Forums

hurricanes

Started by John Larkin August 24, 2013
On Monday, 26 August 2013 09:53:09 UTC+10, Tim Williams  wrote:
> "Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote in message =20 > news:bff307f7-759d-4b2e-b364-7664332bc603@googlegroups.com... >=20 > > Setting tighter bounds on election spending would probably do the trick=
,
> =20 > Super PACs are all the news here, of course, when the people with the =20 > money own the media and people in charge, it's a long road for grass root=
s =20
> to deal with.
Which is why you probably need to go for root-and-branch electoral reform, = including proportional representation - the people with money will resist t= hat even more vigorously, but it's probably where you ought to be going. =20
> > and adopting proportional representation would also help - since the =
=20
> > current "single-winner" electoral system leaves you stuck with two ruli=
ng=20
> > parties,neither of whom represents anything like a majority of the=20 > > electorate.=20 >=20 > What good is voting if the two people you're presented are two sides of=
=20
> the same poisonous coin? Voting on the selection process would be handy,=
=20
> but guess which party is going to do that (neither!).
Proportional representation tends to give you four or five parties who get = enough votes to cross the - usually 5% - threshold to have representatives = in the legislature. None of them is going to represent your views exactly, = but one of them may come close. You then - almost inevitably - end up with coalition governments implement = a compromise policy that isn't what any of the parties promised to implemen= t if they got elected. Since the process of hammering out the compromise po= licy tends to get rid of silly ideas put up because they were easy to sell,= rather than desirable in practice, this is probably a good thing. It certa= inly works out that way in the Netherlands and Germany. =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 > > preference for a minority party and a progressively lesser preferences > > for other candidates, including representatives of the two big parties=
=20
> > that are going to win most of the seats - I'm going to have to vote nex=
t
> > week (voting here is compulsory) in a safe right-wing seat, which means=
=20
> > I can get to express my preferences, but won't - in fact - influence th=
e
> > outcome. >=20 > That's a nice way to do it -- there's a small movement at the county/stat=
e =20
> level to introduce transferable voting, which exists in a few places, but=
=20
> nowhere broad IIRC. > =20 > In the two different counties that I've voted in, my vote didn't matter,=
=20
> so what do I care?
You still had to put up with the governments who were elected.
> =20 > I seem to recall .au's turnout is pretty paltry (at least, among countrie=
s =20
> with compulsion). Go figure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout Australia's turnout is listed there as 81%, the US at 48%. One wonders wher= e they got their Australian figures http://www.aec.gov.au/Elections/australian_electoral_history/Voter_Turnout.= htm lists the turnout for the last election - in 2010 - as 93% of the registere= d electors which was lower than usual, reflecting the fact that the Labor v= oters were being asked to vote for Julia Gillard, who had just tossed out t= he more popular Kevin Rudd who was - and is - a better politician (which is= why he's now back in charge of the Labor Party) but a rather poorer prime = minister. Maybe the wikipedia figures included me (and other expatriates) as non-vote= rs - in principle I could voted when I was living in the Netherlands, but i= n practice I couldn't get myself onto the electoral register anywhere where= it was worth voting, since my parents electorate was in an even safer righ= t-wing seat that one one I'm in now. --=20 Bill Sloman, Sydney
On Monday, 26 August 2013 04:30:07 UTC+10, Jeff Liebermann  wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 09:36:45 -0700, John Larkin=20 > <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: =20 >=20 > >How come nothing good is ever reported? =20 >=20 > Because there's no government research funding for good things in=20 > climate change, only for bad.=20
That's not the way it works. In fact most of the reports on climate change = emphasise that changing weather patterns are going to be good news for a wh= ole lot of places. Oddly enough, nobody much lives in any of these places a= t the moment, so this goods news doesn't get much media attention. =20
> It's also safer to predict doom and disaster, than to predict success=20 > and improvement. It's much like what happens if you ask a doctor for > a prognosis.=20
Not really. The doctor is telling you directly about what is going to happe= n to you. The climate change experts are publishing huge highly technical r= eports on what might - and probably will - happen to the earth as a whole, = and the newspapers are cherry-picking these reports for stuff that will att= ract the public's attention. Bad news is a lot more attention-getting than good news. <snipped irrelevant stuff about what doctors tell individual patients> --=20 Bill Sloman, Sydney =20
On Monday, 26 August 2013 10:06:36 UTC+10, Tim Williams  wrote:
> "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!
