Taking your mind for a walk on a Sunday Morning

Here is a logico-mathematical puzzle to entertain the idle on a Sunday morning:

A train leaves Moscow at 0800 on the 1^st of January, its destination Vladivostok; a distance of is 9289 km. For the first part of the journey, it travels at an average speed of 60km/hr for 18 hours in every 24. The rest of the time it is stationary. The bridge over the Amur River, 8515 km into the journey, has been swept away. Between Krasnoyarsk, 4098 km into the journey and Vladivostok, the train starts to accelerate at a rate of 0.1 m/s² for one hour in every three while it is moving, until it reaches its maximum velocity of 120kph, at which point it slows back down to 60 kph at the same rate; it then accelerates again.

1. When will the train arrive at its destination?
2. If the average speed for 18/24 hours is 70kph for the first part of the journey, when will it arrive?
3. If the rate of acceleration and deceleration is 0.07 m/s², how much longer will it take to arrive at its destination?
4. If the rate of acceleration and deceleration is 0.2 m/s², how much sooner would the train reach its destination?
5.  On the same train, 500 passengers start the journey at Moscow. The train picks up new passengers at a rate of 20 per hour. The passengers alight on average at a rate of 18 per hour until Chita, 6199km into the journey, after which time the numbers joining and leaving the train are equal. The rate of acceleration changes by 0.01 m/s² for every 100 extra/fewer passengers on board. What difference will this make to the total journey time?

Look forward to your answers.

On the impossibility of dialogue

In the busy thread below, this extended comment appeared. It contains some thinking which requires extended response, so I’ve done a lift and here it is up front.

The context is that the correspondent is a regular presence on the internet, commenting on climate change and global warming. His view and mine are different.

In the comment, he tries to explain why he thinks the way he does, to which I offer my efforts to understand.

Please note that his first language is not English, and make allowance that some of the expressions, which might sound abrasive, may be a function of linguistic difference, not necessarily aggression.

Here we go:

Let me suggest something: Pull back and consider that I am convinced you act in good faith and are honest, but you have been brainwashed.

I too have been brainwashed. The only difference is that I´m aware of the brainwashing and you seem to be oblivious (like 99 % of the population).

This is not a promising start. You set out by claiming your intellectual superiority to me, in that you have a privileged (and superior) epistemic status, because I am not aware that the world as I understand it is relative. I might be inclined to disagree with this.

The brainwashing isn´t the result of an overarching conspiracy. Some of it is genetic, some of it is deeply ingrained culture, some is early education, and some of it is impressed on you by the media, your friends, and your enemies.

Being brainwashed seems to be a positive survival trait in homo sapiens. Although many brainwashed populations were defeated and driven to extinction, others which practiced brainwashing as a higher art form, or got a bit luckier seem to have survived more often thanks to this brainwashing, which aligned most of society with the leadership, and moved them to perform as requested.

This is somewhat helpful. You are trying to describe your hypothesis, that our perception of reality is conditioned. In particular, you emphasise the social context of individual development (or call it the means by which I form my Weltanschauung (‘World-view’).

Thus my position is that a lot of what we believe is real isn´t really there. As my grandchildren would say, it´s all bogus.

Though your expression is a little clumsy, what is coming out seems to be a much simplified version of the ideas of Paul Feyerabend, for example, in ‘Against Method’. Feyerabend’s views are well summarised in Wkipedia (here).

So how does this impact the way I absorb information about global warming? First, I know there are actors trying to manipulate me to behave in a certain way. Why? Because whenever an issue arises which involves government decisions, subsidies, taxes, putting a drilling rig on the public library grounds, and moves like that I have to be manipulated to accept such decisions.

The position gets a bit more complicated here. This is because you introduce the Political realm. What you seem to be saying is that the information which is available about global warming has the same epistemological status as the information which we get from politicians or their employees. I think some people might object to this.

Do you see why you really can´t change my mind? As far as you are concerned I´m a ghost. I live in a different universe. You are trying to debate global warming, and I debate the way "they" manipulate us.

