This blog feature amusing and heartwarming stories about our late Leonberger dog Bronco, as well as other Leonbergers. It also has a lot of information about the Leonberger breed, the history, care, training, Leonberger organizations, etc. I also wrote a Leonberger book, which I am featuring in the sidebar.
As I mentioned in a previous blog post I’ve been thinking about launching a second blog. The topic would be facts, or insights that are widely disputed or misunderstood amongst the public, yet important and known to be true. However, I am also thinking about adding another aspect to the blog and that is facts, or insights that are highly surprising to people, yet important and known to be true. Curious or strange facts if you will. Not strange trivia but important stuff. People wouldn’t necessarily dispute these facts, well they might, but they may appear unintuitive to a lot of people. So, the true facts that people are disputing would be “cluster-A” and the facts that just would seem strange, ponderous, or counter intuitive would be “cluster-B”. I will post about both.
This particular blog post gives an example of a cluster B fact. To express myself a little bit simplistic, science does not know everything (otherwise it would stop), but it knows a lot. By studying the light from a distant star, we can determine what elements it is composed of. The star may be composed of 71% hydrogen, 27% helium, 1% Lithium, and 1% other elements, and we can know that just from its light. We can determine the distance to the star, how it is moving compared to us, its temperature, roughly its age and longevity, and more. 150 years ago, we could not have dreamed of this capability.
We can know so much about a star from its light. Shutter Stock Illustration ID: 566774353 by Nostalgia for Infinity.
Yet we know that there are things we can never know, no matter how advanced science becomes. Infinite experimentation, super intelligence, a quintillion super genius, infinite time, cannot breach some knowledge. The universe itself forbids some knowledge. It also means that the statement “nothing is impossible” is false. My natural reaction to such a claim is, “come on you can’t say that with certainty”, and I expect many others will feel the same. However, the reason some knowledge will never be attainable is that physical laws as well as mathematics and logic forbid some knowledge. Some things are not meant to be known. I will explain in the four sections below: the event horizon, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, beyond the observable Universe, and Gödels incompleteness theorem.
I should say in my future blog I will explore each of the four examples below more in depth, and put them in their own blog posts, and I might add or remove examples as I learn more.
The Event Horizon of a Black Hole
A black hole is a region of spacetime where gravity is so strong that nothing, including light, can escape it. The boundary of no escape is called the event horizon. If you pass the event horizon you cannot come back out no matter how much energy, you expand. Nothing can escape, no matter, no radiation, not light or other electromagnetic radiation, and no information. Nothing at all can escape. The curvature of time and space itself forbids it. I should add that right at the event horizon, there is so called Hawking radiation, but without complicating things it is not the same thing as escaping a black hole.
Black Hole Stock Photo ID: 2024419973 by Elena11
Some black holes are formed when large stars die and collapse. These black holes are estimated to have a mass of five to several tens of solar masses. However, there are also super massive black holes that reside in the center of galaxies. The super massive black hole at the center of our galaxy, the Milky Way, is called Sagittarius A* and is estimated to have a mass of four million times the mass of our sun. The largest known supermassive black hole TON 618 is 66 billion times more massive than our sun. There are an estimated 100 million black holes in our own galaxy, the Milky Way. One interesting fact is that celestial objects can orbit a black hole, just like planets orbit the sun, but as you get too close you will rush, at the speed of light, into the depths of the black hole You are “poff and gone”.
The fact that nothing, including information, can escape a black hole means that we can never observe what is on the inside. You can venture inside and be lost. You can extrapolate from physical laws what might be inside, but you can never observe and report what is inside to planet Earth.
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that it’s not possible to know the position and momentum of an object with perfect accuracy at the same time. Another way of saying that is that we cannot know both the position and speed of a particle, such as a photon or electron, with perfect accuracy. The formula is: dX * dP >= h/4pi , uncertainty in position (dX) times uncertainty in momentum (dP) is larger than half of Planck’s constant, which is very small. There is also an energy and time precision : dT * dE >= h/4pi. It basically means that there are no perfectly exact measurements or knowledge. Everything is a bit fuzzy. Planck’s constant is very small, so Heisenberg uncertainty principle does not matter for everyday objects, but it matters when sizes are very small (positions, energies, etc.) Note, Heisenberg uncertainty principle is not regarding a limitation of our equipment, but a limit set by a law of physics. It is a limitation set by the Universe.
