutes clip here at Mediaite.

Significant biology news

Breakthrough study overturns theory of 'junk DNA' in genome | Science | The Guardian

Seems a decent explanation is given in this quite long report.

Unexpected goings on in the tea plantation

Deadly witch hunts targeted by grassroots women's groups

An odd story from India, where (apparently) life amongst the poor village tea pickers can be dangerous:

In 2003, at a tea plantation in Jalpaiguri, five women were tied up, tortured and killed after being falsely accused of witchcraft in the death of a male villager who had suffered from a stomach illness. Chaudhuri interviewed the villagers at length and found that such attacks are often impulsive and that the "witch" is often killed immediately. Widespread alcoholism is also a factor, she found.

But the study also documents examples of the women's groups stopping potential attacks. In one case, a woman was accused of causing disease in livestock and an attack was planned. Members of the self-help groups gathered in a vigil around the woman's home and surrounded the accuser's home as well, stating their case to the accuser's wife. Eventually the wife intervened and her husband recanted and "begged for forgiveness." 

Through the loan program, each woman is issued a low-interest, collateral-free "microcredit" loan of about 750 rupees ($18) to start her own business such as basket weaving, tailoring or selling chicken eggs. Participants meet in groups of about eight to 10 to support one another.

That's an odd side benefit of microfinance...

The melt in history

Climate change skeptics are deploying the old "this [record] Arctic melt is not so unusual when you go back in history" ploy, so Skeptical Science has a long and detailed look at studies that show this is not true. Good job.

Jet stream is on the move

 Measurements of the movement of the jet streams at mid-latitudes, in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, 1979 to 2010

Interesting paper which says the jet streams, and weather systems, have been on the move  for the last 30 years, and the predominant reason appears to be the direct radiative forcing from greenhouse gases.

Stewart on the empty chair

I am not his biggest fan, but Jon Stewart's take on the Eastwood empty chair routine is pretty much exactly what I expected: pretty funny, and insightful about the politics of it too. Here it is:

What a melt

It hasn't bottomed out yet either:

Something to note as a matter of caution, though.  Andy Revkin has taken a very careful approach on this, and reminds us that one paper found that modelling indicates that (suprisingly) intermittent positive trends in Arctic ice are still possible on 2 -20 timescales until the middle of the 21st century.   This must be remembered; as any temporary recovery in the next decade will be claimed by the climate change denialists as proof positive that AGW predictions were wrong.  (Just as they love to falsely claim that the 2011 Australian floods were inconsistent with climate change predictions.)

However, I would have to guess that this "reversal in trend" possibility is looking a bit improbable given the dramatic loss of volume in sea ice.

Modelling sea ice behaviour does seem to be a particularly complicated thing, though.

American Politics

I was rather critical of the lack of qualifications and unrealistic and over-inflated rhetoric of "hope and change" through which Obama got the Democrat nomination and the presidency. And to be honest, so much of American domestic politics is so complicated, with the way their party allegiances in Congress don't work in the same way they do here, that I'm not the most comprehensive reader there is about arcane Washington fights over budgets and legislation. 

So, with that qualification, what's my feelings about the Obama presidency from this point in time?   My general impression is that it has been, more-or-less, competent enough.  Not earth shatteringly brilliant, of course.  I don't think anyone argues that.     Quite a few mistakes and embarrassments, but all Presidents have those.  But not terrible.  Or, if you like, no where near as bad as his lack of qualifications would have indicated was possible.  The general impression is one of a pretty cautious man of reasonable character* who hasn't stuffed things up to a significant degree.  But then again, nor has he been able to take action on certain matters as he should.

My general impression is bolstered by an article in The Economist  which argues that he deserves more credit than he is being given on economic policy.   This feels about right to me.

But of course, a significant part of my feelings about Obama is derived not so much from seeing that he especially deserves credit for leadership and smarts, but from seeing how the Right in the US has run off some ideological cliffs in the last three years, and simply does not appear credible in so many ways now.

Everyone knows I think climate change is important, and really despise the way a handful of unconvinced climate scientist's opinions have been inflated by virtue of the internet into a powerful public and political influence against taking action on CO2.  This quintessentially unscientific enterprise has had its greatest effect on the Right in the US, no doubt because small government and libertarian inclinations are strongest there and these ideologies are always inclined to be hostile to government action of any kind which interfere with how businesses operate.   It's a major embarrassment for those who think the Right is usually the side which is the most pragmatic and accepts evidence as to what works and what doesn't, and is not stuck on ideologically fixated non solutions as the Left can be.

I worry now that readers may think that I put attitude to climate change as my number one priority for assessing politicians.  But, honestly, is it my fault that this does indeed seem to be the bellwether for common sense and reliability in most matters now?  I mean, even if the Tea Party was not effectively forcing Republican candidates to become overtly dismissive of global warming, I  am sure I would still be dismissive of their economic ideas which are, essentially, a triumph of ideology over practicality.

For example, have a look at this article in The Atlantic about Romney's ill formed and "impossible" tax plan.   I don't trust Krugman on absolutely every point, but I find most of what he complains about in the Republicans to be credible and biting.   His recent column on health costs, for example, or his long standing assessment that Paul Ryan has an undeserved reputation for being serious on fiscal policy. 

I don't have a problem with the proposal that the US economy needs some major tax overhaul, and that spreading the tax base is a good idea, and removing some silly deductions is badly needed.   But it seems that you do not get serious and fair plans being put by the Right anymore - in fact Krugman argues the Republicans are stuck on stupid from way back.   Instead, you get things like Herman Cain with a 999 plan that is so extreme in its effects that even the Wall Street Journal was cool about it.  And you get a fetish about returning to a gold standard (from Cain and sympathetic sounds from Ryan - who, for God's sake, is quoted as saying he finds Ayn Rand influential on the topic.)

