news sciences

Imagine Debbie Downer and Chicken Little have an offspring. It would be me. Or at least, that’s how I’ve felt over the last few weeks as the only person in the Free World who seems to have noticed that the gap between Trump and Clinton is closing, and in fact, was never really that large to begin with. It only appeared large because a fluctuation occurred at about the same time everyone was hoping for a fluctuation, so it became more real than it should have been. The race has been close for some time, remains close, and is narrowing.

This morning, the newscaster for NPR introduced a story on the race with “With Hillary Clinton’s lead narrowing …” or words to that effect. The story was about President Obama’s remarks. You think you’re wining, then you miss a couple of free flows, get a penalty or two you weren’t expecting, next thing you know, you wake up the next morning, and you’re the Minnesota Vikings. Or words to that effect.

Let’s look at some tracking polls. Tracking polls may be inaccurate with respect to magnitude (how high or low the candidates are, in relation to each other, but scaled in absolute terms) but they are supposed to be helpful in detecting short term changes. So, for example, if you have good reason to think two candidates are at, say, 60 – 40 in the split among voters, and a tracking poll then tells you that that first candidate has likely lost about 5%, that means that you should take seriously the possibly that it is no longer 60 – 40, but maybe closer to 50 – 50, without assuming how much closer. That is what tracking polls can give you.

The Los Angeles Times has a well respected tracking poll. This is a picture of it:

Here’s the ABC tracking poll.

This shows the race narrowing to a near dead heat.

In both of these polls, ignore the absolute value. What these tracking polls are telling you is this: Ten days ago, you were jumping up and down happy because Clinton was so far ahead and her lead was expanding. Today, you need to stop jumping up and down and you have to put your nose the grindstone and work on making sure she wins, because, simply put, Trump has a chance.

A third tracking poll, the IBD/TIPP poll, is considered to be highly accurate (has never been wrong in a presidential race) and has put Clinton and Trump in a near dead head for a long time now. IBD/TIPP shows Clinton’s lead expanding a bit.

So, with two tracking polls showing what looks like an emerging reversal of fortune for the Clinton campaign, and one maintaining as an indicator that things are close, those who wish to not have a Trump Presidency should be concerned about two things.

The first thing to be concerned about is your own personal connection to and understanding of reality. A lot of Americans really like Trump, and you didn’t think that was possible and still don’t understand why. Fail to grasp that at your peril.

The second thing, of course, is an actual Trump presidency.

This is the point where most un-realists, those who simply wish Clinton to win so hard that their eyes have become scaled over, make this argument: “But the Electoral College, bla bla bla.”

So, let’s look at the Electoral College. I recently projected a very close race in the Electoral College, that some said was a crazy outlier. But when I looked at the other projections, I found that mine was similar to many others, with only one difference: I projected win/loss for all states, while the others left a lot of states as unknown. In other words, for states where we know the likely outcome, the race is close.

But how close?

Here is a list of the selected sampling of pundit forecasts listed at 270 to to win.

This represents the range of what people are thinking.

Note that in all cases, a) Clinton has more than 270 electoral votes, BUT, in several cases she is within one state of losing that. Note also that Trump is in every case below 270. But, also notice that in all cases (not shown in this table, but visible on direct inspection) there are plenty of unattributed states for either candidate to draw from.

This is the map that is of most concern:

This is the map 270 provides to represent “contested states.” It is not unreasonable. New Hampshiere, North Carolina, Ohio, Georgia, Florida, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Wisconsin, and Iowa are reasonably thought of as contested. In this scenario, neither candidate has enough to win.

Let’s take this map and give Trump the states he is very likely to win if the wind is blowing softly in his direction. We get this:

Still, neither candidate wins.

I personally have a hard time believing Wisconsin will not be blue. New Hampshire has been trending more and more Blue, so maybe it will be Blue as well. Le’ts assume that Maine goes blue as well. If that all happens, Clinton wins by 3 electoral votes.

But it is also not unreasonable to guess that New Hampshire goes for Trump, or that, say New Mexico ends up going for Trump. In that case, Clinton is just below the 270 mark. If Trump then wins North Carlina and Florida, then hello President Trump.

