date:20140322



On 21 Mar 2014, at 22:30, Jesse Mazer wrote:




On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 5:15 PM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 21 Mar 2014, at 20:17, Jesse Mazer wrote:




On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 3:00 PM, John Clark   
wrote:

On 18 Mar 2014, at 22:33, LizR wrote:

> Am I right in assuming that in a quantum mechanical universe you  
can trace the history backwards?


Absolutely not because in Quantum mechanics 2 very different states  
can evolve into the exact same state.


Not if you're just talking about the evolution of the quantum state  
vector according to the Schroedinger equation, which is totally  
deterministic.


Deterministic is compatible with the fact that 2 very different  
states can evolve into the exact same state, making it non reversible.


But the solution of the SWE are more than deterministic, they are  
reversible. In QM (without collapse) 2 different states evolves into  
two different states.


True. I spoke too quickly, I guess my mind jumped to determinism  
rather than reversibility (which is a type of reverse determinism)  
because I figured John was thinking of quantum randomness, which  
only enters in QM if you adopt the postulate of a random "collapse"  
on measurement.




But John was correct in thinking that determinism does not entail  
reversibility. He gave the example of the game of life. But most  
arithmetical operations are like that too.   2+3 gives 5, but from 5  
you can't necessarily retrieve 2+3, it might be 1+ 4 or 101 - 96.


I agree with what you say, but I was actually the one who brought up  
the Game of Life in the discussion with John, because I was using it  
to make the point that the second law of thermodynamics is more than  
a tautology, that it actually depends on some specific properties of  
the laws of physics such as satisfying Liouville's theorem. With the  
appropriate choice of macrostates (namely, defining a macrostate by  
the ratio of live to dead cells), in the Game of Life the odds can  
favor a higher-entropy state evolving to a lower-entropy one (since  
if you start with a random 50:50 mix of live and dead cells, after  
enough time you are likely to end up in a state where most or all  
the cells are dead).


OK. We agree. Thanks for the clarifications.

Bruno




Jesse

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Tegmark and UDA




On 21 Mar 2014, at 22:41, Gabriel Bodeen wrote:


Others worth a look:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.0589 "Is Eternal Inflation Past-Eternal?  
And What if It Is?" Susskind
http://arxiv.org/abs/0712.0571 "Eternal Inflation, past and future"  
Aguirre



Thanks for the reference Gabe. I am happy to see that there is some  
mind-opening toward an "infinite past despite the big bang".


At first sight we need this for comp (but of course, this does not  
mean a lot, as at first sight comp is false, there are too many white  
rabbits).
The second sight is the math, but the math are not yet enough evolved  
to decide between finite and infinite past. It just suggest why the  
white rabbits should be rare and hard to see.


Bruno





-Gabe

On Friday, March 21, 2014 2:14:41 PM UTC-5, ronaldheld wrote:
Bruno, I have read several over the years but do not save them. Here  
is the latest one that I read:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.1599
Ronald

Wednesday, March 19, 2014 7:37:52 PM UTC-4, ronaldheld wrote:
Assuming chaotic inflation there is no consensus that the multiverse
is past infinite but some papers have try to show it is do.
 Ronald

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 6:11 PM, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:

>
>
>
> 2014-03-21 17:59 GMT+01:00 Telmo Menezes :
>
>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2014-03-21 17:19 GMT+01:00 John Clark :
>>>
>>>

 On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Quentin Anciaux 
 wrote:

>
>
>>> The thing I most want to know about  RCP4.5 is what RCP stands for,
>>> Google seems to think it's "Rich Client Platform" but that doesn't sound
>>> quite right. It must be pretty obscure, Wikipedia has never heard of RCP
>>> either.
>>>
>>
> For your information, that means "Regional Climate Prediction"
>

 I'm pretty sure it's not "Russian Communist Party" but are you sure
 it's not "Representative Concentration Pathways"?

>>>
>>> I'm pretty sure you must be dumb as dumb if you really think this... As
>>> I see we are in a thread talking about climate...
>>>
>>
>> This thread seems to be mostly about politics. To be fair, John seems to
>> be in the minority here in wanting to discuss this from a scientific and
>> technological perspective.
>>
>> He raises a number of points that I have raised myself in previous
>> discussions. Instead of focusing on such issues, pop culture distractions
>> (Fox News etc.) and political tribalism seem to get all of the attention.
>>
>
> The thing is that I don't know much in climate and I prefer to let persons
> in the field handle that, by default I would believe them in these matters,
> they have more knowledge than me on these.
>

I agree, and it would take years of study for a non-expert to be able to
have an informed opinion.