A part of the complexity is that you seem to have thoroughly mixed your resistance to political manipulation and your view of the nature of scientific endeavour. To you, these are manifestations of the same phenomenon – the untrustworthiness of given knowledge – and therefore they are the same thing. You reject Science as a whole, wholesale.

And why do you think you avoided the subject when I tried to use Kosovo and Iraq as talkng points? Because your comfort zone is in global warming and the associated science. You want to feel comfortable surrounded by your friends, sitting in a tall stone tower from which you can fling arrows and stones at the enemy trying to scale your walls.

Here, you are making presumptions about me which are not justified. I avoid discussing Kosovo or Iraq because I do not believe I have sufficient knowledge or understanding to comment on these subjects; I have no expertise or opinion which I trust.

And your characterisation of me in the second sentence is laughable. I have spent considerable time addressing your point of view and defending your right to express yourself, even when you have been illogical and inconsistent, yet you accuse me of attacking you. If you still see me as your enemy I would suggest that the problem lies not in my attitude but in yours. You have already decided that we must be enemies, so I cannot have any understanding of you or any human compassion. This means I cannot win. Your mind is closed to my humanity and identity; to you, I am just ‘one of them’. So who is acting in bad faith, you, or me?

On the other hand, I see this behavior as normal, quite human, and also misguided.

How very patronising and wise of you.

Almost everybody is the same. And this is why in the 21st century we see children being slaughtered with laser guided bombs in Palestine, and we look the other way. We have been brainwashed to accept this, and we can´t even bring ourselves to discuss it. And the odds are this post may even be censored, isn´t it?

Since I have both permitted every statement you have made on this blog, and defended your right of comment, even when it pushed libellous status, you have no grounds whatsoever to imply I might censor you, so this is just a personal insult.

To sum things up as best I can. You claim to be my intellectual superior. You set out a view of how the world (of understanding, or knowledge) is constructed. In this, you explicitly reject Science wholesale; to you, it is just as much in error as political propaganda. You frequently draw parallels between political events and scientific knowledge. You then remind me of why I am ignorant and accuse me first of being your enemy, then of repressing you, in spite of the visible contradiction of these in this blog.

Where does this leave me? If, as you say, all science is deception, then we cannot talk about science – not at all – by your terms there is nothing meaningful to say about it. But neither can we talk about anything which we might think of as being a shared human experience. So we cannot have any dialogue. Besides this, you have demonstrated that you do not respect me as an individual or as a human being; in particular, to you I am an inferior being. So you deny me any motivation to continue the effort to engage with you. Finally, you have established that, whatever I say and however I say it, you have determined that I am your enemy. I don’t need enemies, I want friends.

In conclusion, by your terms and rules, since there is nothing ‘true’ to say about science, every comment you make on science is a piece of hypocrisy. Furthermore, on your terms, nobody understands how things really are better than you, so you will never consider the possibility that you might be wrong, or the possibility that anyone else might have anything valid to say. This, too, given your views on propaganda, is hypocrisy. You deny the subject, the means, and the motivation to engage in dialogue. You have determined that discourse is impossible, so, unless you give me some reason to believe otherwise, I can do nothing better than remain silent.

For now, that is all I have to say on the subject.

Confirmation that ocean circulation produces weather impacts (maybe)

I sometimes post about odd papers which attract my attention, thinking the content or meaning is interesting, only to be put in place by those in the know. However, I think this paper is worth a bit of outreach, and I have some thoughts about it.

Bryden et. al. Impact of a 30 % reduction in Atlantic meridional overturning
during 2009–2010 describes a recent hiccup in the AMOC (not identical to, but can be referred to in connection with the Thermohaline Circulation, or Gulf Stream, which are connected concepts), and goes on to link the event with its effects in Northern Europe and the ITCZ subsequently.

The paper is interesting to me for three main reasons: 

There's no surprise to hear that a slowdown of the AMOC in the North Atlantic should result in colder Winter seasons for NW  Europe, or enhanced hurricane activity in the ITCZ, since this have been modelled for some time and is, anyway, a reasonably logical inference to make. But it is unusual for a scientific paper to be so clear and unequivocal about its findings, and the paper here leaves little room for alternatives. I find this interesting because, to me, it is a further validation of model output and a clear indicator that a changing climate has real effects down-the-line.

