| Friday,
January 28, 2005
We will resume climate discussion momentarily, but
first:
Subject: The Everquest Cyber Economy -- So What If
China Kicks Our Ass In GDP Growth -- We OWN Norrath!
http://www.crookedtimber.org/archives/003158.html
January 28, 2005
The Everquest Economy (crossposted at
johnquiggin.com)
Posted by John Quiggin
The Economist has an interesting piece on the
interaction between the economy in massively multiplayer games and that of
the real world <
http://www.economist.com/finance/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3577988 > .
The classic study of this question is Castronovo’s <
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=294828 > analysis of
the economy of Norrath, the setting for Everquest <
http://everquest2.station.sony.com/#home > . Among various features of
Norrath’s economy, one of the most interesting is trade with Earth through
the sale of game items (weapons and so forth) via private treaty or on eBay1
<
http://www.crookedtimber.org/archives/003158.html#fn1 > . This enables
Castronovo to estimate that the wage in Norrath is $US3.42 an hour, a figure
that has some interesting implications.
At the Creative Commons conference last week, I
heard a story to the effect that when the owners of one of these games tried
to prohibit item trading they were sued and, in the course of litigation
discovered that the plaintiff ran a sweatshop in Mexico where workers
participated in the game solely to collect salable items. Clearly as long as
the wage is below $3.42 there’s an arbitrage opportunity here. More
technically sophisticated arbitrageurs have replaced human workers by
scripted agents, working with multiple connections. Either way, arbitrage
opportunities can’t last for ever, and are likely to be resolved either by
intervention or inflation <
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/2345933.stm >
The positive economics of all this are interesting
enough. But how about policy analysis? Who benefits and who loses from this
kind of trade, and do the benefits outweigh the costs?
Dave
The Everquest URL above is for Everquest
2, but the analysis was for the original Everquest. The implications are
very interesting.
======================
Subject: A quick 3-question
global warming quiz
Mr. Pournelle:
I'm a design engineer with 20+ years of experience in
various engineering fields, primarily having to do with heat transfer and
thermodynamics. My first professional employment was with a company
designing and manufacturing air conditioners and heat exchangers for cooling
electronics enclosures, which often used active refrigeration systems. Back
then, the most common refrigerants were R-12 and R-22. These are now know as
the infamous "CFC's", which were banned by the Montreal protocols.
That was my first introduction into the world of
politics radically affecting engineering decisions...and with no rational
basis. The "ozone hole" nonsense, at least as it pertained to human
influence, was never more than a baseless conjecture. When a single volcanic
eruption can inject more chlorine compounds directly into the upper
stratosphere than human-kind has ever released, the banning of the only safe
and effective refrigerants know is rather moot.
But have you noticed that nobody's talking about holes
in the ozone layer anymore? Is this because last year's hole (see NASA's web
site) was the smallest ever recorded, and broke up almost before they could
measure it? Given the dire predictions made before the protocol was
enforced, it was supposed to have been on the order of fifty (50) years
before any effect of the ban could be noticed.
I came across an article in a magazine circulated
around at work a while ago. From Aviation Week & Space Technology, November
11, 2002, entitled "Nations Disagree on Reasons For Shrinking Ozone Hole".
It's just amazing how this story gets absolutely ZERO coverage in the
popular media...I guess proving that the enviro-whackos had their heads up
their collective asses doesn't increase readership like scaring the sheep
does.
From the article: "U.S. scientists also reported that
the ozone hole over the Antarctic is becoming significantly smaller and
recently split into two separate holes." Does the fact that we only have 30
years of data indicate to the non-rational that maybe we're just seeing a
part of a normal cycle of enlargement and shrinking? I'll guarantee you that
if, after seeing the seasonal ozone hole shrink for the last 10 years, if it
starts growing again, we'll see the same hoorah about it...even though it's
only "grown" back to where it used to be.
Also from the article: "Data from onboard recorders
and monitoring devices revealed that after CFC's near-disappearance,
chlorine level in the troposphere is peaking before beginning to decrease
over the next 4-6 years. However, additional studies identified other
difficulties or threats. According to Megie [CNRS French national research
agency's president], the lower ozone content is leading to the troposphere's
COOLING [emphasis added] by as much as 1 C/decade while water vapor
seems to be noticeably increasing." Hey, wait a minute. According to the
information presented when the Montreal Protocol was signed in 1987, we were
told that it would take until at least 2050 before the chlorine levels would
peak. And now we're worried about global cooling again?
