| Sunday, December
19, 2010
===============w
: Chinese official gets suspended death sentence over
anti-virus scam
Jerry,
I normally don’t agree with China’s politics, but in
this case, I might make an exception.
Original URL:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/13/chinese_anti_virus_corruption/
Chinese official gets suspended death sentence over
anti-virus scam
Gov man pocketed bribes to put innocent start-up
veep in the slammer
By John Leyden <http://forms.theregister.co.uk/mail_author/?story_url=/2010/12/13/chinese_anti_virus_corruption/>
Posted in Enterprise Security <http://www.theregister.co.uk/security/enterprise/>
, 13th December 2010 15:54 GMT <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/13/>
A Chinese appeals court has confirmed a suspended
death sentence against a corrupt official who took bribes and sent an
innocent marketing executive to prison for a year in order to line his
pockets.
Yu Bing, a former director of the network monitoring
department of the Ministry of Public Security, embezzled 4.52 million yuan
($680K) and accepted a further 12.38 million yuan ($1.86 million) in
bribes from four network firms, including an alleged 4.2 million yuan
kickback ($630,000) from leading Chinese anti-virus firm Rising.
In return, Yu started a bogus investigation against
Micropoint, an antivirus start-up whose founder Liu Xu and vice-president
Tian Yakui had previously worked for Rising. Micropoint was falsely
accused of distributing malware in order to drum up business. Tian was
framed for the supposed malware distribution plot and wrongly accused of
stealing trade secrets. The charges were used to pressurising Liu into
selling the firm to Rising.
Yu also allegedly forwarded seized Micropoint
computers to Rising as well as lobbying the official state-running testing
centre against allowing the inspection and certification of Micropoint's
software.
Tian was jailed for 11 months before he was
eventually cleared of wrongdoing. Meanwhile Micropoint's business was put
on hold for three years, costing it an an estimated 30 million Yuan
(US$4.39 million) in the process. Micropoint is considering a civil
lawsuit against Rising, which denies any wrongdoing.
Yu left China without permission in July 2008 before
he was arrested on his return in September 2008.
In August, Yu was found guilty of graft and
corruption, and received a death sentence, suspended for two years. The
Beijing Higher People's Court recently upheld this sentence at a recent
hearing, The Global Times reports <http://china.globaltimes.cn/society/2010-11/597838.html>
Tracy Walters, CISSP
===============w
Electric forcefield space sailing-ship tech gets EU
funding
Solar windjammer to be biggest fastest thing ever
built
By Lewis Page <http://forms.theregister.co.uk/mail_author/?
story_url=/2010/12/13/finnish_solar_windjammer_cash/> • Get more
from this author <http://search.theregister.co.uk/?
author=Lewis%20Page>
Posted in Space <http://www.theregister.co.uk/science/space/>
, 13th December 2010 16:48 GMT <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/13/>
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/13/
finnish_solar_windjammer_cash/
Tracy Walters, CISSP
==========
Larry Griswold: What an athlete,
Jerry
Wonderful slapstick:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T89HO_qIMyo
You don't see this kind of vaudeville anymore.
Ed
============
Earth's energy budget
Jerry, you keep asking about the contribution Earth's
interior temperature to the overall temperature of the Earth, and how it's
reflected in climate models. I suspect the answer is simple: it's not
modeled because the total contribution of interior heat to the earth's
energy budget is miniscule. If it's modeled at all, it's just a (very small)
constant.
The Earth's energy budget is pretty well known; it can
be calculated with a reasonable degree of accuracy from the solar constant
and the area of the Earth's disk as seen from the sun. The math works out to
~175 petawatts. Of that about 30% is reflected away, and the other 70% is
absorbed and reradiated. The total geothermal component is around 44 to 47
terawatts, so call it .025% of the total energy budget. At that point, it's
pretty much buried in the noise.
Ken Warren
=
If it's miniscule then let them say so, but it is
not obvious: that's an enormous heat engine and heat is added to it all
the time. Where does that heat go?
