The Internet is so overwhelmed with content that one cannot consume more than a tiny fraction of it. That, generally, is not a problem because most of it is duplicative. Choose your favorite content creator to present you with the standard Right and/or the standard Left narrative. My goal is not to provide you with X number of words or Y minutes of video per time period. Rather, my goal is to correct the most egregious misstatements within the Right and Left narratives. Both sides 'lie to you for your own good'. I don't condone that, especially because they get it wrong so often.
So, here are a few corrections of the most important current issues that are being reported and discussed.
The Truth about Inflation
The U.S. Federal Reserve needs to print money - approximately 800 billion USD of it per year. Parenthetically, the Eurozone needs to print about the same amount of Euros. The Fed can do so directly by buying Treasuries with created money. Or it can do it indirectly by lowering interest rates that are internal to the banking system. This, usually, increases credit demand and allows the member banks (JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, etc.) to loan more money using fractional reserves and thus they create more money that way. The first method is a scalpel and because excess profits are returned to the Treasury, this method benefits the taxpayer. The second is a blunt instrument that enriches the owners of banks. The Federal Reserve has absolutely needed to increase the money supply in order to avoid the economic disasters that could have resulted from, first, the 2008 financial meltdown and, second, the forced closure of businesses during the 2020-2021 pandemic. Since it absolutely had to be sure that the strategy worked, they resorted to Quantitative Easing (QE) or the buying of Treasuries to immediately and reliably infused money into the system.
Because of this, the Federal Reserve now holds about 9 trillion USD of Treasuries. Because of this QE, the crises were, indeed, mitigated if not totally avoided. However, now all that extra money in circulation is causing massive inflation. The Federal Reserve can actually kill this inflation totally and completely dead by selling some (about 2 trillion USD) of its Treasuries. Why don't they do that? Well, they are planning on it, actually. They just announced that they are going to start selling 98 billion USD of Treasuries per month. However, while the Federal Reserve can effectively, either lower the inflation rate or interest rates through, Quantitative Easing or Tightening, they can't simultaneously affect both in a positive direction. The best they can do is attempt to balance inflation and interest rates. They have also announced that they are going to increase interest rates, right now by 50 basis points (0.5%) and likely more later.
Just the signaling of rate increases has caused the Treasury interest rates to increase. Since ten year Treasuries are the best predictor of all interest rates, including your credit card debt and mortgage, in isolation, this is not a good thing. If they don't sell Treasuries, what is called Quantitative Tightening, inflation will continue and perhaps increase. Since there is a lag between inflation and wage increases, higher inflation is painful to most voters. So, in theory anyway, the Fed will try to balance the two, interest rates and inflation, in order to minimize the overall negative effect to the economy and to soothe political unrest.
In the long run the basic challenge is this. The Federal Reserve needs to increase money supply by about 800 billion USD per year in order to maintain a healthy, growing, low inflation economy. However, the structural deficit is about 1.5 trillion USD per year. The Federal Reserve does not have the tools to resolve that 700 billion USD imbalance. That must be done by Congress and their only tools are to either increase tax revenue or decrease spending. The correct solution would probably to do a bit of each. However, both are politically inexpedient and so the problem is left unsolved and both narratives are rife with lies. In other words, both interest rates and inflation will likely go up to a painful level.
Reasonable people can disagree about the extent to which taxes should be increased or spending should be decreased. But in combination, they can be used to balance the scales. However, ignoring the problem simply won't make it go away. If the problem is ignored, EUNA (this is happening in the Eurozone and U.K. as well) will walk blindly into extreme economic hardship. Over time high inflation and high interest rates will result in a recession due to insufficient demand side.
Climate Sensitivity, again.
From time to time I discuss the Climate Sensitivity implicit in the models you hear about. Changes in Solar output and albedo should be modeled, but generally aren't. Typically, models input an increase in atmCO2 and the assumed climate sensitivity and that drives the answer. While the IPCC shows all sorts of assumptions on CO2 output and the resultant atmCO2 levels, in fact ever since we have had accurate measures, atmCO2 has been increasing at a remarkably constant rate of 0.45% per year. There have been all sorts of schemes, treaties and protocols, etc. but the rate of increase has remained unchanged. That really leaves the uncertainty in the assumed climate sensitivity. Know it and you know how much the Earth will warm (given flat solar output and no change in Earth's albedo).
