and Then Theres Physics | likhipa inhlanzi emanzini

Time 2021-10-17 13:05:01

Web Name: and Then Theres Physics | likhipa inhlanzi emanzini

WebSite: http://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com

ID:205827

Keywords:

Theres,Then,and,Physics,emanzini,inhlanzi,likhipa,

Description:

keywords:
description:likhipa inhlanzi emanzini
and Then Theres Physics likhipa inhlanzi emanzini Skip to content HomeAbout MeComments policyModeration policyContact Older posts Science communication Posted on October 12, 2021 by ...and Then There's Physics

I listened to one of Andy Revkins Twitter broadcasts with Randy Olson which discussed if science communication was worse now than it was 100 years ago. Ive actually read most of Randy Olsons book, where he introduces his 3-step model for science communication.

I found the discussion quite interesting, and I think he makes some good points about the importance of narrative. The argument seems to be that there is a huge problem with misinformation and that scientists missed a great opportunity, in the past, to engage with those who had expertise is creating appealing narratives.

His prime example was Michael Crichton, a very successful author and filmmaker, who had a scientific background. He acknowledged that Crichton later started promoting science denial, which he suggested was partly a response to being ignored by the scientific community. What he doesnt seem to consider is that this is a classic example of the power of motivated reasoning and illustrates why it is so challenging to effectively communicate contentious scientific topics.

My issue with this whole kind of narrative is the idea that if only scientists had done something different, we wouldnt be in this current mess. I have no doubt that there are many things that scientists could have done better, but thats true for almost anything. What Im yet to be convinced of is that there was some relatively simple thing that could have been done that would have substantively changed where we are today. I dont really think that there was.

Its not even clear that scholars in relevant disciplines even agree about what misinformation is being spread and who is doing it. There are prominent, and well-regarded, scholars in some disciplines who are regarded, in other disciplines, as associating positively with those who promote misinformation and potentially even spreading it themselves. How are we meant to counter this when there is this kind of disconnect between disciplines?

I highlighted this disconnect on Twitter and was basically told by another scholar that I was in a Twitter echo chamber and that most of the vocal people in my circle are not engaged with or trusted by governments (which was a bit odd, given who I would regard this as including). Even if this was a valid criticism, it still seems to highlight the problem with trying to counter misinformation.

To be clear, I dont really have some simple solution to this conundrum. I think effectively countering misinformation is very challenging, and I do agree that scientists who engage publically could learn from those with expertise in creating appealing narratives. I dont, though, think that there is some simple way for scientists to engage that would somehow solve this problem, especially given that it seems that those who try, can end up in conflict with scholars from other relevant disciplines.

Posted in Pseudoscience, Science, Scientists | Tagged Andy Revkin, misinformation, Randy Olson, SciComm, Science communication | 33 Comments Science-based targets Posted on October 6, 2021 by ...and Then There's Physics

It may just be my bubble, but I seem to be encountering quite a lot of criticism of things like deadlines, net zero and carbon budgets from people who as far as I can tell support aggressive climate action. I have to admit to not fully understanding the arguments being made, but I think it has to do with these science-based targets not really telling us how to meet these goals. The idea, I think, is that we should be focussing on the socio-political (or socio-economic) barriers that have really been hampering efforts to address these environmental problems.

I certainly agree with the basic idea that science-based targets dont tell us how to achieve these goals. I also largely agree that there are many barriers to making effective progress. What I havent understood, despite asking a number of times, is how focussing more on dealing with these socio-political, or socio-economic, barriers avoids turning this into ideological battle that potentially also undermines the ability to deal with climate change, and other environmental problems.

A reasonably common claim in the climate debate is that many who profess to be concerned about climate change are really just using this as a way of promoting their preferred socio-political ideologies. So, if we move away from highlighting science-based targets, to focus more on the socio-political barriers to action, how do we do so in a way that doesnt lead some to simply say told you so?