Indeed, in the Election Year From Hell, we may very well expect this nightmare scenario:

If this happens, the vote on November 8th is thrown out and Congress decides who will be president. The House will decide who will be President, and they will pick Trump. The Senate will decide who is Vice President, and they will pick Kaine.

On Election night, I’ll be watching New Hampshire and North Carolina very closely.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2dYl3Ot

A Trump-Kaine presidency is now on the table.

It ain’t over ’till the lady in the pantsuits wins. Or looses.

The Los Angeles Times has a well respected tracking poll. This is a picture of it:

Here’s the ABC tracking poll.

This shows the race narrowing to a near dead heat.

The second thing, of course, is an actual Trump presidency.

This is the point where most un-realists, those who simply wish Clinton to win so hard that their eyes have become scaled over, make this argument: “But the Electoral College, bla bla bla.”

But how close?

Here is a list of the selected sampling of pundit forecasts listed at 270 to to win.

This represents the range of what people are thinking.

This is the map that is of most concern:

Let’s take this map and give Trump the states he is very likely to win if the wind is blowing softly in his direction. We get this:

Still, neither candidate wins.

Indeed, in the Election Year From Hell, we may very well expect this nightmare scenario:

On Election night, I’ll be watching New Hampshire and North Carolina very closely.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2dYl3Ot

Trump Supporter Charged With Vote Fraud, Grammar Infraction [Greg Laden's Blog]

How can you tell what a megalomaniac is really up to? You find out what the megalomaniac is accusing everyone else of. That’s what they are up to.

While the just barely brighter than dim press and pundits are focusing on Trump’s call for his followers to carry out voter suppression in African American and Hispanic neighborhoods on November 8th, or before at early voting elections, and accusing the Democrats of voter fraud (suppression and fraud are different, sort of opposite, things) something different is actually happening.

This is how dog whistles work. Dog whistles, usually used by conservatives, are thought by liberals to be a way of saying things that you can’t actually say because they are obnoxious or illegal. But no, that is not how they actually work. Dog whistles are much more subtle and nuanced than that. The recipients of the message unwittingly (but not unwillingly) adopt opinions or, in some cases, carry out acts, directed by constantly repeated well placed dog whistles.

The dog whistles are not explicit instructions. The are cues that set up a mind set that leads to a desire to act or think in a certain way.

Think about it. If you tell people who hate Democrats and Hillary Clinton that Democrats and Hillary Clinton are going to carry out voter fraud, again, and again, and again, what are they going to do? They are going to a) carry out their own voter fraud and b) do so with the justification that they are afraid that the other side is busy carrying out voter fraud.

So, from the Huffington Post, on reporting several apparent cases of voter fraud in Iowa:

Police in Des Moines, Iowa, said Friday that they had arrested Terri Lynn Rote, 55, on suspicion of voting twice in the general election.

Rote, a registered Republican, allegedly submitted ballots at two different early-voting locations in Polk County, Iowa…

She said she feared her first vote for Trump would be changed to a vote for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

As expected.

There are two other individuals in the same area being looked at, neither has been arrested yet.

Apparent voting felon Rote is known to have commented, “I wasn’t planning on doing it twice. It was a spur of the moment,” a comment for which charges from the local grammar police are expected soon.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2f08vbn

How can you tell what a megalomaniac is really up to? You find out what the megalomaniac is accusing everyone else of. That’s what they are up to.

The dog whistles are not explicit instructions. The are cues that set up a mind set that leads to a desire to act or think in a certain way.

So, from the Huffington Post, on reporting several apparent cases of voter fraud in Iowa:

Police in Des Moines, Iowa, said Friday that they had arrested Terri Lynn Rote, 55, on suspicion of voting twice in the general election.

Rote, a registered Republican, allegedly submitted ballots at two different early-voting locations in Polk County, Iowa…

She said she feared her first vote for Trump would be changed to a vote for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

As expected.

There are two other individuals in the same area being looked at, neither has been arrested yet.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2f08vbn

Ask Ethan: Do 234 Sun-Like Stars Show Evidence For Aliens? (Synopsis) [Starts With A Bang]

“This isn’t my life anymore, Mulder. I’m done chasing monsters in the dark.” -Dana Scully, X-files

One of the most exciting things a scientist can experience is when they look at a sample of data, expecting to not see a particular exciting effect, and yet, something’s there. Immediately, you have to check yourself: what are all the other things it could be? What are the mundane possibilities that could mimic that effect? And what can I do, if anything, to rule them out? Whenever you have a new idea, your main job, first and foremost, is to try and blow the biggest holes in it you possibly can.

