Reminds me of an experience I had years ago when working late. An older employee stops by and says "Bob, you are here because you don't have a wife. I'm here because I have a wife."
I recently watched an old movie staring Mickey Rooney as the young Thomas Edison. In one scene, Edison makes some nitroglycerin and disaster is only averted when he shows it to a knowledgeable military officer on the train - this results in some tense moments before the explosive can be disposed of. Although Edison did get into some real trouble over this, he was lucky that the current legal climate wasn't in effect back then. Now he'd be charged with a dozen serious crimes, including the manufacture of WMDs, and find himself locked up for the rest of his life.
Pension plans offered by employers are disappearing or being scaled back. At the same time, the primary response of the financial industry is to devise ever more complex financial products that are designed to sound better than they are. We are not far from a situation where a prerequisite for retirement will be to win a lottery or be a financial planner - it is really naive to think that the average man in the street is able to adequately plan for his retirement without being backstopped by social security or something similar.
There is a possibility that water would evaporate on the irradiated side and freeze out on the dark side. This is unlikely to be a good thing most of the water would end up in the form of ice. Note that this would be similar to the situation on Mars - most of that planets water is locked up in the weakly irradiated polar ice caps.
Variables that might affect the probability of this scenario include:
- atmospheric density and concentration of greenhouse gases
- geographic distribution of land and water (a large continent on the middle of the dark side would receive little heat from elsewhere by means other than atmospheric circulation
Many comments suggest that the differences between the play of human and computers.
A good human player will generally come up with some kind of plan and follow up with moves that are consistent with that plan. In practice, he may have to respond to his opponent's play. There may be direct threats that he cannot ignore or he may find a need to come up with a new plan when it has become apparent that the original plan is no longer workable. Chess programs generally perform an exhaustive search through sequences of moves and select the move that leads to the best evaluation of the position that arises after the opponent has made the best moves (as determined by the result of the evaluation). Consequently, computers tend to be deadly in tactical situations; oversights by the opponent are ruthlessly exploited. Also, they often defend difficult positions well; sometimes by finding moves that appear, at first sight, to be ridiculous to a human. However, a major weakness of computer chess programs concerns the evaluation criteria. If a forced checkmate is available, this is obviously going to be the preferred choice. In the absence of this possibility, material is easy to measure and, as a result, tends to be heavily weighted; this is reflected in the decidedly materialistic play play of most computer programs. However, other positional considerations are more subtle and a good human player can be at an advantage here. For example doubled pawns are usually considered to be a weakness (the pawns cannot form a chain where each pawn is protected by another). However, there may be ample compensation; the pawns may control critical squares and the accompanying half open file may be put to good use by the rooks. In this, and many other situations, the assessment of whether a particular feature of a position is good or bad depends on many factors and will change as the position evolves with further moves. In this example, the doubled pawns might be desirable in the middle game, but a liability in the endgame where their vulnerability becomes important. A strong human player will have ability to make good judgements as to the implications of his potential choices. Computers are generally much weaker in this respect. In closed positions, it is not unusual to see computers making aimless moves, for example indecisively moving a piece back and forth between two squares, whereas the strong human player will try to find a plan for gradually improving his position and forcing positional concessions on the part of his opponent. Also, computers will sometimes leave their king weakly defended while they pursue material advantage elsewhere on the board.
The result is that there are definite differences in the style and conduct of the play between strong humans and computer programs.
Ever hear the phrase "unintended consequences"? Certainly, there is plenty of evidence to show that the second Bush administration was preoccupied with oil.
How did this get rated "informative"?
Sandy was atypical in a number of important respects:
- extremely powerful surge,
- immense size,
- timing (it occurred towards the end of the hurricane season when sea temperatures are falling),
- it survived periods of strong wind shear.
Yes, you can argue that any one weather even is a fluke. However, there have been a large number of unusual weather events, some of which include:
- a dramatic loss of arctic ice
- high temperature records out numbering low temperature records by a large margin
- large areas affected by severe drought or flooding
There is a considerable amount of heat required to account for the melting of ice that has occurred. Moreover, the water has a large thermal capacity and will not heat as quickly as land. So, it isn't surprising that there hasn't been a large temperature change in the Arctic. However, we have witnessed a striking temperature event in Greenland. You are really fooling yourself if you thing that the events that are happening are nothing out of the ordinary.
