Friday, November 20, 2015

Etiology of Social Dementia - 14

Obola Newsroom #61
In the previous post of this series I wrote: "This series began years ago on 9/18/09, and has covered a lot of ground since (Etiology of Social Dementia, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12)" (Etiology of Social Dementia - 13).

We saw some of the social dementia at work in the recent, yet long forgotten, Obola chronicles of the Ebola nothingness (Obola: Art Thou Dying Properly?).

Now, the Obola nothingness people (McTell News) and those they infect, are wrongfully disparaging refugees who suffer only from demented warmonger activities conducted against their nations and peoples in the middle east.

Those maligned refugees are suspected of having Obola it would seem.

At the same time the same media Presstitutes are making such a big deal out of the horrible warmongering that they love to talk up, so long as it is small enough to fill their minds (In the Fog of The Presstitutes, 2, 3, 4).

Yet we hear only crickets when we point out to them that they are missing the big picture of what is really dangerous, and a threat to society:
In today's post we will see that Americans are more likely to be killed or harmed by multitudes of dangers far greater than any danger posed by terrorists.

First off, let's take a look at a scientific study of neoCon right-wing fear mongering, conducted by John Mueller and Mark G. Stewart, which looked into the cost-benefit ratios of that fear mongering on the economy:
The cumulative increase in expenditures on US domestic homeland security over the decade since 9/11 exceeds one trillion dollars. It is clearly time to examine these massive expenditures applying risk assessment and cost-benefit approaches that have been standard for decades. Thus far, officials do not seem to have done so and have engaged in various forms of probability neglect by focusing on worst case scenarios; adding, rather than multiplying, the probabilities; assessing relative, rather than absolute, risk; and inflating terrorist capacities and the importance of potential terrorist targets. We find that enhanced expenditures have been excessive: to be deemed cost-effective in analyses that substantially bias the consideration toward the opposite conclusion, they would have to deter, prevent, foil, or protect against 1,667 otherwise successful Times-Square type attacks per year, or more than four per day. Although there are emotional and political pressures on the terrorism issue, this does not relieve politicians and bureaucrats of the fundamental responsibility of informing the public of the limited risk that terrorism presents and of seeking to expend funds wisely. Moreover, political concerns may be over-wrought: restrained reaction has often proved to be entirely acceptable politically.
(Terror, Security, and Money, PDF, emphasis added). The neglectful thinking which the perverted propagandists use is based in paranoia:
There's a certain blindness that comes from worst-case thinking. An extension of the precautionary principle, it involves imagining the worst possible outcome and then acting as if it were a certainty. It substitutes imagination for thinking, speculation for risk analysis and fear for reason. It fosters powerlessness and vulnerability and magnifies social paralysis. And it makes us more vulnerable to the effects of terrorism.
(Worst-Case Thinking Makes Us Nuts, Not Safe). Clearly, officials seek to institutionalize a type of social paranoia, which actually is a mental disorder:
It is common to have suspicious thoughts or worries about other people from time to time. These fears are described as paranoid when they are exaggerated and not based in fact. There are three key features of paranoid thoughts:
  • you fear that something bad will happen
  • you think that others are responsible
  • your belief is exaggerated or unfounded.
(Understanding Paranoia, emphasis added). Again, worst-case thinking is a sign of paranoid thinking, which is made plain by the fact that we are more likely to die from being struck by lightning than by a terrorist:
  • You are 35,079 times more likely to die from heart disease than from a terrorist
  • You are 33,842 times more likely to die from cancer than from a terrorist
  • obesity is 5,882 to 23,528 times more likely to kill you than a terrorist
  • you are 5,882 times more likely to die from medical error than terrorism
  • you’re 4,706 times more likely to drink yourself to death than die from terrorism
  • you are 1,904 times more likely to die from a car accident than from a terrorist
  • your meds are thousands of times more likely to kill you than Al Qaeda
  • you’re 2,059 times more likely to kill yourself than die at the hand of a terrorist
  • you’re 452 times more likely to die from risky sexual behavior than terrorism
  • you’re 353 times more likely to fall to your death ... than die in a terrorist attack
  • you are 271 times more likely to die from a workplace accident than terrorism
  • you are 187 times more likely to starve to death in America than be killed by terrorism
  • you’re about 22 times more likely to die from a brain-eating zombie parasite than a terrorist
  • you were more than 9 times more likely to be killed by a law enforcement officer than by a terrorist
  • [being] “crushed to death by ... [TV] or furniture” [as likely as] being killed by terrorist
  • Americans are 110 times more likely to die from contaminated food than terrorism
  • you are more likely to be killed by a toddler than a terrorist
  • you [are] four times more likely to be struck by lightning than killed by a terrorist
(More Likely To Be Killed By Lightning Than Terrorists). To show how naked the emperor is without the propaganda clothing, note that we are far, far more likely to die from Oil-Qaeda than al-Qaeda:
More than 100 million people will die ... by 2030 if the world fails to tackle climate change, a report commissioned by 20 governments said on Wednesday.
It calculated that five million deaths occur each year from air pollution, hunger and disease as a result of climate change and carbon-intensive economies, and that toll would likely rise to six million a year by 2030 if current patterns of fossil fuel use continue.
"A combined climate-carbon crisis is estimated to claim 100 million lives between now and the end of the next decade," the report said.
(Oil-Qaeda - The Indictment, see also IPCC Report #5). Regular readers will remember the Dredd Blog series Etiology of Social Dementia, 9/18/09, through Etiology of Social Dementia - 10, 9/5/13, wherein we isolate significant social dementia to government and business propaganda sources.
(Terrorism We Can Believe In? - 3). It is like the Presstitutes of McTell News freak out forever if a hundred or so are killed, but when millions are killed it is merely a statistic.