But scientists are humans, and unfortunately we have seen over and over
again that they can fall prey to group think, confirmation bias and other
-- very human -- tendencies. One contemporary exemple is nutrition science
-- more and more, we are seeing that the consensus here was
pseudo-scientific and influenced by lobbies. The food pyramid probably
killed more than cigarettes.

In the case of climate science, there are a number of red flags. For me,
the major ones are:

- claims of 100% consensus: never a sign of serious, rigorous science;
- claims of certainty over the behaviour of a highly complex system -> I
don't have to be a climatologist to raise my eyebrows at this;
- scientists using emotional, loaded terms like "deniers";
- so many models that any correct predictions don't appear to have
statistical significance;
- retroactive cherry picking of models;
- there doesn't seem to be any amount of falsification that will lead the
mainstream of the field to reconsider their hypothesis;

Again, I admit I may be completely wrong. But there are red flags.

>
> I do not believe in conspiracy either...
>

I don't understand this position. In human history, conspiracies seems to
be a very frequent event. Recently we learned of a vast conspiracy by
western governments to implement total surveillance.

Here I see another red flag -- the ridicule surrounding any suggestion of
conspiracy seems to benefit precisely the ones in power.

> and all the comments about the "all or nothing" are complete BS... I don't
> see any point why we couldn't transition slowly to more sustainable source
> of energy...
>

I hope we do. Unless you are suggesting we do it by coercion.
I witnessed the industry and economy of my home country (Portugal), being
destroyed by a state-enforced transition to wind power. Meanwhile, more and
more people are falling below the poverty line while not even the middle
class can afford to remain warm in winter (energy is too expensive because
80% of the energy bill subsidises the wind mills).

> I don't see here in europe the kind of group anouncing doomsday and having
> a discourse like spudboy is saying... what he believe is just that
> beliefs... not facts. The green parties in europe certainly don't advocate
> such policies...
>

> and certainly not in my country (belgium) can't talk much for other
> countries, but they seems to be more or less the same views... No one is
> advocating to transition tomorrow (as in tomorrow tomorrow) to a full solar
> power (or other) and shut down all nuclear power plants...
>

Germany is scaling down its nuclear energy production and plans to shut
down all of it's nucler power plants in the next two decades. This is due
to political pressure from the green party amongst others. Meanwhile, it is
reactivating coal power plants (renewable sources are just not enough) and
air pollution in Berlin is already measurably higher.

In Portugal, the green party will oppose any means of producing energy on
principle, be it renewable or not. These are the cases I know.

> they are even people (green or not) considering the LFTR reactor we were
> talking about... climate and policies arount the mitigation of the global
> warming are not binary... either we do everything or nothing even if we
> were really doomed, that'

Re: Entropy and curved spacetime

2014-03-22 Thread LizR

One thing about the Game of Life - in the real world it *is* in fact
reversible, assuming physics is. Only the "ideal, abstract, Platonic" GOL
isn't.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

2014-03-22 Thread LizR

On 22 March 2014 22:07, Telmo Menezes  wrote:

> Germany is scaling down its nuclear energy production and plans to shut
> down all of it's nucler power plants in the next two decades. This is due
> to political pressure from the green party amongst others. Meanwhile, it is
> reactivating coal power plants (renewable sources are just not enough) and
> air pollution in Berlin is already measurably higher.
>
> In Portugal, the green party will oppose any means of producing energy on
> principle, be it renewable or not. These are the cases I know.
>
> Well that is just mad. These are not Greens I would support.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Tegmark and UDA

2014-03-22 Thread LizR

Yes thanks I'm reading those (slowly) - Susskind is very interesting so far.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating



On 22 Mar 2014, at 10:07, Telmo Menezes wrote:





On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 6:11 PM, Quentin Anciaux  
 wrote:




2014-03-21 17:59 GMT+01:00 Telmo Menezes :




On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Quentin Anciaux  
 wrote:




2014-03-21 17:19 GMT+01:00 John Clark :




On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Quentin Anciaux  
 wrote:



The thing I most want to know about  RCP4.5 is what RCP stands for,  
Google seems to think it's "Rich Client Platform" but that doesn't  
sound quite right. It must be pretty obscure, Wikipedia has never  
heard of RCP  either.


