| Monday February
5, 2007
Harry Erwin's
Letter from England
The News:
Bird flu outbreak: <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6328889.stm>
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6328921.stm>
Global warming report: <http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf>
(if you want your own copy) <http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070129/full/070129-15.html>
(Nature analysis will be published on-line Tuesday, 6 Feb) "This is only the
first section of the IPCC's fourth assessment: a report on impacts,
adaptation and vulnerability should be finalized in April, and one on ways
to reduce emissions or their impacts in May. A final synthesis will be
released in late 2007." (Published online: 2 February 2007; |
doi:10.1038/news070129-15) <http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2007/202/1>
<http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/>
Othello too mature for 14-year-olds because it
involves racism. <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/03/nmoor03.xml>
Not everyone trusts the UK Government or its agencies:
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-6392910,00.html>
Blair problems with honours for cash investigation: <http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,,2005566,00.html>
Internet shopping can be more dangerous than people
realise: <http://observer.guardian.co.uk/cash/story/0,,2005234,00.html>
Gordon Brown's plans for education: <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6325849.stm>
Commentary:
Since everyone else is commenting on the global
warming report, I probably should, too.
1. All models should be taken with a grain of salt,
especially non-linear ones, and the weather and climate systems are highly
non-linear. Accurate measurement of parameters describing these systems is
difficult, and the model input data resulting from such measurements are
likely to be in error. An understanding of when noisy data can invalidate
model results is critical to the successful use of non-linear models. A
valid model is one that provides useful insight, desirably but not
necessarily as numerical predictions or statistical distributions. This
pragmatic definition avoids arguments over the validity and equivalence of
abstract models, since a formal or more rigorous definition of model
validity can result in a situation where the only valid model of a system
(particularly one with continuous dynamics) is the system itself! (There
are even cases known where the system cannot be used to model itself!)
2. "Prediction is very difficult, especially about the
future (attributed to Niels Bohr)." An important problem that
decision-makers should be aware of is that not all non-linear systems can be
modelled; some have behavior that cannot be predicted by any model. Unless
there is some way of showing that the model behavior matches that of the
real system, such models cannot be safely used. The underlying problem is
that the evolution of two nearby system trajectories (representing slightly
different initial conditions) can diverge in state space, growing apart
exponentially, and eventually becoming uncorrelated. When that happens, it
may be impossible to calibrate a system model to provide adequate
predictions. This phenomenon, termed sensitive dependence on initial
conditions, is a key idea in non-linear systems theory, and is
particularly important in weather and climate modelling. The implication is
that enough data on the weather/climate system has to be collected to give
us confidence in the dynamic limits of the system. That data collection
takes time, particularly if one is worried about possibilities outside the
5-95% confidence range discussed in the latest report.
3. John Baez points out the ecological problem with
global warming is the rate of increase, not the direction, since glacial
(cold) periods apparently experienced climatic fluctuations large enough to
make agriculture impossible. Since we don't want to go back to glacial
conditions, some global warming is desirable, but we must manage it
carefully and slowly. Glacial periods were also characterised by high
aridity, suggesting the increased aridity from global warming to be more of
a local, rather than a global phenomenon--if we can figure out some way of
returning the climate to the post-Pleistocene optimum (about 4000-6000 years
ago), we would actually end up ahead in the bargain.
4. Coal is a rather dirty source of power. Not only
does it produce carbon dioxide, it releases significant amounts of sulfuric
acid (acid rain) and radioactivity into the environment. Generally speaking,
a coal-fired plant releases much more radioactivity in its operation than a
nuclear plant of the same capacity, even when accidents and disposal of
waste products is factored in. This report makes the argument for clean
energy much clearer.
5. Wind turbines and wave power are not significant
alternatives to nuclear power. The literature on wind turbines indicates
that they do significant damage to beneficial bat and bird populations. (I
am currently participating in a bat survey programme to collect data on
this.) Wave power is not proven and likely to have damaging effects on
littoral environments.
6. Solar power may be an alternative to nuclear, but
it has a large fixed cost.
7. Petroleum remains useful as an efficient and
relatively safe way of storing energy and as a feedstock for chemical
production.
So my recommendations are as follows:
1. Continue to improve the model. Even if it can't be
used predictively, it will provide insight into the dynamic range of the
climate/weather system.
2. Collect lots more data. This means more satellites
and supporting systems, since the necessary measurements are hard to collect
efficiently from the ground.
3. Replace coal burning with energy sources that do
not produce large amounts of carbon dioxide as a by-product. Do this now,
since a high rate of temperature change will do most of the ecological
damage.