In the IPCC AR5, the range for Climate Sensitivity was 1.5C to 4.5C. In the latest IPCC AR6, the range was narrowed to 2.5C to 4.0C. This implies an increase in Earth's temperature by 2100 of 1.5C to 3.0C. Oddly, however, the Executive Summary goes on and on about temperatures that are up to 5C higher than today. How do they manage this? By assuming a much higher rate of increase in atmCO2. While that is not impossible, it is highly implausible. If one studies the internal forces that are responsible for the 0.45% per year increase and one wanted to argue for a change in the historical rate, one would argue that it will likely begin to decrease about mid-century, with the net carbon cycle reaching balance around the end of the 21st Century or a bit before.
Once the argument over the proper value of Climate Sensitivity is resolved, it is likely that a controversy will arise over the rate of atmCO2 increase. There needs to be attention paid to the effects of albedo, as well. However, right now, the argument is over Climate Sensitivity.
Peer reviewed papers describing research on Climate Sensitivity are published nearly every day and I read at least the Abstracts of all of them. I did write about one such paper a few weeks back, but generally I do not. First, not all of them are very compelling and second, many just aren't going to be technically accessible to most Polymathicans. However, I develop a 'working hypothesis' on the likely value of Climate Sensitivity from all of the published information and my estimate has remained rather persistently between 2.0C and 2.5C. In other words, I was within the IPCC AR5 published range, but I am now outside of the IPCC AR6 range.
Recently I said that the AR6 is the first report by IPCC that is overtly partisan. One of the reasons that I say this is that the increase of the lower limit to 2.5 flies in the face of much of the published research. In fact, like the one to which I provided a linked, most research is coming to a consensus in the 2.0C to 2.5C range.
What does this mean? It means that, based upon best evidence, that is the range of Climate Sensitivity and, while it will result in a warmer planet, it does not support any catastrophic scenarios. The IPCC AR6 Executive Summary, without stating it, does imply a climate catastrophe that just isn't easily supported by the evidence. IPCC, in the immortal words of Taylor Swift, 'You Need to Calm Down'. We are, collectively, allowing ourselves to be convinced of the advisability of a cure that is actually worse than the disease.
On Roe v Wade
A draft opinion on a SCOTUS pending case on Roe v Wade was leaked and has overcome much of the Internet and the Right and Left silo. Ruth Bader Ginsburg's assessment that the decision was flawed was correct, though very unpopular on the Left. SCOTUS does not rule on what laws should be enforced. It rules on the constitutionality of State and Federal laws and regulations. It also, from time to time rules on disputes between States and between a State and the Federal government. Clearly, the Constitution makes no mention of abortion which implies that it is a matter to be determined by the individual States. But, of course, there are complicating issues.
Can a right to an abortion be inferred by the existing Constitutional provisions? This is what Roe v Wade attempted to do, through the novel interpretation of the 4th and 14th amendments. While RBG is favor legal abortions, she could not support the justification within Roe v. wade. This, however, does not mean that the Constitution has no applicability to the issue. However, it is limited and, as is the case with all termination of life, the description and penalties revolving around the taking of a citizen's life is a matter for the States. However, the rules governing whether any one individual is a citizen is a matter for the Constitution and it speaks directly to it. However, it does not do so in a way that directly informs us on abortion.
However, clearly, if at any point it the gestational period a fetus becomes a citizen, it will enjoy the rights of a citizen. Also, clearly, removing it from a female's womb prematurely in a manner that unnecessarily ends its viability would be against its Constitutional rights. By practice, a person is recognized as a citizen when a birth certificate is issued. However, a reasonable modification to that would be that the Constitutional rights of a fetus should be recognized when it COULD be issued by its premature and intentional birthing. To do otherwise leads to some logical contradictions.
