An informative video from John Stossel and John Lott.
Here is the link
Saturday, September 21, 2024
Monday, September 16, 2024
Destroying education – and kids
From Jonathan Turley.
JT is on target.
When production is in charge of quality control, there is no quality control.
Here is a link to JT’s blog entry.
Teaching Joy: L.A. School District Opts for “Educational Enjoyment” Over Standardized Tests
JT is on target.
When production is in charge of quality control, there is no quality control.
Here is a link to JT’s blog entry.
Teaching Joy: L.A. School District Opts for “Educational Enjoyment” Over Standardized Tests
A new drug offers substantially reduced Lp(a) levels
High levels of Lp(a) are a significant cardiovascular risk factor. There is not much available to lower it. Olpasiran, currently being tested, is a promising treatment.
Sunday, September 15, 2024
Did IPCC get it all wrong about global warming?
By Nikolov and Zeller.
Roles of Earth’s Albedo Variations and Top-of-the-Atmosphere Energy Imbalance in Recent Warming: New Insights from Satellite and Surface Observations
Here is the link:
Nikolov and Zeller argue that:
Analogous to the famous “follow-the-money” approach often adopted by the social and political sciences to explain human behavior and social movements, this study can be described as a “follow-the-energy” journey to investigate the causes of recent climate warming.
The IPCC AR6 Working Group I (WG1) concluded that well-mixed greenhouse gases
were “very likely the main driver of tropospheric warming since 1979” [ 1 ]. However, Chapter 7 of the IPCC AR6 WG1 Contribution did not take into proper consideration the observed Geomatics 2024, 4 338 increase of solar radiation absorption by Earth in recent decades known as “global brightening” [ 2] (Section 7.2.2.3). The Report did not analyze the decrease of Earth’s shortwave reflectance evident in the CERES EBAF dataset over the past 20 years and its impact on GSAT. Published studies agree that the observed decrease of planetary albedo and the associated increase of solar-energy uptake by the planet must have had a significant impact on the global temperature. However, there has been no attempts thus far to quantify the actual effect of this solar forcing on GSAT. We tried to bridge this knowledge gap by developing a novel, non-statistical process model from First Principles that explicitly relates changes in TSI and albedo to global temperature anomalies. The model (Equation (16)) was derived from independent NASA planetary observations and basic rules of calculus without using Earth-specific data, greenhouse-gas radiative forcing, or positive (amplifying) feedbacks. Our goal was to verify the above IPCC AR6 conclusion by assessing the direct effect of measured changes in TSI and Earth’s sunlight absorption on the 21st-century global surface warming as documented by 6 temperature datasets.
Our analysis revealed that the solar forcing (i.e., TSI and albedo changes) measured by CERES explain 100% of the observed global warming trend and 83% of the interannual GSAT variability over the past 24 years (Figure 9), including the extreme 2023 heat anomaly (Figure 10). Albedo changes were found to be by far the dominant GSAT driver, while TSI variations only played a minor, modulating role (Figures 11 and 12). The sustained increase of sunlight absorption by the planet was also identified as the most likely driver of ocean warming in recent decades based on a high correlation (R2 = 0.8) between the shortwave radiation uptake and the mean annual temperature anomaly of the 0–100 m global oceanic layer (Figure 8). These results suggest a lack of physical reality to both the anthropogenic radiative forcing attributed to rising greenhouse gases and the positive (amplifying) feedbacks hypothesized by the greenhouse theory and simulated by climate models. This is because any real forcing (or amplifying feedback) outside of the increased planetary uptake of solar radiation would have produced additional warming above and beyond the amount explained by changes in the planetary albedo and TSI. However, no such extra warming is observed in the available temperature records. Hence, the anthropogenic radiative forcing and associated positive feedbacks are likely model artifacts rather than real phenomena. The empirical data and model calculations analyzed in our study also indicate that the Earth’s climate sensitivity to radiative forcing is only 0.29–0.30 K/(W m−2). Therefore, the greenhouse theory overestimates this parameter by 56–158%.