This is known as cherry picking. Sure, you can find the odd result for a specific set of circumstances (note that the link refers to a single day of the year) that seems to support your viewpoint. In reality, what is happening in the Antarctic is not far out of the ordinary. It's a different story for what is happening in the Arctic. The previous record, set in 2007, smashed the previous one and now, the 2012 record has done the same to the 2007 one.
If we go back to the late 1950s, the Soviet success in being first to orbit a satellite served as a powerful wakeup call. The risk of being placed in a position where we would be virtually powerless against a deluge of Soviet ICBMs was too much to contemplate.
In hindsight, Goldwater did have a pragmatism that would now be viewed as treasonous by many current Republicans. Among other things, he made the following astute observation: "Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them." ( http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Dean ) . It is really strange that, although I thought he was a lunatic at the time he was running for president, I now find myself in agreement with many of his views.
II am not talking about irrelevant personal beliefs. To be more specific I am referring to the "Prosperity Gospel" churches ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology ) . I did have the experience to attend a service at a local church where I heard repeated over and over again the message that the faithful will be looked after and that the world was coming to an end in 2047 and that they alone would be saved. There was a huge number of people there who were swept up with enthusiasm through all this - this all seemed more like a cult than anything else. It is possible to be religious and be rational. There are prominent Christian denominations that do accept that man has responsibilities for stewardship over the earth and I am a member of one of these.
I have no difficulties with the personal beliefs of individuals as along as (a) they do not attempt to impose them on others and (b) they do not act on them in a way that will likely lead to widespread harm.
This is far from reality. In a bureaucracy, the way to get ahead is to tell the senior leadership what they want to hear. I can assure you that government bureaucrats in North America are well aware that there is no mileage in pushing AGW as a serious issue. In the US, we just had the spectacle of virtually all of the major candidates for the Republican presidential nomination falling over themselves in rejecting the notion that their could possibly be something to AGW. In Canada, the federal government has, for some time, been backsliding on environmental issues, particularly those concerning climate change e.g., http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=fc976a67-2f9a-424c-a98d-704785dde80c&k=91227 . And the notion that there are significant economic interests that are pushing AGW is laughable.
Good points all round.
In reality, the kind of conspiracy that would be required is impossible. Even making the extraordinary assumption that the scientists involved have all clandestinely agreed to conspire on AGW, a tremendous amount of co-ordination would be needed to ensure that everything published by a large research community dispersed across the world sends out a sufficiently consistent message for the whole thing to hold together. If its all being made up, how do you know that the paper you are publishing won't contradict one that is being published by someone else? Obviously the truth would leak out quickly and all involved would be disgraced.
There is a huge difference. Mainstream science involves publication in scientific journals with stringent peer review processes. There are quality control mechanisms in place, starting with the journal editor(s) and reviews by other experts in the field. Furthermore, if you publish a paper that is later shown to have contained deliberately falsified data, your reputation and career will be permanently destroyed. Furthermore, it is difficult to get a paper published if it doesn't contribute something new. Also, if you submit a paper which basically amounts to taking the same data that Dr. X analyzed to get more or less the same result, the likelihood that it will be accepted for publication in a reputable journal, or even a conference, is nil. There is really no advantage, and serious drawbacks, in attempting to achieve a conclusion that isn't supported by scientific evidence and analysis.
The flip side is that most of whatever scientists that can be counted in the the anti-AGW community have minimal background in climate science or closely related areas. The remainder tend to be eccentric figures or those who directly receive money directly from from the fossil fuel industry or indirectly through an affiliated organization such as the Heartland Institute. Note that in such cases, you can be certain that the funding organizations are looking for certain results and anyone receiving money from them knows that.
I find it really curious that many of those who see climate science as the harbinger of really big government seem to be perfectly accepting of new measures for reduced legal rights, internet surveillance , etc.
