Pornographic?

This is a ridiculously hilarious image.

McCain's Uphill Fight

Ross Douthat from the Atlantic wrote an insightful, and to me heartening, account of why McCain will have such a tough time come November:

[McCain's] right-wing critics are making nice with him, his favorable ratings are sky-high, and his opponents are too busy driving each other's negative ratings upward to spend any time (or money, more importantly) putting a dent in his halo. Moreoever, the Democrats' intra-party tensions are bound to diminish once the party picks a nominee: At least some of the Hillary supporters who tell pollsters that they'd vote for McCain over Obama may actually follow through on that pledge, but a lot of today's McCainocrats will come home to the Democratic fold when all is said and done.

Yet even with all this going for him, McCain's poll numbers are bumping up against the same 45 percent ceiling that they've been hitting since December. If the election were held today - a pretty good day for McCain, all things considered - he'd probably lose to Obama, and might lose to Clinton as well. That doesn't mean he will lose, by any stretch, but it certainly doesn't bode well for November.

Guess Who Said This Quote

Mr Obama is a more skilful politician than most of his predecessors. Mrs Clinton's “We're not bitter” populism is already beginning to grate (when she told a crowd in Pittsburgh that she found his comments condescending, there were loud cries of “No”). And polls suggest that people are much more interested in addressing issues such as economic insecurity and inequality than refighting old battles against the liberal elites. Perhaps this election is not just about who wins the White House, but about whether an entire political era is drawing to a close.

Of course, it's Andrew Sullivan. Wrong. None other than The Economist's Lexington columnist. It's heartening to see that those not in a pro-Obama bubble are seeing the same thing.

People Power

It's stories like this that give me hope for the world:

South African port and truck workers are refusing to move weapons from a ship that docked in the country on its way to Zimbabwe

Quote For The Day

Fittingly enough, from Andrew Sullivan:

You know a campaign has gone on too long when Michael Moore starts to make sense.

Income Inequality

I think this is a really great post about the causes of income inequality in America from Free Exchange

But inequality would have grown anyway for two important reasons. First, through the 1970s and 1980s, technology shifts substantially increased the return to human capital, boosting incomes for college graduates and placing strong downward pressure on middle-income clerical positions. Second, since the 1980s, educational attainment numbers have behaved oddly. More Americans than ever are attending college and getting degrees, but more Americans than ever are also dropping out of high school, despite the large return to education.

So the problem is that education is more important than ever, but fewer people are getting a decent education. It also talks a bit about why many favorite boogey-men (e.g. immigration, trade) just can't be the full answer.

Perspective

One of Matt Ygglesias' pet peeves seems to be people broadening the politically charged term "middle class" to include those who are actually quite wealthy. I certainly agree with him that some perspective is needed:

I'd forgotten that for months now Charlie Gibson has been asserting that $200,000 is a solid middle-class income, blissfully unaware that just 3.4 percent of U.S. households have an income of $200,000 or more. You could be richer than 96 percent of your fellow citizens, but still just folks to Gibson. Obviously that's not on a par with being bad at bowling or anything on the "out of touch" scale, but it's still disappointing to learn that even our salt of the earth working class multimillionaire television news personalities aren't utterly infallible.

I'm glad it's not just me

I was worried that I have been having my perspective skewed by reading too much Andrew Sullivan, but I think that rant from one of the (anonymous) normally very temperate, uncommitted bloggers at the Economist:

I’m not exactly sure when it happened, but my will has been broken. I’ve realised that covering Mrs Clinton's campaign without explicitly stating that it has turned into a win-at-all-costs operation fueled by phony outrage, hypocritical proclamations and absurd notions of who is electable and who is not is an exercise in deliberate deception, and I can't do that. Perhaps I am weaker than my colleagues, but a certain fatigue sets in when trying to sort through it all. Mrs Clinton does have substance, and some well-thought-out policy prescriptions, but did you know Barack Obama is an elitist? Never mind that the Clintons largely agree with what Mr Obama said, or meant to say.

The rest here.

Approximating Intelligence

So I sometimes read a rather interesting blog by a statistician, William M. Briggs, who works on critiquing global warming science through statistical analysis. He's certainly interesting, and I have learned quite a bit from him, but I think he has a tendency to over-analyze things and relies a bit to much on quantitative analysis. Sort of can't see the forest but for the trees. Good science is rarely as exact or as statistically rigorous as people seem to think.

Anyway, in a response to one of his posts, I left the comment below, which I think is an important point to keep in mind.

The passage to which is was responding was:

I’ll write about these topics in more depth later, but briefly: people weight heavily the fact that many different climate models are in agreement in closely simulating past observations. There are two main, and very simple problems with this evidence, which I could have, at the time, done a better job pointing out. For example, I could have asked this question: why are there any differences between climate models? The point being that eight climate models agreeing is not eight independent pieces of evidence. All of these models, for instance, use the same equations of motion. We should be surprised that there are any differences between them.

The second problem I did point out, but I do not think I was convincing. So far, climate models over-predict independent data: that is, they all forecast higher temperatures than are actually observed. This is for data that was not used to fit the models. This means, this can only mean, that the climate models are wrong. They might not be very wrong, but they are wrong just the same. So we should be asking: why are they wrong?

And my response:

I am astrophysics PhD student who runs numerical simulations studying galaxy dynamics. While I have absolutely no direct experience working on climate models, nor do I have any but the faintest idea of the inputs or physics that goes into them, I am quite familiar with the similar numerical modeling techniques that are used in astrophysics calculations. I would like to very briefly address your question of “why are there any differences between climate models?”

The systems I study are actually much simpler than any climate system. I model the mass of galaxies as a simple N-body, collisionless, self-gravitating fluid of point masses- which means that the only relevant physics involved are Newton’s laws that we all learned in high school. Yet different gravitational codes yield slightly different answers. The reason is that there is no analytic solution to the gravitational N-body problem - there are only numerical approximations.

So each code has to make different assumptions on how to best approximate the result. There is the additional constraint that the time it takes to actually perform the calculations on current computers has to be reasonably small (hopefully, less than the time it takes to earn a PhD!). In order to decrease the computational expense, more approximations are used. Obviously, different approximation methods will yield slightly different answers, but all should yield approximately the same result. Since we can’t measure our approximations against the “true” answer (such an answer does not exist), comparing different techniques to make sure they give similar results is the best method we have for checking our codes.

Keep in mind that the system I have described is an extraordinarily simple system. Climate models have many more layers of complexity - and thus approximations - to deal with. Again, there is no “true” answer against which to compare the results of simulations.

So, let me be clear about the very narrow point I am trying to make. You are certainly correct that results from different codes are not necessarily independent pieces of evidence. It is also worrying that the codes are not fitting independent data. Asking why the models disagree with the data and trying to improve them is of paramount importance. However, simply asserting that “the climate models are wrong” seems to me to be missing the point. It does matter how wrong the models are because all we have are approximations and there is no a priori method of determining how good those approximations are. So, the best we can do is make lots of different models using different assumptions and hope they give reasonably similar answers. “Reasonably similar” may not seem quantitatively satisfactory, but it’s the only way we have to do science.