Forums

hurricanes

Started by John Larkin August 24, 2013
On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 15:57:28 -0500, "Tim Williams" <tmoranwms@charter.net>
wrote:

>"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in >message news:pvbk19hfersfd6ahing3ln1d6k6bubu2pu@4ax.com... >> I did see one paper about the increased rate of growth of California >> redwood >> trees in the last 100 years. >> >> http://articles.latimes.com/2013/aug/14/local/la-me-redwoods-climate-20130814 >> >> But the authors said the cause is unknown and conjecture all sorts of >> improbable >> stuff; except they didn't seem to want to even mention that CO2 might be >> good >> for trees. > >Read an article some time ago that says excessive CO2 is toxic to plants >as it is to animals. So scratch that.
Greenhouses are sometimes pumped up to 1000 PPM CO2 to make plants grow faster. Indoor office levels can get that high. Human physological effects start at around 1% (10,000 PPM) and 5% (50,000 PPM) is dangerous. Your exhaled breath is around 4% CO2. I bet you could get impressive levels by sleeping under a blanket or in a tent. I agree that plants will adapt, probably quickly adapt, to higher CO2 levels, and that will help agriculture... feed more poor people. -- John Larkin Highland Technology Inc www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com Precision electronic instrumentation Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators Custom timing and laser controllers Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links VME analog, thermocouple, LVDT, synchro, tachometer Multichannel arbitrary waveform generators
On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 11:30:07 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 09:36:45 -0700, John Larkin ><jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >>How come nothing good is ever reported? > >Because there's no government research funding for good things in >climate change, only for bad. > >It's also safer to predict doom and disaster, than to predict success >and improvement. It's much like what happens if you ask a doctor for >a prognosis.
Or a lawyer for advice, hence the stupid warning labels.
>nThe answer is usually "You are going to die" which does >tend to be rather disconcerting. There are 4 combinations of >predictions and outcomes. >1. Predict success and it succeeds. > => Nothing much happens. >2. Predict success and patient dies. > => Doctor gets sued for malpractice. >3. Predict disaster and patient recovers. > => Doctor is a hero for saving the patient. >4. Predict disaster and patient dies. > => Doctor says "I told you so". > >Of the 4 combinations, the safest is to predict disaster as it has the >lowest risk of repercussions. Same with climate change predictions. >If you predict disaster, you are either a hero for warning the public >or a visionary for saying "It told you so" if things go awry.
Of course no one blames you for the economic disaster that unfolds in cases 1 thru 4. The gulf oil spill was much of the #3 above, with a big economic penalty that was much larger than the region.
On Monday, 26 August 2013 01:25:09 UTC+10, Tim Williams  wrote:
> "Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote in message=20 > news:48709e96-44ff-4bb0-9268-5d09931d33be@googlegroups.com... >=20 > > It's the same kind of idiocy that confuses socialism (which works rathe=
r=20
> > better in Germany and Sweden than US capitalism works in the US) with > > communism, which utterly failed in the USSR and survives in more-or-les=
s
> > Communist China with a lot less central control and a lot more=20 > > almost-free market than the USSR was ever willing to tolerate. =20 >=20 > How is the Soviet Socialist Republic communist?
Read the history. The 1872 conferences of the International Workingmen's As= sociation defines the split. Bakunin characterised Marx's ideas as authorit= arian, and argued that if a Marxist party came to power its leaders would e= nd up as bad as the ruling class they had fought. The Soviet Union confirmed his prophecy rather too well. =20
> By much better reference (from people who actually study these things), I=
=20
> understand the USSR was as fully socialist as anything we've seen so far;=
=20
> Europe is only fractionally there, considering they are still fairly =20 > capitalist on the whole.
You understand wrong, and your "better references" reflect self-serving Sov= iet propaganda.=20 Basically, the Soviet Union described themselves as socialist in an effort = legitimise an undemocratic regime established by a coup d'etat in 1917. The= democratic socialist tradition always rejected the idea that "the leading = role" of the communist party justified a one-party state.