Then there are volcanoes. Some are under the sea.
Those on land add particulate matter to the atmosphere and have a net
cooling effect. Those under the sea heat cold water at the bottom and give
rise to currents. Perhaps all that is negligible in effect, but one would
think that this is easily established if true.
I read the reports and I just don't see any concern
at all.
Jerry Pournelle Chaos Manor
=
Where does geothermal go? Where does *any* energy
go? Energy that gets absorbed by the atmosphere or the Earth's surface
bounces around for a while due to the greenhouse effect (water vapor, CO2
and other gasses absorbing and re-radiating infrared) but eventually
radiates out into space. Energy in = energy out. The greenhouse effect is
*very* important; it's why the global average temperature is around 15 C
with a rather small variation, rather than -20 C with a very large
variation (the moon's surface ranges from over 100 C to blow -150 C)
As for climate models, you make a good point: why
*won't* climate scientists discuss it? I'm not a climate scientist (not a
scientist at all, more an engineer in outlook and approach), so I can't say
why you can't get a straight answer. I still think the geothermal
contribution to the global energy budget is buried in the noise in the
climate models, to such an extent that it's either not modeled as
"insignificant" or modeled as a constant (which would be quite adequate
given we're talking change on human time scales rather than geologic time
scales). Possibly they won't discuss it with you because you're not a
believer and they don't want to waste their time. (As they see it, and
scientists can be stupid too.)
For fun, I looked at the explosion of Krakatoa in
1883, the first volcanic event I could easily find an energy estimate for.
Tambora in 1815 AD was larger, Vesuvius 79 AD smaller, but I could find
numbers for Krakatoa. :-) The estimates I'm finding are in the range of 6.5
to 8.5 x 10^17 joules released in the 4 explosions in 1883. That's a lot of
energy, for sure. But in terms of the annual energy budget of the earth? Not
so much. Here's my "cocktail napkin" calculation:
Assuming: 8.5 x 10^17 joules (watt-seconds) for the 4
explosions of Krakatoa 44 terawatts (=4.4 x 10^13) for the geothermal
contribution to the global energy budget 175 petawatts (=1.75 x 10^17) x .7
(1 - albedo) = 122.5 petawatts that isn't reflected and needs consideration
Total annual global energy budget = (1.225 x 10^17
watts) x 86,400 (seconds/day) x 365 (days/year) = 3.9 x 10^24 watt-seconds
(3.9 yotta-joules!)
Annual contribution of geothermal to total annual
energy budget = (4.4 x 10^13 watts) x 86,400 (seconds/day) x 365 (days/year)
= 1.4 x 10^21 watt-seconds (joules)
Krakatoa compared to geothermal for 1883 = (8.5 x
10^17) / (1.4 x 10^21) = 6.1 x 10^-4 = .06%
So Krakatoa was about .06% of the total geothermal
energy released for 1883 (and about .0015% of the total annual energy
budget). Krakatoa was certainly much more energetic than your average
volcanic eruption, and the number of eruptions can probably be assumed to be
fairly constant over even human time scales, so my conclusion is that
volcanoes are an insignificant source of energy contributed to the annual
global energy budget (indeed, as I said previously, at .025% geothermal
overall is insignificant since it's fairly constant). And to me this *is*
obvious.
Overall, I tend to think that AGW is real (we *have*
increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere over the last 200 years), but
that we have no idea of how important it is overall. And a drop of .1% (say
during a Maunder Minimum) in the solar contribution to the earth's energy
budget is going to be an order of magnitude more significant than everything
we've done. So we need more study, on all sides of the question.
Thanks!
Ken Warren
Thank you for doing the math, but that is not
quite the question I was asking.
The interior of the Earth is hot. Energy is being
added to that energy machine. My question is, how much? If the total
energy generated in the Earth's interior is small then that is a trivial
contribution to the biosphere temperature; but this is not obvious to me,
since I don't know how much is being generated in there by radioactives
and by tidal energy transfer. We have some estimates of the amount put
into the biosphere by volcanoes, and that is very small; but that is also
known volcanoes. We are learning that there are a lot more underwater
volcanoes than we thought -- no great surprise. I have seen little
discussion of this. Underwater volcanoes directly put heat into the
oceans. Perhaps it is a trivial amount.