Similarly, if we focus more on these socio-political barriers, this would seem to also run the risk of validating Lomborg-like arguments that suggests that the main way to deal with climate change is simply to make everyone richer and, hence, more resilient. In other words, if dealing with socio-economic inequality is seen as a key step to addressing climate change, why are Lomborg-like arguments not entirely valid options?

As I said, I may well misunderstand the criticisms of these science-based targets, and I may not have expressed my concerns as clearly as I could have. However, I do think that one advantage of the science-based targets is that theyre under-pinned by pretty robust evidence. If we largely dismiss these science-based targets, and we focus instead on dealing with the socio-economic barriers that are seen to be hampering action, how do you distinguish between solutions that have the potential to also deal with climate change, and other environmental problems, and those that do not?

Posted in Climate change, Global warming, Policy | Tagged socio-economic pathways | 66 Comments Estimates of the economic damages from climatechange Posted on October 1, 2021 by ...and Then There's Physics

Since Ive discussed climate economics before, I thought I would briefly highlight a recent seminar involving, amongst others, Steve Keen and Tim Lenton. The topic was are the estimates of economic damages from climate change erroneous? The basic answer to this questions is yes.

The presenters make a number of good points. Steve Keen highlights how there is little empirical support for the damage functions. There are attempts to estimate how economic activity depends on climate, but there is a huge difference how it might vary in different regions of the planet today, and how it might be impacted by global warming of a similar magnitude.

Tim Lenton highlighted how we may already be close to triggering certain tipping elements and how these economic analyses tend to ignore such outcomes, or may even not be able to properly consider them. In one economic analysis, it was suggested that the collapse of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) may have a positive economic impact because it might slightly dampen global warming. As Tim Lenton pointed out, this was an insane result given that such a collapse would result a major reorganisation of the entire climate system.

Matheus Grasselli, another of the speakers, presented quite a detailed analysis of William Nordhauss DICE model. He highlighted how it essentially assumes that the system is always in equilibrium, even if there has been some major shock. He also showed how the results depended strongly on assumptions about damages. What I thought was particularly interesting is that in the DICE model, everything seems to recover even in extreme scenarios.

So, it seems that there is a general view that there are many valid criticisms of these economic analyses. However, at the risk of being accussed of being deferential again, I do think there are many economists who acknowledge this and who are trying to do more appropriate analyses. I do think that some of the damage estimates are way too low, and that the results of some of these analyses have been presented in ways that then play into the hands of those who want to minimise the impact of climate change.

However, this is clearly a very complicated problem and we do need some kind of idea of the economic impact of climate change and what we might be able to do to limit the impact. The key thing, in my view, is to be upfront about the assumptions used in the models, the limitations of the models, and to recognise that there are many things that to which we simply cant assign a quantitative value. I would be interested in what others think, though.

Links:

NAEC seminar : Are the estimates of economic damages from climate change erroneous? seminar involving, amongst others, Steve Keen and Tim Lenton.

Posted in Uncategorized | 47 Comments The importance of reducing methaneemissions Posted on September 26, 2021 by ...and Then There's Physics

Since Ive written quite a lot about methane, I thought I would promote Realclimates definitive CO₂/CH₄ comparison post. It highlights that the large relative rise in atmospheric methane concentrations means that methane has made a significant contribution to modern warming. It also points out that when you also include the non-direct effects of increases in methane, it is responsible for about 0.6⁰C of the warming since 1750, compared to about 1^oC for CO₂.

The Realclimate post also discusses the difference between CO₂, which is long-lived and hence a stock pollutant, and methane, which is short-lived and hence a flow pollutant. This means that if we stop emitting CO₂, the CO₂-driven warming will stabilise, while if we stop emitting methane, the methane-driven warming will mostly reverse. One should be careful, though, of assuming that if we stopped emitting methane wed cool by ~0.6^oC, because the cooling impact of other short-lived forces is also comparable to the warming impact of increases in methane. Hence, our committed warming is roughly comparable to the warming due to CO₂.