For your information, that means "Regional Climate Prediction"

I'm pretty sure it's not "Russian Communist Party" but are you sure  
it's not "Representative Concentration Pathways"?


I'm pretty sure you must be dumb as dumb if you really think this...  
As I see we are in a thread talking about climate...


This thread seems to be mostly about politics. To be fair, John  
seems to be in the minority here in wanting to discuss this from a  
scientific and technological perspective.


He raises a number of points that I have raised myself in previous  
discussions. Instead of focusing on such issues, pop culture  
distractions (Fox News etc.) and political tribalism seem to get all  
of the attention.


The thing is that I don't know much in climate and I prefer to let  
persons in the field handle that, by default I would believe them in  
these matters, they have more knowledge than me on these.


I agree, and it would take years of study for a non-expert to be  
able to have an informed opinion.


But scientists are humans, and unfortunately we have seen over and  
over again that they can fall prey to group think, confirmation bias  
and other -- very human -- tendencies. One contemporary exemple is  
nutrition science -- more and more, we are seeing that the consensus  
here was pseudo-scientific and influenced by lobbies. The food  
pyramid probably killed more than cigarettes.


In the case of climate science, there are a number of red flags. For  
me, the major ones are:


- claims of 100% consensus: never a sign of serious, rigorous science;
- claims of certainty over the behaviour of a highly complex system - 
> I don't have to be a climatologist to raise my eyebrows at this;

- scientists using emotional, loaded terms like "deniers";
- so many models that any correct predictions don't appear to have  
statistical significance;

- retroactive cherry picking of models;
- there doesn't seem to be any amount of falsification that will  
lead the mainstream of the field to reconsider their hypothesis;


Again, I admit I may be completely wrong. But there are red flags.



I agree with this. I also agree that, as long as we are carbon made,  
and live on a planet, that we have to be utterly cautious in handling  
our environment. I "fear" more pollution than climate change, but  
those can be related.








I do not believe in conspiracy either...

I don't understand this position.



Nor do I. Since prohibition (of alcohol, and then cannabis), it is  
clear for me that democracy is not immune against propaganda.
Biased by my quality of classical logician, perhaps, if someone lie  
once, I stop trusting him. There are too much evidence of systematic  
lies, notably in the food and drug domain.
Then in 2009 I heard about the NDAA bill, which was said to be in  
preparation. I completely dismissed this as "conspiracy theories",  
like for 9/11. But the 31 december 2011, Obama signed it, and his  
administration refused to add the commas asked to clarify it, and I  
change my mind: the war on terror now seems to me based on a fear  
exploitation to make anti-constitutional and anti-democratic possible  
moves.




In human history, conspiracies seems to be a very frequent event.  
Recently we learned of a vast conspiracy by western governments to  
implement total surveillance.


Here I see another red flag -- the ridicule surrounding any  
suggestion of conspiracy seems to benefit precisely the ones in power.


Absolutely. There is a general mocking of the very notion of  
conspiracy, and that is a strong evidence of real conspiracy. When an  
idea is mocked, instead of attempted to be refuted, you can suspect  
some lies are there.
I have today more evidence that 9/11 was planned in advance by the US,  
than for a "terrorist acts" by enemy of America. In fact, the  
evidences have become overwhelming. Just look at all "investigation  
crash": the one on the 9/11 planes does not ring like any other one.  
The thinness of the NIST reports, like not mentioning the building  
seven crashing, and the hardness to get any more information,  makes  
me suspecting that fear of terrorism is exploited in a very similar  
way than the fear of drugs. Now, I do find some consensus on climate  
change suspect, but this does not mean that there is no climate  
change, but that some people are ready to exploit it, and we have to  
be vigilant.







and all the

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 7:11 PM, Jesse Mazer  wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2014-03-21 17:19 GMT+01:00 John Clark :
>>>
>>>


 On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Quentin Anciaux 
 wrote:

>
>
>>> The thing I most want to know about  RCP4.5 is what RCP stands for,
>>> Google seems to think it's "Rich Client Platform" but that doesn't sound
>>> quite right. It must be pretty obscure, Wikipedia has never heard of RCP
>>> either.
>>>
>>
> For your information, that means "Regional Climate Prediction"
>

 I'm pretty sure it's not "Russian Communist Party" but are you sure
 it's not "Representative Concentration Pathways"?

