| Author | Message | ||
     Chauly |
Patrick, that reminds me of what a German friend said the difference was between the US and DE: "In the US, all is allowed unless it's forbidden, and in DE, all is forbidden unless it's allowed." It came from a discussion about the German language, and how words are crunched together to make up a new one (which makes for really long words, sometimes!). I was using an example of "hot dog": I said it would be "heißhund"; he practically screamed "Das ist not permitted!" He couldn't tell me why... :-) | ||
| Aesquire |
Who can explain the rules of their language? ( experts in same, sure ) One of my favorite scenes ever in a motion picture is from "Life Of Brian" where Brian paints "Romans go home" on the Roman Fortress, and is caught by a Roman Soldier ( John Cleese ) forced to correct his Latin in classic British school fashion ( which one suspects is how the Romans taught Latin ) and forced to write it correctly 100 times.... On the Fortress. My High school German is so rusty as to be nonfunctional, and I can't claim it ever was, so I just do phonetic fakery, mostly from bad WW2 movies. Useless trivia. In "Where Eagles Dare" ( Eastwood, Burton, etc. ) a pair of German officers discuss in the subtitles some tactical point while actually deciding on lunch. ( that observation, and a lack of fear for large words is probably the best I got out of HS German ) In Science News. http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-vir gin-space-ship-test-20130905,0,4631303.story As an aside there is a theoretical space station design that would use shuttles with the performance spectrum of "Space Ship Two". You build a very long linear accelerator in Low Earth Orbit ( LEO ) as the main bulk of the Station. A shuttle would lift out of the atmosphere more or less straight up, and get run over/fly into the hurtling station, and be pulled up to orbital speed at a couple of G's. When returning to Earth, the station's accelerator spits you out the rear at zip sideways speed, and you just fall/fly down without excess heating. The same accelerator would be used to toss ships & cargo into interplanetary space. ( assume 4 paragraph physics/orbital dynamics rant here, it's cool stuff. ) A Learjet sized craft with a booster is all you need for hops, and "Space Ship Two" is nigh perfect for the job. The problem with getting to orbit hasn't been getting 100 miles up, it's going Mach 25 sideways, too. http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-c1-blimp-mak er-20130905-dto,0,7511364.htmlstory Note: the ballast saving technology attributed here is actually old. Navy & Goodyear Blimps use it to some extent. Speculative designs using pumps to compress the lifting gasses are as old as Mark Twain. I'm unaware of any successful ones, but using air bladders to compress the lifting gas and making it heavier than air is WW1.5 tech. More Airships. http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-airships-pic tures,0,545259.photogallery | ||
| Aesquire |
http://scinotions.com/2013/08/harvesting-solar-pow er-in-space-and-sending-it-back-to-earth/ Jerry Pournelle has made the comment that the Trillion$ we spent on Iraq/Afghanistan would have been better spent on building the first large scale Solar Power Satellite. Once we start making these things, we actually WILL be free from foreign oil. And after we've replaced all the oil & coal & natural gas terrestrial power plants in the US, we can sell power to whoever wants to pay, us. ( and the price of oil & natural gas will be 1950's cheap again. Supply and Demand ) BTW the "NASA Illustration" is, as usual in the 21st century, less detailed & realistic than typical Dragonball Z art. | ||
| Hughlysses |
It's a pity we don't have Jerry or someone like him in charge of the DOE. | ||
| Aesquire |
I've long been a fan of Orbital Solar. The reason? Math. Solar power is in essence collecting diffuse energy. Photons. No matter if you use photovoltaics, boil water ( lead/mercury/helium, whatever ) or draw the thermal energy off as heat, you need..... A. Surface area. B. Alignment. ( focus/aiming ) Opaque surface area, since you must capture or reflect the photons. So it has a shadow. So if we covered Texas, we'd have enough power. ( for the US, Early 21st Century ) Or the same area. But people and critters live here, so that's not going to happen. We can't cover the crop land. ( the easiest place to put Solar ) We need the food. We can't cover the urbs/suburbs, because we demand the view. ( plus the ecological effects ) Forests? Nope, shade, trees, duh. And the remaining wild lands are already in great danger from our population growth. Just slapping solar panels all over our living spaces is an issue since you alter