> The US is still stuck in the 'dark ages', so to =20 > speak, that is, if one assumes for better or worse that there is an =20 > inevitable march from realist capitalism to socialism and communism.
Marx claimed that capitalism would inevitably collapse, leaving the way ope= n for a form of socialism that had no place for any find of market-based di= stribution of resources. He had a lot of good ideas but that wasn't one of = them. The US is stuck in a "dark age" of oligarchic capitalism, with a political = system that is regrettably open to influence from people with lots of money= , but fixing that need simple democratic principles. Setting tighter bounds on election spending would probably do the trick, an= d adopting proportional representation would also help - since the current = "single-winner" electoral system leaves you stuck with two ruling parties, = neither of whom represents anything like a majority of the electorate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system Germany and Sweden use proportional representation.=20 Australia has a single-winner system for the lower house of parliament, but= with a singe transferable vote, which means that you can express a prefere= nce for a minority party and a progressively lesser preferences for other c= andidates, including representatives of the two big parties that are going = to win most of the seats - I'm going to have to vote next week (voting here= is compulsory) in a safe right-wing seat, which means I can get to express= my preferences, but won't - in fact - influence the outcome. --=20 Bill Sloman, Sydney
On Monday, 26 August 2013 01:25:18 UTC+10, Jeff Liebermann  wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 00:31:29 -0700, sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> > wrote: > >On 8/24/2013 10:02 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote: > >> On Sat, 24 Aug 2013 18:28:02 -0700, John Larkin > >> <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> > >>> http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/screenhunter_19-may-08-06-04.jpg > >> > >> Weird. Counting hurricanes by president is a bit odd because the > >> terms served by each president varies. FDR served 3 terms and > >> therefore had the most hurricanes. Jimmy Carter and G.H.W. Bush only > >> served one term, and therefore had fewer hurricanes. Unless the > >> author was trying to demonstrate that Republicans or Democrats cause > >> hurricanes, the graph makes little sense. > > >If we had had more hurricanes during Obama's presidency then the Tea > >Party lunatics would be insisting that it was somehow Obama's fault. > > But, if we have fewer hurricanes during Obama's presidency, he would > insist that it was the result of his administrations forward thinking > policies on climate change. > > It comes down to understanding how a hurricane is formed. Hurricanes > are formed when hot and moist air rises and begins to circulate.
Over a sea surface that is warmer than 26C.
> Human > breath is quite moist, and hot air is the most common byproduct of > political discussions.
But there's nowhere near enough of either present where hurricanes form to influence their formation.
> To determine which party causes the most > hurricanes, it is only necessary to measure the temperature, humidity, > and volume of both Republican and Democrat hot air, and massage the > results to reflect your political persuasion.
Wrong. You have to concentrate on the CO2 that their oratory - and their policies - inject into the atmosphere of the planet as a whole, which does influence the sea-surface temperatures in the (progressively expanding) hurricane formation zones. You just failed physics 101. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
On Monday, 26 August 2013 07:23:20 UTC+10, John Larkin  wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 15:57:28 -0500, "Tim Williams" <tmoranwms@charter.net= > > wrote:=20 > >"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in =20 > >message news:pvbk19hfersfd6ahing3ln1d6k6bubu2pu@4ax.com... >=20 > >> I did see one paper about the increased rate of growth of California =
=20
> >> redwood=20 > >> trees in the last 100 years.=20 > >>=20 > >> http://articles.latimes.com/2013/aug/14/local/la-me-redwoods-climate-2=
0130814
> >>=20 > >> But the authors said the cause is unknown and conjecture all sorts of =
=20
> >> improbable=20 > >> stuff; except they didn't seem to want to even mention that CO2 might =
be =20
> >> good for trees.=20 > >=20 > >Read an article some time ago that says excessive CO2 is toxic to plants=
=20
> >as it is to animals. So scratch that.=20 > =20 > Greenhouses are sometimes pumped up to 1000 PPM CO2 to make plants grow=
=20
> faster. >=20 > Indoor office levels can get that high.=20 >=20 > Human physological effects start at around 1% (10,000 PPM) and 5%=20 > (50,000 PPM) is dangerous. Your exhaled breath is around 4% CO2. > =20 > I bet you could get impressive levels by sleeping under a blanket or in a=
=20
> tent.
