Sunday assorted links

Comments

Homes exposed to SLR are also exposed to storm surges.

Yes this is true, which increased risk of exposure to storm surge should be one of the long-term mechanisms through which SLR erodes property value. They do have the robustness checks to make sure they weren't observe short-term responses to recent floods and the results held.

Lol! Storm surge risk is a long term problem, not short term.

Until the long run comes.

What does this response mean? I don’t think you understand the idea of probabilities and risks.

Good point Yancey... honestly, you would expect this result even if no one took seriously the fancifully optimistic notion that not only climate but its second-, third- and fourth-order effects could be accurately estimated many decades into the future. Storm surge erosion has been a known effect for a long time!

Coastal engineers are pretty adamant the models should be ignored, and only the post-LIA trend should be used for planning. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0964569116300205

"short-term responses to recent floods and the results held."

Because flooding never happened until recently?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_floods

SLR has been pretty constant for quite some time. Either buyers are rational and there has always been a discount, or the hype is affecting markets.

https://judithcurry.com/2017/11/03/steve-koonin-a-deceptive-new-report-on-climate/#more-23460

Sea level rise? Probably the majority of humanity lives within rifle shot of a river, well-known for variations in volume and consequent flooding. Few have seen fit to leave the river bank and move their operation to the mountains, having ingeniously adapted to the situation.

A lot of people seem to think Holland can't exist. Heck, they turned living below sea level into a huge military asset, and that was centuries ago.

And yet Al Gore, like many other Warmists, is happy to spend millions of dollars buying one to live in.

SLR is perhaps the most fraudulent claim from the Big Green Coloring Book of Fraudulent Claims.

Our coal export terminals are built with allowances for sea level rise. Just one more clear example of Al Gore's mind control powers.

No, see, that is probably in Australia, where other impossible things, such as gun control effectively reducing incidents of mass murder, don't actually happen.

The only reason it appears that gun control reduced the murder rate in Australia is because when ever anyone attempts to kill 35 people with a pair of chopsticks, Al Gore appears with a dingo tied to each foot and a koala on each fist and beats them up. We call him ManBearDingo.

Crikey is becoming my favorite commenter here. For the record, of the countries I've visited, Australia had the nicest people easily. And it was the most 'American' feeling, culturally. Love that place.

You're right that didn't happen. Compare Australia to new Zealand, which didn't have a "gun ban". No difference. Also Australia only got rid of 20% of the guns so I don't know how much of a gun ban that was in any case

Anonymous, Australia banned some guns because we kept shooting each other.

If only there were laws against shooting people.

"Our coal export terminals are built with allowances for sea level rise."

As they would if they were built a hundred years ago. SLR was going on then too. We're still coming out of an ice age.

Our readings from one hundred years ago show half the current sea level rise. Or at least that's what ManBearDingo told me to say.

But if you don't believe me, here's a graph showing sea level rises from the last glacial maximum of 11 different studies showing the sea level rises since the last glacial maximum so you can not believe them:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png

"driven by sophisticated buyers and communities worried about global warming"

http://edmsouthflorida.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/south_park_smug.jpg

If that is an I and not an l, show some.

#2 Claustrophobic snapshots of Trump's America.

Her forefingers struck at the keyboard, and her lids began to droop. She clicked on the mouse, and her eyelashes prolonged a bow. The cash drawer flung open.
—Sixty-two dollars all in, she said.
—All right, very good. He drew his wallet dealt and three twenty-dollar bills against the placard.
—It’s up the stairs on your right. The first room, she said. He reached in his pants pocket and retrieved a two-dollar bill. Helga stood and tucked the two-dollar bill before the flyleaf in La Chute. She turned the other bills vertically and placed them in the drawer, closing it. She tore the receipt and placed a silver pen beside it on the countertop. Augustine’s eyes were tired but straightforward, steadfast but not upright—the kind of eyes Helga had seen before and would see again.