Heisenberg uncertainty principle Shutter Stock Vector ID: 2380436193 by Sasha701
Beyond the observable Universe
The observable universe is a ball-shaped region of the universe consisting of all matter that currently can be observed from Earth or its space-based telescopes. The radius of the observable universe is 46.6 billion light-years. The size of the observable universe is growing. Unfortunately, at those distances, space itself is stretching/expanding faster than the speed of light. Since no signal or information can travel faster than the speed of light we are losing, not gaining, celestial objects from the observable universe. Further, in the past we’ve lost many galaxies this way. I can add that the universe may be infinite. Since the expansion is accelerating, we will keep losing more galaxies beyond the boundary of the universe and some galaxies were always lost (with respect to observation).
A view of a galaxy full of stars. Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com
If we are wrong about the fact that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, then perhaps we can observe more galaxies in the future. But if not, then there are galaxies that we have never observed, galaxies that we can never observe, and there are galaxies that will become unobservable in the future. Depending on the size of the universe we may never be able to observe more than an infinitesimally small portion of the universe. Again, the universe is stopping us from knowing something.
Gödels incompleteness theorem(s)
The theorem states that in any reasonable mathematical system there will always be true statements that cannot be proved. In other words, to find a complete and consistent set of axioms for all mathematics is impossible. There are forever hidden truths in mathematics. For the case of natural numbers this means that there will always be statements about natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable. I can add that there is also a second incompleteness theorem that states that a formal system cannot prove that the system itself is consistent. Basically, there are limits to mathematics set by logic.
There are forever hidden truths in mathematics in the form of unprovable truths. Photo by Andrea Piacquadio on Pexels.com
I have a book on Gödels incompleteness theorem, which I have not read, but I will read it before I make a post about it.
Some other topics for strange yet important facts
Light speed in vacuum is a Universal Constant.
Time is relative (deeper explanation).
Non-simultaneity and simultaneity are relative.
The strange double slit experiment.
Quantum Tunneling.
Quantum entanglement.
The Monty-game-door trick, 3-doors.
The butterfly effect.
Mandela effect.
What do you think about mixing in some very strange but important facts in my future blog about facts people dispute even though they are known to be true?
This post is a brief reminder of the total solar eclipse happening April 8, 2024. Dallas, Texas, where I live, will experience totality, and the total time in totality in Dallas will be 3 minutes and 51 seconds (1:40:43 PM CDT to 1:44:34 PM CDT), one of the longest durations across the country. If you are content with just a partial eclipse you can see that from any of the 48 states, and it will last for hours. This event is less than two months away.
Path of totality (total solar eclipse). I am allowed to use this image as long as I link back to the National Eclipse. Click on the image to visit the National Eclipse.Alternative map showing the path of totality from Travel + Leisure.
According to those who have experienced a total solar eclipse it is a lot more profound experience than a partial solar or an annular eclipse. A partial eclipse is definitely cool. You can see the crescent shadows of tree leaves and if you have the right glasses, you can see the sun partially covered by the moon. However, it won’t get dark. In a total solar eclipse, it will get dark, and many say that the birds will stop singing, it will become quiet. This is the last total solar eclipse in the United States until 2044. It will be my first total solar eclipse (I saw a partial in 2017). Hopefully the weather will cooperate.
Overview of path of totality and partial solar eclipse worldwide. Public domain – NASA. Eclipse Predictions by Fred Espenak.Gif animation illustrating totality and extent of partial solar eclipse. Official work for NASA.My solar eclipse glasses that I bought on Amazon.
Click here or here to read more about the solar eclipse on April 8, 2024.
This blog is focused on Leonbergers but every now and then I post about something else, typically a book I want to promote. This post is different. I have many hobbies and one of them is volunteering for a climate change organization called Citizens Climate Lobby
CCL, 200,000 supporters in the US, 10,000 supporters in Texas, non-partisan and non-profit. CCL supports all energy options that can be used to reduce emissions, renewables, nuclear, natural gas replacing coal, carbon capture.