4. Explore carbon-dioxide-neutral processes for
producing and utilising petroleum-based fuels.
-- Harry Erwin, PhD "If you can't be a good example,
then you'll just have to be a horrible warning." (Catherine Aird)
We will have quite a few items about global
warming. The fact remains that no one is sure whether it's getting
hotter or the Ice Is Coming. Given the temperatures from Minnesota to
the Atlantic, ice is nice and will suffice...
===========
Subject: Climate change,
statistics, and gambling
Jerry :
Reading the press reports on the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, I do wonder just how many people understand the
term "very likely" which is used throughout the report. If one takes a
moment to read the report (available at
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf)
, and look at footnotes 6 and 7 on page 3, they find out the terms are,
"6 In this Summary for Policymakers, the following
terms have been used to indicate the assessed likelihood, using expert
judgment, of an outcome or a result: Virtually certain > 99% probability of
occurrence, Extremely likely > 95%, Very likely > 90%, Likely > 66%, More
likely than not > 50%, Unlikely < 33%, Very unlikely < 10%, Extremely
unlikely < 5%.
7 In this Summary for Policymakers the following
levels of confidence have been used to express expert judgments on the
correctness of the underlying science: very high confidence at least a 9 out
of 10 chance of being correct; high confidence about an 8 out of 10 chance
of being correct."
Hmmm... Back when I did graduate work that included
much more than the soupçon of mathematics that passes for erudition in the
popular press, a 90% confidence interval was only used by researchers who
just couldn't muster really solid data for their hypothesis. It certainly
did not stand up for even a master's thesis in most science or engineering
disciplines, let alone a doctorate. Try submitting a medical trial that _at
best_ hits a 90% confidence interval, and your new pharmokinetic agent will
be bounced like a superball by the regulators.
And I'm puzzling over a statement in Footnote 5, "Best
estimates are given where available. Assessed uncertainty intervals are not
always symmetric about the corresponding best estimate. Note that a number
of uncertainty ranges in the Working Group I TAR corresponded to 2-sigma
(95%), often using expert judgment." And how does "expert judgment"
correspond to the claimed 2-sigma interval ? What statistical basis was used
to determine that uncertainty intervals are not symmetric, and where was the
best estimate placed in the interval - one of the "tails" that corresponds
to a 90% confidence interval ?
These are non-trivial questions for scientists
bandying about hypotheses on obscure points in almost any field, and become
enormous issues when applied to science that has immediate effects on the
people of the world. I might have a touch less credulity if such critical
items were not buried as footnotes, and made to read as though they proved
the case, rather than provided, at best, lukewarm and vague support for the
central hypothesis.
Reading the summary, this reads like "voodoo
statistics", making the so-called "trickledown economics" of the Reagan era
look as reproducible as tests for the boiling properties of pure water at
sea level. It might well suffice for the uneducated or illiterate to feel
that the issues of climate prediction are well-founded and concrete, but it
doesn't pass the "redface test" by a rational scientist with this kind of
slipshod discussion.
And yet, we're about to engage in the largest gamble
on a scientific best guess that's ever been attempted. By comparison, the
Apollo moon shots were a sure thing, money in the bank, and no risk. Note
that some comments in the report are "likely" which is a great flim-flam
where the odds are one-in-three that hypothesis is invalid. I can't speak
for you, Jerry, but I wouldn't take my life's savings and bet on an outcome
with a one-in-three chance of losing most of the money, and damn' little
likelihood of seeing any gain.
But in today's risk averse society, it's more
avant-garde to make decisions that play to the popular press than stand on
truly solid principles.
Wager quite literally trillions of dollars, the
potential for a worldwide depression that would make the Great Depression
look like a lovetap, and squander the opportunities of two or more
generations on some scientific folderol, close to ineffable twaddle, on
something between one-in-three to one-in-ten likely to be the wrong causal
reason for temperature change ? Feh.
I very strongly commend reading the report to you,
Jerry. There are some pure and simple whoppers strewn throughout the work
that beg a calm rational assessment outside the political arena. Every page
raises more questions than it answers, but then, the one clear part of the
report is that it plays to a well-defined agenda, instead of science.
Which agenda, by the by, includes our fine friends in
France threatening the United States with carbon taxes (i.e., punitive
tariffs) if the United States doesn't abide by the Kyoto accords (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/01/world/europe/01climate.html)
, while France itself can't meet the European Union's requirements. But
then, this is of a whole with France's general "Do as I say, not as I do";
or, more on point for France, "Plus c'est la meme chose, plus ça change."