I have for a long time shared the concerns expressed in this Realclimate post; we should be careful of thinking that reducing methane emissions can buy us time, because if we do so at the expense of reductions in CO₂ emission wed be committing future generations to more warming than if wed prioritised CO₂ emission reductions.

However, I have come to realise that it is also important to also aim for reductions in methane emissions. One simple reason is that if we do continue to increase methane emissions, then it could contribute significantly to future warming. Given that methane is relatively short-lived in the atmosphere, we could aim to stabilise methane emissions, which would lead to little further methane-driven warming.

However, this would then mean that we would essentially be sustaining methanes contribution to the warming since 1750 (~0.6^oC), making it extremely difficult to achieve some of our stated targets, for example limiting warming to 2^oC. Also, since reductions in CO₂ emissions would probably also result in reductions in the emissions of the short-lived species that have a cooling effect, we could actually end up with a period of quite rapid warming.

So, if we do start reducing methane emissions, we would reverse some of the methane-driven warming, counter-acting the impact of reductions in the short-lived pollutants that have a cooling influence. It would also probably give us a better change of limiting warming without overshoots. As the Realclimate post highlights, there are also other benefits (air pollution, crop yields, public health). However, since long-term warming depends mostly on how much CO₂ we emit, it is key to do this in conjuncion with reductions in CO₂ emissions, rather than instead of reductions in CO₂ emissions.

Links:

..and Then Theres Physics methane, post Ive written about methane.
The definitive CO₂/CH₄ comparison post recent Realclimate post comparing CO₂ and methane.
Losing time, not buying time 2010 Realclimate post warning against thinking that methane emissions could buy us time.

Posted in Climate change, Gavin Schmidt | Tagged Emission reductions, Methane, Radiative forcings, RealClimate, short-lived pollutants | 13 Comments The effect of permafrost on theZEC Posted on September 15, 2021 by ...and Then There's Physics

Ive written a number of posts about warming commitments, in particular the zero emission commitment (ZEC). In other words, how much additional warming will there be after emissions get to zero. The answer is that on multi-decadal timescales [the ZEC] is close to zero. A common response to this is what about permafrost? It is true that the estimates typically dont include the potential impact of release from permafrost, so it is a reasonable question.

However, the lead author (Andrew MacDougall) of the recent paper that estimated the ZEC has used one of the models to try and assess the effect of the permafrost carbon feedback on the zero emissions commitment. They carried out a perturbed parameter experiment (i.e., run the same model many times, but vary the parameters), and considered scenarios where 1000 PgC is emitted before emissions go to zero, and another where 2000 PgC is emitted (for context, total emissions to date is about 600 PgC).

There were quite a lot of details that I wont go into, but the main result is presented in the above figure, which shows how permafrost infuences the ZEC in the 1000 PgC runs (left-hand panel) and 2000 PgC runs (right-hand panel). In other words, how much extra warming is there after emissions go to zero when compared to equivalent runs that dont consider permafrost.

The basic result (see Table below) is that on multi-decade timescales, the effect is small (probably less than 0.1^oC) but that it will increase with time, possibly adding a few tenths of a ^oC after 500 years. For reference, the temperature increase in the 1000 PgC run when emissions go to zero is about 1.5^oC, so after a few hundred years we could have warmed by ~2^oC. This isnt great, but this additional warming would be relatively slow and its still considerably smaller than the baseline warming (i.e., most of the warming were likely to experience is due to our emissions, not due to these feedbacks).

The analysis also suggests that the impact doesnt depend strongly on cumulative emissions; the effect is similar for the 1000 PgC and 2000 PgC runs. This is mostly because the linear relationship between emissions and warming breaks down in these models when cumulative emissions are high. There are, however, indications that this may not be a robust results and, hence, it is possible that the effect will continue to increase with increasing emissions.

Also, even this study doesnt consider abrupt thaw, which could accelerate permafrost processes over the next few centuries. This could further increase the permafrost, but probably by 10s of percent. This probably wont change the basic result. The effect of permafrost on the zero emission commitment (ZEC) is probably small on multi-decade timescales. Hence, this doesnt change that the ZEC is probably close to zero on these timescales.