And of course, it's all due to human activity. From
the ASHRAE Journal (October 1998) article entitled (curiously, since the
body of the text proves completely the opposite) "Montreal Protocol is
Working": "Naturally occurring events in the atmosphere affect climate and
can affect stratospheric ozone processes. The presence of particulates (such
as sulfate aerosols) in the upper atmosphere can provide reaction sites for
ozone-loss chemistry to proceed. Stratospheric sulfate aerosols have
increased by more than an order of magnitude due to the two most recent
volcanic eruptions (El Chichon in 1982 and Mt. Pinatubo in 1991)."
These HCFC's are what we substituted for R-12 and
R-22, refrigerants so safe you could breathe them in any amount up to where
it displaced so much of the oxygen in the air that there wasn't enough to
keep you conscious:
From ASHRAE Journal, October 1997: "Industry Group
Says HCFC's Not Health Risk". Okay, so maybe they're not as safe as we
thought: From ASHRAE Journal, December 1997: "Conference Attendees Briefed
on Incident at Belgian Plant" "An incident at a Belgian smelting plant, in
which nine overhead-crane operators developed reversible liver
abnormalities...the workers were exposed to leaking refrigerant [HCFC R-124]
for extended periods." "...tests were performed at Wright-Patterson AFB in
Ohio, at concentrations below which any effect was anticipated. A volunteer
exposed to R-134a at 4,000 ppm v/v for several minutes had to be
resuscitated after he lost consciousness and his pulse and blood pressure
dropped to zero." Let me see, the (incredibly healthy and young) test pilot
actually DIED during the test...but what the heck, the ozone is safe. As an
aside, R-134a is what's been put in most automotive A/C's since 1987. We all
know that car A/C's never leak, and never, ever need recharging.
---------------
The exact same phenomenon is now occurring with
anthropogenic global warming. Interview 100 climate scientists, and 99 will
clearly state that (in the words of the IPCC's report, but NOT their
political summary) that "there is no known correlation between human CO2
emissions and global temperature increases". However, the other one will
jump up and down screaming that "The sky is falling, the sky is falling".
Which of these two interviews is published/printed/broadcast?
Before I'll listen to anyone even express an opinion
on anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming, I've been asking them to
take a simple, 3-question quiz for the past five years or so:
1. What gas is responsible for approximately 95% of
the "greenhouse effect" on planet Earth?
2. Are the United States a net A) Emitter, or B)
Absorber of carbon dioxide?
3. Is the global climate now A) Warmer, or B) Cooler
than it was approximately 1,000 to 1,100 years ago?
Answers:
1. Water vapor is responsible for about 95% of the
Earth's greenhouse effect. Carbon dioxide is less than 2% of the total
effect, with methane taking up most of the balance, and other gasses
responsible for the remainder. But all we EVER hear about is CO2.
2. The U.S., with it's vast forests (more now than in
pre-Columbian times) and farmlands is a net ABSORBER of CO2...as opposed to
Europe and Japan, which are net emitters.
3. Let's see...they were raising crops of oats in
Greenland, and the Icelandic/Viking explorers were calling what is now the
chilly area of Newfoundland "Vinland" because of the grapes which grew
there. It's an era referred to as the "Medieval Climate Optimum" in old
climate textbooks, and was followed by the spread of Black Plague (the fleas
of the rats taking advantage of the warmer climate to spread to northern
Europe). That period was followed by what used to be referred to as the
"Little Ice Age", in which England saw snow in areas never before seen, and
the River Thames froze quite solidly on a regular basis. That period ended
in the early/middle 1700's, and we've been in a warming trend ever since.
When an eco-fanatic that I'm talking to fails the
first question, I have to enquire why they feel that they are entitled to
demand legislation on a technical topic of which they have absolutely NO
idea what they are talking about.
I apologize for the length of this note, but I just
wanted to express an opinion to you.
P.S.: While not an SF "FAN", I am and have been for
all of my sentient life a "fan" of science fiction, starting with
(naturally, and bless the public librarians) Robert A. Heinlein at age 5,
and "Rocket Ship Galileo". I've been reading your work, as well as your
collaborations with other various authors, since I've been old enough to
reach the "adult" shelves in the library. Making the pilgrimage to the "P"
section under the authors at the store is still standard practice, to see
what you've made available lately.
I'd like to express my most sincere appreciation
(naturally, I've expressed it in the most sincere form, that of hard cash,
at my local bookstore here in Minneapolis, "Uncle Hugo's Science Fiction
Bookstore" over the years) for your writing, and the countless hours of
entertainment and education that it has brought me.
So, THANK YOU.