The Sloan Digital Sky Survey telescope. Image credit: David Kirkby.

Last week, a publication came out claiming that, out of 2.5 million SDSS spectra that were analyzed, about 0.01% of them showed an unusual high-frequency variation. After exhausting the astrophysical possibilities for this effect, two scientists came to the conclusion that it must be aliens; that no other possibility sufficed. And yet, despite passing peer review, that’s not at all the opinion of a majority (or even a reasonable minority) of scientists.

An artist’s impression of sunset as seen from an alien world. Image credit: ESO/L. Calçada.

What’s going on here? Find out about these unusual 234 stars — and what they do-and-don’t tell us — for this week’s Ask Ethan!

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2f0dlFH

“This isn’t my life anymore, Mulder. I’m done chasing monsters in the dark.” -Dana Scully, X-files

The Sloan Digital Sky Survey telescope. Image credit: David Kirkby.

An artist’s impression of sunset as seen from an alien world. Image credit: ESO/L. Calçada.

What’s going on here? Find out about these unusual 234 stars — and what they do-and-don’t tell us — for this week’s Ask Ethan!

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/2f0dlFH

New moon is October 30

View larger. | Youngest possible lunar crescent, with the moon's age being exactly zero when this photo was taken — at the precise moment of the new moon - at 07:14 UTC on July 8, 2013. Image by Thierry Legault. Visit his website. Used with permission.

Youngest possible lunar crescent, with the moon’s age being exactly zero when this photo was taken — at the instant of new moon – 0714 UTC on July 8, 2013. Image by Thierry Legault. Visit his website.

The ghostly image at the top of this post is a new moon. When the moon is new, its lighted half is facing entirely away from Earth, and its night face is facing us. That’s why we can’t see the moon at this time.

New moon comes on October 30 at 1738 UTC. Translate to your time zone.

For the world’s Eastern Hemisphere, this new moon is a Black Moon, which is the popular name for the second new moon in a month.

Black Moon is just a name, like Blue Moon, or Harvest Moon, or any moon name (although nearly all refer to full moons). It doesn’t mean the moon is literally black, although the moon isn’t shining for us now either because it’s between the Earth and sun, and its lighted side faces away from us now.

The Western Hemisphere had its Black Moon on September 30

On the day of any new moon, most of us can’t see the moon with the eye alone for several reasons. First, at new moon, the moon rises when the sun rises. It sets when the sun sets. It crosses the sky with the sun during the day. A new moon is too close to the sun’s glare to be visible with the eye. It’s only as the moon moves in orbit, as its lighted hemisphere begins to come into view from Earth, that we can see it in our sky.

So you likely won’t see the moon on October 30, unless – like Thierry Legault whose photo appears at the top of this post – you are using special equipment. Modern techniques – telescopes, filters, photography – have made it possible to see the moon even at the instant of new moon. That’s the case with Legault’s image, which he acquired in 2013. Read more about that image here.

One to several days after new moon, the moon appears in the west after sunset. Then it is called a “young” moon.

A typical young moon sighting, for most people with ordinary eyesight, comes when the moon is around 24 hours from new, or more.

A new moon is more or less between the Earth and sun. Its lighted half is turned entirely away from us. Image via memrise.com.

Composite image of a 2006 solar eclipse by Fred Espenak. Read his article on the August 21, 2017 total solar eclipse, first one visible from contiguous North America since 1979.

It is possible to see a new moon if a solar eclipse takes place. Composite image of a 2006 solar eclipse by Fred Espenak. Read his article on the August 21, 2017 total solar eclipse, first one visible from contiguous North America since 1979.

We can’t see the new moon from Earth, except during the stirring moments of a solar eclipse. Then the moon passes in front of the sun, and the night side of the moon can be seen in silhouette against the disk of the sun. Meanwhile, if you could travel in a spaceship to the opposite side of the moon, you’d see it shining brightly in daylight.