On longer timescales (centuries) the effect of permafrost will probably increase, but is probably still going to be much smaller than the warming due to direct anthropogenic emissions. It could increase warming from 1.5^oC to ~2^oC over a period of a few centuries, but it seems unlikely that it will commit us to much more than 2^oC if we are able to get emissions to zero well before we cross that warming threshold. This isnt necessarily great news, but it still indicates that the dominant factor in determining how much we will warm is how much we end up emitting.

Links:

Warming commitments Posts Ive written about our warming commitments.
Is there warming in the pipeline? A multi-model analysis of the Zero Emissions Commitment from CO₂ MacDougall et al. (2020) paper that discusses the zero emission commitment (ZEC).
Estimated effect of the permafrost carbon feedback on the zero emissions commitment to climate change MacDougall (2021) paper that estimates how permafrost effects the ZEC.

Posted in Climate change, Climate sensitivity, Global warming, Research | Tagged Andrew MacDougall, permafrost, Perturbed Parameter Experiment, Thaw, ZEC, Zero Emission Commitment | 35 Comments Ciara and NeilsSearchScene Posted on September 10, 2021 by Willard

I stumbled upon this intriguing project a few weeks ago:

https://www.searchscene.com/

The blurb says that

SearchScene is a charitable search engine that donates a big-hearted 95% of its profits to charity, focusing on charities that help fight climate change and alleviate the suffering caused by climate change.

SearchScenes elevator speech

So I installed it and was impressed by its unobtrusiveness. Willing to know more, I looked at their FAQ, then noticed a Contact page. Took the chance to offer them a QA for my We Are Science series. (Note the first question.) Neil responded that he was following AT on teh tweeter, and so accepted. Here they are:

Q1. I read that Neil worked on Cryosat and Ciara was a communication consultant for Harvard and MIT. Could you (Neil and Ciara) describe what you were doing exactly?

Neil: I was working on the simulator for the Cryosat spacecraft specifically the AOCS (Attitude and Orbit Control System) part of it. The simulator is a computational model of the spacecraft that the European Space Agency use to test failure scenarios and to help train the flight control team for launch and early operations. Cryosat failed to make orbit back in 2005 due to a launch vehicle malfunction, which resulted in the total loss of the spacecraft. Soon after this, I left the space industry and started an internet business.

Ciara: From 2007 to 2009, I worked as Science Communication Consultant for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and then Harvard University in the USA, on an innovative science education project called Picturing to Learn. The project was run by award-winning science photographer, Felice Frankel, whose work has appeared on the cover of Nature on numerous occasions. Felice Frankels idea was that one of the best ways to understand a concept is to try and explain it to someone else in simple terms, often through the use of visual imagery. I helped the PtL team create a methodology and database for analysing their students science communication drawings (and their experience of doing the work). The drawings often relied on visual analogies in chemistry, biology, and physics (my particular area of expertise). It is important to know the limitations of any scientific analogy because, while they have great power to clarify and communicate complex concepts, they may also be misleading, especially for students. One of the striking things to emerge from the PtL project was how drawings can be a great way of identifying misconceptions which students have about a scientific concept. The educator can then pay particular attention to those areas where students have those common misconceptions, and try and correct them. Our PtL team also ran some collaborative workshops where science students collaborated with visual design students to explain such things as why the sky is blue. The science students needed to explain the concepts to visual design students, who did not have a scientific background, and the visual design students needed to find ways to render those concepts in a visually engaging way, without generating misconceptions. In the process, both parties learned a great deal from each other.

Q2. When or how did you get the idea of doing something about AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming)?

The climate crisis is the burning issue of our time. We are the first generation to truly appreciate its consequences and the last that can do something meaningful about it. After our daughter was born 4 years ago, we started worrying about the sort of world that she would grow up in. We also saw huge corporations, like Google, raking in billions of dollars and just sitting on huge stockpiles of cash cash that could be used to make a huge positive difference in the world. We tried various charitable search engines instead, but we were disappointed by the search experience. We thought we could do better, so we created SearchScene.