Regards,
Ted Bezat Minneapolis, MN
bezat@mail.donaldson.com
Isn't it odd that Freon became dangerous
just before the DuPont patent expired, and the only thing that could replace
it was more expensive, more dangerous, and, oh, yes, patented? But surely
that was all a coincidence.
I have seen climate models that try to
explain the Warm Period from 800 to about 1300 as a local phenomenon. I have
not see those results come out of the general climate models. If there is a
general climate model that explains the period 800 AD to 1800 AD (from warm
to Little Ice Age to warming again) I am not aware of it, and I have
certainly looked as well as indicated my willingness to listen.
Subject: Benford_warming
Good morning Mr. Pournelle,
Mr. Benford's use of "voodoo" to describe the work of
dissenters from his point of view raises suspicions about the strength of
his arguments. Likely just got annoyed. The press has made it difficult to
talk about global warming by simplifying "Civilization contributes to global
climate change" to "Civilization causes global climate change" It's my
understanding that, at worst, we're accelerating a natural trend. If the
goal is to slow a trend, isn't this the same as saying "Let this bitter
transition pass from me, to my grandchildren."? If the goal is to end
climate change, are we clever and brave enough to pull it off? I'm very much
in favor of learning more before action is taken, at my income, reduced
carbon living would involve warm clothing in winter, no air conditioning in
the summer and a bicycle for transport, as hydrogen plumbing won't be cheap.
Tim Harness
My analysis indicates that given
reasonable assumptions for the costs of remedies (including the increases in
cost of delaying the onset of remedies) and the cost of acquiring more data
to reduce uncertainty, we ought to be spending significantly more on
reducing uncertainties; the expected value of doing so is very high.
On Benford versus Crichton
--when specialists start worrying, I think it's time
to put some money into monitoring things. Hence the recent cutbacks in earth
observational studies are probably the wrong thing.
On UK university education--you have probably heard
stories about the closure of numerous mid-rank departments due to inadequate
government funding. It hasn't been limited to engineering and science.
Universities have also been cutting back on medical education, especially
expensive specialties like radiology--the overall reduction in medical
education over the last few years has been about 30%. The general pattern is
that any programs that are expensive and consumed mostly by UK students are
being closed since the government habitually underfunds them. Oxford has
decided to reduce the number of UK undergraduates by a thousand (from 11,000
to 10,000) over the next five years. It's disheartening to see the winding
up in my lifetime of an 800-year tradition of academic learning.
-- Harry Erwin, PhD, Senior Lecturer of Computing,
University of Sunderland. Computational neuroscientist modeling bat
bioacoustics and behavior. http://osiris.sunderland.ac.uk/~cs0her
Good sense from Dr. Erwin, as usual.
Thanks
==========
Subject: Re: the Benford newspaper article
For the paper by Hoffert et al. (Gregory Benford is
the second of the et alii), go to
http://www.mcgill.ca/economics/faculty/green/#Articles
Click on the link 'Advanced Technology Paths to
Global Climate Stability'
Nice discussion of space solar power in this paper.
The geoengineering section of the paper includes a
discussion of a 2000 km diameter mirror at Lagrange point 1 to deflect 2% of
the solar flux. This section ends with this sentence "Of course, large-scale
geophysical interventions are inherently risky and need to be approached
with caution." [I should hope so.]
The concluding remarks section of the paper says "...
We have identified a portfolio of promising technologies here--some radical
departures from our present fossil fuel system. Many concepts will fail, and
staying the course will require leadership..."
On page 479 of Crichton's book, his character says,
during a conversation, "... They conclude that wind, solar, and even nuclear
power will not be sufficient to solve the problem. They say totally new and
undiscovered technology is required."
Everyone can read both works and see if Crichton's
character got the gist of the paper of the paper by Hoffert et al.
Joe Hennessey
Precisely. I have nothing against energy
technology research.
Subject: Neocons & Toyota Prius
http://www.slate.com/Default.aspx?id=2112608&
The alliance of hawks and environmentalists is new but
not entirely surprising. The environmentalists are worried about global
warming and air pollution. But Woolsey and Gaffney—both members of the
Project for the New American Century, which began advocating military action
against Saddam Hussein back in 1998—are going green for geopolitical
reasons, not environmental ones. They seek to reduce the flow of American
dollars to oil-rich Islamic theocracies, Saudi Arabia in particular.
R
A consummation devoutly to be wished...
Subject: Benford vs. Crichton
From: Stephen M. St. Onge saintonge@hotmail.com
Dear Jerry:
You asked (
http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/view346.html#Tuesday ) for comments
on Gregory Benford and Martin Hoffert's newspaper article (
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050121/news_lz1e21benford.html
). Here's mine.