The terrorists and everybody else are well aware of this, and have been well aware of it since before dirt.

Take Stalin's observation in context for example:
This is another case that gives credence to the observational ability of the dark hearted one, who said:
"The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic."
(Joseph Stalin). That statement is beyond the grasp of many because there is a dearth of understanding about our animal / mammalian subconscious dynamics:
That's what Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin allegedly once said to U.S. ambassador Averill Harriman. And Stalin was an expert on the topic since his regime killed as many 43 million people. It turns out that the mustachioed murderer may have been expressing an acute insight into human psychology. Earlier this week, the Washington Post's always interesting Department of Human Behavior columnist Shankar Vedantam reported on the research of University of Oregon professor Paul Slovic who looked at how people respond to humanitarian tragedies. As Vedantam explains:
In a rational world, we should care twice as much about a tragedy affecting 100 people as about one affecting 50. We ought to care 80,000 times as much when a tragedy involves 4 million lives rather than 50. But Slovic has proved in experiments that this is not how the mind works.

When a tragedy claims many lives, we often care less than if a tragedy claims only a few lives. When there are many victims, we find it easier to look the other way.
Slovic has also shown that the amount of compassion humans feel can diminish as the number of victims increases: In an experiment in Israel, Slovic asked volunteers whether they would help raise $300,000 to save eight children who were dying of cancer. Those in another group were told only about one child with cancer and asked how much they were willing to donate to save the life of that child. Slovic found that people were willing to give more money to save one life than to save eight.

"When we trust our feelings in these cases, we are led down the path of turning our backs on the suffering of many people," Slovic said. "Even though we don't think of ourselves as uncaring, if we trust our moral intuition, it is not designed by evolution to respond accurately to these types of situations of mass tragedy."
(Reason, emphasis added). Another application of the concept is the reaction to the death of one lion, Cecil, compared with the relative indifference to the extinction of all lions currently being brought on by the use of fossil fuels.
(Greenland & Antarctica Invade The United States - 4). I guess the only thing to do is stay safe, don't catch Obola (Alzheimer's is ok though).

Being lost in space is a drag (You Are Here).

The next post in this series is here, the previous post in this series is here.

Thursday, November 19, 2015

Questionable "Scientific" Papers

Senator Inhofe's research staff
I. Introduction

I am beginning a new series on questionable scientific papers, because there seems to be a surge in their numbers lately.

This post could have been placed in the Agnotology series.