Perhaps it is so trivial than increases over what
we assumed it was are also trivial and can be ignored. Perhaps not. It
would be no great difficulty to say that, but to the best of my knowledge
the recent discovery of far more underwater volcanoes than previously
thought was not discussed by the model makers.
Now if the total energy added to the interior of
the earth by radioactivity and tidal transfer is trivially small compared
to insolation, we can ignore all this.
My question is concerned with the total
geothermal contribution to the energy budget: how is that arrived at, and
what is the quality of the data?
However it was arrived at had to make guesses as
to the magnetic field strength, which was just determined directly for the
first time; previously it was estimated at between near zero to nearly
100. It is now believed to be closer to 25. Does this change the total
energy assumed in the interior? I don't know, but I don't think it is
stupid to ask.
If the interior contribution is tiny, then four
times tiny is also tiny. May well be true. But I would like to see it on
record.
==
My primary concerns here are the data inputs to
the models. Policy recommendations are being made on the basis of about
0.1 degree temperature rises. How much confidence do we have in these
rises? What I hear about the quality of the primary input data does not
inspire much confidence in those 0.1 degree accuracies. If the input data
isn't accurate to 0.1 degree, then confidence in the predictions should
not be high. Do we even know how much the temperature of the Earth is
rising?
Start by remembering that the AGW theory comes
from the belief that the Earth is hotter than it "ought" to be, the
"ought" being determined by the models, but the temperature of the Earth
is supposedly observed, and the changes from 1885 to present are --
inferred from today's observations and calculations as to that they were
in previous times. All this to 0.1 degree. I don't claim to be a climate
scientist. I do have considerable experience in operations analysis, in
which we try to analyze what we know and how we find it out in order to
allocate resources with as little waste as possible.
One thing first to do is clear out the obvious.
If it is obvious that the interior of the Earth can't possibly have any
effect on the temperature of the biosphere, that's fine: but I would like
to know what the assumptions are that makes it trivial. If all the
calculations of energy increases in the Earth's interior show that it
can't have much effect on the biosphere, I can believe that -- but I would
still like to see them stated explicitly, just as I would think we ought
to know just what is the official ratio of land to ocean surface of the
Earth (not "about 20%" but a precise number since we have to average land
and sea temperatures to get an annual overall average temperature of the
Earth). I would like to see the official number giving the heat transfer
from air to water, and just what are the coefficients used to determine
radiative heat transfer from sunlight to water. And so forth. Surely they
are known.
==
Hello Jerry,
Ken Warren is probably accurate in his energy
calculations and also in his conclusion that the energy supplied by volcanos
et al are miniscule compared to the overall energy budget of the Earth.
Of course, all his calculations as to the impact of
these sources implicitly assume that their energy is evenly distributed. In
the case of conductive leakage from the interior to the surface, that
assumption may well be correct also.
The energy due to volcanic activity is most assuredly
NOT evenly distributed however and, as you pointed out, a very large
percentage of it, much larger than had been suspected until recently, occurs
under the oceans.
It is well known that climate (the distribution of
weather), rather than globally averaged surface temperature (and come to
think of it, maybe even that), is HUGELY influenced by ocean currents, which
are in turn influenced by temperature gradients within the oceans. Volcanos
may not contribute significantly to the heat energy of the oceans, taken as
a whole, but they certainly contribute to the heat energy of the ocean in
the immediate vicinity of the volcano and produce sharp temperature
gradients as a consequence. Temperature gradients (among other things)
produce ocean currents and volcanos are essentially point sources of heat
impulses injected into the currents which vary randomly in frequency, time,
location, and magnitude.
