Last month my flight home from Chicago was canceled because of an intense rainstorm. In CT the storm was intense enough to cause flash flooding, which washed out roads and bridges and shut down traffic in many areas. The epicenter of the rainfall was in Oxford, CT (where my brother happens to live), which qualified as a 1,000 year flood (on average a flood of this intensity would occur once every 1,000 years). The flooding killed two people, with an estimated $300 million of personal property damage, and much more costly damage to infrastructure.

Is this now the new normal? Will we start seeing 1,000 year floods on a regular basis? How much of this is due to global climate change? The answers to these questions are complicated and dynamic, but basically yes, yes, and partly. This is just one more thing we are not ready for that will require some investment and change in behavior.

First, some flooding basics. There are three categories of floods. Fluvial floods (the most common in the US) occur near rivers and lakes, and essentially result from existing bodies of water overflowing their banks due to heavy cumulative or sudden rainfall. There are also pluvial floods which are also due to rainfall, but occur independent of any existing body of water. The CT flood were mainly pluvial. Finally, there are coastal flood related to the ocean. These can be due to extremely high tide, storm surges from intense storms like hurricanes, and tsunamis which are essentially giant waves.

Continue Reading »

I am a lifelong dog owner, and like many dog owners am often impressed with how smart my dogs have been. They pick up on subtle body language and non-verbal cues, they seem to understand specific words, and they are capable of successfully communicating their wants and desires. My latest dog is an Australian shepherd, who is both smart and willful. Any attempt at training him to do what we want results in him equally training us to do what he wants. An of course we love them and the emotional connection is real and bidirectional. Dogs and humans have evolved a symbiotic relationship.

Still, I was very skeptical when I heard about a recent social media phenomenon – posting videos of dogs using a soundboard to communicate. After watching the videos I am completely unimpressed, and my skepticism has been supported. It turns out that this is mostly just the old “Clever Hans” effect, falling into the same trap that all attempts to teach animals to communicate have risked.

In the early 20th century, Wilhelm von Osten, who was a mystic and phrenologist (among other things) showcased his horse, Hans, who he claimed could not only do arithmetic, but could read, solve problems, track a calendar, and other tasks. Hans would communicate by tapping his hoof the correct number of times. Osten probably really believed in Hans’s abilities, and he showcased them far and wide. However, when psychologist Oskar Pfungst investigated Hans he found that the horse was simply responding to non-verbal cues from his owner, essentially noted when to stop on the correct answer. He initially removed the trainer from the area, but Hans was still able to perform. However, he then made sure that no one present knew the answer, and then Hans could not perform. Hans needed cues from people to know when to stop.

Continue Reading »

What killed off the dodo? Humans first arrived at Mauritius island in the late 1500s. They found on this island fat flightless birds who nested on the ground and were a convenient way to restock their ship’s food supply. Within 80 years the dodo went extinct. But hunting was not the only, and maybe not even the primary, cause of their extinction. Rather it was likely something that the humans brought with them – invasive species. One species in particular tends to follow humans every where we go, causing havoc on any local ecosystem not already adapted to them – rats.

Dodos nested on the ground and typically had one large egg per nest. This was also a convenient food source for invasive rats, who quickly multiplied and decimated the dodo population. There were other invasive species as well (monkeys and pigs), and there was also habitat loss due to human activity – all of these factors put stress on the dodo population that was unsustainable.

It is an unfortunate unintended consequence of human history that as we explored and populated the world, rats followed us. Rats now exist on every continent except Antarctica, and they are likely the most populous mammal species in the world. They are a clever and adaptive species, and are very good at stowing away. They also reproduce very quickly, with a single female able to produce 50 pups per year. They also have a low mortality rate because they live in communities and protect their young.

Continue Reading »

As we are in an election year in the US, there seems to be only one thing on which there is broad agreement – this upcoming election will be consequential. So allow me to share some of my musings about the process of electing our political representatives.

Let me start by laying out what I see as the major considerations for what makes an ideal representative. This is basic stuff, but it’s worth framing the discussion. We tend to evaluate candidates on three major criteria – their overall morality and character, their experience and competence, and their ideological alignment. At least, we profess to evaluate them on these criteria, and to some extent we do. But we also use some heuristic proxies – how charismatic are they, and how good a speaker/debater are they? Sometimes we even use superficial proxies, like height – the taller candidate has won 58 percent of U.S. presidential elections between 1789 and 2008. This is obviously not a huge factor, but may tip the scales in a close election.