Once each month, the moon comes all the way around in its orbit so that it is more or less between us and the sun. If the moon always passed directly between the sun and Earth at new moon, a solar eclipse would take place every month.

But that doesn’t happen every month. Instead, in most months, the moon passes above or below the sun as seen from our earthly vantage point.

Then a day or two later, the moon reappears, in the west after sunset. Then it’s a slim waxing crescent visible only briefly after sunset – what some call a young moon.

It should be possible to see the moon on September 15, 2015. This photo is from the previous night, September 14. Gene Porter in Georgia wrote:

Young moon, visible a day or so after the new moon phase. A young moon is seen in the west after sunset. It’s a waxing crescent moon. Photo by Gene Porter in Georgia.

As the moon orbits Earth, it changes phase in an orderly way. Follow these links to understand the various phases of the moon.

Four keys to understanding moon phases

Where’s the moon? Waxing crescent
Where’s the moon? First quarter
Where’s the moon? Waxing gibbous
What’s special about a full moon?
Where’s the moon? Waning gibbous
Where’s the moon? Last quarter
Where’s the moon? Waning crescent
Where’s the moon? New phase

Moon in 2016: Phases, cycles, eclipses, supermoons and more

from EarthSky http://ift.tt/19T9DUm

New moon comes on October 30 at 1738 UTC. Translate to your time zone.

For the world’s Eastern Hemisphere, this new moon is a Black Moon, which is the popular name for the second new moon in a month.

The Western Hemisphere had its Black Moon on September 30

One to several days after new moon, the moon appears in the west after sunset. Then it is called a “young” moon.

A typical young moon sighting, for most people with ordinary eyesight, comes when the moon is around 24 hours from new, or more.

A new moon is more or less between the Earth and sun. Its lighted half is turned entirely away from us. Image via memrise.com.

But that doesn’t happen every month. Instead, in most months, the moon passes above or below the sun as seen from our earthly vantage point.

Then a day or two later, the moon reappears, in the west after sunset. Then it’s a slim waxing crescent visible only briefly after sunset – what some call a young moon.

Young moon, visible a day or so after the new moon phase. A young moon is seen in the west after sunset. It’s a waxing crescent moon. Photo by Gene Porter in Georgia.

As the moon orbits Earth, it changes phase in an orderly way. Follow these links to understand the various phases of the moon.

Four keys to understanding moon phases

Moon in 2016: Phases, cycles, eclipses, supermoons and more

from EarthSky http://ift.tt/19T9DUm

October’s end, Virginia

2017 EarthSky Lunar Calendar pre-sale…is happening NOW!

The Milky Way and fall colors from Virginia, by Jeff Berkes.

Thanks Jeff!

Enjoying EarthSky? Sign up for our free daily newsletter today!

from EarthSky http://ift.tt/2fgAYxG

2017 EarthSky Lunar Calendar pre-sale…is happening NOW!

The Milky Way and fall colors from Virginia, by Jeff Berkes.

Thanks Jeff!

Enjoying EarthSky? Sign up for our free daily newsletter today!

from EarthSky http://ift.tt/2fgAYxG

Climate change could push risk of ‘megadrought’ to 99% in American southwest

This is a re-post from Carbon Brief by Robert McSweeney

A megadrought spanning several decades could be almost certain to hit the American southwest this century if greenhouse gas emissions are not curbed, a new study says.

Rising temperatures will “load the dice” in favour of a megadrought in the region, the researchers say. Combined with a decline in rainfall, warming conditions could put risk levels at 99% for much of the region, the study finds, while moderate increases in rainfall would still leave risk levels above 70%.

But there is a “glimmer of hope” another scientist tells Carbon Brief. The study also shows that keeping global temperature rise to no more than 2C above pre-industrial levels would cut this risk by half.

Megadrought

In the last few days, state officials have confirmed that California’s drought has now ticked over into its sixth year. The costs of the ongoing dry spell have run into billions through lost crops and livestock, and the energy demands of pumping water from ever-retreating groundwater stores. Today, more than 60% of the state remains in “severe” drought or worse.

Now a new study, published in Science Advances, says unchecked climate change is upping the risk that California and the wider American southwest could see droughts in future that persist a lot longer.