Your scheme for improving growth rates in green-houses by adding extra CO2 to the air has been implemented in lots of places. It's a capital-intensive form of agriculture, and won't help to feed poor people, though it does help supply tasteless tomatoes to the well-off in the Netherlands and in the places to which they export their green-house grown plants. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/expatnews/6808988/Dutch-aubergine-grower-pipes-carbon-dioxide-into-greenhouses.html http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, 26 August 2013 04:30:07 UTC+10, Jeff Liebermann 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. > > That's not the way it works. In fact most of the reports on climate > change emphasise that changing weather patterns are going to be good news > for a whole lot of places. Oddly enough, nobody much lives in any of > these places at the moment, so this goods news doesn't get much media attention. > >> 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. > > Not really. The doctor is telling you directly about what is going to > happen to you. The climate change experts are publishing huge highly > technical reports on what might - and probably will - happen to the earth > as a whole, and the newspapers are cherry-picking these reports for stuff > that will attract the public's attention. > > Bad news is a lot more attention-getting than good news. > > <snipped irrelevant stuff about what doctors tell individual patients>
The scary part, if ice is really melting in places, it can effect the thermohaline circulation of the ocean. If that changes, big changes occur. Greg
On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 18:06:37 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, 26 August 2013 04:30:07 UTC+10, Jeff Liebermann 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. > >That's not the way it works. In fact most of the reports on climate >change emphasise that changing weather patterns are going to be good >news for a whole lot of places. Oddly enough, nobody much lives in >any of these places at the moment, so this goods news doesn't get >much media attention.
"Global Warming and Capitalism: As the Ice Melts, the Land Rush Begins" <http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=20080315093422460> "Arctic Ice Melts Create New Land Rush" <http://www.alternet.org/story/51418/arctic_ice_melts_create_new_land_rush> I didn't mention anything about the results or predictions of AGW research. I mentioned that government funding for new research seems to favor projects involving the detrimental effects, rather than the beneficial. If there is any mention of beneficial effects in such research, it's usually a footnote mixed in with the usual doom and disaster predictions. Looks like the 5th report of the IPCC has been leaked a bit early: <http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/08/130820-global-warming-leaked-report-ipcc-ar5-climate-change/> <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/20/science/earth/extremely-likely-that-human-activity-is-driving-climate-change-panel-finds.html> <http://www.ipcc.ch> Looks like I have my homework assignment for the next few weeks. Got any pointers to a leaked draft copy?
>> 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.
>Not really. The doctor is telling you directly about what is going >to happen to you.
Apparently you've never visited my doctors. Definitive predictions and absolute confidence are not their style. More like vague guesses, confused muddle, and more tests may show something. The closest approximation of a direct and confident opinion was when I wanted to leave the hospital after seriously failing a treadmill test. The doctor was so accustomed to delivering a vague prognosis, that he had two of his associates drop into my room and offer the same vague opinion. Three times muddle still equals muddle.
>The climate change experts are publishing huge >highly technical reports on what might - and probably will - >happen to the earth as a whole, and the newspapers are cherry-picking >these reports for stuff that will attract the public's attention.
The media is doing your cause a favor. The best way to lose an audience is to bury them in technobabble, which is exactly what will happen if they publish the technical details. Best to let the media decide what's best for the GUM (great unwashed masses). Those with interest and a clue can find and read the originals.
>Bad news is a lot more attention-getting than good news.
Good news does not sell newspapers and magazines. Well, there's one exception, USA Today. It specializes in emphasizing the good news. If the 5th IPCC report is full of doom and disaster, USA Today will find the tiny footnote mentioning that todays frozen wastes may eventually be habitable, and publish it as headline news.
><snipped irrelevant stuff about what doctors tell individual patients>
Not so irrelevant. It explains why it's easier and safer to predict doom and disaster, than to predict improvement or a neutral outcome. -- 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 Sun, 25 Aug 2013 19:06:36 -0500, "Tim Williams"
<tmoranwms@charter.net> wrote:

>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.