The lack of evidence for heat trapping by greenhouse gases in the climate system during the 21st Century raises an important question about the physical nature of the Earth’s Energy Imbalance (EEI). The latter is defined as the difference between the absorbed shortwave and outgoing LW flux at the TOA. EEI has been observed and calculated by various monitoring platforms for several decades. This index became a research focus in climate science during the past 15 years, because it has been perceived as evidence of anthropogenic heat accumulation (energy retention) in the Earth system that would commit the World to a prolonged future warming, even after human carbon emissions have reached a net-zero level. As a result of such a view, EEI is now called the “most fundamental indicator for climate change” [ 33 ]. However, our analysis of observed data, model calculations, and standard thermodynamic theory showed that EEI has been misinterpreted by the science community, since it arises from adiabatic dissipation of thermal energy in ascending air parcels in the troposphere due to a decreasing atmospheric pressure with height (see discussion in Section 4). Hence, integrating EEI over space and time in an effort to calculate some total “energy gain” by the Earth system, as done by researchers in recent years, is physically misleading, because EEI includes energy that was adiabatically lost to the system during the convective cooling process. Our analyses also showed that this energy imbalance results from a varying sunlight absorption by the planet and would only disappear if the Earth’s albedo stops changing and the uptake of shortwave radiation stabilizes, which is unlikely to ever occur. The reduction of human greenhouse-gas emissions cannot and will Geomatics 2024, 4 339 not affect EEI. Nevertheless, the Earth has gained a considerable amount of thermal energy over the past 45 years due to a sustained increase of shortwave-radiation uptake, which is a completely different mechanism from the theorized trapping of radiant heat by greenhouse gases, since it does not involve a hidden energy storage.
These findings call for a fundamental reconsideration of the current paradigm of understanding about climate change and related socio-economic initiatives aimed at drastic reductions of industrial carbon emissions at all costs. An important aspect of this paradigm shift should be the prioritized allocation of funds to support large-scale interdisciplinary research into the physical mechanisms controlling the Earth’s albedo and cloud physics, for these are the real drivers of climate on multidecadal time scales.
Roles of Earth’s Albedo Variations and Top-of-the-Atmosphere Energy Imbalance in Recent Warming: New Insights from Satellite and Surface Observations
Here is the link:
Nikolov and Zeller argue that:
Analogous to the famous “follow-the-money” approach often adopted by the social and political sciences to explain human behavior and social movements, this study can be described as a “follow-the-energy” journey to investigate the causes of recent climate warming.
The IPCC AR6 Working Group I (WG1) concluded that well-mixed greenhouse gases
were “very likely the main driver of tropospheric warming since 1979” [ 1 ]. However, Chapter 7 of the IPCC AR6 WG1 Contribution did not take into proper consideration the observed Geomatics 2024, 4 338 increase of solar radiation absorption by Earth in recent decades known as “global brightening” [ 2] (Section 7.2.2.3). The Report did not analyze the decrease of Earth’s shortwave reflectance evident in the CERES EBAF dataset over the past 20 years and its impact on GSAT. Published studies agree that the observed decrease of planetary albedo and the associated increase of solar-energy uptake by the planet must have had a significant impact on the global temperature. However, there has been no attempts thus far to quantify the actual effect of this solar forcing on GSAT. We tried to bridge this knowledge gap by developing a novel, non-statistical process model from First Principles that explicitly relates changes in TSI and albedo to global temperature anomalies. The model (Equation (16)) was derived from independent NASA planetary observations and basic rules of calculus without using Earth-specific data, greenhouse-gas radiative forcing, or positive (amplifying) feedbacks. Our goal was to verify the above IPCC AR6 conclusion by assessing the direct effect of measured changes in TSI and Earth’s sunlight absorption on the 21st-century global surface warming as documented by 6 temperature datasets.
Our analysis revealed that the solar forcing (i.e., TSI and albedo changes) measured by CERES explain 100% of the observed global warming trend and 83% of the interannual GSAT variability over the past 24 years (Figure 9), including the extreme 2023 heat anomaly (Figure 10). Albedo changes were found to be by far the dominant GSAT driver, while TSI variations only played a minor, modulating role (Figures 11 and 12). The sustained increase of sunlight absorption by the planet was also identified as the most likely driver of ocean warming in recent decades based on a high correlation (R2 = 0.8) between the shortwave radiation uptake and the mean annual temperature anomaly of the 0–100 m global oceanic layer (Figure 8). These results suggest a lack of physical reality to both the anthropogenic radiative forcing attributed to rising greenhouse gases and the positive (amplifying) feedbacks hypothesized by the greenhouse theory and simulated by climate models. This is because any real forcing (or amplifying feedback) outside of the increased planetary uptake of solar radiation would have produced additional warming above and beyond the amount explained by changes in the planetary albedo and TSI. However, no such extra warming is observed in the available temperature records. Hence, the anthropogenic radiative forcing and associated positive feedbacks are likely model artifacts rather than real phenomena. The empirical data and model calculations analyzed in our study also indicate that the Earth’s climate sensitivity to radiative forcing is only 0.29–0.30 K/(W m−2). Therefore, the greenhouse theory overestimates this parameter by 56–158%.