It might also be noted that some influential fundamentalist Christian churches believe that the world is coming to an end within a few decades and that there is also a belief that God will provide everything that man needs. It follows that long term thinking/planning is pointless and that any concern whatever about the environment betrays a mistrust in God. Just the perfect recipe for completely irresponsible behavior.
Many of us would like to see NASA receive more funding - I count myself as one. However, you are making a really rich argument. There have only been two Democratic presidents since 1980 - Clinton and Obama. Of these, Clinton managed to make progress on reining in budget deficits, but this involved cutting various programs. Obama inherited an economic disaster and has had difficult choices to make. It seems to be a sign of the times that the people who vociferously criticize Obama for deficits are usually the same ones who want to slash taxes (note that the Bush tax cuts had never been funded) and increase spending on the military and other programs. But then I suppose it's easy to find money when "deficits don't matter'.
Also, in the days before deregulation became a fad, there were extraordinarily successful industrial R&D organizations that did carry out speculative research, such as Bell Labs.
The idea that the dependence on "Middle East oil" could have been lessened is seriously misleading. Gas turbine technology is best suited to very large installations. In an internal combustion engine, one needs a high compression ratio to get good thermal efficiency. In a gas turbine engine, this is most easily achieved by making a (very) large engine that runs at a relatively constant speed. There are major practical problems in making small high compression gas turbines (among other things, conventional axial or centrifugal flow compressors do not scale well to small sizes). The result is very poor fuel economy.
Chrysler wasn't the only manufacturer to build a gas turbine powered car. Rover built one in the 1950's. At best these efforts demonstrated passable, but not exceptional performance coupled with VERY high fuel consumption. This may not have seemed like a big issue when oil was a few dollars a barrel. It would be completely unacceptable now, even if one allows for the flexibility of being able to use various types of fuels. There just isn't enough of any reasonable alternative fuel to operate existing private and commercial vehicle fleets, especially if there is a massive fuel consumption penalty.
It should be noted that, in the aftermath of Katrina, there were all kinds of reports going around in the media that were greatly exaggerated.
On the other hand, it is known that people trying to escape from the area were turned back or even fired on ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10623960) .
Both the Nazis and Japanese were preoccupied with economic issues; specifically the acquistion of raw materials such as oil and metals. The economic blockade of Germany in WW 1 had severe effects on both the military and the civilian population. The German and Japanese military plans were focussed on the control and exploitation of oil resources - among other things, this was a major motivation of the German military campaigns in the southern part of the front with the Soviet Union.
Of course, when you believe that your people are superior to others, it is very easy to rationalize wars of aggression aimed at seizing economic assets. This observation certainly applies to both the German and Japanese regimes of the time. It is instructive to read the "The Vampire Economy" a description of the Nazi efforts to create the basis of a war economy prior to the actual outbreak of hostilities ( http://mises.org/books/vampireeconomy.pdf ).
Humans often have a streak of optimism. I am old enough to recall 1950's claims that electricity generated by nuclear power would be "too cheap to meter". Certainly new technologies will make a contribution. the question concerns the extent of this contribution.
The evidence is that the economic and political effects of peak oil will be destabilising. Under circumstances where there is a clear shortfall in supply, prices will rise rapidly, aided by speculation. This will choke off economic activity and prices will collapse as demand falls off and speculators bail out. Consequently oil prices, while following a generally upward trend, will exhibit wide swings. On the upswings there will be intense pressure on politicians to find some short term solutions (Drill Baby Drill!). The temptation will be to blame environmentalists and evil foreign governments will be irresistable. The economic situations that trigger the downswings will create political pressures of their own.
Some of this should be starting to sound familiar, even allowing that there have been other contributing factors to the current economic and political situation, such as "financial innovation" and asset bubbles (such as the massive overbuilding of housing in US and elsewhere). There is a real danger that the future will become ugly.
Slashdot Mirror
Reminds me of an experience I had years ago when working late. An older employee stops by and says "Bob, you are here because you don't have a wife. I'm here because I have a wife."