>>>
>>> I'm pretty sure you must be dumb as dumb if you really think this... As
>>> I see we are in a thread talking about climate...
>>>
>>
>> This thread seems to be mostly about politics. To be fair, John seems to
>> be in the minority here in wanting to discuss this from a scientific and
>> technological perspective.
>>
>
> Only if by "discuss this from a scientific and technological perspective"
> you mean cast vague aspersions at various scientific claims (use of climate
> models to predict future climates, analyze prehistoric glaciation
> thresholds, predict how climate would respond to specific GHG reduction
> scenarios like RCP4.5) and technical projections (like the specific plan to
> get 69% of electricity from solar by 2050), based on whatever verbal
> argument appeals to him and without any expert opinion of his own to cite
> in support of this skepticism.
>

But the problem is that this all sounds like politics disguised as science.
Here I understand why John makes fun of the acronyms.
Why care about any of this? Create a truly efficient renewable energy
source or sources, demand the right to use them without being regulatory
red tape and the problem is solved. No?


>
>
>
>>
>> He raises a number of points that I have raised myself in previous
>> discussions. Instead of focusing on such issues, pop culture distractions
>> (Fox News etc.) and political tribalism seem to get all of the attention.
>>
>
> I haven't talked about such political issues at all,
>

Ok, I apologize for my sweeping generalisation.


> although John seems to have plenty of enthusiasm for politically-based
> caricature of what "environmentalists" believe, based on cherry-picking the
> worst plans he can find trawling various websites rather than attempting
> any fair-minded survey of how many groups and prominent climate activists
> would agree with those plans.
>
>
>
>>
>> - Given the number of climate models and the fact that the majority of
>> them failed to predict the climate of the last decade, how confident can we
>> be in further predictions?
>>
>
>
> Climate models predict that there should be plenty of statistical
> fluctuation on the level of individual decades, so this amount of
> uncertainty is already incorporated into the range of predictions made by
> an ensemble of such models. And current temperatures do still fall within
> the range predicted by models from earlier dates like 2000 and 1988. I
> addressed both the issue of how well models have done in their predictions
> and the issue of the 15-year warming "pause" (which climate scientists seem
> to think they understand the causes of fairly well) in this post:
>
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/everything-list%40googlegroups.com/msg50488.html
>
> The page at http://grist.org/climate-energy/climate-models-are-unproven/(from 
> the series of responses to common climate skeptic arguments at
> http://grist.org/series/skeptics/ ) also has a basic summary of some of
> the evidence supporting the reliability of climate models.
>
> More generally, I would repeat the general point that I think the only
> Bayesian prior when looking at scientific questions is "assign a high a
> priori likelihood that experts in the field are correct when they broadly
> agree on the answer to some question, only revise that in light of changes
> in expert opinion, obvious failed predictions that don't line up with their
> theories, or acquiring enough expertise in the subject yourself to have an
> informed opinion on the detailed evidence."
>

I adopted this prior for a long time, and still do to a large degree.
The problem is that people notice the prior, and then game theory kicks in.


> So if the experts in climate science are in broad agreement about climate
> models being reliable in the sense that actual temperatures will very
> likely fall within the *range* that they predict over many different runs
> (a statistical prediction rather than an exact one obviously), given the
> right emissions scenario, my default is to trust their judgment. To ignore
> expert opinion and think that you, as a layman, are just as qualified to
> draw conclusions about the reliabi

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 10:16 AM, LizR  wrote:

> On 22 March 2014 22:07, Telmo Menezes  wrote:
>
>> Germany is scaling down its nuclear energy production and plans to shut
>> down all of it's nucler power plants in the next two decades. This is due
>> to political pressure from the green party amongst others. Meanwhile, it is
>> reactivating coal power plants (renewable sources are just not enough) and
>> air pollution in Berlin is already measurably higher.
>>
>> In Portugal, the green party will oppose any means of producing energy on
>> principle, be it renewable or not. These are the cases I know.
>>
>> Well that is just mad. These are not Greens I would support.
>

To be fair, there is another environmentalist group there that is much more
sensible (and less politicised).