It is hard for me to believe that undersea volcanos
and other sources of intense local heating of the ocean have NO influence on
ocean currents or that whatever influence that they DO have can either be
ignored by the models OR adequately accounted for by them. I suspect that
the behavior of ocean currents, while generally known (The Gulf Stream has
been around for a long time.), is chaotic at the scale necessary to model
climate and that random heat impulses and accompanying impulse changes in
the contour of the ocean floor over which the currents must flow, caused by
undersea volcanos, may be important in making them chaotic.
In a similar manner surface volcanos provide random
injections of not only heat, but of ash, SO2, CO2, H2O, and who knows what
other chemicals, whose undeniable influence on climate (Eighteen hundred and
froze to death comes to mind.) varies with the location, composition,
magnitude, time of year, etc. of the event.
Solar flares and other solar events also introduce
random impulse variations in the Earth's climate.
Climate modeling may be an exact science to
politicians interested in maximizing their power and minimizing the amount
of money retained by those who earned it, but I remain suspicious of models
with large numbers of variables which ignore random impulse perturbations of
all the variables.
Models which confidently make predictions such as
this, from March, 20, 2000.:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/
snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html
Bob Ludwick
Well, perhaps Britain will have a few more
snowfalls after all. As you say, models which make that kind of prediction
probably need adjustments.
I would not think it a waste of time for some of
the climate modelers to address
And here a physicist puts it better than I can:
thermal balance
Jerry,
Regarding the discussion of the contribution of the
internal heat of the earth:
From our earlier discussions of the subject: the real
issue is thermal balance.
We know that the interior temperature of caves in
equilibrium with the surrounding soil is about 56 Fahrenheit, and that this
temperature is maintained due to geothermal processes rather than
interaction of solar heating.
The mean surface temperature -- admittedly with wide
variations -- is about 59 Fahrenheit.
The question becomes: if the rate of heat generation
within the earth were less, it's clear that the subsurface equilibrium
temperature would be less. The question becomes, what would the effect on
the surface temperature be? In other words, is it a coincidence that the
subsurface temperature and the surface temperature are approximately the
same? Conversely, if the earth were outside the solar system, with
effectively zero direct sunlight, what would the surface equilibrium
temperature be? 2.7 Kelvin? Or some greater number (and if so how much
greater) due to the earth's internal heating. And what would the temperature
profile be then?
The AGW answer, by implication, is that it is a
coincidence. I don't think that's obvious. Thermal equilibrium is a
condition of little net heat energy transfer -- which is what we're
describing. Do what depth does that "cave temperature" curve go as a result
of changes in internal and external heating?
Of course, the equilibrium would change depending on
solar radiation, length of day, and other relevant parameters as well.
In my head, I can construct models where it's
negligible -- and hence a coincidence; and models where it's highly
relevant. And it's certainly very plausible that the inhomogeneities are
drivers of weather and climate.
It can't be dismissed, even if it seems irrelevant to
the total energy budget. Because energy differences are what drive weather
and climate. And 0.1 Celsius is about 1 part in 3 thousand energy
difference. Effects that average out to less than that over the course of a
year can be dramatic in the course of a day.
Jim
Thank you. That was what I was trying to get at.
I can be persuaded that the molten interior of the Earth is irrelevant to
the changes in biosphere temperatures, but I can also think of ways it can
have an effect. Indeed, one thought experiment: suppose a number of
volcanic eruptions undersea; can they generate events like El Nino, which
are known to have great effects on weather, and thus probably on climate?
I can certainly think of ways they could.
It is my understanding that we really don't have
very good models of ocean currents and ocean heating/cooling. I can be
disabused of that understanding, but not by simple assertion without
discussion. I would think that at some point it would be time for the AGW
Believers to have a reasonable discussion with those of us who aren't
climate scientists, but who do know something of science. My experiences
have not been encouraging: I find it more common to be ignored, or to have
8th grade science principles lectured to me in baby talk done Real Slow.
I've put up some of those dialogues here in the past.