One question is, how do we balance the three main factors above, character, experience, and ideology? The conventional wisdom these days, which matches my experience and I think is correct, is that in the past character was not a determinative factor but a minimum bar. In other words, we generally would not necessarily vote for the person with the better character, but lack of character could be disqualifying. Many a candidate has been sunk by a “scandal” involving their moral character (ala “Monkey Business”). Although some politicians have been able to use their charisma and oratory skills to minimize the impact (think Jennifer Flowers). And again we often use dubious proxies – are they “church-going”.

Continue Reading »

I am currently in Dallas Texas waiting to see, hopefully, the 2024 total solar eclipse. This would be my first total eclipse, and everything I have heard indicates that it is an incredible experience. Unfortunately, the weather calls for some clouds, although forecasts have been getting a little better over the past few days, with the clouds being delayed. Hopefully there will be a break in the clouds during totality.

Actually there is another reason to hope for a good viewing. During totality the temperature will drop rapidly. This can cause changes in pressure that will temporarily disperse some types of clouds.

I am prepared with eclipse glasses, a pair of solar binoculars, and one of my viewing companions has a solar telescope. These are all certified and safe, and I have already used the glasses and binoculars extensively. You can use them to view the sun even when there is not an eclipse. With the binoculars you can see sunspots – it’s pretty amazing.

Continue Reading »

This is one of those complex questions that comes up frequently when talking about related issues, and it’s always challenging to give a short answer. Often there are unknown or speculative elements to the analysis, which make it difficult to have an objective or definitive answer. What I would like to do here is mostly frame the relevant considerations and give my current understanding of the evidence, with possible caveats. Obviously this is going to be a quick overview of a lot of complexity – I see it more as a starting point than a firm conclusion.

There are really four questions hiding in this one question about meat consumption, and I will address each separately. These are: health effects, environmental effects, ethical considerations, and local considerations such as cultural tradition.

Starting with the last item first, this can actually be the trickiest to answer. What should be our attitude toward populations with a deep cultural history that includes things like hunting whales or polar bears, using endangered animals parts for folk remedies, or destructive farming practices. Animal rights organizations try to walk a fine line:

“For those of us who are not members of those communities, it is not our role to decry traditional practices that have important cultural, nutritional, and other necessary value, particularly when they are used respectfully and humanely.”

But what about when their practices are not humane? And what is considered respectful? Often such considerations are tainted by a “noble savage” myth that such peoples always live in harmony with nature, but human populations throughout history have generally been disruptive to their environments. There is no perfect answer here. Those from developed nations do have little moral standing to lecture native populations about nature management. Often we are essentially asking them to change their practices to help solve a problem we created. But then again, should we allow whale species to be hunted to extinction because we feel guilty? It’s a no-win scenario. We just have to take a balanced approach that thoughtfully considers many factors, and searches for acceptable alternatives.

Continue Reading »

Since many of my regular commenters are intent on talking about their Wordle scores in the comments, you can now use this thread rather than my Topic Suggestions. Please put the following phrase at the top of every comment to avoid spoilers (fresh comments appear on the homepage, so people can see them even if they are not reading this post).

“To all WORDLE fans
We are discussing today’s WORDLE puzzle.
If you do not want to see the answer,
then please avert your eyes.
——————————”

For those who may not know, Wordle is a popular word puzzle created by Welsh software engineer Josh Wardle in 2013. After it became popular it was purchased by the New York Times, who now hosts the game. The game has become popular partly because people like publishing their solutions on social media. The game has also provoked a lot of questions. There is no evidence to suggest that playing Wordle makes you smarter, and we now have a lot of research that shows that puzzle games like this make you better at the specific game, but does not boost general intelligence. However, the game may make people feel smart. That’s because it is easy to underestimate how quickly word options can be eliminated, and therefore how quickly we can whittle down the options to the correct answer, so we feel really smart when we get it.

Math nerds have also used the game as an opportunity to teach about entropy and information theory. How much information do you get out of each guess? What is the optimal starter word? If you played a statistically perfect game, what would your score distribution be?

Which country has the best Wordle players? Well, if Twitter is a fair indication then it’s Sweden. What’s the best state? North Dakota.

Enjoy.