I recently watched an old movie staring Mickey Rooney as the young Thomas Edison. In one scene, Edison makes some nitroglycerin and disaster is only averted when he shows it to a knowledgeable military officer on the train - this results in some tense moments before the explosive can be disposed of. Although Edison did get into some real trouble over this, he was lucky that the current legal climate wasn't in effect back then. Now he'd be charged with a dozen serious crimes, including the manufacture of WMDs, and find himself locked up for the rest of his life.
It is really a stretch to describe Iran as a country "awash in oil". Production peaked decades ago ( http://crudeoilpeak.info/irans-2nd-and-last-oil-peak ) and there is the obvious point that reducing internal oil consumption will help extend the life of existing oil fields and/or maximize exports. It might be noted that Saudi Arabia has plans to build 16 power reactors ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Saudi_Arabia ).
Pension plans offered by employers are disappearing or being scaled back. At the same time, the primary response of the financial industry is to devise ever more complex financial products that are designed to sound better than they are. We are not far from a situation where a prerequisite for retirement will be to win a lottery or be a financial planner - it is really naive to think that the average man in the street is able to adequately plan for his retirement without being backstopped by social security or something similar.
Which crappy website did you get this misinformation from? This has ben refuted many times e.g., http://news.discovery.com/earth/weather-extreme-events/volcanoes-co2-people-emissions-climate-110627.htm http://www.agu.org/pubs/pdf/2011EO240001.pdf
There is a possibility that water would evaporate on the irradiated side and freeze out on the dark side. This is unlikely to be a good thing most of the water would end up in the form of ice. Note that this would be similar to the situation on Mars - most of that planets water is locked up in the weakly irradiated polar ice caps. Variables that might affect the probability of this scenario include: - atmospheric density and concentration of greenhouse gases - geographic distribution of land and water (a large continent on the middle of the dark side would receive little heat from elsewhere by means other than atmospheric circulation
Many comments suggest that the differences between the play of human and computers. A good human player will generally come up with some kind of plan and follow up with moves that are consistent with that plan. In practice, he may have to respond to his opponent's play. There may be direct threats that he cannot ignore or he may find a need to come up with a new plan when it has become apparent that the original plan is no longer workable. Chess programs generally perform an exhaustive search through sequences of moves and select the move that leads to the best evaluation of the position that arises after the opponent has made the best moves (as determined by the result of the evaluation). Consequently, computers tend to be deadly in tactical situations; oversights by the opponent are ruthlessly exploited. Also, they often defend difficult positions well; sometimes by finding moves that appear, at first sight, to be ridiculous to a human. However, a major weakness of computer chess programs concerns the evaluation criteria. If a forced checkmate is available, this is obviously going to be the preferred choice. In the absence of this possibility, material is easy to measure and, as a result, tends to be heavily weighted; this is reflected in the decidedly materialistic play play of most computer programs. However, other positional considerations are more subtle and a good human player can be at an advantage here. For example doubled pawns are usually considered to be a weakness (the pawns cannot form a chain where each pawn is protected by another). However, there may be ample compensation; the pawns may control critical squares and the accompanying half open file may be put to good use by the rooks. In this, and many other situations, the assessment of whether a particular feature of a position is good or bad depends on many factors and will change as the position evolves with further moves. In this example, the doubled pawns might be desirable in the middle game, but a liability in the endgame where their vulnerability becomes important. A strong human player will have ability to make good judgements as to the implications of his potential choices. Computers are generally much weaker in this respect. In closed positions, it is not unusual to see computers making aimless moves, for example indecisively moving a piece back and forth between two squares, whereas the strong human player will try to find a plan for gradually improving his position and forcing positional concessions on the part of his opponent. Also, computers will sometimes leave their king weakly defended while they pursue material advantage elsewhere on the board. The result is that there are definite differences in the style and conduct of the play between strong humans and computer programs.
Ever hear the phrase "unintended consequences"? Certainly, there is plenty of evidence to show that the second Bush administration was preoccupied with oil.
How did this get rated "informative"? Sandy was atypical in a number of important respects: - extremely powerful surge, - immense size, - timing (it occurred towards the end of the hurricane season when sea temperatures are falling), - it survived periods of strong wind shear. Yes, you can argue that any one weather even is a fluke. However, there have been a large number of unusual weather events, some of which include: - a dramatic loss of arctic ice - high temperature records out numbering low temperature records by a large margin - large areas affected by severe drought or flooding
It was certainly an accident, as in "Accidentally on purpose".