You worry about burning corn for energy, but you're willing to burn coal? Coal is a hydrocarbon that can be "cracked" just like crude oil. Theoretically, with proper processing, it can be made edible: <http://www.convertunits.com/from/tonne+of+coal+equivalent/to/calorie+%5Bnutritional%5D> 1,000 kg of coal is equivalent to 7,000 food calories. If it can be done, you could live on 1/2 kg of processed coal per day. -- 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 Monday, 26 August 2013 11:53:51 UTC+10, Jeff Liebermann  wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 18:06:37 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman=20 > <bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:=20 > >On Monday, 26 August 2013 04:30:07 UTC+10, Jeff Liebermann wrote:=20 > >> On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 09:36:45 -0700, John Larkin =20 > >> <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: =20 > >> =20 > >> >How come nothing good is ever reported? =20 > >> =20 > >> Because there's no government research funding for good things in=20 > >> climate change, only for bad. =20 > >=20 > >That's not the way it works. In fact most of the reports on climate=20 > >change emphasise that changing weather patterns are going to be good=20 > >news for a whole lot of places. Oddly enough, nobody much lives in =20 > >any of these places at the moment, so this goods news doesn't get =20 > >much media attention. >=20 > "Global Warming and Capitalism: As the Ice Melts, the Land Rush > Begins"
>
> <http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=3D20080315093422460> >=20 > "Arctic Ice Melts Create New Land Rush" >=20 > <http://www.alternet.org/story/51418/arctic_ice_melts_create_new_land_rus=
h>
> =20 > I didn't mention anything about the results or predictions of AGW > research. I mentioned that government funding for new research seems=20 > to favor projects involving the detrimental effects, rather than the > beneficial. If there is any mention of beneficial effects in such > research, it's usually a footnote mixed in with the usual doom and > disaster predictions.
In a free market economy, the government doesn't have to worry about benefi= cial effects - entrepreneurs can be relied on to exploit them without any g= overnment encouragement. The free market will ignore detrimental effects, a= nd even act in ways that makes them worse if they can make money out of suc= h actions, if the government doesn't regulate that kind of anti-social beha= viour, so the government has every reason to concentrate it's research mone= y on finding out areas where it may have to step in. =20
> Looks like the 5th report of the IPCC has been leaked a bit early: >=20 > <http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/08/130820-global-warming-le=
aked-report-ipcc-ar5-climate-change/>
>=20 > <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/20/science/earth/extremely-likely-that-hu=
man-activity-is-driving-climate-change-panel-finds.html>
>=20 > <http://www.ipcc.ch> >=20 > Looks like I have my homework assignment for the next few weeks. Got > any pointers to a leaked draft copy?
None. Why not ask the Hew York Times? They managed to get one. =20
> >> It's also safer to predict doom and disaster, than to predict success =
=20
> >> and improvement. It's much like what happens if you ask a doctor for > >> a prognosis.=20 >=20 > >Not really. The doctor is telling you directly about what is going=20 > >to happen to you.=20 >=20 > Apparently you've never visited my doctors. Definitive predictions > and absolute confidence are not their style. More like vague guesses,=20 > confused muddle, and more tests may show something. The closest > approximation of a direct and confident opinion was when I wanted to > leave the hospital after seriously failing a treadmill test. The=20 > doctor was so accustomed to delivering a vague prognosis, that he had > two of his associates drop into my room and offer the same vague > opinion. Three times muddle still equals muddle.
It depends on what you've got wrong with you. I got a new aortic valve a fe= w years ago, and the doctors who were talking to me delivered a very clear = prognosis - if I didn't get the new valve promptly, I'd soon be too sick to= survive the operation. They'd been keeping an eye - actually ultra-sound s= cans - on the valve for some six or seven years before I needed the operati= on. I've done a treadmill test. Most people seriously fail them because they've= got one or more blocked coronary arteries, and working out which of the ar= teries is creating the problem takes a cine-angiogram, where they stick a c= atheter into your femoral artery at the top of your thigh, and push it up t= hrough the aorta into your heart, and squirt radio-opaque dye into the hear= t to see which coronary artery or arteries is blocked. It seems to have a 0.07% mortality rate http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8972650 When I worked in ultrasound from 1976-79 the comment was that if you were s= ick enough to qualify for angiography, there was a risk that your heart was= in such bad shape that the angiography could provoke a fatal heart attack. Doctors don't like explaining that the test which is going to tell them exa= ctly what they can do for you might kill you, even if it's only one chance = in 1400. =20
> >The climate change experts are publishing huge =20 > >highly technical reports on what might - and probably will - =20 > >happen to the earth as a whole, and the newspapers are cherry-picking =
=20
> >these reports for stuff that will attract the public's attention. >=20 > The media is doing your cause a favour. The best way to lose an > audience is to bury them in technobabble, which is exactly what will=20 > happen if they publish the technical details. Best to let the media > decide what's best for the GUM (great unwashed masses). Those with > interest and a clue can find and read the originals.
