| Monday,
December 13, 2010 Friday the 13th falls on a Monday this
month.
We have record high temperatures in Los Angeles for this time of year.
Meanwhile the midwest and southeast are experiencing record cold,
Florida is in a cold siege, and there are shovel-ready jobs all across
the midwest and northern mid west. Of course that's weather, not climate,
and more dependent on ocean surface temperatures than anything else.
Climate forecasters insist this is an exceedingly warm year (Global
Temperatures Continue to Rise).
Google Global Temperature today and you will see many references to hot,
little about cold. It takes a bit to find Internet references to unusual
frost and cold, but it's easy to see that we have global warming. I am sure
that there are plenty of references to the unseasonable cold in Cancun, but
it doesn't leap out at you from Google or the general news.
There are trillions at stake here, but not a lot of unbiased discussion;
and I have yet to be told of where I can find a good undergraduate level
discussion of how the oceans are warmed and what models are used for
radiative heating of the oceans by solar radiation. What coefficient of
absorption is used to get the average absorption and reradiation? How many
regions are employed, or is there a general "global" coefficient? Do they
change from day to night (at night the oceans are certainly warm compared to
the near absolute zero of space, but how much of the heat radiated up by the
water is absorbed in the atmosphere; and of that how much is absorbed by
water vapor, how much by "natural CO2", and how much by CO2 added by human
actions. (Note that there must be some level of CO2 in the atmosphere or all
the plants will die; I know of no great research effort in determining what
might be the "optimum" CO2 level. but I am sure there is some: I certainly
experimented with elevated CO2 levels in growing green slime and other water
recycling systems when we were studying lunar base conditions, and as one
suspects, elevated CO2 is good for plants.
But it is surprising how little I can find about the basic assumptions
used in climate models of global heating of the oceans, and what I can find
doesn't reassure me that it is well understood. We already know that the
models don't have much detail about the effects of cl0uds, which certainly
cause major feedback loops -- clouds reflect back incoming sun light, but
they also dramatically change the amount of heat radiated out to space it
night. Radiation to space is a very efficient cooling system in deserts and
other dry places: you can make icecream in the Mojave with a good cooler and
sheets of aluminum foil (remove the cooler cover at night and expose the
contents to the night sky; put the insulated cover back on and wrap the
whole mess in shiny foil for the day. The Romans used this technique with
large straw lined pits covered in the daytime with more straw and then
highly polished shields. Cloud cover affects this enormously, of course. It
won't work if you don't have exposure to night sky. I have no idea of how
much of the ocean has cloudy nights, and whether there is a feedback loop --
warmer surface water should have more evaporation which should generate more
clouds, but that's grade school science, not any real understanding. I
presume the modelers have far more sophisticated techniques. I would
appreciate a pointer to a good undergraduate level text on the whole subject
of heating the oceans by radiation from the sun.
Anyway: it's cold across much of the nation, but it's record warm in Los
Angeles. My sympathy for those of you who have to shovel snow. I got my
hands very cold today: I had to clean the leaves out of the swimming pool
filter. (Swimming pool: we built it when Hammer was a best seller, and of
course it's still there and requires maintenance even though we seldom use
it any longer. And the water is very cold when you have to reach into the
filter and remove leaves.) Otherwise, it's polo shirt weather in LA, and I'm
grateful.
I have decided to go to CES this year with Alex and his crew. I'll
be around most of the week. I'll be doing this page and a column from there.
I have no idea what the weather will be, but it sure won't be as nice as in
Los Angeles.
==============
A Virginia Federal judge has ruled that the key part of Obama Care is not
constitutional. Of course that means nothing until the Supreme Court issues
an edict.
Obamacare is not insurance to begin with. If you have to charge a dying
old man no larger premium than you charge a healthy young man, it's a death
benefit, not insurance. All the same on pre-existing conditions. One may be
entitled to health care, and there may be a health care tax imposed on
everyone that falls particularly hard on employers; that is the essence of
Obamacare. Everyone can get it, and all those who can must pay, but
employers may opt out by paying a fine.
I am not sure the judge has ruled that mandating that employers provide
health care is unconstitutional. If not, then his ruling isn't all that
important. I just don't know enough and neither do the news sources I have
access to.
And the real debate hasn't happened: To what are citizens entitled, to
what are residents including illegal residents entitled, and who is
obligated to pay for them?
============
If you have not read
my
weekend discourse on taxes and objectives, please do.
And SNOW cancels a Minnesota Vikings game? Snow? Next we'll have the
Green Bay Packers unable to play in cold weather. Ye gods.
===================
The Virginia ruling brings up the issue of enumerated Powers of the
Federal Government vs. the states. It will work its way up the chain of
courts. If upheld it is a big step toward bringing back the Republic. How
long that will take is not known. Meanwhile the Republicans will try to
repeal the Obama health care act. No one wants the Obama Health Plan; but of
course what Obama hopes for is that there will be enough benefits and
entitlements spreading down among the public when the law goes into effect.
At the moment it is very unpopular.
We live in interesting times.
============
The Long Beach Police snuck up on a man playing with a toy gun --
actually it was a hose nozzle he was holding in a two hand grip as if it
were a gun -- on a balcony above the street. He was sitting there holding
the object when the police, who had not made their presence known and did
not issue any commands or otherwise identify themselves or announce their
presence -- shot him eight times, twice with a shotgun. Now if a gangbanger
group had done the same action it would be considered first degree murder.
If a neighbor had seen a "man with a gun" and opened fire it would be
considered murder. With the police it was self defense although there is no
evidence whatever that the man was even aware of the police presence. But he
was threatening the neighborhood. If the man across the street had fired on
the victim it would be murder; but with the police it is self defense, or
perhaps they were defending the neighborhood, or perhaps....
This is "a tragic accident," or perhaps it was the victim's fault.
Republican government asserts that political authorities and their
enforcement employees are to be held responsible for their actions.
The right to keep and bear arms apparently does not extend to include the
right to sit on your balcony and hold a hose nozzle as if were a pistol.
What actions would be justified had it been an actual gun?
==============
For platinum subscription:
Platinum subscribers enable me to work on what I think is important
without worrying about economics. My thanks to all of you.
Patron Subscription:
Did you subscribe and never hear from me?
Click here!.
Monday TOP
Current Mail |