all the rain/drainage patterns and create shadowed mini ecosystems, instead of lawn. ( a cultural creation I often consider while mowing ) The good news is, future cities will be designed with solar collector material now being experimented with that serves as windows, walls, and roofing. I find that neato tech. But by the time that becomes the normal way we do things, we'll need far more. AND..... you're back to needing more area. If you put the darn collectors in orbit, There's no shadow problem, and the lightest footprint we can lay on our Earth. Area isn't an issue except that more costs more, just like on Earth. You actually need far less area because the Sun isn't filtered by our atmosphere. Size is limited by Tidal Effects, not "gravity". The price tag, however requires an large up front investment to build the SSTO or other low cost ground to orbit cargo carrier. ( a subject worthy of it's own thread ) Then you have to train people to bolt together solar collectors in space. And then build them. And if something better comes along, ( like polar orbital Aurora antennas ) we'll do that. Because it will make you rich. And since we're actually a space faring species at that point, we just exploit the rest of the solar system. Why dig up an old asteroid for Nickel in a humongous strip mine, when you can grab a fresh one and refine it with solar power? etc. | ||
| Aesquire |
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/08/29/bjo rn-lomborg-trashing-rice-killing-children/ Earlier this month, 400 protestors destroyed a field trial of genetically modified Golden Rice in the Philippines. Aided by well-meaning but misguided organizations such as Greenpeace, such mobs are potentially destroying the opportunity to avoid 680,000 deaths each year. That is morally indefensible. ......... Using an ever-changing but incorrect array of allegations against Golden Rice, opponents have managed to delay the deployment of this product for more than a decade. During this time, about 8 million kids have died from vitamin A deficiency. Trashing the field trials and potentially postponing Golden Rice could add to the death tally. It is now appropriate to ask: Are the anti-GM activists not at least partially responsible for these millions of dead children? Good question. Let me ask one of the 10 million people who have died from malaria since banning DDT. ( after "Silent Spring" became the Bible. ) | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/clima techange/10294082/Global-warming-No-actually-were- cooling-claim-scientists.html The only science that is settled is that Al Gore is a con man. After telling us the oceans would rise 33 feet, he bought a beech house in Malibu. | ||
| Kenm123t |
After the ware house fire in California last week Solar Power is dead! Fire Dept will not fight the fire The roof can't be ventilated too tough too slippery to walk on and OH you can't turn the power off in the day time! The will just contain if possible and let it burn out. Insurance companies will raise rates or Refuse to Insure buildings with roof arrays | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/356338/r ain-caused-sea-levels-drop-greg-pollowitz http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=1288 42&org=NSF&from=news I admit to some confusion. When they told us the seas were rising, they were not telling the truth, and now say the part they didn't tell us about about is over and what they said before is going to be true, this time, we promise? Or did I miss something? | ||
| Aesquire |
http://arpa-e.energy.gov/?q=arpa-e-projects/shockw ave-engine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_disk_engine http://www.egr.msu.edu/mueller/NMReferences/Akbari NalimMueller_JGTP2006_aReviewOfWaveRotorTechnology AndApplications.pdf https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIPSTTvHfLs Wave rotor engine. I'm still trying to wrap my head around the physics here, but it looks like a potential light weight motorcycle engine. For years I've seen IC engines ( or steam/compressed air, etc. ) with alternatives to the standard piston/con rod/crank arrangement. Lots of Scotch Yokes and the like, and most of them lose me because of excess friction and complexity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotch_yoke http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/news/industry /5-alternative-engine-architectures#slide-1 One moving part? Rotary motion and simple bearings? That's interesting. Animated engines.... http://www.animatedengines.com/ http://www.animatedpiston.com/ | ||
| Aesquire |