Short Version: I'm rereading Lowell Ponte's _The
Cooling_ at the moment, and it sounds rather like Benford and Hoffert's
article, except that it comes to the conclusion that we're on our way to an
ice age. The main difference is that Ponte argues more cogently, seldom
attacking the people who disagree with him, or using obvious logical
fallacies. The main similarity is that there isn't enough evidence to
support the conclusions reached, in either Ponte's book, or Benford and
Hoffert's article.
Rather too long version: (Can be found on the
Climate Discussion Reports
page)
=============
Jerry P:
One of the fun things about reading your Chaos Manor
site, I wouldn't call it a blog as it has too much going for it, is that I
keep getting introduced to articles, like the de Borchgrave column that
Roland Dobbins sent. There seems to be a lot of that and it makes good
reading.
The Fear of reason column was interesting. They quote
, Crichton : " . . . concluded that there is no known technology that will
enable us to halt the rise of carbon dioxide in the 21st century." Then they
say: ". . . we outlined plenty of technologies that must be further
developed . . .". Well, technologies that must be further developed does not
cancel out no known technology. The problem of course is that independent
nations will use whatever technologies they choose and the point is moot as
politics not technology will be the deciding factor. There is a certain
hubris in scientists who state that they can provide the answer to a problem
if only the rest of society will only heed their advice. Sorry guys, that is
not how this old world works. And while Crichton may be off base to a
certain degree, your call for more and better information is the correct
answer.
I notice that the weather service called for rain last
night, which was about 24 hours late in arriving. Given all the exacting
technology for accurately predicting the current conditions, I must question
the modeling that predicts the future with such accuracy given the number of
variables affecting the climate. I challenge any computer model to be backed
up 1000 years to accurately predict known conditions; or set at 1066 and
project the ensuing climate conditions.
Charles Simkins
Subject: The Benford/Hoffert piece
Jerry--
My, you do pick 'em. Looking through Greg's
commentary, I must admit I'm uncertain how such a well-written author can
have such a hard time groking English. Just to pick at a few of the high
points that bothered me:
1. Crichton: No known technology/Benford: "outlined
plenty of technologies that must be further developed" - Is it just me, or
does Greg just not get the concept that he is saying that these technologies
don't yet exist. If they existed, there wouldn't be a need for his Manhattan
Project-style effort.
2. Politicization of global warming: Maybe it's just
me, but I get the impression that Greg hasn't been paying much attention to
just how politicized the whole global warming argument has gotten - and how
vicious the attacks are on any scientist who dares disagree with RightThink.
3. Heat islands: Gotta love the rebuttal. Rather than
address the issue (of heat island effects being ignored), he attacks the
messenger. Yep, that's how to prove the point.
I really hope the rest of Greg's science is better
than this. -- Charles Prael Los Trancos Systems http://www.lts.com
The Babbling Brook http://www.livejournal.com/users/chuckles48/
I would say that technologies that need
massive development investments may be "known", but they certainly can't
be implemented immediately. Perhaps Crichton would have been more
accurate to say "readily implementable" instead of "known".
Greg Benford is well known in particle
physics, and he and his twin brother were participants in the Citizen's
Advisory Council on National Space Policy which I chaired during the Reagan
era.
Subject: The Idso brothers' web site
Thanks to Mr. Theisen for reminding me of
www.co2science.org
<http://www.co2science.org/> .
The men running this site (
www.co2science.org
<http://www.co2science.org/ > ) do valuable work and have credentials and
publications up the wazoo (the ones that the DRI guy so admires). Yet they
write:
"For the past seven years, therefore, we have provided
everything we produce free of charge to everyone, sustaining ourselves with
grants and donations from numerous sources. Over the past three years,
however, income from these sources has declined dramatically, and additional
cuts are on the horizon. We have tried to adjust to these changes by
sequentially eliminating one full-time staff position and three part-time
positions, by reducing the salaries of two of us by 50% and one of us by
100%, and by one of us selling the house in which he and his family lived to
move into a smaller and less expensive home. All of these actions, however,
have been insufficient to compensate for our monetary losses, and have
failed to stave off the inevitable. Consequently, to continue to simply
survive (which one cannot do for very long with a negative income), and to
continue publishing CO2 Science, we have no choice but to limit its access
to those who contribute an annual donation of $7.95 ..."
The price of coming up with the wrong answers?
I joined.
Joe Hennessey
So have I.
And
continued...
g
TOP
CURRENT
VIEW Friday
|