This is also the second reason the paper interests: One frequently heard dialogue of doubt is the argument that, since model output and projections are uncertain, mitigation and adaptation in response to AGW should be put on hold. Whilst the paper is meteorological rather than climatic, to the extent that it deals with a phenomenon which is related to some of the modelled output of GW, it serves as an indicator that messing with the system is a bad idea. This is something some people seem to struggle with; in some ways, the real-and-present effects of GW are too abstract, distant or unclear to get a handle on and really come to terms with. Here is a real case scenario which may or may not be a signal for what is to come down the line in the future: the slowdown of the AMOC has measurable and connectable effects. And so it can serve as a warning; look, the risks from a changing climate are not imagined, they are being played out, and bad things will happen...

The paper does not look for a long-term climate signal in the data or the phenomenon, but neither does it find a causal agency for the slowdown - they know what it did, but not where it came from. Some people might be irritated by the statement in the paper 'The ocean has a mind of its own', as being unconstructive, but this is to ask more of the paper than its authors' set out to do. In other words, it's material for a different piece of work to find any kind of larger signal in the slowdown as it happened at the time.

The third interest is related to the unknown element of the piece; what is the likelihood of the phenomenon being repeated, when might this happen, under what circumstances, and with what effects? Living in the UK, there is a vested interest in me knowing whether to plan for an increasing frequency of cold winters, as there is for those in the USA and Caribbean who are likely to be effected by 'busy' hurricane seasons in the future. One 'Sandy', or 'Katrina' was disastrous and very damaging, and the repair of damage done has still not been completed. What if there were three or four such hurricanes in a single season? What would the impacts and damage look like, and would the effected areas ever be able to recover?

So, finally, this is the message from me, not the paper, about Bryden et. al. and their sterling work: in a world where we continue to destabilise weather patterns through persisting in our emissions patterns, it is rational to expect that such possibilities are actual risks, and we are increasing the risks by inaction on all levels. The paper serves to remind us that we are now past the time where uncertainty is an excuse for inertia; the more time we waste now, the worse it's going to get, and more fool us for not reading the signs.

*Note: in the light of William's comments below, title adjusted...

If I listened long enough to you...knowing what we don't know

(AKA The Rumsfeld Conundrum)

Following on from a discussion amongst a number of internet friends at Planet 3.0, The Usefulness of Knowing what we don't know , it occurs that, since I was educated in Philosophy (specifically Epistemology) by some of the players mentioned in the literature, and on the basis that some of their cleverness might actually have been absorbed, I might have something useful to say on the matter.

It's important not just as an intellectual exercise (of the type that causes non-philosophers to tear their hair out and kick things) but also because even a cursory exploration of some of the more modern ideas of knowledge, belief and justification can lead us down some revealing paths when we look at the expert/public interface in science and the media.

It's also revealing of something else - the motivations for 'skepticism' and the reasons why some people (without trying to judge them) are still not convinced by some arguments and conclusions arising from climate science and the policy implications of AGW.

In general, Epistemology is the Theory of Knowledge ; in other words, attempts to address or answer questions such as 'What do we mean when we make a claim to know something?' Immediately it is clear that this is relevant to climate science discourse, since many of the things which are traditionally associated with a 'common sense' understanding of what constitutes 'knowing' are challenged by 'skeptics'; from what fundamental 'facts' are to be accepted, to what counts as evidence in support of AGW, through to more sophisticated problems such as whether there is justification for certain policy decisions (such as the immediate mitigation of AGW via CO2 emissions management).

The first thing to observe is that much (most?) of the public discourse, though it sometimes appears to be about what is 'known', actually revolves around what different people believe, and the reasons why they believe these things (in epistemological terms, justification). One of the reasons for this is that Climate Science is not an easy thing to do or test, and most of the public discourse is amongst people with varying degrees of ignorance (with some notable exceptions, such as RealClimate). We frequently hear scientists voicing concern over the public interface and the difficulty of communicating effectively, but the problem won't go away easily, because a lot of the work done by 'skeptical' communicators is aimed (directly or indirectly) at reducing the epistemological status of the science, the scientists, and the milieu in which the science is undertaken. By this I mean that the justifiability of a certain scientific proposition is undermined, creating doubt amongst some of us who don't, or can't do the actual science, or even fully understand the methods.