1. I heard a lot about the fracking boom in Pennsylvania, but it's population grew less than 1% 2010-17, but I heard nothing of a fracking boom in DC which grew over 15%. Fracking in Ohio was in the news, but population grew only 1%.

On the other hand, I hear lots about how bad California is and how everyone is fleeing, but California grew slightly faster than the nation is a whole. The heartland Red States tend to show relative population declines with 2% growth relative to national 5.5%.

The South, Texas when they show growth, it's because of big government industrial policies, whether big subsidies from the State or what was classic Federal pork barrel spending. Democrats put military bases and contract money in the South to win Blue Dog votes, and the deal Democrats made on budget was to cut military funded jobs in the North to limit such jobs in the South to fund Democraatic priorities like health care.

Other than North Dakota, has news about fracking really had much effect?

Wouldn't news about a massive rail building boom result in the same movement, a la 1860-1890? Or gold strikes? Or ship building for WWII? New factories opening in small towns in farm country which drove the growth of the town I grew up in.

News of jobs in the food industry: farm field work, dairy, meat packing, have driven more migration than fracking boom news. Almost all immigrants to the US, legal and illegal.

Bottom line. Not sure what the point is of 1. Hardly a general result.

Generally, 21st Century local booms don't do much for fellow Americans because immigrants flood in. North Dakota's fracking boom was different because it's so far north, with so little in the way of Latino connection. So companies actually had to pay decent wages to Americans for once.

I used to live on the MN/ND border, and there was a huge Mexican population even in our small town. I think the fracking boom probably drew fewer immigrants not because it's "so far North" but more likely because of the required skills those types of jobs were requiring. Not necessarily high skills jobs in an absolute sense, but certainly higher than the average agricultural work that was often done by the immigrants when I lived up there twenty years ago.

Not necessarily high skills jobs in an absolute sense

What would be a high-skilled job in the absolute sense? Would it be a local government functionary who keeps track of water use payments? How about a university vice president of diversity like these guys http://nailheadtom.blogspot.com/2017/12/christmas-decor-at-university-of.html? Maybe an ad company executive that makes a subjective evaluation of a television commercial, the success of which can be measured by no known means? How about an economics professor at a middle tier university whose name and accomplishments, unknown to the general public, will be even less known and appreciated after his death except for a handful of number-crunching students doomed to a similar fate? Maybe asking for an example of a highly-skilled job in the absolute sense would be asking too much. An obvious one would be a heart surgeon, I suppose. Instead please describe the qualities that are required to make a job highly-skilled in the absolute sense. Using education as a prerequisite isn't the correct answer. A large number of well-educated people have no skills whatsoever.

#6 is very nice.

We have probably all met rich old know-it-alls, and noticed that their position can insulate them from recognition of their own errors(*).

It is just sad that it is common enough to be observable in the broad population in a statistical sense.

* - insert prominent example if you dare

TC. In the sense of Top Cat, obs.

Not where I would have gone. Whatevs.

It is still early here on the left coast, but Merry Christmas Eve to all and a Happy Tomorrow.

Rayward obviously.

Remember, remember! The foreign treason and plot; I know of no reason. Why the foreign treason. Should ever be forgot! Remember, remember! The foreign treason and so on and so forth.

Remember, remember the twenty-ninth of December! The foreign treason and plot; I know of no reason. Why the foreign treason. Should ever be forgot! Remember, remember the twenty-ninth of December! The foreign treason and so on and so forth.

5. NYT praises William James.

So is the New York Times using the example of James to explain why they are running delusional articles about Trump all the time? That is, are they hysterical because they are afraid of Trumpism, or are they afraid of Trump because they are hysterical? James would surely argue the latter. I think that this would be a good question for the NYT to ponder and so their turn to James can only be applauded.

2. Derek Parfit’s photographs.

Parfit was obviously "on the spectrum" in a serious way. A brilliant mind, no doubt, but I don't think people were his forte. So if the question is what does a very high level autistic man photograph?, then this is a very good answer. Cold. Clean stone. Very good framing. Very few people. He is actually very good. He reminds me of Leni Riefenstahl.