But, that series is getting crowded, with 17 posts already (Agnotology: The Surge - 17).

So is the Weekend Rebel Science Excursion series, with 53 already (Weekend Rebel Science Excursion - 53), so, here we go, and maybe, just maybe, we can work up a scale for awarding the worst science paper of the year award (e.g. "the Inhofe Research Award").

Today's candidate Inhofe Research Award paper, like the last one I posted about (here), is published in the journal Nature.

A journal that may be going the way of National Geographic.

The National Geographic that was recently purchased by Robert Murdoch, who also owns the scientific journal Fox News.

II. Today's Candidate

The Inhofe Research Award paper asserts that:
Here we project that the Antarctic ice sheet will contribute up to 30 cm sea-level equivalent by 2100 and 72 cm by 2200 ...
(Nature Letter, 18 Nov 2015). Note that "30 cm" is 300 mm (0.98 ft), and 72 cm is 720 mm (2.36 ft).

The software model that they talked about in their paper, and used to reach their dark minded conclusion, sucks.

That model projects that only 3.53 mm (2100 - 2015 = 85 yrs; 300mm ÷ 85yrs = 3.53 mm yr) per year of sea level rise (SLR) from Antarctica up to 2100.

Those who care to base software models on reality know that there are annual tide gauge station records going back to the early 1800's, located all around the globe, which refute this junk "science" paper (e.g. Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level, PSMSL).

Those records reveal, to those who can read, that orders of magnitude more than 3.53 mm per year already happen in locations around the world.

That would amount to astronomically more that 30cm over 85 years.

Washington, DC, for example, in 1996 alone had a sea level rise (SLR) of 153 mm (43.34 times more than their bogus yearly average of 3.53 mm).

The very next year, Santa Cruz had a one year SLR of 235 mm (66.57 times more than their bogus yearly average of 3.53 mm).

The list goes onward and upward:

Station NameNumberLatitudeLongitude↕mmYear

(Weekend Rebel Science Excursion - 51). Those figures are from the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL).

The first two columns on the table above, "Station Name, Number" equate to "Station Name, ID" on the list of tide gauge stations around the world covered by PSMSL at the link just above.
Writing Scientific Papers

You can look them up on the PSMSL website, by clicking on the PSMSL (Station) ID column using the same unique station number/id.

III. The Sources

At footnote 4 in the ill advised paper, they cite to a paper by author Dr. Eric Rignot (see video below).

He is a professor and scientist who has studied, for decades, the glaciers of the world along with the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica.

Anthropogenic Global Warming increases SLR
He is also is one of the authors in the recent paper that says a 10 foot SLR could take place by 2050 (A Paper From Hansen et al. Is Now Open For Discussion, 2, 3).

The year 2050 is fifty years earlier than the goofy estimate in today's subject paper, the goofy Inhofe Research Award paper.

Ten feet of potential SLR by 2050 is orders of magnitude more SLR than their paper indicates.

IV. Conclusion

Perhaps the authors of the goofy Inhofe Research Award paper are seeking a job working for Oil-Qaeda (Oil-Qaeda & MOMCOM Conspire To Commit Depraved-Heart Murder, 2, 3) ?

The next post in this series is here.

A discussion about ice shelves vs. ice sheets by Dr. Eric Rignot, Phd.:

15:29 when the ice shelf "Larsen A" collapsed the entire glacier's flow speed toward the sea increased ...
18:50 "Larsen B" ice shelf collapse caused the same thing ... the entire glacier's flow accelerated toward the sea ...
19:30 when the ice shelf goes away so does the restraint on the glacier, and they then move faster, 8 times faster, toward the sea
27:15 the East Antarctica Totten Glacier basin contains about as much ice as all of Western Antarctica, and it is destabilizing
30:30 the condition of the ice shelf controls what happens to the ice sheet

A discussion of, among other things, SLC as impacted by ice sheet mass and gravity:

Wednesday, November 18, 2015

The Evolution of Models - 16

Fig. 1
I had a bit of a brainstorm, which seemed reasonably useful, so I implemented it into the model.

That brainstorm was to use GISS global mean average TEMPERATURE data from the good folks at GISS (GISS global mean).