Despite the fact that SearchScene is a great alternative search engine, we have found it challenging (and very expensive) to get the word out about it. So it would be great if your readers could try SearchScene and, assuming that they like it, to share it with their family, friends and work colleagues.

Q3. The search results in Search Scene seem similar to what I can find with other more dominant search engines. But it feels like the good ol’ days of search engines. Am I escaping my filter bubble?

You are indeed escaping your filter bubble. We dont store your searches or your IP address or profile you in any way. Our search results are specific to your country, but thats about it. They are independent of any previous searches youve made. This is a level of privacy that you just dont get on Google.

Q4. Where does the name come from?

We show you different scenic wallpaper backgrounds on our homepage that change each time you refresh the page, hence the name SearchScene. Its worth noting that you can switch these off if you like and revert to a blank, Google-like, minimalist homepage. You can also set your own wallpaper image from your computer or mobile device.

Q5. I experienced SearchScene a few weeks already, and my experience with it has been positive. (Reached 1,226 tokens this evening.) The landing page is sexy without being clunky. How did you make it so responsive?

Congrats on reaching 1,226 tokens! Hope you can stick with it! The homepage loads fast because we cache the next wallpaper image on your device. So when you refresh the homepage, its already downloaded the wallpaper image in advance. We use a content delivery network to further speed up the load times. Additionally, our search results are served up from servers in the UK and in the US and we maximise caching to achieve the fastest possible load times.

Q6. I like your selection of charities, but they are quite generic. I was wondering if you have considered looking into stoves and solar light. The two seem (at least to me) extremely important issues surrounding climate change and energy poverty:

https://www.givinggreen.earth/post/burnstoves
https://solarbuddy.org/

(The two links are only for illustration purposes. There are many others. I found them back using Search Scene, of course!)

Generic is what we were aiming for with the charities. We have traffic from all over the world mainly the UK, US and Canada and we wanted international charities that people have heard of and that people trust.

As far as our impact metrics are concerned, these are just representative of how these charities might spend our donations. Eden Reforestation Projects obviously use our donations to plant trees thats what they do. However, our other supported charities support many causes, so although we state that UNHCR provide malaria treatments, this is just an example impact metric we chose. They might just as easily spend that money on solar lamps or burn stoves, etc. We dont dictate to charities how they should spend our donations we let them spend it as they see fit. In choosing impact metrics, wherever possible we tried to go for things that would create an emotional response in our users. Who can argue that curing someone of malaria is not money well-spent? We also went for metrics that would scale up quickly. Some charities offer more meaningful metrics than others.

Q7. I noticed there’s a browser in a phone store. What’s your next big thing?

We have Firefox-based browser apps in the Google Play store (for Android) and in Apples App Store (for iPhones and iPads). The next big thing really depends on whether people are willing to use and share SearchScene. If we can scale up our traffic, and get a long-term partnership with Microsoft Bing, we would ideally like to increase our privacy features and eventually take on DuckDuckGo. After all, whats better than a private search engine? A private search engine that donates nearly all of its money to big charities, helping to make a difference in the world! Ideally, we would like SearchScene to become the natural ethical alternative to Google.

Q8. The last question is always about music. What are you listening to these days? Shoot me a video or two!

Neil: I am listening to Hootie The Blowfishs new album. Im so glad those guys got back together. The lead singers voice is like velvet on my eardrums! I am just going to include a SearchScene link to Hootie
https://www.searchscene.com/search?q=hootie%20and%20the%20blowfishsearchType=web

Ciara: To be honest, for the past few weeks, I have been listening to the soundtrack from Winnie the Pooh every morning, while I wake our 4 year old up for school!

TAGS:Theres Then and Physics emanzini inhlanzi likhipa 

<<< Thank you for your visit >>>

likhipa inhlanzi emanzini

Hot Websites