It's hard not to conclude that the problem is simply that, while all politicians hate the idea of selling increased taxes to the public,  the part of the Right which is absolutely ideologically committed to the idea that increases in taxes are universally Evil and Bad, and decreases in taxes always and in every circumstance a Good Thing, is currently in control of the Republicans.  Along with this goes the idea that small government is always better government, and (now) that Keynesian spending is always bad.  And gold.  Going back to gold is always good.**

These are, frankly, matters where ideologiy is triumphing over pragmatism, and either ignoring evidence, or interpreting evidence with this predetermined conclusion in mind.   It is no wonder that those who hold these views are nearly always also disbelievers in climate change.

And look at how separated from reality Right wing commentary is becoming.   Large slabs of it in the US, and some of the equivalent wingnuts in Australia, thought that Clint Eastwood's performance at the Republican convention was unalloyed brilliance that was somehow all the more effective for being rambling and looking like it was being "winged" (as indeed it was.)  Ann Althouse:

AND: Here's the whole Eastwood performance. Is it really that hard to get? No, they're merely playing dumb (and humorless), even though they want the other party to be known as "the stupid party."

UPDATE: I just rewatched the performance. It was great! Hilarious... subtle... well-paced.... The haters are totally bullshitting and playing dumb (assuming they are not actually dumb). And what they are trying to do is scare other celebrities: Toe the line or we will destroy you. That crushing repression is the opposite of what the performing arts should be about.

I can handle people saying something like "it wasn't so bad, it played well enough to the crowd" (even though I personally think the fact the crowd found some of the ill considered jokes hilarious made them look pretty stupid).  What I can't get (to the point of doubting people's sanity) is the assessment that it was a brilliant bit of "jazz improvisation" or (to paraphrase someone at Catallaxy) that it was culturally important as giving Americans permission to finally be dismissive of Obama.   The crazed Obama and Gillard hating mind that wrote that knows completely about the rabid wingnut blogs in the States (he links to them frequently), and endorsed Limbaugh slut-calling of Sarah Fluke; yet he thinks the nation was waiting for permission to be crude, rude and ugly towards Obama and anyone who supports him?

As I say, the Right, in large part, has gone stupid;  I'm just sitting here waiting for it to return towards me.


*  I tend to sympathise with most Presidents of either persuasion, although I always felt very cool towards Reagan -  I just never got the "Great Communicator" tag and was not convinced that there was much in the way of natural intellect there.  I have always been persuaded by Christopher Hitchen's take on the man.  But it's arguably the most important job in the world, constantly involving complicated decisions of life and death with  regard to military and foreign affairs in particular.  I don't really see why anyone wants the responsibility and takes it on.

**  The linkage between climate change denialism and a fixation on gold is remarkable. Australia's Jonova and her husband David Evans are gold bugs from way back.

Last week's good health news noted

Chocolate reduces stroke risk for men, research claims

Yes, this is cheering, even if the effect is not huge:

Larsson writes in the latest edition of Neurology, the medical journal of the American Academy of Neurology: "High chocolate consumption was associated with a lower risk of stroke."

Men who ate the most chocolate, a weekly average of 63 grams, had a 17% lower risk of stroke compared with men who ate none. The correlation did not seem to differ depending on different types of stroke.

Larsson corroborated her findings by conducting a meta-analysis of five other studies, containing a total of 4,260 cases of stroke across Europe and the United States. She found the risk of stroke for individuals in the highest category of chocolate consumption was 19% lower compared with non-chocolate eaters. Every increase in chocolate consumption of 50g per week, reduced the risk of stroke by about 14%, Larsson found.

Also, it's odd that this result from Sweden was not all based on dark chocolate:

  Larsson said: "Interestingly, dark chocolate has previously been associated with heart health benefits, but about 90% of the chocolate intake in Sweden, including what was consumed during our study, is milk chocolate."

Still, they recommend dark chocolate, but obviously in modest quantities.

The other good news was that it appears starving yourself for long life seems not to be worth the effort.  There's a very good article at Slate about the recent monkey study about this, but it explains a lot more about the background to the calorie restriction idea, which goes back to the 1930's.  I also didn't know this:

The history of calorie restriction research is strewn with odd results that have been left unexplained (at best) or outright ignored (at worst). When Steven Austad of the University of Texas–San Antonio tested wild-caught mice, for instance, he found no caloric-restriction-induced increase in lifespan. In another study, researchers created 42 different cross-bred mouse strains and found that in a third of the strains, caloric restriction actually seemed to shorten lifespan. And even Clive McCay, the father of caloric restriction, found weird results: In his 1935 experiment, caloric restriction worked only in the males.

In fact, caloric restriction really seemed to work best in standard laboratory mice. This may be because they are predisposed to eat a lot, gain weight, and reproduce early—and thus are more sensitive to reduced food intake. (Slate’s Daniel Engber has written about how overfed lab mice have distorted scientific research.)

Even better, the article notes this:

 Several studies have shown that excessive leanness—seen often in calorie-restricting humans—can be as risky as obesity. Taken together, these studies suggest that the optimal body-mass index is about 25, which is on the verge of being overweight

Given that I'm only about  2 or 3 kg over BMI 25, I'm somewhat encouraged.

Small brains recognize trouble...larger brains, not so much

BBC Nature - Birds hold 'funerals' for dead

Paul Ryan Is a Climate Change Denialist