It may be a simple tempest in a tea pot: it just
isn't relevant. But surely that needs explanation? It may well be that the
temperature of a body 93 million miles away is enormously more relevant
than the molten iron a thousand miles down. But it is molten iron, and
there's a lot of it. Perhaps it can be ignored, but surely that isn't
instantly obvious?
: Earth's energy budget
Jerry, you keep asking about the contribution Earth's
interior temperature to the overall temperature of the Earth, and how it's
reflected in climate models. I suspect the answer is simple: it's not
modeled because the total contribution of interior heat to the earth's
energy budget is miniscule. If it's modeled at all, it's just a (very small)
constant.
The Earth's energy budget is pretty well known; it can
be calculated with a reasonable degree of accuracy from the solar constant
and the area of the Earth's disk as seen from the sun. The math works out to
~175 petawatts. Of that about 30% is reflected away, and the other 70% is
absorbed and reradiated. The total geothermal component is around 44 to 47
terawatts, so call it .025% of the total energy budget. At that point, it's
pretty much buried in the noise.
Ken Warren
I expect you are correct. And still I wonder...
I do note that 1/3000 = 3.33 x 10^-4.
Clearly a large volcanic eruption at benthic
depths could have a dramatic effect on currents and ocean surface
temperatures. That could have dramatic effects on weather including rain
and snowfall, which could have a dramatic effect on glacier formations.
Droughts shrink glaciers. Lots of snow grows them.
And we do know that Tamboura gave us the "year
without a summer" or eighteen hundred and froze to death.
It may well be that there is nothing to discuss
here, but I do not think it silly to ask such questions of those who
advocate policies that will have a profound effect on the economics of the
western world. Surely it is worth while looking at these factors?
I understand that the Earth's energy budget is
"pretty well known." So is economic theory. My question is, is it well
known down to 0.1 degree accuracies, and if so, how? And are there any
over looked factors? This all started when I learned that for the first
time we have an actual measurement of magnetic field strength, and it
turns out to be 25 out of a possible range of between near zero and about
100. I wondered if that can affect the climate models.
==
Subject: On the importance of geothermal heating
Jerry:
Here is a 1993 review article which seems to be cited
frequently for the amount of heat flow from the Earth's interior:
http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/1993/93RG01249.shtml
It appears that archives of this data are available in
several formats, from several sources:
http://www.geophysik.rwth-aachen.de/IHFC/heatflow.html
This 1993 estimate is what is cited in the Wikipedia
article entitled: "Earth's Energy Budget" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_energy_budget).
This Wikipedia article ranks the energy fluxes into
the atmosphere as follows:
Solar = 99.97%
Geothermal = 0.025%
Tidal = 0.002%
Waste heat from fossil fuel use = 0.007%
Accretion of interplanetary dust and solar wind, light
from distant stars, and thermal radiation from space = negligible
Given the relative magnitude of solar versus
geothermal and tidal energy, I can understand why climate scientists might
spend most of their time dealing with solar impacts.
That said, it isn't fair to suggest that the effect of
heat flows from the crust have been completely ignored. There are published
studies suggesting that geothermal heat flows into the ocean do have some
impact on deep ocean circulation. Here are a few examples:
http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/259/1/ASM_GRL_2001.pdf
http://www.ocean-sci.net/5/203/2009/os-5-203-2009.pdf
http://college.usc.edu/labs/jeg/
documents/Dutay_et_al_EFM_2010.pdf
Here is an interesting excerpt from the 2001 paper:
----- begin ---- The general circulation of the ocean
in climate models is generally considered to be forced by wind stress, heat
and freshwater fluxes at the sea surface. However, there are other sources
of energy that can directly or indirectly lead to motion that are normally
ignored or argued to be insignificant. For example, tidal forcing is
normally neglected in climate models and yet tidal energy might be an
important source for diapycnal mixing [Munk and Wuncsh, 1998].