This post is about my journey towards becoming an advocate for a livable planet for future generations as well as the climate journey of my friend Larry Howe, who is a lifelong Texas Republican who became a climate activist (and he is still a Republican). Larry’s three-part article is focused mostly on solutions, and my post is focused mostly on how I got here. We both started out as “skeptical” of global warming and we both support the same solutions, so the two posts complement each other. CCL talks to both sides of the political spectrum, and we try to foster good relations with everyone. Below is a photo of us with Senator Ted Cruz.
Peter Bryn the leader of the conservatives’ action team is presenting our carbon fee and dividend proposal to Senator Ted Cruz in 2017. The CCL Texas delegation is standing in the background.
Citizens Climate Lobby is a volunteer driven non-partisan organization focused on educating the public and lobbying/talking to politicians, industries and organizations. We are not professional lobbyists. We don’t bring a billion dollars to political offices, in fact not even one dollar. We just bring ourselves as voters and constituents, and a friendly and positive attitude. We present well researched proposals for solutions and ideas. We require that the proposals are effective in reducing emissions, good for the economy, market oriented, non-partisan and acceptable to both Democrats and Republicans. In addition, we listen to the concerns of the lawmakers. One of my volunteer positions within CCL is to be the CCL liaison to Senator Ted Cruz office. Climate Change may not be Senator Ted Cruz’ cup of tea, but he voted for one climate bill that we supported, the Growing Climate Solutions Act.
Senator Ted Cruz TXJR with Citizens Climate Lobby in 2017. The senator is standing immediately to the right of the American flag, and I am standing immediately to the left of the American flag.
In June of 1988 I embarked on a journey with a friend and with my brother around the United States in an old Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme 1976. I had just earned a master’s degree in electrical engineering and applied Physics from Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, as well as a degree in engineering physics from the University of Uppsala in Sweden (well they were really the same degree). It was an unusually hot summer. June 23, 1988 was the first time I heard the word “global warming”. I was watching some of Dr. James Hansen’s testimony before the United States Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. I thought it made sense what he said. After all, I knew that greenhouse gases would increase the temperature of the atmosphere. It is hundreds of years old simple basic science and I had certainly not slept through my physics classes. It is why Venus is the hottest planet in the solar system and not Mercury.
Me in my Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme 1976 in 1988. I bought it for $250.
As time went by (about 10-15 years ago), I became increasingly skeptical and doubtful of global warming or climate change as it was more commonly called later on. The reason was that I almost exclusively read and watched rightwing news media such as world-net-daily (tended to push conspiracy theories), Newsmax and Fox News. I believed in the concept of global warming, it is basic science after all, but I thought that it was exaggerated and that it was promoted and distorted by left-wing agendas, and I incorrectly believed that there was no scientific consensus on the issue. I also bought into the false narrative that this was about environmentalist ideology, politics, or even a sort of environmentalist religion, and not a real and serious problem. My disdain for environmentalists, my ideology, and my gut feelings certainly aided the propaganda in misleading me. In addition, I read a lot by Björn Lomborg and Patrick J. Michaels and I believed them. To clarify, I did not know it at the time, but I was wrong, very wrong. Below is a video from NASA showing the annual shrinkage of the arctic sea ice.
To see the NASA web page from where the YouTube video of the shrinking arctic ice is taken click here.
I should say that I had some lingering doubts about my own “climate skepticism”. During my travels to national parks, the great barrier reef, and other places, I encountered guides who were scientists, as well as others, and they told me about coral bleaching, ocean acidification, receding and disappearing glaciers, the pine beetle problem, white pine blister rust, the destruction of forests due to global warming, and I could see some of the effects with my own eyes in northern Sweden, which is close to the arctic and therefore the effects of global warming are more visible.
Temperature anomaly graphs from NASA, Hedley Center, Japan Meteorological Agency, NOAA, and Berkley.
It also bothered me that my physics hero Stephen Hawking was a global warming alarmist and that other leading physicists and astrophysicists whom I admired, such as Michio Kaku, promoted and warned us about human caused global warming. Add that popular science magazines I subscribed to, such as Discover and Scientific American frequently wrote about global warming. I should say that I tended to skip those articles and I believed those magazines had a left leaning bias.