There is a considerable amount of heat required to account for the melting of ice that has occurred. Moreover, the water has a large thermal capacity and will not heat as quickly as land. So, it isn't surprising that there hasn't been a large temperature change in the Arctic. However, we have witnessed a striking temperature event in Greenland. You are really fooling yourself if you thing that the events that are happening are nothing out of the ordinary.
This is known as cherry picking. Sure, you can find the odd result for a specific set of circumstances (note that the link refers to a single day of the year) that seems to support your viewpoint. In reality, what is happening in the Antarctic is not far out of the ordinary. It's a different story for what is happening in the Arctic. The previous record, set in 2007, smashed the previous one and now, the 2012 record has done the same to the 2007 one.
Thanks!
If we go back to the late 1950s, the Soviet success in being first to orbit a satellite served as a powerful wakeup call. The risk of being placed in a position where we would be virtually powerless against a deluge of Soviet ICBMs was too much to contemplate. In hindsight, Goldwater did have a pragmatism that would now be viewed as treasonous by many current Republicans. Among other things, he made the following astute observation: "Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them." ( http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Dean ) . It is really strange that, although I thought he was a lunatic at the time he was running for president, I now find myself in agreement with many of his views.
II am not talking about irrelevant personal beliefs. To be more specific I am referring to the "Prosperity Gospel" churches ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology ) . I did have the experience to attend a service at a local church where I heard repeated over and over again the message that the faithful will be looked after and that the world was coming to an end in 2047 and that they alone would be saved. There was a huge number of people there who were swept up with enthusiasm through all this - this all seemed more like a cult than anything else. It is possible to be religious and be rational. There are prominent Christian denominations that do accept that man has responsibilities for stewardship over the earth and I am a member of one of these. I have no difficulties with the personal beliefs of individuals as along as (a) they do not attempt to impose them on others and (b) they do not act on them in a way that will likely lead to widespread harm.
This is far from reality. In a bureaucracy, the way to get ahead is to tell the senior leadership what they want to hear. I can assure you that government bureaucrats in North America are well aware that there is no mileage in pushing AGW as a serious issue. In the US, we just had the spectacle of virtually all of the major candidates for the Republican presidential nomination falling over themselves in rejecting the notion that their could possibly be something to AGW. In Canada, the federal government has, for some time, been backsliding on environmental issues, particularly those concerning climate change e.g., http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=fc976a67-2f9a-424c-a98d-704785dde80c&k=91227 . And the notion that there are significant economic interests that are pushing AGW is laughable.
Good points all round. In reality, the kind of conspiracy that would be required is impossible. Even making the extraordinary assumption that the scientists involved have all clandestinely agreed to conspire on AGW, a tremendous amount of co-ordination would be needed to ensure that everything published by a large research community dispersed across the world sends out a sufficiently consistent message for the whole thing to hold together. If its all being made up, how do you know that the paper you are publishing won't contradict one that is being published by someone else? Obviously the truth would leak out quickly and all involved would be disgraced.
There is a huge difference. Mainstream science involves publication in scientific journals with stringent peer review processes. There are quality control mechanisms in place, starting with the journal editor(s) and reviews by other experts in the field. Furthermore, if you publish a paper that is later shown to have contained deliberately falsified data, your reputation and career will be permanently destroyed. Furthermore, it is difficult to get a paper published if it doesn't contribute something new. Also, if you submit a paper which basically amounts to taking the same data that Dr. X analyzed to get more or less the same result, the likelihood that it will be accepted for publication in a reputable journal, or even a conference, is nil. There is really no advantage, and serious drawbacks, in attempting to achieve a conclusion that isn't supported by scientific evidence and analysis. The flip side is that most of whatever scientists that can be counted in the the anti-AGW community have minimal background in climate science or closely related areas. The remainder tend to be eccentric figures or those who directly receive money directly from from the fossil fuel industry or indirectly through an affiliated organization such as the Heartland Institute. Note that in such cases, you can be certain that the funding organizations are looking for certain results and anyone receiving money from them knows that. I find it really curious that many of those who see climate science as the harbinger of really big government seem to be perfectly accepting of new measures for reduced legal rights, internet surveillance , etc.