Mr. Toad's Wild Ride!!!!! http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/nasa-rocket-launc h-accidentally-lifts-frog-space/story?id=20237426 How fast was the frog? Hmmm, 6 frames per second, Have to know the camera fov, and you could calculate the minimum speed. There's the question of scale, ( a tiny frog closer, thus "faster" ) so there's a range, and an arbitrary minimum size.... carry the 2...... You KNOW some guy at NASA has done the math by now. | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/09/14/earth-gains -a-record-amount-of-sea-ice-in-2013-earth-has-gain ed-19000-manhattans-of-sea-ice-since-this-date-las t-year-the-largest-increase-on-record/ http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014241278873245 49004579067532485712464.html http://cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingswo rth/wrong-al-gore-predicted-arctic-summer-ice-coul d-disappear-2013 I have oft repeated my belief that there are 2 1/2 religions in the world today where to lie to the infidel is a blessing, points to get into heaven. The Obvious target for that belief in a post 2001 world is "radical Islam" aka Islamism aka Jihadi. This is due to a trend of evil mullahs to alter the Prophet's dictate on lying about being Muslim to save your own butt, to "lying to an infidel to advance the cause is a path to heaven". The latter attitude is IMHO taken from the more recent, and most murderous cult in Humanity's history, the Marxist/progressive movement where "by any means necessary" and "lies that advance the Revolution are not lies". Since the basis for the leftist ideology is to lie to others and yourself to manipulate and control...... Note that between them the Soviet Union and Communist China have murdered more people than existed on the planet a few centuries ago. #2 1/2? The Greenies. While the origin of the Green Party is a deliberate Soviet ploy to destroy the West's industrial might, ( and quite a successful one. ) the normal face of the Greens is one of alarmism and lies. We are, of course, all dead now, since the Oceans have died, there is no oxygen, the planet has frozen, boiled, burned, had it's ozone stripped away, and the seas erupt in waves of fire. All predictions of the greens. All lies. All remote possibilities if we do not get out ecological act together. ( just because one tiny part of a lie is maybe true does not make the entire lie true. See Obama, Syria, Benghazi, Hillary, Kerry, Pelosi, Reid, etc. etc. ) I do note in all fairness that there have been "paranoid" predictions by others than the Commies and Greenies. Some have predicted that the IRS would be used illegally as a tool to suppress the administrations enemies, that the NSA would spy on everyone without limits, that the President would be supported by the Communist Party and we would Bow to Russia............................. but that's crazy talk. | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/09/14 /Matthew-Shepard-Trayvon-Martin-Brandon-Darby-And- The-Power-Of-Leftist-Mythmaking Despite the clear evidence that the story that Shepard was done in by deadly homophobia was inaccurate and that Shepard was instead killled in a meth-fueled bender by another man who was bisexual, Hicklin states: There are valuable reasons for telling certain stories in a certain way at pivotal times, but that doesn’t mean we have to hold on to them once they’ve outlived their usefulness. Take a moment and read that quote again, because it's one of the clearest statements ever written on how the left sees "the narrative." It's moral relativism applied to epistemology and metaphysics. There is no such thing as truth to the left. There are "certain stories" that can be told "a certain way." The story tellers, whether they are artist or journalist, simply pick and choose which story they will tell which way depending upon whether it's a "pivotal time." and..... some science. http://www.businessinsider.com/useful-3d-printer-p rojects-2013-9 | ||
| Sifo |
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/science/So lar-activity-drops-to-100-year-low-puzzling-scient ists/articleshow/22719807.cms I found this article to be kind of amusing. They at the same time, accept that warming has been (temporarily at least) halted by lower solar activity, but also deny that solar variations can have a significant effect on our climate. The article also completely ignores the leading theory on why these solar variations are likely to be significant drivers of climate. They also at the same time, point out that they don't understand the cause of these variations, but predict that we are not going to have a cycle like the Maunder Minimum. This would be entertaining to watch if they weren't trying to control things that effect the pocket books of everyone. | ||
| Aesquire |