The carbon dioxide concentration measurements began in 1958 at the Mauna Loa Observatory on the island of Hawaii. Since then, several other ways of measuring carbon dioxide concentration have been added.
However, there were too many red flags regarding my “climate skepticism”. It seemed like a lot of people knew and understood something I didn’t. This prompted me to take a deep dive into the matter. I had a decent scientific background. I had a master’s degree in engineering physics and a PhD in electrical engineering / computer science/ robotics and I was used to reading and writing research papers, and I had been on both sides of the peer review process, and I love mathematics. Electrical engineering and robotics is certainly not atmospheric physics but I wasn’t going to judge or review papers, I just wanted to know what scientists in the field actually were saying, and due to my background I was able to understand the papers.
Another temperature anomaly map, this time ten different organizations.
I read peer-reviewed research articles on the topic, I read several dozens of books on the topic, including climate skeptic books, I subscribed to Nature, a very respected science journal publishing peer reviewed articles, I conversed with or listened to climate scientists online. I found out that my cousin Per Wikman-Svahn was a physicist who worked as an expert on the ethics surrounding climate change, and I extracted information from him.
Global temperature going back twenty thousand years, a hockey stick graph. Notice the stable temperature during the last 10,000 years, coinciding with the development of human civilization, and then a sudden sharp increase at the end.
I learned that the evidence that climate change is happening is undeniable and overwhelming including these few examples. I learned that the current global warming is mainly caused by our greenhouse gas emissions. I learned that global warming is not caused by natural cycles, something the experts on natural climate cycles repeatedly stressed. It is not the sun, or volcanoes and as you can see in the hockey stick graph above, it isn’t a normal cycle, and the recent increase in temperature is disturbingly quick.
Natural causes for global warming / climate change would have cooled the planet, not warm it.
I also learned that warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions have a certain fingerprint; the arctic will warm faster, nights will warm faster, the tropopause would be pushing up the boundary with the stratosphere, the mesosphere would be cooling and contracting (think the troposphere as being a blanket). All of that has been observed. It was greenhouse gases, not something else. I learned that scientists had used spectral analysis to verify that most of the warming came from increasing amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere, and they had even used carbon isotopes (C-12, C-13, C-14) in corals and the atmosphere to verify that the new CO2 added to the atmosphere and oceans come from hundreds of millions of years old underground carbon.
I learned that satellite measurements agree with surface thermometers, contrary to what the rightwing media I had read claimed. I learned that nearly all actively publishing climate scientists say humans are causing climate change (~99%). I learned that no national or international scientific body in the world rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change. I learned that Rachel Carson was not a fraud and that she had not killed 500 million people. I learned that Dr. Michael Mann was not a fraud and that he was right about his hockey stick curve. I learned that the so-called climate gate scandal was manufactured.
Hockey stick curve last 1,000 years, blue-Michael Mann’s original curve (proxy measurements such as tree rings), green-dots 30-year average, red temperature measurements.
I would later learn that among tens of thousands of climate change related papers only 38 are skeptical of the consensus and they all contain errors that if corrected for they ended up agreeing with consensus. I learned that the vast majority of climate skeptic papers originated with rightwing think tanks. I had foolheartedly donated to one of these organizations, the Heartland Institute. I realized that rightwing media engaged in defamation, harassment and attacks on climate scientists.
From Scripps institute. Keep two things in mind. First the warming from CO2 is delayed and may result in positive feedback that can manifest decades and centuries later. Secondly, human civilization developed during a period of stable climate. That CO2 levels and temperatures were higher millions of years ago is not much comfort.
Above all I learned that I had been bamboozled and misled and that I had believed maybe hundreds of false claims. I learned that there is a very powerful industry consisting of fossil fuel advocates and rightwing think tanks that are trying to confuse and mislead the public, attack and harass scientists, and that if you want the truth you need to trust the scientific evidence and the data, not arguments based on ideology and second guessing the motives of climate scientists is just nonsense.
Going back 800,000 years. From Scripps institute.