We often find it hard to see another person's point of view if we disagree about the 'facts' or the 'conclusions' of a position, regardless of the reasoning either has undertaken to reach the conclusion. In other words, we start with a problem of Belief. There are many ways to reach a condition of believing in the truth of a proposition, some logical, some rational, some intuitive, some pre-conditioned. It can be revealing to ask a person who you disagree with, why they hold that particular belief. In the case of we ignorant masses (the 'non-climate-science community'), investigation leads down any number of paths, but often reduces down to a relatively small number of core, or foundational assumptions about ourselves, the world and how we interact with it. Sometimes, these fundamentals are derived from religious or spiritual beliefs, which hold a privileged status in our personal epistemological landscape, and are therefore highly resistant to challenges, not least because they are often self-consciously 'irrational' as well as being deeply embedded in our psyches.

So, how can we make progress, about what we can claim to 'know' about climate science, or about why emissions controls (regulation, taxation, limitation of freedom, of trade, of wealth) matter now?

One way is to shift the epistemological landscape to newer ground, from the 'traditional' or 'common-sense' notions of truth, knowledge, belief and justification, to more modern, 'hard' notions of knowledge and belief, such as Bayesian Confirmation Theory, or Bayesian Social Epistemology. Without going into the details here, since they are well expressed elsewhere, for example here), this can lead down tracks such as betting on climate change, a popular and readily understood activity which has the power of publicly testing both the credibility of a person's stated belief (how much they really believe it being measured by how much they are willing to bet on it), as well as the actual grounds on which two differing views are justified, in relatively simple and measurable terms.

For scientists, there is appeal in the betting meme, since it relates to some very interesting ideas about probability and statistics, exemplified by what are known as Dutch Book Arguments. This type of discourse - the climate bet - (see here, for example), is accessible and its results understandable, with the added piquancy that someone is going to get 'smacked down' by the result. For the public, it can work as an immediate measure of the sincerity of the exponent of a given belief, which in turn has an effect on the justification for believing in that person's stated belief (both in common-sense, and Bayesian terms).

Yes, it is essential to have a sense of 'what we don't know'. In climate science discourse, most of us are obliged to confess that our personal beliefs do not depend on first-hand science; we must depend on others to provide the evidence, so our beliefs are more or less justified by the weight, credibility and logic of others. But we also can have a sense of what we should be able to claim to know, without too much controversy, and it is important for the discourse that climate scientists understand that communicating this is still very important. But enough for now, so later I will look at trying to find the grounds (fundamental principles) for a claim to know that policy action is no longer avoidable.

If I listened long enough to you - is it time to 'hug a Fuzzy'

I am inclined to believe that the so-called ‘climate change denial’ bloc of the general public (as opposed to those who make a living from ‘denial’), which in the USA is probably over 30% and in the UK is possibly around 25% of the populus, can readily be divided into certain ‘subsets’.

There are the flat-out flat-earthers, the trolls and sock-puppets, whose beliefs are irrelevant (to themselves) and whose motivation for AGW denial is principally mischievous. Basically, these people get their kicks from being provocative and setting up disharmony. The playground equivalent is the self-loathing, trouble-seeking little s***bags who manipulate other kids, through lies and accusations, into fights with one another. These people are fundamentally cowards who never actually fight themselves but instead get a hit from imagining that somehow they are manifesting power; and their cronies, the petty bullies and sneaks whose pleasure comes from being the centre of attention in a very, very small fishbowl, and who need the attention more than they fear the associated shame and self-loathing which normally follows.