Lastly, of course, one might note that the Kyoto
accords, which are inapplicable to China, will be rendered wholly
ineffectual by the coal fired power plants soon to be in place in China.
There seems to be no problem with China in this regard, since they can't be
affected by the Kyoto accords in a meaningful way, nor are they being
threatened by France with carbon taxes. I haven't noted that President
Jacques Chirac's qualifications include any science whatsoever (the official
bio for M. Chirac notes his qualifications as, "Paris Institut d'Etudes
Politiques (Institute of Political Science), and of the Harvard University
Summer School" ( Heh, summer school as a qualification to lead a major
nation ?); and, in my considered opinion, less statesmanship.
But saying that wouldn't be politically correct, eh ?
John P.
==
Subject: Butterfly Effect Does Not Help Global Warming
Supporters -
Hi Dr. Pournelle,
This is probably obvious to most of your readers but
sometimes it is useful to restate things that seem rather obvious.
The "Butterfly Effect" is described in Wikipedia as "a
phrase that encapsulates the more technical notion of sensitive dependence
on initial conditions in chaos theory"
Sometimes this is simply a reflection of
well-understood physics. An example from orbital mechanics is the effect on
the orbit of a small body of a single close approach to a planet. The
trajectory change to the small body is not 10 times as great if the miss
distance is 100,000 miles instead of 1,000,000 miles, it is far larger
because gravitational force declines at an inverse-squared rate (and the
planet's gravitational attraction is significant at both distances). This
is, therefore, a real-world effect.
Other times, the effect is an artifact of the computer
hardware used to perform the calculations. This is particularly true in
computationally intensive computer models. Indeed, the first time the effect
was observed was when a minor data input error (roughly the sixth digit in a
single number) caused a weather prediction program to produce a wildly
different result the second time the same calculations were performed. In
the whimsical example of the flapping or non-flapping of a remote butterfly
significantly affecting the occurrence or non-occurrence of a massive
weather system like a hurricane, clearly there is no sensible linkage. Such
cases represent a computational anomaly rather than a real physical reality.
How does this affect global warming? GCM's (Global
Climate Models) are enormous number-crunching programs that must perform
trillions of calculations for each year of climate being modeled. They are
therefore extremely sensitive to the initial conditions fed into them but
such sensitivity will generally be an artifact of the floating- point
hardware and the software that runs on it. I have not seen any discussions
of how computational anomalies are mitigated in GCM's. It is an
extraordinary claim, therefore, to assert that the climate predicted by a
GCM for a century in the future has any significant predictive value at all.
Bill Hembree
==
Subject: global warming
Jerry: Contrarian views:
"The upshot of the Earth not being unduly sensitive to
greenhouse gases is that neither increases nor cutbacks in future C02
emissions will matter much in terms of the climate."
"Even doubling the amount of CO2 by 2100, for example,
"will not dramatically increase the global temperature," Dr. Shaviv states.
Put another way: "Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by
2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled
amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be
less than 0.5C. This is not significant.""
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?
id=156df7e6-d490-41c9-8b1f-106fef8763c6&k=0
and
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/
global-warming020507.htm
Chris
-- Right now the Republicans and Democrats in
Washington seem, from the outside, to be an elite colluding against the
voter. Peggy Noonan
==
Subject: Global warming as a pretext for social
engineering
Dr Pournelle
Now that the prophets of doom have chosen to win the
debate by silencing the opposing view (Edward Toulouse [said], "It is not
possible to argue anymore" http://www.voanews.com/english/Science/2007-02-05-voa9.cfm),
has anyone given any thought to the idea that the global warming scare is an
unconscious movement by liberals to accomplish by pseudoscience what they
failed to do by politics?
It seems to me that that the doommongers answer to
global warming is that the industrialized countries should tax their
constituents without stint and give to the "Arc of the Sun" countries for
some unspecified purpose. I don't see any proposal that "We should do B to
combat A." All I see from the doommongers is "We should do less C and stop
doing D entirely, but that may not be enough."
The best proposal I have read for dealing with CO2 is
to seed the Southern Ocean with a ton of iron dust each year. And that did
not come from a doommonger.
Respectfully h lynn keith
==
Subject: Global Warming, cooling or what?
Jerry,
It is interesting to read the discussions of global
warming on your web site and in the press. After all is said and done, there
is only one conclusion that I can reach. We essentially are clueless about
what the long term future weather patterns might be.