You can't. The CO2 diffuses away through the fabric much too rapidly. =20
> I agree that plants will adapt, probably quickly adapt, to higher CO2 lev=
els,
> and that will help agriculture... feed more poor people.
Actually it won't help feed poor people. Plants are pretty much always wate= r-limited rather than CO2 limited, and the fossil record makes it plain tha= t plants adapt to higher CO2 levels by having fewer stomata in their leaves= , so that they can get the same amount of CO2 while losing less water. Anthropogenic global warming will produce more rain, but there's no guarant= ee that the rain will fall where it will do poor people any good. At the mo= ment the current effect of the anthropogenic global warming we've had so fa= r has been more frequent droughts and more frequent floods, neither of whic= h help. You've been told this before, but since it wasn't spoon-fed into your gulli= ble mind in a package of denialist propaganda, the information didn't take = root. --=20 Bill Sloman, Sydney
On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 18:36:53 -0400, krw@attt.bizz wrote:

>On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 11:30:07 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >wrote: > >>On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 09:36:45 -0700, John Larkin >><jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >>>How come nothing good is ever reported? >> >>Because there's no government research funding for good things in >>climate change, only for bad. >> >>It's also safer to predict doom and disaster, than to predict success >>and improvement. It's much like what happens if you ask a doctor for >>a prognosis. > >Or a lawyer for advice, hence the stupid warning labels.
Asking a lawyer for an opinion is a little different. When asked, an attorney will always give two or more possible interpretations, analysis, or outcomes. That's because if he chose the best and gave only one, and it didn't quite work, it would be very easy to blame him for the failure. However, with two or more possible interpretations, it remains for the client to make the decision as to which approach is best. If it fails, the attorney could then suggest that one of the other choices would have been better. Since he had warned the client, the failure was obviously due to the clients decision, not his advice. I use this method when I don't have a clue what to do next. Instead of offering my best guess(tm), I present the available options, hope for the best, and then go on vacation so that I'm not around to pick up the pieces if something goes wrong.
>>nThe answer is usually "You are going to die" which does >>tend to be rather disconcerting. There are 4 combinations of >>predictions and outcomes. >>1. Predict success and it succeeds. >> => Nothing much happens. >>2. Predict success and patient dies. >> => Doctor gets sued for malpractice. >>3. Predict disaster and patient recovers. >> => Doctor is a hero for saving the patient. >>4. Predict disaster and patient dies. >> => Doctor says "I told you so". >> >>Of the 4 combinations, the safest is to predict disaster as it has the >>lowest risk of repercussions. Same with climate change predictions. >>If you predict disaster, you are either a hero for warning the public >>or a visionary for saying "It told you so" if things go awry.
>Of course no one blames you for the economic disaster that unfolds in >cases 1 thru 4. The gulf oil spill was much of the #3 above, with a >big economic penalty that was much larger than the region.