Rather like the massive shifts in other areas of Science. There's a political/religious issue with Global Warming, in that it is considered revealed Truth and must not be denied or questioned. Just listen to the acolytes of the Movement and that's clear. "The science is settled". Simply, You operate from a base assumption and build on that. When ( not if ) your observations contradict the "model" or theory you then change the theory to fit. However, even lacking a dogmatic approach to the issue, the first thing any scientist worth the test tubes will consider is a small, not radical change to the theory you are supposed to be testing and refining. ( because in fact the science is Never Settled, it's just highly probable ) When we went from a geocentric ( Earth centered ) to a Heliocentric ( sun centered ) model of the Solar System, when the orbits they saw and measured didn't come out right, they compensated with complication, as a means of refinement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism Circles on circles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tychonian_system .svg It took a long time and much argument, but the complications got too much and we had to go to a heliocentric model from Copernicus. Then THAT got too complicated and broke down. Their problem was that the Orbits of the Heavenly Sphere must be perfect. Circular. ( a holdover from Greek philosophy ) so they used the idea from the geocentric model.... Then Kepler introduced the idea of elliptical orbits instead of nested circles on circles. And all the math came out right! yeah! And then the math broke down again because you had to include bent space time, speed of light time lags, radiation pressure.........etc. etc. And THAT'S Science. Looks to me like we might actually be getting into the circles on circles stage of the Climate process.......... Sigh. | ||
| Britchri10 |
None of this matters! in c3Bn years time the sun will expand and destroy all life on earth., honest! I just hope I'm not still here to see it! Chris C | ||
| Aesquire |
Heck I'm just trying to get out before the Ice Age. Unfortunately, what matters is that you are going to be tithed by this religion. Since the Green's are originally a European thing, there's a hard tradition of Church supporting State, and vice versa. ( after all, if the Pope blesses your rule, you sure are going to support HIM, right? ) Also there's a weird Puritan/Islamic aspect. A combination of self loathing and insistent obedience. ( which, unfortunately makes it quite sellable in todays Media. You figure out the Psychosis involved in that ) | ||
| Aesquire |
I'm also hoping to miss out on the Yellowstone Supervolcano, next Asteroid or Comet strike, and hope I'm far enough away from the Atlantic to be missed by the Canary Islands undersea Landslide Tsunami. ( all of which are more likely than the Gore Prophesy ) Maybe I shouldn't watch "Disaster Week" on Discovery Channel.  (Message edited by aesquire on September 19, 2013) | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2420783/Wo rlds-climate-scientists-confess-Global-warming-jus t-QUARTER-thought--computers-got-effects-greenhous e-gases-wrong.html#ixzz2fJhkG0i3 Or maybe I should. Also the History Channel's Great Hoaxes week. | ||
| Aesquire |
http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/17/consensus-denial ism/ And, the argument for Solar in Space. http://www.amazon.com/A-Step-Farther-Out-ebook/dp/ B004XTKFWW The Feynman Lectures on Physics. http://www.feynmanlectures.info/ THE most understandable review of the field by one of the true geniuses of our time. More important, Feynman was a genius at making this stuff simple to get. | ||
| Pwnzor |
God's Debris | ||
| Aesquire |
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA_CL IMATE_CHANGE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT &CTIME=2013-09-20-03-25-32 Obama moves to limit power-plant carbon pollution In other words, shifting from Coal to Nat gas will raise the cost of power, and of home nat gas. Why? well the home nat gas raise is simple, more demand, less supply, even though we have more nat gas than ever, it's not in the Administration's interest to lower the price. Cheap energy means it's harder to sell expensive power made from giant wind/solar farms. second, the natural gas power plants simply don't exist yet to replace the coal ones. When your local provider must outlay millions to build new boilers, and have a gas line laid in, you pay for it. Yes we have more natural gas electric plants than ever, but not enough. http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/an-awkward -day-to-be-terry-mcauliffe-20130920 I admit to not liking Terry. I also appreciate his calling folk Nazis. Like his opponent. http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/430649/What-clima te-change-Fewer-people-than-EVER-believe-the-world -is-really-warming-up In a leaked June draft of the report's summary from policy-makers, the IPCC said the rate of warming in 1998-2012 was about half the average rate since 1951. It cited natural variability in the climate system, as well as cooling effects from volcanic eruptions and a downward phase in solar activity. But several governments that reviewed the draft objected to how the issue was tackled, in comments to the IPCC. Germany called for the reference to the slowdown to be deleted, saying a time span of 10-15 years was misleading in the context of climate change, which is measured over decades and centuries. Hmm. is that why one hot weekend is reason to demand fast action on Climate Change? Remember, polls do NOT determine what reality is. Politicians have a hard time believing that. Also, voting on a fact does not make it true or false. Just popular or unpopular. So no matter how many "scientists" claim there is /is not a phenomena, it makes no damn difference at all if it's real or not. So far the predictions made by the various climate models don't match what happened in the real world. So far no model has "predicted" the past. ( although The Farmers Almanac may be more accurate than anything that has ever come out of a computer, and I think it's based on rabbit entrails. ) | ||
| Aesquire |
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/ 100238047/global-warming-believers-are-feeling-the -heat/ On Friday the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change delivers its latest verdict on the state of man-made global warming. Though the details are a secret, one thing is clear: the version of events you will see and hear in much of the media, especially from partis pris organisations like the BBC, will be the opposite of what the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report actually says. Already we have had a taste of the nonsense to come: a pre-announcement to the effect that “climate scientists” are now “95 per cent certain” that humans are to blame for climate change; an evidence-free declaration by the economist who wrote the discredited Stern Report that the computer models cited by the IPCC “substantially underestimate” the scale of the problem; a statement by the panel’s chairman, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, that “the scientific evidence of… climate change has strengthened year after year”. As an exercise in bravura spin, these claims are up there with Churchill’s attempts to reinvent the British Expeditionary Force’s humiliating retreat from Dunkirk as a victory. In truth, though, the new report offers scant consolation to those many alarmists whose careers depend on talking up the threat. It says not that they are winning the war to persuade the world of the case for catastrophic anthropogenic climate change – but that the battle is all but lost. At the heart of the problem lie the computer models which, for 25 years, have formed the basis for the IPCC’s scaremongering: they predicted runaway global warming, when the real rise in temperatures has been much more modest. So modest, indeed, that it has fallen outside the lowest parameters of the IPCC’s prediction range. The computer models, in short, are bunk. To a few distinguished scientists, this will hardly come as news. For years they have insisted that “sensitivity” – the degree to which the climate responds to increases in atmospheric CO₂ – is far lower than the computer models imagined. In the past, their voices have been suppressed by the bluster and skulduggery we saw exposed in the Climategate emails. From grant-hungry science institutions and environmentalist pressure groups to carbon traders, EU commissars, and big businesses with their snouts in the subsidies trough, many vested interests have much to lose should the global warming gravy train be derailed. This is why the latest Assessment Report is proving such a headache to the IPCC. It’s the first in its history to admit what its critics have said for years: global warming did “pause” unexpectedly in 1998 and shows no sign of resuming. And, other than an ad hoc new theory about the missing heat having been absorbed by the deep ocean, it cannot come up with a convincing explanation why. Coming from a sceptical blog none of this would be surprising. But from the IPCC, it’s dynamite: the equivalent of the Soviet politburo announcing that command economies may not after all be the most efficient way of allocating resources. Which leaves the IPCC in a dilemma: does it ’fess up and effectively put itself out of business? Or does it brazen it out for a few more years, in the hope that a compliant media and an eco-brainwashed populace will be too stupid to notice? So far, it