Parfit was not on the spectrum at all (you can tell even mildly autistic people from the way they interact ). And the photographs displayed are selected for their quality, he did take pictures of people but the pictures were less interesting

#2...Parfit's photographs are of a type I enjoy, which has led people to claim that my taste in photography is morbid and melancholy, certainly unhealthy. However, looking at such photographs makes me rather less morbid or melancholy. If you want to make me morbid or melancholy, show me photographs and paintings of people. Grotty. As for Leni Riefenstahl, didn't she specialize in photographing people like Nazi athletes and Nuba warriors, sometimes entire crowds?

Perhaps a German athlete or artist between 1932 and 1945 should have searched for other forms of activity that couldn't be held against them in the future. Maybe Leni's visuals should have been incinerated and her memory erased, similar to what's being attempted with John C. Calhoun, Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson. When the former opposition is erased, however, a new enemy is required. For instance, when the Soviets imploded, the US needed a replacement for the narrative. The jihadis had been waiting in the wings and were happy to accept the mission. Since they've been crushed Americans must decide on the likelihood of millions of Chinese foot soldiers paddling across the Pacific to occupy the country or a re-animated Russia dropping divisions of paratroops from Lancaster, PA to Lancaster, CA. It's always something.

"Maybe Leni’s visuals should have been incinerated and her memory erased, similar to what’s being attempted with John C. Calhoun, Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson".

Without the statues, they will be erased from History. I mean, how will people remember whom Lincoln, Grant and the rest of the good, statue-worth guys were fighting against? Same with Stalin. Since his statues were demolished, I can not remember who exiled Trotsky, ordered him dead and ordered the Berlin Blockade. Sir Isaac Newton?

Also Hitler. There are so few streets named after him, that I can not remember what the Holocaust was. And this way the Nazis win.

I know what that's like. Ever since Australia named the wrong mountain after General Kosciuszko I've been convinced he was 59 feet shorter than he actually was.

[12 months on from the US election]:

From the desk of a denizen of the Deep State, on its instructions to the newly inaugurated US President

"You have two options.”

“1- Follow the path we have laid out for Clinton. Drop this nonsense about an accord with the Russians. We spent decades conditioning the public to hate and fear them at great profit to ourselves, and have no intention of losing such a perfect enemy. Reviving the Cold War has far greater profit potential than pretending to fight a few thousand rag heads hidden in caves. Leave it to us– we will provide all the necessary news disinformation and stage any false flags needed to keep things moving along properly.

2- Continue as you promised during the election and we will continue to paralyze your administration with the kind of fabricated attacks that are now happening. You needn’t worry about being impeached—you will simply be assassinated when the discord reaches its peak.”

Depends on what the artist's work was, maybe, and I don't know of a German athlete of the era who has been derided for his athletic achievements.

I don't think Calhoun, Lee, and Jackson carved their own statues. So that's hardly comparable to Riefenstahl's work. Nor do those statues and ex-statues have a great deal of artistic merit. The reasons for preserving them are partly to support racism in the guise of "heritage" and mostly to glorify their subjects, who deserve glorification no more than Riefenstahl does.

There have been some very blatant racists memorialized with no objections: http://nailheadtom.blogspot.com/2017/05/gen-phil-sheridan-memorial-in-sheridan.html

No doubt, though there does seem to be at least some objection to honoring Sheridan.

I think it is important to consider what we are honoring people for. The link doesn't say, but presumably the Sheridan statue is because of his role as a Union general, not his later career. But the Confederate statues were created to honor those leaders precisely for their role in the Confederacy, for their vigorous defense of the slave system.

There is a difference, I think. Few politicians and generals have spotless records - few people do. So we want first to know what we are honoring someone for, and then whether that sufficiently outweighs the blemishes. If you think Sheridan falls on the wrong side of the line, I won't disagree.

What's more egregious behavior, to legally purchase and own another person and be able to compel their labor or to kill strangers and their families in order to own their property?