Fig. 2
Fig. 3
I did it now because it uses the same classes / objects that are already functioning, so it did not take much effort.
Fig. 4

At least it is not much effort compared to what I think regular readers will consider to be a very valuable tool in the study of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).
Fig. 5

The trick to this (in terms of making data that have too much distance from other data, in terms of a wide spread in magnitude for graphing them on the same graph) is to develop a ratio relationship (like PSMSL has done with sea level data).

For example, 7 mm of global mean sea level rise (GMSLR) is a long way from .07 degrees C of global mean temperature rise (GMTR) in terms of graphing both of them on the same graph.

But, in the context we are talking about, it is useful to have them on the same graph,
Fig. 6
because the two are related.

One (GMTR) causes the other (GMSLR).

Thus, it seems useful to put them on the same graph along with local tide gauge station records, to show that temperature is related to SLR, thereby producing a more informative graph.

We know that dumping CO2 into the atmosphere causes warming, but how long between the dumping, the warming, and the SLR?

Fig. 7 GISS / CSIRO (1880-2013)
We also know that the warming shows up not only in the air, but also on land and in the ocean.

We know that it does so in different percentages, and in different time scales.

That is, the air will warm first, then the land and oceans will warm following the air temperature increase.

It is also helpful to reasonably know how long before the warming air, warming land, and warming oceans take place in order to cause ice sheets to begin to melt and otherwise disintegrate.

In other words, how long does it take to eventually cause SLR or sea level fall (SLF)?

As you peruse the graphs, remember that they begin at the year the tide gauge station began to keep local sea level records.

That same beginning place is required to maintain synchronization.

When you look at these graphs from different locations, with different beginning dates, you will see that generally global temperature rise happens first, then SLR follows.

Notice also, that SLR tends to catch up after some period of time.

The older the tide gauge station records are, the more they show that it has taken a relatively long time for the surface temperature to translate into SLR.

But, when that happens, the SLR tends to keep rising without the surface temperature doing so any further (a delay phenomenon).

That tells us, doesn't it, that future SLR is going up, based on what has already happened, and will continue to do so regardless of the current attempts to mitigate it.

The green line and the red line (global mean averages) all come together between circa 1950-1960.

On local tide gauge stations it is more difficult to discern, however, local records have a useful local purpose.

Global mean average records do not inform of local events.

This global mean average surface temperature and SLR convergence indicates to me that it took a long time for the oceans to catch up with surface global warming (air, land).

But, now that the oceans have caught up, they are warming along "with less effort" now.

The current El Niño is looking to break the past record set circa 1997, which logically follows.

The Hansen et al. paper indicating that a 10 ft. SLR is possible in places by 2050 also follows.

SLR is now accelerating faster than surface temperature over the long run.

The ocean can't take much more heat, so surface melting will increase enough to give subsurface melting a run for its money.

Sea ports will become extinct, not just endangered, as they are now.

I have written enough for one blog, so see you tomorrow.

The next post in this series is here, the previous post in this series is here.

"Brainstorm" by the Amygdaloids:

Tuesday, November 17, 2015

Extinction: Peace

"Whoopie, we're all gonna die"
Tom Engelhardt asked the question: "Is America Hooked on War?"

I think that the answer to his question is that some percentage of Americans are hooked on war (warmongers, "Dick Cheney, John McCain").

Others romanticize war (the "war is peace", "my warrior hero" trance).

Or the profits made from war by those who control the weapons and materiel making  corporations ("war profiteers, Daddy Warbucks").

Yet, another percentage of Americans have heeded the words of one of the founders;  specifically the one who wrote the "Bill of Rights," and the one who is called "The Father of the Constitution."

His words were pointed out in a Toxins of Power Blog post in November of 2009:
An answer from the sages in our past who we are very fortunate to have had, but sages which we have ignored to our great demise in recent times.

An answer that seems today to be totally and completely at odds with the conventional wisdom-hype and propaganda, which is composed of the glorification of the greatest source of the toxins of power.

Our founders were well aware of the question and the answer hundreds of years ago.