Long story short, we know with certainty that global warming / climate change is real and that we are causing it, chiefly with our greenhouse emissions, and we have known this for several decades. The scientific debate is over, but the public is still confused due to propaganda. Again, I had been bamboozled by rightwing think tanks, like so many others, so I understand.
Instead of using somewhat disparaging popular labels such as “believers” or “climate change deniers” Yale University classify people into six groups. For example, climate change deniers are referred to as dismissive.
I do not think I was a “dismissive” but I was “doubtful” due to all the misinformation I had allowed myself to be fed. Again, we know with certainty that global warming / climate change is real and that we are causing it, chiefly with our greenhouse gas emissions, and we have known this for several decades. If you pay attention, there is no good reason to be doubtful, and certainly not dismissive. After reading a book by James Hansen (Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth About the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity) in 2013 I decided it was time for me to get involved.
American attitudes over the last 10 years. From the Yale Program on Climate Communication.
At first, I tried to argue with those who were dismissive, either by inserting myself into a discussion or after they approached me, typically because of something I said either on-line or personally. This was a surreal experience. I remember trying to explain to an acquaintance who claimed to be an expert in science (he wasn’t) about the measurements made on the age of the added carbon using isotopes. He resolutely stated that isotopes did not exist, all atoms of the same element are identical, and the peer reviewed research article I provided was fake. He claimed to be an expert on science based on reading biased media (he had no degree) and he had not even heard of isotopes, neutrons, and radiometric dating. I sent him a link to Wikipedia explaining isotopes, just as a help, but that was a mistake. He thought that since Wikipedia is sometimes wrong it proved that I was making up the entire concept of isotopes.
What NASA Knows from Decades of Earth System Observations. To see the original page, click here.
I came across so many dismissive people who thought they understood climate change much better than the scientists themselves or believed that most or all climate scientists in every country on earth were liars. I came across a lot of conspiracy theories and many very strange arguments focusing on speculative assessments of the character of climate scientists or activists rather than focusing on the data and evidence. Many invoked Al Gore, as if it was him, who invented climate science, or the UN. It is nuttier to believe that Al Gore invented climate science than that he invented the internet. However, the worst part was the insults, the mockery, the rage, and the trolls. It became clear to me that dismissives tended not to be reasonable people and that they are louder than most. Considering that they tended to be older angry guys who were unable to convince anyone, especially not the younger and educated, I came to realize that arguing with them was a waste of time. You could not have good-faith arguments with them, and after all they did not matter. There are more productive ways to engage.
CCL meeting with Democratic Congress Woman Sheila Jackson Lee (front). She took us on an impromptu two-hour tour of congress. I am the big guy back-right.
I felt I needed to do something for future generations, especially since I had been on the “wrong side” of the issue and also considering that I understood something many people did not, that climate change was a real and serious issue that we could do something about. In James Hansen’s book Storms of My Grandchildren, I had learned about solutions that seemed effective and doable, one of them being the carbon fee and dividend. I googled carbon fee and dividend and I stumbled upon Citizens Climate Lobby. I decided to join them and as it turns out so did James Hansen, as a board member. My first CCL volunteer position was as the CCL liaison to Congressman Pete Sessions office. He is one of the most conservative congressmen from Texas. In a meeting with the congressman, we asked him whom he trusted the most on the issue, and he answered Trammel Crow (the younger), one of the six children in the Trammel Crow Dallas real estate businesses (billionaires) who was also his biggest donor. Well, after talking to Trammel Crow we got the endorsement from Trammell Crow Company, which we handed to Pete Sessions.
In the photo we are meeting with Pete Sessions legislative director Ryan Ethington who was very supportive of us and loved to talk to us about climate solutions. Ryan was a football player and very tall. The three people on the right are me, my wife and our daughter.
Next is the climate journey of my friend Larry Howe, a lifelong Texas Republican and native Texan, and climate activist. We, 90 Texas CCL members to be specific, recently came back from Austin, Texas, where we lobbied (talked to) 67 Texas lawmakers for the first time in history. This was Larry Howe’s brainchild and doing. Larry is very active and a great leader. His post (in three parts) is more focused on solutions, whereas mine was about the how and why regarding my turn around on the issue.
Click on the picture to visit the three-part climate journey of Larry Howe.