>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 5:07 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 6:11 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2014-03-21 17:59 GMT+01:00 Telmo Menezes :
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>>



 2014-03-21 17:19 GMT+01:00 John Clark :


>
>
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Quentin Anciaux 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
 The thing I most want to know about  RCP4.5 is what RCP stands for,
 Google seems to think it's "Rich Client Platform" but that doesn't 
 sound
 quite right. It must be pretty obscure, Wikipedia has never heard of 
 RCP
 either.

>>>
>> For your information, that means "Regional Climate Prediction"
>>
>
> I'm pretty sure it's not "Russian Communist Party" but are you sure
> it's not "Representative Concentration Pathways"?
>

 I'm pretty sure you must be dumb as dumb if you really think this... As
 I see we are in a thread talking about climate...

>>>
>>> This thread seems to be mostly about politics. To be fair, John seems to
>>> be in the minority here in wanting to discuss this from a scientific and
>>> technological perspective.
>>>
>>> He raises a number of points that I have raised myself in previous
>>> discussions. Instead of focusing on such issues, pop culture distractions
>>> (Fox News etc.) and political tribalism seem to get all of the attention.
>>>
>>
>> The thing is that I don't know much in climate and I prefer to let
>> persons in the field handle that, by default I would believe them in these
>> matters, they have more knowledge than me on these.
>>
>
> I agree, and it would take years of study for a non-expert to be able to
> have an informed opinion.
>
> But scientists are humans, and unfortunately we have seen over and over
> again that they can fall prey to group think, confirmation bias and other
> -- very human -- tendencies. One contemporary exemple is nutrition science
> -- more and more, we are seeing that the consensus here was
> pseudo-scientific and influenced by lobbies. The food pyramid probably
> killed more than cigarettes.
>
> In the case of climate science, there are a number of red flags. For me,
> the major ones are:
>
> - claims of 100% consensus: never a sign of serious, rigorous science;
> - claims of certainty over the behaviour of a highly complex system -> I
> don't have to be a climatologist to raise my eyebrows at this;
> - scientists using emotional, loaded terms like "deniers";
> - so many models that any correct predictions don't appear to have
> statistical significance;
> - retroactive cherry picking of models;
> - there doesn't seem to be any amount of falsification that will lead the
> mainstream of the field to reconsider their hypothesis;
>
> Again, I admit I may be completely wrong. But there are red flags.
>

Here is what I consider to be the most serious red flag:
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/milankovitch-cycles-chart-3.jpg

I have proposed that AGW may trigger global cooling on several lists based
on the Vostok ice core data without any response except on the Climate
Change Forum where a climatologist presented the above link to a comparison
of that data (and some supporting climate data) to the solar isolation due
to the Milankovitch cycles and claimed that those cycles explained the
cusp-like Vostok data.

I would like youall to look at the comparison on that link and tell me if
you think the cycles explain the data. I of course do not think so. Yet the
climatologists, almost all as far as I can tell, have been claiming for
years that ice age data is explained by Milankovitch cycles.

So I can only presume that I am missing something.
Richard

>
>
>>
>> I do not believe in conspiracy either...
>>
>
> I don't understand this position. In human history, conspiracies seems to
> be a very frequent event. Recently we learned of a vast conspiracy by
> western governments to implement total surveillance.
>
> Here I see another red flag -- the ridicule surrounding any suggestion of
> conspiracy seems to benefit precisely the ones in power.
>
>
>> and all the comments about the "all or nothing" are complete BS... I
>> don't see any point why we couldn't transition slowly to more sustainable
>> source of energy...
>>
>
> I hope we do. Unless you are suggesting we do it by coercion.
> I witnessed the industry and economy of my home country (Portugal), being
> destroyed by a state-enforced transition to wind power. Meanwhile, more and
> more people are falling below the poverty line while not even the middle
> class can afford to remain warm in winter (energy is too expensive because
> 80% of the energy bill subsidises the wind mills).
>
>
>> I don't see here in europe the kind of group anouncing doomsday and
>> having a discourse like spudboy is saying... what he believe is just that
>> beliefs... not facts. The green part

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

Richard,

Yes, I noted that in the article. Another explanation I've read for the 
current (geologically during the past million or so years) fairly regular 
cycle of ice ages is that it is due to the current distribution of 
continents, in particular the closing of the Isthmus of Panama which cut 
off the Pacific Atlantic ocean interchange, and the isolation of Antarctica 
at the S. pole which allows a free circulation of cold water around it 
there. Apparently some climate scientistic think these two coincidences of 
plate tectonics have allowed the current ice age cycles to develop due to 
their fairly obvious control of global oceanic currents.