looks as if it prefers the second option – a high-risk strategy. Gone are the days when all anybody read of its Assessment Reports were the sexed-up “Summary for Policymakers”. Today, thanks to the internet, sceptical inquirers such as Donna Laframboise (who revealed that some 40 per cent of the IPCC’s papers came not from peer-reviewed journals but from Greenpeace and WWF propaganda) will be going through every chapter with a fine toothcomb. Al Gore’s “consensus” is about to be holed below the water-line – and those still aboard the SS Global Warming are adjusting their positions. Some, such as scientist Judith Curry of Georgia Tech, have abandoned ship. She describes the IPCC’s stance as “incomprehensible”. Others, such as the EU’s Climate Commissioner, Connie Hedegaard, steam on oblivious. Interviewed last week by the Telegraph’s Bruno Waterfield, she said: “Let’s say that science, some decades from now, said: 'We were wrong, it was not about climate’, would it not in any case have been good to do many of the things you have to do in order to combat climate change?” If she means needlessly driving up energy prices, carpeting the countryside with wind turbines and terrifying children about a problem that turns out to have been imaginary, then most of us would probably answer “No”. Then again, when the record snow falls this winter near you, I bet you will hear how this is Climate Change's fault. | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2436551/A- weatherman-breaks-tears-vows-NEVER-fly-grim-climat e-change-report.html freaking hilarious. The change means that scientists have moved from being 90 per cent sure to 95 per cent - about the same degree of certainty they have that smoking kills. 'At 90 percent it means there is a 10 percent probability that it's not entirely correct,' said Chris Field, Carnegie Institution scientist who is a leader in the IPCC but wasn't involved in the report released Friday. 'And now that's 5 per cent. So it's a doubling of our confidence. That's actually a consequential change in our level of understanding.' Seriously? Can anyone explain this one to me? | ||
| Skntpig |
I know it's nice where I am today. I'm going for a ride. Thanks Obama. | ||
| Sifo |
http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/29/top-mit-scientis t-un-climate-report-is-hilariously-flawed/
BTW, it's always worth noting that the IPCC is a department of the UN which is a purely political organization, not scientific. Claiming that science can be done well under the watchful eye of politicians is just as ridiculous as thinking that science could be done well under the Catholic Church. | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2420783/Wo rlds-climate-scientists-confess-Global-warming-jus t-QUARTER-thought--computers-got-effects-greenhous e-gases-wrong.html#ixzz2gGEjcX5Q | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/30 /owen-paterson-minister-climate-change-advantages Global warming can have a positive side, says Owen Paterson Secretary of state for environment, food and rural affairs, says global warming could allow food to be grown further north He's right. The last major warm spell, about a thousand years ago, had wine grapes growing in England and Newfoundland. Life was BETTER when it was 2-4 degrees warmer. The "medieval warm period" was the cause of a population explosion when more crops and multiple harvests produced enough food to feed more people. ( however there is limited history on equatorial civilizations and the effect of warming on them. If you live in the Cold Lands, warming is good. duh. ) When 700 years ago the warm times ended and it got cold, it led to famine, plagues, the abandonment of 2 of the 3 Atlantic Viking colonies, and the Hundred Years War. Note that the climate went bad in 50 years or so, so these "little" climate catastrophes happen pretty quick. The Major Climate Catastrophes we have observed for hundreds of thousands of years are ALL Ice ages. | ||
| Sifo |
I've always found it ironic, the doom and gloom predicted about species going extinct from global warming. The highest amount of biodiversity on Earth was during a time when it was about 10 degrees Celsius warmer than now. I'm not sure I would want it that warm, but certainly the Earth as an ecosystem liked it. | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/sep/26/ waterproof-iphone-ad-hoax-tricked-users-into-destr oying-their-handsets Heck of a prank. I'd be more angry at myself for falling for it, after the initial screaming. http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/sep/30/ apple-siri-rickroll-rick-astley "Never going to give you up...." Raj, if you're not a TBBT fan, falls for Siri, but cannot talk to women when he's sober. |