Suppose, as an example, a female is 24 weeks pregnant and she is diagnosed with cancer. She needs immediate treatment, but the treatment would kill the fetus. Obviously, she wants the baby but she also wants to live. So, her medical team, concluding that the fetus is viable, removes the fetus and places the baby in the neonatal ICU where it survives. It, of course, has Constitutional rights as of the date of removal. There is a clear difficulty in that a 24 week old fetus that could be removed and survive will have Constitutional rights in this case, but not in another because of the condition and desires of the mother? That makes no sense. If a 24 week pregnancy results in a viable fetus, it either has Constitutional protections or it doesn't. To justify the termination of a viable fetus would require the determination that in the first case, the baby has no Constitutional protection until some set time after its birth.
So, if, in fact, the draft opinion is rendered in more or less the leaked form, the decision on abortion will, for the most part, be returned to the States. That is certainly broadly consistent with the general tenor of the Constitution. Like most of Europe, the States are signalling that they will allow an abortion on request until between 12 weeks to 15 weeks. There are exceptions. Poland does not allow elective abortions. Florida just passed a law allowing abortions to 12 weeks, reduced from the current 24 weeks. The only States affected are those who currently allow abortion on demand later in pregnancy.
I do not actually favor limiting pre-viability abortions for a number of reasons. The major one has to do with the introduction of highly ambiguous reasoning. Every State that limits abortions to 12 weeks to 15 weeks must make some sort of exception for females whose life is threatened by continuation of the pregnancy. However, what constitutes a life threatened, while clear in many cases, is not so clear in others. What about the claim that a continued pregnancy would threaten the females life via an increased risk of suicide? If there were a valid logic to reducing the limit to 12 weeks to 15 weeks, then some ambiguity to what constitutes a threat could be tolerated. This, however, is my personal assessment and as a matter of law, in the U.S. where laws are often issued by States but reviewed by SCOTUS, there is probably no legal justification for it.
An Addendum
I very much want there to be a forum by which more intellectually sophisticated content can be created, distributed and discussed. However, at the same time, I recognize that there is far too much content out there already. So, I want to be as efficient as possible. I am settling in to a provisional system where I publish a weekly Newsletter on Substack and on Locals where, on Locals, the ultimate objective is to create a community of Polymathicans or intellectually sophisticated people.
I want to be the Mr. Ed of social media.
And waste your time of day,
but Mister Ed will never speak
Unless he has something to say!
That means that my newsletter, while weekly, might be short or long depending upon how much I have to say. Most and podcasters throw out one to three hours of content per day. So, for financial reasons, they must have that much to say. Since they don't, they repeat themselves a whole lot. I won't do that. I repeat but only as is absolutely necessary.
As I said, I am not here to say what is already being said, over and over, elsewhere. If someone is saying something important, I will simply attach a link. There is no reason for me to waste time saying it again.
Please encourage people to join Polymaths.Locals.com or MichaelWFerguson.Substack. This activity is only financially justified if I have at least 10K paid subscribers and I am nowhere near that.
Speaking of polymathy mixing with climate, the application of chemical equilibrium thermodynamics (Gibbs free energy principle) would indicate that water vapour positive feedback is in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Energy in a system must be minimised, so increased warmth (sensible heat energy) causing positive feedback in the form of increased atmospheric humidity (increased latent heat energy) is impossible. That is why humidity has declined and temperature has remained stable in the upper troposphere according to 4 different metrics (cough empirical falsification cough). The only way to get positive feedback is via internal cannibalization of energy, ie an increase in one form of energy must be associated with a decrease in another form. That's essentially what you see in the ice age cycle, it's a kinetic/temp flip flop. Also of note is the 2.5w/m2 increase on outgoing longwave radiation in the satellite era, in lockstep with cloud changes measured by ISCCP. The impulsive nature of the cloud decreases allows for accurate estimation of climate sensitivity, which is close to neutral. Unfortunately applying chemical theory to an atmospheric chemistry problem was too hard. Also learn Henry's law, the partial pressure equation. 98% of CO2 is dissolved in a temp dependant fashion. Which means 98% of emitted CO2 ends up dissolved in the ocean at equilibrium. And the AIRS CO2 data shows nicely the CO2 stripping characteristic of rain systems. Ocean atmosphere exchange ~10%/year.
ReplyDelete