That's also different. My simplified analysis doesn't scale well with large disasters. In effect, the US government acts as a safety net, covering the costs of the wide spread damage. Much as I detest the system, it has to be that way or there would be no high risk ventures. -- Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
On 8/25/2013 7:47 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 18:36:53 -0400, krw@attt.bizz wrote: > >> On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 11:30:07 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 09:36:45 -0700, John Larkin >>> <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>> >>>> How come nothing good is ever reported? >>> >>> Because there's no government research funding for good things in >>> climate change, only for bad. >>> >>> It's also safer to predict doom and disaster, than to predict success >>> and improvement. It's much like what happens if you ask a doctor for >>> a prognosis. >> >> Or a lawyer for advice, hence the stupid warning labels. > > Asking a lawyer for an opinion is a little different. When asked, an > attorney will always give two or more possible interpretations, > analysis, or outcomes. That's because if he chose the best and gave > only one, and it didn't quite work, it would be very easy to blame him > for the failure. However, with two or more possible interpretations, > it remains for the client to make the decision as to which approach is > best. If it fails, the attorney could then suggest that one of the > other choices would have been better. Since he had warned the client, > the failure was obviously due to the clients decision, not his advice. > I use this method when I don't have a clue what to do next. Instead > of offering my best guess(tm), I present the available options, hope > for the best, and then go on vacation so that I'm not around to pick > up the pieces if something goes wrong. > >>> nThe answer is usually "You are going to die" which does >>> tend to be rather disconcerting. There are 4 combinations of >>> predictions and outcomes. >>> 1. Predict success and it succeeds. >>> => Nothing much happens. >>> 2. Predict success and patient dies. >>> => Doctor gets sued for malpractice. >>> 3. Predict disaster and patient recovers. >>> => Doctor is a hero for saving the patient. >>> 4. Predict disaster and patient dies. >>> => Doctor says "I told you so". >>> >>> Of the 4 combinations, the safest is to predict disaster as it has the >>> lowest risk of repercussions. Same with climate change predictions. >>> If you predict disaster, you are either a hero for warning the public >>> or a visionary for saying "It told you so" if things go awry. > >> Of course no one blames you for the economic disaster that unfolds in >> cases 1 thru 4. The gulf oil spill was much of the #3 above, with a >> big economic penalty that was much larger than the region. > > That's also different. My simplified analysis doesn't scale well with > large disasters. In effect, the US government acts as a safety net, > covering the costs of the wide spread damage. Much as I detest the > system, it has to be that way or there would be no high risk ventures. >
There's an old joke about the guy who put out an ad for a one-armed economist. When a (two-armed) candidate showed up, he asked "Why did you specify a one-armed economist?" The other replied, "I get so sick of being told on one hand this, on the other hand, that." Cheers Phil Hobbs -- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal Consultant ElectroOptical Innovations LLC Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics 160 North State Road #203 Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 USA +1 845 480 2058 hobbs at electrooptical dot net http://electrooptical.net
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:bff307f7-759d-4b2e-b364-7664332bc603@googlegroups.com...
> Setting tighter bounds on election spending would probably do the trick,
Super PACs are all the news here, of course, when the people with the money own the media and people in charge, it's a long road for grass roots to deal with.
> and adopting proportional representation would also help - since the > current > "single-winner" electoral system leaves you stuck with two ruling > parties, > neither of whom represents anything like a majority of the electorate.
What good is voting if the two people you're presented are two sides of the same poisonous coin? Voting on the selection process would be handy, but guess which party is going to do that (neither!).
> Australia has a single-winner system for the lower house of parliament, > but with a singe transferable vote, which means that you can express a > preference for a minority party and a progressively lesser preferences > for other candidates, including representatives of the two big parties > that are going to win most of the seats - I'm going to have to vote next > week (voting here is compulsory) in a safe right-wing seat, which means > I > can get to express my preferences, but won't - in fact - influence the > outcome.
That's a nice way to do it -- there's a small movement at the county/state level to introduce transferable voting, which exists in a few places, but nowhere broad IIRC. In the two different counties that I've voted in, my vote didn't matter, so what do I care? I seem to recall .au's turnout is pretty paltry (at least, among countries with compulsion). Go figure. Tim -- Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk. Website: http://seventransistorlabs.com
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:00f10bf6-2d0f-48d9-be54-049dedab704b@googlegroups.com...
> Actually it won't help feed poor people. Plants are pretty much always > water-limited rather than CO2 limited, and the fossil record makes it > plain > that plants adapt to higher CO2 levels by having fewer stomata in their > leaves, so that they can get the same amount of CO2 while losing less > water.