English language science journalism is mostly rubbish. Living in the Nether= lands for 19 years got us used to Dutch science journalism. I cam mostly fi= nd at least one technical error in any English language science newspaper r= eport - there's one one the first page of the New York Times report that yo= u quoted, though it is corrected on the second page - but it took me about = ten years to find one in a Dutch newspaper science report, largely because = Dutch science journalists tend to have university degrees in the subjects t= hey write about, and let the scientists read their pieces before they get p= ublished. I agree that the original data is essentially inaccessible to non-experts, = but I don't think that English language science journalists are doing anybo= dy any kind of favour - for a start many of them publish denialist propagan= da as if it were science-based.
> >Bad news is a lot more attention-getting than good news.
=20
> Good news does not sell newspapers and magazines. Well, there's one=20 > exception, USA Today. It specializes in emphasizing the good news. If=20 > the 5th IPCC report is full of doom and disaster, USA Today will find > the tiny footnote mentioning that todays frozen wastes may eventually > be habitable, and publish it as headline news.
=20
> ><snipped irrelevant stuff about what doctors tell individual patients>
=20
> Not so irrelevant. It explains why it's easier and safer to predict=20 > doom and disaster, than to predict improvement or a neutral outcome.
It's an explanation of why it's easier and safer to predict doom and disast= er in a very different environment from the one in question. As you admit, tales of doom and disaster sell newspapers, which is an entir= ely different motivation from avoiding malpractice suits. --=20 Bill Sloman, Sydney
On 2013-08-25, krw@attt.bizz <krw@attt.bizz> 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 > > http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/08/24/slowest-start-to-a-hurricane-season-on-record/ > > Global warming, you know.
perhaps all the tornadoes and wildfires scared them off? -- &#9858;&#9859; 100% natural --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---
On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 19:08:00 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 19:06:36 -0500, "Tim Williams" ><tmoranwms@charter.net> wrote: > >>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. > >You worry about burning corn for energy, but you're willing to burn >coal? Coal is a hydrocarbon that can be "cracked" just like crude >oil. Theoretically, with proper processing, it can be made edible: ><http://www.convertunits.com/from/tonne+of+coal+equivalent/to/calorie+%5Bnutritional%5D> >1,000 kg of coal is equivalent to 7,000 food calories. If it can be >done, you could live on 1/2 kg of processed coal per day.
Don't get carried away. Corn is a crappy source of fuel energy, but a good source of food. Vice versa for coal. But Obama and his nutcases are going to "bankrupt" the coal companies. Which I will delight in. Weather predictions for this winter... http://www.thepiratescove.us/ ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson | mens | | Analog Innovations | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | San Tan Valley, AZ 85142 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
"Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:0f709976-d44c-448d-8bcd-a7a7dd42e6c3@googlegroups.com...
> Your scheme for improving growth rates in green-houses by adding extra > CO2 > to the air has been implemented in lots of places.
Ah but I didn't say "adding CO2 to air", I said "make the air CO2"! It'll be mixed along the edges, where it reaches atmosphere, since the gradient is needed for plants to evolve, but if any evolve to survive in the center, they'll be substantially different from the plants that were started with.
> It's a capital-intensive form of agriculture, and won't help to feed > poor people, though it does help supply tasteless tomatoes to the > well-off in the > Netherlands and in the places to which they export their green-house > grown plants. > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/expatnews/6808988/Dutch-aubergine-grower-pipes-carbon-dioxide-into-greenhouses.html
Let's see... triple CO2... that's about 0.1%? Still breathable (indoors easily reaches that). Good yields though.
> http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm
Cool, a graph! So that shows what normal plants do. Point being, breed plants that have an altogether different curve, which might be gaussian: near zero (or even negative, i.e., dying) at atmospheric concentrations, massive (hopefully, 10-100 times higher?) at 1-10% CO2 (~20% of course is the limit for burning something in air, balance being N2 and 1% Ar), and probably toxic at saturation (O2 is still required, after all). Tim -- Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk. Website: http://seventransistorlabs.com