It might also be noted that some influential fundamentalist Christian churches believe that the world is coming to an end within a few decades and that there is also a belief that God will provide everything that man needs. It follows that long term thinking/planning is pointless and that any concern whatever about the environment betrays a mistrust in God. Just the perfect recipe for completely irresponsible behavior.
Many of us would like to see NASA receive more funding - I count myself as one. However, you are making a really rich argument. There have only been two Democratic presidents since 1980 - Clinton and Obama. Of these, Clinton managed to make progress on reining in budget deficits, but this involved cutting various programs. Obama inherited an economic disaster and has had difficult choices to make. It seems to be a sign of the times that the people who vociferously criticize Obama for deficits are usually the same ones who want to slash taxes (note that the Bush tax cuts had never been funded) and increase spending on the military and other programs. But then I suppose it's easy to find money when "deficits don't matter'.
Also, in the days before deregulation became a fad, there were extraordinarily successful industrial R&D organizations that did carry out speculative research, such as Bell Labs.
The idea that the dependence on "Middle East oil" could have been lessened is seriously misleading. Gas turbine technology is best suited to very large installations. In an internal combustion engine, one needs a high compression ratio to get good thermal efficiency. In a gas turbine engine, this is most easily achieved by making a (very) large engine that runs at a relatively constant speed. There are major practical problems in making small high compression gas turbines (among other things, conventional axial or centrifugal flow compressors do not scale well to small sizes). The result is very poor fuel economy. Chrysler wasn't the only manufacturer to build a gas turbine powered car. Rover built one in the 1950's. At best these efforts demonstrated passable, but not exceptional performance coupled with VERY high fuel consumption. This may not have seemed like a big issue when oil was a few dollars a barrel. It would be completely unacceptable now, even if one allows for the flexibility of being able to use various types of fuels. There just isn't enough of any reasonable alternative fuel to operate existing private and commercial vehicle fleets, especially if there is a massive fuel consumption penalty.
It should be noted that, in the aftermath of Katrina, there were all kinds of reports going around in the media that were greatly exaggerated. On the other hand, it is known that people trying to escape from the area were turned back or even fired on ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10623960) .
Both the Nazis and Japanese were preoccupied with economic issues; specifically the acquistion of raw materials such as oil and metals. The economic blockade of Germany in WW 1 had severe effects on both the military and the civilian population. The German and Japanese military plans were focussed on the control and exploitation of oil resources - among other things, this was a major motivation of the German military campaigns in the southern part of the front with the Soviet Union. Of course, when you believe that your people are superior to others, it is very easy to rationalize wars of aggression aimed at seizing economic assets. This observation certainly applies to both the German and Japanese regimes of the time. It is instructive to read the "The Vampire Economy" a description of the Nazi efforts to create the basis of a war economy prior to the actual outbreak of hostilities ( http://mises.org/books/vampireeconomy.pdf ).
Humans often have a streak of optimism. I am old enough to recall 1950's claims that electricity generated by nuclear power would be "too cheap to meter". Certainly new technologies will make a contribution. the question concerns the extent of this contribution. The evidence is that the economic and political effects of peak oil will be destabilising. Under circumstances where there is a clear shortfall in supply, prices will rise rapidly, aided by speculation. This will choke off economic activity and prices will collapse as demand falls off and speculators bail out. Consequently oil prices, while following a generally upward trend, will exhibit wide swings. On the upswings there will be intense pressure on politicians to find some short term solutions (Drill Baby Drill!). The temptation will be to blame environmentalists and evil foreign governments will be irresistable. The economic situations that trigger the downswings will create political pressures of their own. Some of this should be starting to sound familiar, even allowing that there have been other contributing factors to the current economic and political situation, such as "financial innovation" and asset bubbles (such as the massive overbuilding of housing in US and elsewhere). There is a real danger that the future will become ugly.