Another neglected energy source is the geothermal heat
flux through the sea floor. This trickle of heat, which is due to the slow
cooling of the solid earth, is estimated to have a typical value of 50 mW
m−2 (1 mW = 10−3 Watts) on abyssal plains and up to 200 mW m−2 on mid-ocean
ridges [Sclater et al., 1980; Kadko and Baross, 1995; Stein et al., 1995;
Murton et al., 1999]. Even these peak values are small compared to typical
values of air-sea heat fluxes, which are of order 100 W m−2. The
consequences of the geothermal heat flux have been considered in process and
regional scale studies and found to modify local water properties and
circulation [Joyce and Speer, 1987; Hautala and Riser, 1989; Speer, 1989;
Helfrich and Speer 1995; Thompson and Johnson, 1996]. It is less clear
whether geothermal heating influences the large-scale ocean circulation.
Joyce et al. [1986] used a scaling argument to suggest that the weak
background geothermal heating is insufficient to affect the vorticity
balance of the abyssal circulation. In a companion study, Scott et al.
[2000] examine the response of an idealized sector ocean model to geothermal
heating. Here we examine the response of a global circulation model to a
simple representation of the geothermal heat flux. In both studies we find
substantial modification of the meridional overturning circulation. -----
end ----
I don't know if such circulation impacts are currently
incorporated into the general circulation models used to study global
warming.
CP, Connecticut
I don't know either. Thanks for the pointers.
I do not feel foolish for asking the questions.
======================
Lego Computer
Anyone who has heard of the Antikythera Mechanism will
be intrigued, and amazed.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/10/lego_computer/
Tracy Walters, CISSP
And indeed I was amazed. I've been following the
Antikythera Machine for a long time. One wonders just how long they were
able to build such things.
============
w
f
g
TOP
CURRENT
VIEW Sunday
The
current page will always have the name currentmail.html and may be
bookmarked. For
previous weeks, go to the MAIL HOME PAGE.
FOR THE CURRENT
VIEW PAGE CLICK HERE
If you are not paying for this place, click here...
IF YOU SEND MAIL it may be published; if you want it private
SAY SO AT THE TOP of the
mail. I try to respect confidences, but there is only me, and this is Chaos Manor. If you
want a mail address other than the one from which you sent the mail to appear, PUT THAT AT
THE END OF THE LETTER as a signature. In general, put the name you want at
the end of the letter: if you put no address there none will be posted, but
I do want some kind of name, or explicitly to say (name withheld). Note
that if you don't put a name in the bottom of the letter I have to get one
from the header. This takes time I don't have, and may end up with a name
and address
you didn't want on the letter. Do us both a favor: sign your letters to me
with the name and address (or no address) as you want them posted. Also,
repeat the subject as the first line of the mail. That also saves me time.
I try to answer mail, but mostly I can't get to all of it. I read it all, although not
always the instant it comes in. I do have books to write too... I am reminded of H.
P. Lovecraft who slowly starved to death while answering fan mail.
- Day-by-day...
- Monday -- Tuesday -- Wednesday
-- Thursday -- Friday -- Saturday
-- Sunday
-
-
Search engine:
or the freefind search
Boiler Plate:
If you want to PAY FOR THIS
PLACE I keep the latest information
HERE.
MY
THANKS to all of you who sent money. Some of you went to a lot of
trouble to send money from overseas. Thank you! There are also some new payment methods. I am preparing a special (electronic)
mailing to all those who paid: there will be a couple of these. I have
thought about a subscriber section of the page. LET ME KNOW your thoughts.
.
If you subscribed:
CLICK HERE for
a Special Request.
If you didn't and haven't, why not?
If this seems a lot about paying think of it as the Subscription Drive
Nag. You'll see more.
Patron Subscription:
Search: type in string
and press return.
For platinum subscription:
For a PDF copy of A Step Farther Out:
= = = = = = = = = =
For a Regular Subscription click here:
= = = = = = = =
Strategy of Technology in pdf format:
To order the nose pump I recommend, click on the banner
below:
Entire Site Copyright, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003,
2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 by Jerry
E. Pournelle. All rights reserved. |