There is evidence of ice melt and possible lengthening
of the growing season in Greenland. However, the historical record indicates
that the growing season in Greenland was a good bit longer several hundred
years ago. Does this indicate the the current observations are merely a
return to "normal"?
The Earth's oceans cover about 2/3 of the surface of
the Earth, roughly 130,000,000 square miles. If the average depth of the
ocean in 2 miles then there are 260,000,000 cubic miles of water in the
Earth's Oceans. There are about 147,000,000,000 cubic feet of water in a
cubic mile. This translate to about 4.3 quadrillion pounds of water per
cubic mile. It takes one BTU of energy to raise the temperature of water 1
degree Fahrenheit or 4.3 quads of energy. It would require over 1,000,000
quads of energy to to raise the temperature of the ocean 1 degree F.
If we were to assume some baseline for the amount of
solar energy absorbed by the earth each year, how much would this absorption
have to be increased for n years to increase the average temperature of the
Earth's Oceans by 1 degree F?
Assuming n as 50 years it would take an 20,000 quads
per year above the baseline to accomplish the 1 degree F increase.
To provide some perspective total World energy
consumption is less than 500 quads annually.
Once again, I don't claim to know what any of this
means. It merely seems to show that it might be quite possible that man's
ability to influence global climate is not as great as some predict. After
all it is only human to believe that our abilities are much greater than
they really are.
(The numbers presented above with respect to total
energy required to change the ocean's temperature are intentionally
underestimated. The amount of World energy consumption is intentionally
overestimated. I didn't bother to look up estimates of the total solar
energy absorbed by the Earth and leave that as a exercise for the reader
since any estimate would be subject to adjustment to some hypothetical
baseline prior to increases in atmospheric CO2 and Methane.)
Bob Holmes
It all depends on what you call "warming" and what
you average to calculate the temperature of the Earth.
==
Subject: More on Global Warming
Jerry,
If we want to maintain our current progress in
technology and improve the living standards of all the peoples of the Earth
we must provide an increasing supply of energy. If we want to try and reduce
mankind's influence on global climate we must reduce or eliminate our use of
carbon based fuels. The only way to do this, with currently available
technology is with Nuclear Power.
I would prefer to refer to the Global Warming debate
as a debate about the burning of carbon based fuels. Elimination of the
burning of carbon based fuels has two benefits. The larger of the two is the
saving of hydrocarbons as petrochemical feed stocks. The lesser is the
reduction of the emissions of CO2 and CO into the air.
The Global Warming pundits are probably more correct
than they may realized when they say that it is too late for us to mend our
ways and stop Global Warming. It appears to me that the natural cycles of
warming and cooling are brought about by forces considerably beyond man's
feeble efforts to control.
There appear to be two main contributors to these
cycles, changes in the Earth's orbit and axial tilt and changes in the sun's
thermal output.
My current mantra is, "Thank goodness for Global
Warming." Without it I might be up to my armpits in snow running South to
escape the rapidly approaching glaciers.
Looking at the geologic record, it appears that there
is some basis for the story of the flood during the time of Noah. Prior to
the flood the level of the Mediterranean and Black Seas was more than 50
feet below current levels. Global Warming after the last Ice Age could have
caused enough glacial and polar ice cap melt to raise the level of the
Atlantic Ocean sufficiently to breach a land bridge at Gibraltar and cause
the flooding. It is pretty obvious that this warming was not caused by Man's
activities increasing the levels of CO2 and Methane in the atmosphere.
There are many good reasons to reduce and eventually
eliminate the burning of Carbon based fuels for energy and transportation.
The reduction or reversal of Global Warming should be way down on the list.
Years ago I read a story in "Analog Science Fact and
Fiction." It may have been long enough ago that it was "Astounding Science
Fiction." In the story an entrepreneur had established artificial islands
several miles off the coast. On these islands he built breeder reactors to
generate electricity. Because of the large losses associated with
transmitting electricity over long distances, the electricity was used to
disassociated H2O into O2 and H2. The H2 was then piped ashore and to
locations close to electrical demand where is was used to power generators.
The only waste product of the combustion was H2O. The heated cooling water
from the reactor was used for aquaculture in the Ocean surrounding the
artificial islands.
The use of a breeder reactor also addresses the
problem of the finite amount of fissionable material in the Earth's crust. I
have seen estimates that if all of the World's demand for electricity were
to be produced using slow neutron reactors that the fissionable material
would run out in about 80 years or so.