Then there are the Idealists, who have strong feelings about ‘them and us’, and who view themselves as ‘outside’, either through disenfranchisement or via an indirect recognition of their existential condition. Such people might tend to emphasise the ‘conspiracy theory’ approach to ‘denialism’: it’s a Government con; it’s an excuse to interfere in Freedoms; it’s a device designed to justify increasing taxation; all scientists are liars, and variations on such themes. For these people, the stance on AGW is not dependent on the reasoning or science related to AGW, but on the implied and feared consequences of concession, which represent both a challenge to the freedom to make up their own minds and an example of ‘big boys’ pushing around ‘us little guys’.

But I tend to think that the largest majority of the people who are unwilling or unable to ‘concede’ to the majority view that AGW is real and has real future problems associated with it fall into neither of these categories (though sometimes their arguments will contain ‘evidence’ from the first or occasional tendencies towards the second).

It is wrong to label all of these people as ‘untrained’ or ‘ignorant’; many, especially at influential levels (advising Governments or Ministers), are highly educated, rational and considered individuals. Some are uncomfortable with ‘science’ as such, but by no means all. These people have ‘reasonable doubts’ and as such are interested in testing both doubt and reason.

In engaging with the larger community (via blogs, for example), much traffic and time is wasted on the first category. In some respects this is necessary, to provide counters to the lies and to run interference on the misinformation strategies. In other respects, it’s a waste of time, especially with the sock-puppets and trolls, since they have no interest in anything but troublemaking, and never offer anything but attempts to disrupt.

The second category is more difficult to have a ‘standard’ approach to. However, it is likely that the underlying motivation for ‘denial’ has a stronger force to the individuals concerned than any possible argument which will contradict their world-view. Given that the AGW call to action has become so heavily politicised in the USA, for example, this is an important segment of the ‘denialosphere’ which cannot be ignored or overlooked completely. But there may be approaches which can address the ideological basis for denial (whatever it happens to be) and seek to find ground where ideology and AGW need not be in contradiction. It’s a tricky one, which will need more investigation at another time.

But the largest ‘denial’ community are not really ‘denialists’ as such – they are instead Uncertains, Fuzzies, Floating Voters; in other words, people unwilling to bow to ‘the Orthodoxy’, with genuine concerns and genuine questions about AGW, in addition to other important issues. For many of these people the question is often less about the reality of AGW as it is the assessment of the risks and costs, not just of AGW mitigation but also of the comparable risks and costs of other important global human issues – population, security, food, health, development, economy.

The most important characteristic of the Climate Fuzzies is that these are basically reasonable people. Or at least, they want to be. With basically reasonable people it is possible to have a basically reasonable – or rational – discourse, to address actual arguments rather than spurious ones, and to deconstruct that fuzziness into component parts which, through discourse, can be argued (in the rational sense). 

To do this requires an openness on the part of both parties – in other words, an inclination to actually pay attention (listen) and respond to the other – rather than wait for the opportunity to talk and simply restate our own beliefs/assertions. It also requires an acceptance before we even start that we are as likely to be wrong in our beliefs as we imagine them to be. This is really hard, but I would suggest that it is critically important. Entrenchment is not the sole domain of the ‘other’ – in fact, without Acceptance we are almost doomed to be entrenched ourselves before we start a dialogue.

And here is my challenge to my ‘friends’ of the blogosphere: Seek out the ‘real’ doubters (they are there, I promise), embrace their uncertainty, and look to find out if their uncertainties do in fact challenge your own fundamental assumptions. Then talk about this. So, in the spirit of positive engagement, let’s ‘Hug a Fuzzy’ as soon as we can.

:)

Jack Higgins in 'Zulu'..

Thought exercise: 
(ht to Raymond Smullyan, a dude of the highest order)

I am an alien freshly arrived on Earth (the Planet of Knights, Knaves and Normals), with helpful inclinations and superior capabilities.

(For those of you who haven't read Smullyan, Knights always tell the truth, Knaves always lie, Normals can do either.)

I meet three people. I know that one is a Knight, one a Knave, and one a Normal, but not which is which. The first says: "We are screwing up the Planet, help us fix it." The second says "Don't listen to him, he's a Knave." I have one question to ask to determine who I should believe. What do I ask and to which one?

I really, really hope some people pick up on this one... :)