They spoke the answer with unmistakable words and with certain clarity:
Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied: and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals, engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare. Those truths are well established.
(James Madison, emphasis added). The visionary who made that statement was the 4th President of the United States, Bill of Rights author, Congressman, Cabinet Member, and who was also called the "Father of the U.S. Constitution".

The above quote is from his "Political Observations," April 20, 1795, in Letters and Other Writings of James Madison, Volume IV, page 491-492.

Notice, in the quote above, how Madison equated or associated the toxins of power with disease epidemic concepts, saying that the war toxin "develops the germ of every other" anti-freedom toxin.
(The Greatest Source Of Power Toxins?). One would be remiss to not notice how much the empire today is utterly infected with the war germ we were warned not to catch.

Other sources of vision saw what would happen if we stumbled into the emotional quicksand of the madness of our more recent leaders:
There were Senators like Byrd, and House of Representative members like Pete Stark, in the year 2002, who had vision.

But vision was discounted as a kooky thing, and those that had vision were discounted by the dementia congress was suffering from then, and still is.

Where there is no vision the people perish, and the leaders supplant vision with "excuses" and whining.

The Honorable Pete Stark said this about the "AUMF Resolution" before the Iraq disaster happened:
(The Stark Truth). Even some of those who one would not expect to be as politically saavy, the comedians, also got it (The Onion, 2003).

But, here we are again, with the war whores all lathered up about more war (The War Whores Ride The War Horse - 2).

They are utterly unaware of the invasion taking place on every mile of our national shoreline. or that our national psychology is the same as the Don Quixote diagnosis (Why The Military Can't Defend Against The Invasion, American Feudalism - 3).

Peace has gone extinct from the thinking of the powers that be.

The hunt for invading terrarists:

Monday, November 16, 2015

The Evolution of Models - 15

Fig. 1 Boston
I have fused part of a new database into the Dredd Blog SLC model from (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, CSIRO).
Fig. 2 Charleston II

Fig. 3 Chesapeake Bay Bridge & Tunnel
CSIRO has global mean sea level rise (GMSLR) data which they have collected and compiled, beginning in 1880 and going on nearly to the present.

As I indicated earlier today, in a comment on another post, the purpose of this CSIRO data is not just to give a glimpse of what scientists are talking about when they use that purely mathematical term.

No, in addition to that, Dredd Blog readers can actually see and compare the difference between the real and the mere mathematical concept.

Yes, Dredd Blog readers are the ones who are seeing the actual sea level rise (SLR) numbers at a given PSMSL tide gauge station, as well as the mathematical concept science writers and scientists write and talk about all the time.

But, generally they do not completely explain the term GMSLR when they are expounding upon very important sea level change (SLC) developments.
Fig. 4 San Francisco

Since I do not have the coding completely finished yet, I am showing some model print outs only as they relate to the actual historical data of several tide gauge stations.

IOW "just the facts ma'am ..."  (no pre-1880, and no future projections of GMSLR this time).

The GMSLR at any given year is the same in each graphic, because I splice the historical data into the compilation of a particular station according to that station's beginning year and its most recent year.

The importance of actual SLR data may not be understood by those who do not have to have it right.

To get what I mean by that, think of your self as an architect or engineer working on the Chesapeake Bay Bridge and Tunnel (see Fig. 3).
Fig. 5 Santa Monica

Fig. 6 Washington, D.C.
Would you rather build the project based on the GMSLR averaged data, or on the actual data from the tide gauge stations in the area?

I mean in order to avoid a lifetime of lawsuits along with the ruination of your reputation.

Yes, I know that was a rhetorical question, because we all know that we need "the real thing baby."

The world that we Americans live in now threatens the very foundation of all we thought we knew, as well as all we have presumed (Civilization Is Now On Suicide Watch, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8).

In Fig. 6 we see that the monuments and what not, which our founders built, are now part of the endangered world of both civilization and environment.

As SLR creeps up toward, then to eventually stay above, that mean old global average, and then begins to work its way toward downtown, we will have Peak Reaction.

In closing, let me say that the environment has done nothing to bring about the Sixth Mass Extinction we all now face.