It's obvious that then and now, slavery must have been a useful rationale for the preservation by force of the Union, a club that once entered could not be left. This viewpoint apparently legitimizes the premature deaths of 600,000+ American men and boys to crush an institution that was already obsolete and on its way out. To say that the Confederate leaders were solely interested in the preservation of slavery is to ignore political differences that had been apparent even before the revolution. They were devoted to preserving a political system, economy and way of life that had existed for over 200 years.

So we want first to know what we are honoring someone for, and then whether that sufficiently outweighs the blemishes.

There's a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame on the north side of the 7000 block of Hollywood Boulevard memorializing director Alfred Hitchcock. The AFI considers Vertigo the ninth best American movie of all time. Others consider it pathetic. But they haven't demanded that the star be removed. If things progress as they have been, there might be an effort to remove the star honoring Bill Cosby. So far, that's been rejected: "Leron Gubler, president and chief executive of the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce, gave his final decision on the star. "The answer is no," Gubler said. "Once a star has been added to the Walk, it is considered a part of the historic fabric of the Hollywood Walk of Fame."

What’s more egregious behavior, to legally purchase and own another person and be able to compel their labor or to kill strangers and their families in order to own their property?

Clearly the latter, of course, but I doubt that behavior is what Sheridan is honored for. If it is, then take down the statue. Two wrongs, I was once told, don't make a right.

It’s obvious that then and now, slavery must have been a useful rationale for the preservation by force of the Union, a club that once entered could not be left. This viewpoint apparently legitimizes the premature deaths of 600,000+ American men and boys to crush an institution that was already obsolete and on its way out.

What evidence do you that it was on its way out? Bear in mind that the defense of slavery is what motivated secession, a motivation explicitly stated at the time by those seceding. If it was obsolete and on the way out why fight to expand it?

And how many slaves' lives would have been immiserated and shortened had the country simply waited around for slavery to die out? To get you started note that the 1860 Census reported the slave population of the states that were soon to secede as 9 million.Those lives count too, and of course the South too could have avoided the war and prevented the 600,000 deaths.

To say that the Confederate leaders were solely interested in the preservation of slavery is to ignore political differences that had been apparent even before the revolution. They were devoted to preserving a political system, economy and way of life that had existed for over 200 years.

Yes. A political system, economy, and way of life that was based on enslaving about 40% of their population. Fighting a war to preserve that is reprehensible, not honorable.

I'm not sure what Leni Riefenstahl has to do with this, but she did rather more than that.

Her work essentially glorified the Nazi regime, and she never quite grasped the problem with that, or why people didn't like her.

#6 Does higher social class undermine wise reasoning about personal affairs?

Poor people in general and people outside of the civilized countries (especially outside of the US) live in the world where they have to be constantly scared. That explains the shock many immigrants feel when they come to America: "look at those arrogant <> walking around like it is their world" where X can be "gays" , "blacks", "infidels", "jews", "women", "mennonites" or any other group we forced into hiding back home. If "following social clues" means more "conformance", wealthier people and people in the civilized countries in general indeed feel like they dont have to be a part of the larger mob, they can afford having an individuality

#6: the article title is misleading
The survey (study 1) you can throw out because it’s self-reported class and on Mechanical Turk. What’s the incentive for an upper class person to spend time on there filling out surveys for a few cents?

In the real study, (study 2) I don’t see anything about class. Just educational attainment, which was used as a proxy for class. In the paper they say these included working class and middle class people, and cite an earlier paper on age vs. wisdom. This new paper is a secondary analysis of that dataset.

Even accepting that, the only difference they found was between no college and all the rest combined. Look at their figure 3. All the effect is coming fom the difference between the no college and some college groups.

At best, they found that people who choose not to go to college are “wiser” than all other people combined by at best half an s.d. Most likely, what they found was that low class people who didn’t go to college were wiser and more realistic than low class people who thought they could complete college. This result makes sense.

Maybe he meant going to class.

Comments for this post are closed