I often discuss the fact that the world’s population is set to approach 10 billion people by 2060 or so. Right now we are approaching 8 billion. This is a potentially serious issue, mainly for food security. We are already using most of the arable land on the planet, and will need to produce more food on the same, or hopefully less, land if we are to sustain these populations without devastating ecosystems (more than we already have). We also need to produce enough energy and goods while dealing with that whole global warming thing. So many people might find it interesting that some scientists are warning about a coming decline in human populations.

This all has to do with fertility rates, which have been dropping around the world. The drop is not uniform, but the global average fertility rate has declined over the last century from 4.6 to 2.4. Equilibrium level is a fertility rate of 2.1, and if the number drops below that, then population numbers decrease. Here is where things get tricky – extrapolating current trends into the future. We lack a proverbial crystal ball, and so have to make a lot of assumptions, which can prove incorrect. Even if the assumptions are reasonable, it’s hard to predict game-changers. These can come in the form of unanticipated technology, or radical social change. Even more subtle social change can shift the equations and make a big difference when you are extrapolating out 80 years. Did anyone 80 years ago predict anything meaningful about the world today? To be fair, many did, but they were broad brushstrokes like most people owning cars, and being able to communicate with anyone in the world by telephone. The question is – are the broad brushstrokes enough to predict trend lines in fertility rates, or will the unknown details derail these predictions?

Here’s what we do know. The primary reason for decreasing fertility rates is not biological, it’s social. It relates directly to improved rights for women, who can then choose to work, to use contraception, and to control how many children they have. This is an undeniable good thing – women should have these rights, and there is no going back (unless you envision a future much like Gilead in The Handmaiden). This is why, for those who think reducing the human population is a good thing, they should focus their efforts on women’s rights. That will accomplish their goal.

Continue Reading »

For the next two weeks I will be traveling to New Zealand and Australia to attend two skeptical conferences:

Christchurch, NZ, Nov 29 – Dec 1. 

Melbourne, Dec 6-8

In addition, tomorrow (Nov 23) we will be debuting our new stage show, the Skeptical Extravaganza 2.0, in Los Angeles (sorry, this is sold out). This show is a lot of  fun – it’s kind of a skeptical variety show, interactive with the audience, designed to mainly just have fun but to also expose the audience to some basic principles of neurological humility and skepticism.

We have three upcoming shows in the Northeast – this page will provide updated information on our show dates and locations as well as links to get tickets. If you want us to come to your city or region, there is also a place on that page to submit your request. If we get enough requests from the same location, that will definitely influence our schedule.

The SGU events page will also list show dates, in addition to all upcoming SGU events.

Over the next two weeks I will still be posting, but not as regularly, depending on my travel and prep schedule. We do tend to be more active on twitter (@SkepticsGuide) while we are traveling. So no promises, but do check back for more content over the next two weeks.

Now off I go to Middle Earth.

In 1984 science fiction writer Isaac Asimov wrote an article for the Toronto Star making predictions for 2019. I thought that was an odd date to pick, but as The Star explains, 1984 was 35 years from the publication of the book by that name, so they wanted to look 35 years into the future.

I am interested in futurism, which is notoriously difficult, but it is an excellent window onto the attitudes, assumptions, and biases of the people making the predictions. Asimov’s predictions are no exception, but they are particularly interesting coming from a professional futurist, and one with a reputation for being particularly prescient.

What did he get right, and what did he get wrong, and why? He focused on what he considered to be the three biggest issues for the future: “1. Nuclear war. 2. Computerization. 3. Space utilization.” I think this list itself reflects his bias as a science-fiction writer. They are reasonable, but he could have chosen medicine, agriculture, transportation, or other areas.

In any case, on nuclear war he was pessimistic in a way that was typical for the height of the cold war, and prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union. He said if we have a nuclear war, civilization is over, so not much more to say about that. Instead he just wrote:

“Let us, therefore, assume there will be no nuclear war — not necessarily a safe assumption — and carry on from there.”

He spent most of the article focusing on the impact of computers on society. This was a frequent topic of his fiction. He famously was correct in his prior visions of the future in the broad brushstrokes of – computers will get more powerful, more intelligent, and more important to civilization. But he also famously got the details wrong, imaging giant computers running things. He missed the trend toward smaller, ubiquitous, and embedded computers.

Continue Reading »