Around the same time I read another story in the same
magazine. The gist of the story was the generation of electricity in
relatively small amounts near a site where coal was available. The
conclusion reached in the story was that due to the problems of pollution,
the coal would have to be burned in a closed containment vessel so that all
of the combustion by products could be processed into "harmless" compounds
before being placed into the environment.
Conclusions:
If you believe that Global Warming is harmful and that
Mankind should be doing everything possible to reduce or eliminate Mankind's
effects on Global Warming you should be doing everything possible to
eliminate the burning of carbon based fuels. Substituting Ethanol for
Gasoline just won't cut it as far as the above goal is concerned. Using
electric cars, given how most of the electricity is produced also won't cut
it.
Given our current state of technology, moving to the
nuclear generation of power seems to be the safest and fastest way to reach
the above goal. Citing the Chernobyl disaster as an argument against the use
of Nuclear power demonstrates a lack of understanding of the safety measures
built into the nuclear power facilities in the West versus the Soviet
nuclear plants with little or no safety facilities, the major difference
being containment vessels.
The one impediment to implementing a move to more
Nuclear Power generation in this country is the lack of an adequate licensed
storage facility for spent radioactive material. This impediment could be
easily removed with the licensing of the Yucca Mountain facility in Nevada.
To achieve the goals of the premise of this exposition
we must either overcome the irrational fears of Nuclear Power and
radioactive materials held by many or stop listening them.
Bob Holmes
Good of you to remember that story. I wrote it. It
was published as I recall under the name Wade Curtis because this was just
after Mr. Campbell died, and Miss Tarrant was making up the magazine from
stories John Campbell had bought; I had a serial, a cover story under my
name, and that story as Wade Curtis as I recall. I think the islands weren't
artificial, but were coral reefs; I really ought to dig that story out
again. It was part of a series that included bringing icebergs from
Antarctica for fresh water.
===========
Subject: Why Johnny Can't Think
You have probably already seen this site, Dr. Pournelle, given your
ongoing interests in education and its 1985 date. But just in case you
haven't...
http://www.sourcetext.com/grammarian/johnny.html
"The darkness enveloping America's public schools is truly extraordinary
considering that 38.9 million students attend them, that we spend nearly
$134 billion a year on them, and that foundations ladle out generous
sums for the study of everything about schooling--except what really
occurs in the schools. John I. Goodlad's eight-year investigation of a
mere thirty-eight of America's 80,000 public schools--the result of
which, A Place Called School, was published last year[1984?]--is the
most comprehensive such study ever undertaken. Hailed as a "landmark in
American educational research," it was financed with great difficulty.
The darkness, it seems, has its guardians."
Charles Brumbelow
==========
Subject: re: Viet Nam History
Dear Dr Pournelle,
I am shocked, shocked do you hear to find someone who
agrees with my view on Vietnamese history. While Viet Nam today is, from
personal observation, definitely a 20th (first half) nation, during the war
I saw Viet Nam as a geographic expression.
While I traveled enough during the war to realize that
the war being fought a few miles away from my location was a very different
war from my war. Now North bank of the Mekong River near the Cambodian
River, was very much a part of the 12th century. You could have switched the
lady who became my wife with her counterpart from a thousand years ago and
neither one would have seen that much difference. At least it looked that
way to me and my wife agrees.
To me Viet Nam was then a collection of Feudal
Loardlings in the process of consolidating into a Nation State. It was not
simple, cut or dried.
One minor quibble, the excellent piece seems to imply
that when the Communist took over, 100,000 people were rounded up and
immediately and formally executed. Not even my brother-in-law who was deeply
involved in Phoenix and spent over ten years in and out of "re-education"
camps would agree with that.
What happened, as best I can figure from family
sources and being in and out of the country over the last twelve years, is
that roughly two million people, perhaps more, were "re-educated.
Re-education ranged from Camp Douglas/Andersonville of the American Civil
War mixed with WW II Japanese POW Camps, to a few days at Vung Tau, a beach
resort.
Now while I believe that very few people were formally
executed after the fall of Sai Gon, I also feel that the real number of
deaths is much larger than the 100,000 mentioned. Out of, I would guess, two
million or so who, I would also guess spent a year or more in re-education,
I feel that it is likely that 10% or more died in the process.
Now all this is from anecdotal evidence. I don't have
a shred of real documentation. Don't take it to the bank. Still I think it
is fairly close to the truth.
Sam
"The state which separates its scholars from its
warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by
fools," Thucydides.
==============
d
TOP
CURRENT
VIEW Monday |