The lack of evidence for heat trapping by greenhouse gases in the climate system during the 21st Century raises an important question about the physical nature of the Earth’s Energy Imbalance (EEI). The latter is defined as the difference between the absorbed shortwave and outgoing LW flux at the TOA. EEI has been observed and calculated by various monitoring platforms for several decades. This index became a research focus in climate science during the past 15 years, because it has been perceived as evidence of anthropogenic heat accumulation (energy retention) in the Earth system that would commit the World to a prolonged future warming, even after human carbon emissions have reached a net-zero level. As a result of such a view, EEI is now called the “most fundamental indicator for climate change” [ 33 ]. However, our analysis of observed data, model calculations, and standard thermodynamic theory showed that EEI has been misinterpreted by the science community, since it arises from adiabatic dissipation of thermal energy in ascending air parcels in the troposphere due to a decreasing atmospheric pressure with height (see discussion in Section 4). Hence, integrating EEI over space and time in an effort to calculate some total “energy gain” by the Earth system, as done by researchers in recent years, is physically misleading, because EEI includes energy that was adiabatically lost to the system during the convective cooling process. Our analyses also showed that this energy imbalance results from a varying sunlight absorption by the planet and would only disappear if the Earth’s albedo stops changing and the uptake of shortwave radiation stabilizes, which is unlikely to ever occur. The reduction of human greenhouse-gas emissions cannot and will Geomatics 2024, 4 339 not affect EEI. Nevertheless, the Earth has gained a considerable amount of thermal energy over the past 45 years due to a sustained increase of shortwave-radiation uptake, which is a completely different mechanism from the theorized trapping of radiant heat by greenhouse gases, since it does not involve a hidden energy storage.
These findings call for a fundamental reconsideration of the current paradigm of understanding about climate change and related socio-economic initiatives aimed at drastic reductions of industrial carbon emissions at all costs. An important aspect of this paradigm shift should be the prioritized allocation of funds to support large-scale interdisciplinary research into the physical mechanisms controlling the Earth’s albedo and cloud physics, for these are the real drivers of climate on multidecadal time scales.
Wednesday, September 11, 2024
An Unconventional Case Study of Neoadjuvant Oncolytic Virotherapy for Recurrent Breast Cancer
Here is the link.
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/12/9/958#
“Proving” safety and efficacy takes time. For a “better” treatment, the net impact of waiting is excess deaths. For a “worse” treatment, the net impact of waiting is saving lives.
But things are more complicated. Everything is probabilistic. It is better to think of the probability that the new drug will be net beneficial versus alternatives. Roughly, as testing goes on, this probability evolves. It tends to increase for good treatments and decline for bad treatments.
It makes sense to choose the new treatment once the probability reaches the appropriate level for the particular individual considering the new treatment. The appropriate probability varies across individuals and conditions.
The Government has a one-size-fits-all approach. Even worse, those who make the decisions focus more on avoiding any bad outcome because they know the resulting publicity can cost them their jobs. So, choices that should be made in favor of new treatments are routinely delayed beyond where lives are saved. The Government tends to wait too long before approving new treatments, hence tends to cause excess deaths.
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/12/9/958#
“Proving” safety and efficacy takes time. For a “better” treatment, the net impact of waiting is excess deaths. For a “worse” treatment, the net impact of waiting is saving lives.
But things are more complicated. Everything is probabilistic. It is better to think of the probability that the new drug will be net beneficial versus alternatives. Roughly, as testing goes on, this probability evolves. It tends to increase for good treatments and decline for bad treatments.
It makes sense to choose the new treatment once the probability reaches the appropriate level for the particular individual considering the new treatment. The appropriate probability varies across individuals and conditions.
The Government has a one-size-fits-all approach. Even worse, those who make the decisions focus more on avoiding any bad outcome because they know the resulting publicity can cost them their jobs. So, choices that should be made in favor of new treatments are routinely delayed beyond where lives are saved. The Government tends to wait too long before approving new treatments, hence tends to cause excess deaths.