That has been left to civilization itself to bring about, seeing as how it has thousand of years of experience:
"In other words, a society does not ever die 'from natural causes', but always dies from suicide or murder --- and nearly always from the former, as this chapter has shown." - A Study of History,  by Arnold J. Toynbee
"Stay safe" was once a useful term, but it too seems to be going extinct.

The next post in this series is here, the previous post in this series is here.

Sunday, November 15, 2015

The Fingerprints of Victims Matter - 2

Fig. 1 The Golden 487 (click to enlarge)
In the series (Calling All Cars: The Case of the "Missing Six", 2, 3) I discussed "the twenty some odd" stations.

Those 21-23+ stations are used by some sea level scientists to create a sea level change (SLC) "fingerprint" (Fig. 2).

The full list of those few stations could not be determined exactly, so today I offer the Dredd Blog Thumbprint (Fig. 1), a replacement of the lightweight "golden twenty some odd."
Fig. 2 The Golden Twenty Some Odd

The Dredd Blog Thumbprint (DBT) is the "fingerprinting" of 487 tide gauge stations, or as I like to call it, "the most important digit".

The DBT is in the interest of all of the victims of the world who constantly hear "global mean average."

But, we victims of the world rarely, if ever, hear what "global mean average" means to us at our particular location on the good planet Earth (The Fingerprints of Victims Matter).

Fig. 3 (click to enlarge)
Let's do a quick perusal of Fig. 1 and add some additional value to it.

The red line is the global mean average of all 487 stations, which is a value of 7052 "RLR" millimeters (Revised Local Reference Definition).

I have placed some station numbers in rectangular boxes at some high and low points on the 487 tide gauge station locations on the graph (Fig. 1).

That is sufficient to get my point across, if you will note that Station #1593 is at 1036 mm, or 3.4 ft. above the global mean average (8088 - 7052 = 1036; 1036÷304.8 = 3.39895 ft. = 3.4 ft).
Fig. 4 (click to enlarge)

Then note that Station #563 is at 973 mm, or 3.2 ft below the global mean average (7052 - 6079 = 973; 973÷304.8 = 3.19225 = 3.2 ft.).

So, when most media figures and all too many scientists talk about the global mean average, it is meaningless to local people who do not realize the import of 1 m / 3 ft. on any sea ports near them (see Weekend Rebel Science Excursion - 44).

In the video below, Dr. Rignot points out how the scientific dialogue between scientists and non-scientists "really sucks," in terms of being effective at getting the dangerous message across.

Anyway, Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 are a modified view of the "Golden 487" stations of the new, and soon to be infamous, Dredd Blog Thumbprint series.

Notice that Fig. 3 has the perspective of "mean high sea level" of all those stations, without any low sea levels, that is, it is the average of the high sea levels experienced at each station for as long as that station has kept records.

Comparing that mean high to the "global mean average," we see that most stations have a mean high mark that is above the global mean average all of the time.

Ditto for Fig. 4, except that it is the mean low average for each station for as long as that station has kept records.

Again, comparing that mean average low to the "global mean average," we see that most stations have a mean low mark that is below the global mean average all of the time.

The better technique, then, is for meteorologists, oceanographers, and other scientists to give local information whenever possible, instead of global averages all the time.

The status quo dialogue between science writers and the public is simply not a good way of doing scientific business with the public, as Dr. Rignot points out:
01:00 It may be a little bit of a shock to some people in [the scientific] community ...

01:25 I think that the [scientific] community is very conservative [translation: always underestimating] with time scales.

01:40 the research shows that we are looking at time scales that are shorter than what past and current models depict

02:50 How do we communicate this to the public? I don't know, but we aren't doing a good job at that. I think most of the scientists are not trained for that ... I'm trying to learn ... I talked to people from the digital media and they say we [in the scientific community] really suck at it ... they said 'you are not doing it right.'
(Paraphrased from the video below). By the way, the Dredd Blog thumbprints all indicate that the melting ice. which is threatening civilization, all comes from one source: anthropogenic global warming induced SLC caused by burning dirty fossil fuels (Keep It In The Ground).

The previous post in this series is here.