Well, then it's serendipitous that I suggested rain water management! This could be as simple as sloped roof panels with drain pipes buried into the ground; earth would act as a P-trap, blocking air exchange. Or you could use proper P-traps, long as they don't get clogged of course. Even if rain gathered and evaporated from this structure (rather than draining it through), I've got to bet it'll be damned close to 100% humidity inside -- if nothing else, moisture from the ground will keep things humid. Yes, there's a constant outward flow due to the CO2 input in the center, but this will be fairly weak at moderate distances, and probably very moist from the scrubbers and stuff (there's a new "clean coal" plant south of here, the plumes of water vapor are distinctive). There's still the matter of what the power plant is using, air (probably air drawn from the atmosphere above) and water (rain water could supplement its needs, but cooling towers or a river will still be required for sheer dissipation capacity). As for fuel, how about... a couple miles of conveyor belt to the nearest train tracks (or an automated train line the whole way, or build it right next to a coal mine?). As for feeding people, if foodstuffs are produced, that would certainly be advantageous, but even if not, a pure energy crop (oil or biomass) could offset all that goddamned corn we're wasting here. Tim -- Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk. Website: http://seventransistorlabs.com
On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 16:47:02 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 18:36:53 -0400, krw@attt.bizz wrote: > >>On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 11:30:07 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>wrote: >> >>>On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 09:36:45 -0700, John Larkin >>><jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>> >>>>How come nothing good is ever reported? >>> >>>Because there's no government research funding for good things in >>>climate change, only for bad. >>> >>>It's also safer to predict doom and disaster, than to predict success >>>and improvement. It's much like what happens if you ask a doctor for >>>a prognosis. >> >>Or a lawyer for advice, hence the stupid warning labels. > >Asking a lawyer for an opinion is a little different. When asked, an >attorney will always give two or more possible interpretations, >analysis, or outcomes. That's because if he chose the best and gave >only one, and it didn't quite work, it would be very easy to blame him >for the failure. However, with two or more possible interpretations, >it remains for the client to make the decision as to which approach is >best. If it fails, the attorney could then suggest that one of the >other choices would have been better. Since he had warned the client, >the failure was obviously due to the clients decision, not his advice. >I use this method when I don't have a clue what to do next. Instead >of offering my best guess(tm), I present the available options, hope >for the best, and then go on vacation so that I'm not around to pick >up the pieces if something goes wrong.
Perhaps, but none of the outcomes are good. The whole point of getting a lawyer's opinion is to understand the down side.
>>>nThe answer is usually "You are going to die" which does >>>tend to be rather disconcerting. There are 4 combinations of >>>predictions and outcomes. >>>1. Predict success and it succeeds. >>> => Nothing much happens. >>>2. Predict success and patient dies. >>> => Doctor gets sued for malpractice. >>>3. Predict disaster and patient recovers. >>> => Doctor is a hero for saving the patient. >>>4. Predict disaster and patient dies. >>> => Doctor says "I told you so". >>> >>>Of the 4 combinations, the safest is to predict disaster as it has the >>>lowest risk of repercussions. Same with climate change predictions. >>>If you predict disaster, you are either a hero for warning the public >>>or a visionary for saying "It told you so" if things go awry. > >>Of course no one blames you for the economic disaster that unfolds in >>cases 1 thru 4. The gulf oil spill was much of the #3 above, with a >>big economic penalty that was much larger than the region. > >That's also different. My simplified analysis doesn't scale well with >large disasters. In effect, the US government acts as a safety net, >covering the costs of the wide spread damage. Much as I detest the >system, it has to be that way or there would be no high risk ventures.
You miss the point. What's the economic downside of the AGW sky falling scenario. 1. Predict nothing and nothing happens, no one notices. 2. Predict nothing and the planet warms by .5C. Nothing happens. 3. Predict disaster and nothing happens. Billions in economic losses across the entire planet. Millions starve. Lefties predict more of the same. We get more of the same. 4. Predict disaster and the planet warms.5C. Nothing happens. Billions in economic losses across the entire planet. Millions starve. Lefties happy. So far, it seems we're selecting what's behind curtain #3.