Did crime rise under Trump and Fall under Biden? No, the Opposite is True
From the Crime Prevention Research Center.
For those who want the truth – here is the link.
https://crimeresearch.org/2024/08/did-crime-rise-under-trump-and-fall-under-biden/
For those who want the truth – here is the link.
https://crimeresearch.org/2024/08/did-crime-rise-under-trump-and-fall-under-biden/
Tuesday, September 10, 2024
Free speech – going, going, gone?
From Jonathan Turley.
Here is the link
https://jonathanturley.org/2024/09/08/the-blair-witch-project-former-prime-minister-calls-for-global-censorship-efforts/#more-223275
It is impressive how few people appreciate free speech and freedom in general. The society described in the book “1984” is on the way to be realized.
Here is the link
https://jonathanturley.org/2024/09/08/the-blair-witch-project-former-prime-minister-calls-for-global-censorship-efforts/#more-223275
It is impressive how few people appreciate free speech and freedom in general. The society described in the book “1984” is on the way to be realized.
Sunday, September 08, 2024
Maybe Ms. Harris needs some economists
From Greg Mankiw’s blog.
Greg is Professor of Economics at Harvard University.
The response to the rollout of Kamala Harris's economic plan, especially the price gouging regulation, has not been good
When you lose the ever-reasonable Catherine Rampell, you should doubt whether you are positioning yourself to attract swing voters. Rampell writes, "It’s hard to exaggerate how bad this policy is. It is, in all but name, a sweeping set of government-enforced price controls across every industry, not only food. Supply and demand would no longer determine prices or profit levels. Some far-off Washington bureaucrats would....At best, this would lead to shortages, black market and hoarding, among other distortions seen previous times countries tried to limit price growth by fiat."
The centrist editorial page of the Washington Post titles their piece "The times demand serious economic ideas. Harris supplies gimmicks."
What is happening here? I have two hypotheses.
One is that the Harris campaign believes that the remaining persuadable swing voters are economically ignorant, so the campaign is offering them economically ignorant economic policies. Bryan Caplan's wonderful book The Myth of the Rational Voter documents a lot of mistaken beliefs among the general public, including an anti-market bias. Ms. Harris's political advisers may be steering her to pander to these mistaken beliefs,
A second hypothesis involves campaign personnel. The people I see mentioned as Harris economic advisers are Brian Deese, Gene Sperling, Mike Pyle, Deanne Millison, and Brian Nelson. All smart people, no doubt. But as far as I know, none of these people is trained as a PhD economist. They all seem to be lawyers. Maybe lawyers are more inclined to see a problem and think, "I know what new law will fix that." True economists are more respectful of the invisible hand and more worried about the unintended consequences of heavy-handed regulation.
Where is Jason Furman when you need him?
Greg is Professor of Economics at Harvard University.
The response to the rollout of Kamala Harris's economic plan, especially the price gouging regulation, has not been good
When you lose the ever-reasonable Catherine Rampell, you should doubt whether you are positioning yourself to attract swing voters. Rampell writes, "It’s hard to exaggerate how bad this policy is. It is, in all but name, a sweeping set of government-enforced price controls across every industry, not only food. Supply and demand would no longer determine prices or profit levels. Some far-off Washington bureaucrats would....At best, this would lead to shortages, black market and hoarding, among other distortions seen previous times countries tried to limit price growth by fiat."
The centrist editorial page of the Washington Post titles their piece "The times demand serious economic ideas. Harris supplies gimmicks."
What is happening here? I have two hypotheses.
One is that the Harris campaign believes that the remaining persuadable swing voters are economically ignorant, so the campaign is offering them economically ignorant economic policies. Bryan Caplan's wonderful book The Myth of the Rational Voter documents a lot of mistaken beliefs among the general public, including an anti-market bias. Ms. Harris's political advisers may be steering her to pander to these mistaken beliefs,
A second hypothesis involves campaign personnel. The people I see mentioned as Harris economic advisers are Brian Deese, Gene Sperling, Mike Pyle, Deanne Millison, and Brian Nelson. All smart people, no doubt. But as far as I know, none of these people is trained as a PhD economist. They all seem to be lawyers. Maybe lawyers are more inclined to see a problem and think, "I know what new law will fix that." True economists are more respectful of the invisible hand and more worried about the unintended consequences of heavy-handed regulation.
Where is Jason Furman when you need him?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)