The study looks specifically at “megadroughts”. These are 35-year periods that are at least as dry, on average, as the worst droughts experienced in the 20th century – such as the “Dust Bowl” droughts of midwest America in the 1930s.

The researchers assessed future drought risk using a statistical model to estimate the impacts of temperature and rainfall changes on soil moisture in the southwest. This region includes Arizona, much of California and Nevada, southern Utah and western parts of Colorado and New Mexico.

The southwestern US states.

The findings show that rising temperature is the predominant factor in increasing the likelihood of a megadrought. Lead author Dr Toby Ault, assistant professor in the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Cornell University, explains to Carbon Brief:

“We found that temperature generally ‘wins out’ and drives evaporation rates to higher levels, which in turn makes megadroughts more likely in a warmer climate even if precipitation increases.”

You can see this in the maps below, which show the risk of a megadrought occurring this century under different levels of warming compared to pre-industrial levels: 2C (upper map), 4C (middle) and 6C (lower).

Global emissions are currently tracking just above a scenario that climate models suggest would raise global average temperatures by around 4C or more by 2100.

The left-hand maps indicate how temperature changes the megadrought risk if rainfall amounts stay the same as they are now. The shading indicates the level of risk, from yellows and oranges up to dark brown where the risk reaches 90-100%.

You can see that under 2C, the risk in some southern parts of the region is less than 30%, with around half of the region at greater than 60% likelihood of a megadrought. But the step change to 4C is stark, with all but the southwest corner of the region at a risk of over 90%.

The right-hand maps show how much extra rainfall would be needed to keep megadrought risk below 50% for each temperature increase. The darker the blue shading, the more rainfall that would be needed.

For a 2C warmer world, most of the region would only need “modest” increases in rainfall – less than 10% – to reduce the risk of megadroughts to 50%, the paper says. However, under 4C, this increases to 10-30%, and then up to 40-50% in northern parts of the region with 6C of warming.

The contours on these maps show how much rainfall is actually projected to change by climate models. As you can see, for all but the most northern parts of the region, rainfall is expected to decrease by 5-15%. This means rainfall is unlikely to reduce the risk of megadroughts substantially.

Maps of megadrought risk for the American southwest under different levels of warming (see A to C), and the required increase in rainfall to compensate for that warming (see D to F). Shading in maps A-C shows megadrought risk, from yellow to dark brown. Shading in maps D-F shows rainfall needed to keep megadrought risk to less than 50%, where dark blue indicates the largest increases. The contours on maps D-F shows climate model projections of expected rainfall changes. Source: Ault et al. (2016)

‘Glimmer of hope’

Earlier research has shown that the Earth has experienced megadroughts around once or twice a century during the past millennium. But while these were caused by natural fluctuations in the climate, we’re now adding human-caused climate change into the mix. Ault explains:

“In the past, the ocean is the most likely culprit for driving megadroughts. Persistent ‘La Niña’ patterns, as well as other prolonged sea surface temperature anomalies, are possible culprits. In the future, temperature will play an increasingly important role.”

The findings add to growing evidence that the American southwest is likely to experience worsening droughts under climate change, says Dr Peter Gleick, chief scientist at the global water thinktank, the Pacific Institute, who wasn’t involved in the study. He tells Carbon Brief:

“In particular, rising temperatures will drive changes in water availability beyond what even moderate increases in precipitation can mitigate, and even worse, there may not be any precipitation increases at all.”

This reinforces the importance of efforts to limit global temperature rise, says Ault:

“Future megadrought risk depends strongly on temperature, hence reducing global carbon emissions will limit the total amount of regional temperature change and ultimately lower the risk of megadrought.”

This means there is a ‘glimmer of hope’ to avoid the crippling impacts of a megadrought, says Gleick:

“The risk of these megadroughts can be partly reduced by aggressive efforts to cut greenhouse gases, but we should have begun these efforts years ago, when similar warnings were first sounded.”

Ault, T. R. et al. (2016) Relative impacts of mitigation, temperature, and precipitation on 21st-century megadrought risk in the American Southwest, Science Advances, doi:2016;2: e1600873

from Skeptical Science http://ift.tt/2eOCbrt