Edgar


On Saturday, March 22, 2014 7:56:18 AM UTC-4, yanniru wrote:
>
> Edgar,
> The problem with the airborne iron explanation is that the decrease in atm 
> CO2 must precede or be at least concurrent with the drop in global temp. 
> The data indicates that CO2 follows temp but with a lag of 1000 years more 
> or less. Besides all that, the iron explanation could not explain such 
> abrupt transitions from extreme global warming to global cooling. It seems 
> that the climatologists may recognize that the Milankovitch cycles are not 
> a good explanation after all.
> Richard
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 7:40 AM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
> Richard,
>
> Here's is new research into one possible contributor to ice ages. Edgar
>
> Airborne Iron May Have Helped Cause Past Ice Ages 
> 20 March 2014 2:00 pm
> [image: Life from dust. Iron-rich dust streaming from Patagonian deserts 
> (red plume at left side of image) fertilizes nutrient-poor southern oceans, 
> thereby pulling planet-warming carbon dioxide from the 
> atmosphere.]*NASA/Goddard 
> Space Flight Center, William M. Putman and Arlindo M. da Silva*
>
> *Life from dust.* Iron-rich dust streaming from Patagonian deserts (red 
> plume at left side of image) fertilizes nutrient-poor southern oceans, 
> thereby pulling planet-warming carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
>
> It seems straightforward: Iron-rich dust floating on the wind falls into 
> the sea, where it nourishes organisms that suck carbon dioxide from the 
> air. Over time, so much of this greenhouse gas disappears from the 
> atmosphere that the planet begins to cool. Scientists have proposed that 
> such a process contributed to past ice ages, but they haven’t had strong 
> evidence—until now.
>
> “This is a really good paper, a big step forward in the field,” says 
> Edward Boyle, a marine geochemist at the Massachusetts Institute of 
> Technology in Cambridge. The research doesn’t directly measure the amount 
> of dissolved iron in the waters due to dust in previous eras, Boyle says, 
> but “they provide a much better case for what [nitrogen levels] have done 
> in the past”—information that can reveal the ebb and flow of ancient life.
>
> The notion that iron-rich dust could boost the growth of microorganisms 
> that pull carbon dioxide from the air took hold in the late 1980s. During 
> ice ages, when sea levels are low and broad areas of now-submerged coastal 
> shallows are exposed, sediments rich in iron and other nutrients would dry 
> out, the thinking went. Then, strong winds would loft that fine-grained, 
> dehydrated dust and carry it far offshore, where it would nourish carbon 
> dioxide–sucking phytoplankton at the base of the ocean’s food chain. 
> Previous analyses of sediments that accumulated on sea floors during past 
> millennia suggest that increases in iron-rich dust falling into surface 
> waters boost biological productivity there, but those studies provide only 
> a correlation in timing, says Alfredo Martínez-García, a paleoclimatologist 
> at ETH Zurich in Switzerland.
>
> Now, Martínez-García and his colleagues have developed a new way
>
> ...

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

Edgar,

What mechanism do they propose for such an abrupt transition
 from extreme warming to cooling?

I would suggest a stoppage of the Gulf stream as a possibility
based on plate movement.

But I favor the change in albedo due to an unstable jet stream
known to result from arctic warming.
Richard


On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 8:03 AM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Richard,
>
> Yes, I noted that in the article. Another explanation I've read for the
> current (geologically during the past million or so years) fairly regular
> cycle of ice ages is that it is due to the current distribution of
> continents, in particular the closing of the Isthmus of Panama which cut
> off the Pacific Atlantic ocean interchange, and the isolation of Antarctica
> at the S. pole which allows a free circulation of cold water around it
> there. Apparently some climate scientistic think these two coincidences of
> plate tectonics have allowed the current ice age cycles to develop due to
> their fairly obvious control of global oceanic currents.
>
> Edgar
>
>
> On Saturday, March 22, 2014 7:56:18 AM UTC-4, yanniru wrote:
>>
>> Edgar,
>> The problem with the airborne iron explanation is that the decrease in
>> atm CO2 must precede or be at least concurrent with the drop in global
>> temp. The data indicates that CO2 follows temp but with a lag of 1000 years
>> more or less. Besides all that, the iron explanation could not explain such
>> abrupt transitions from extreme global warming to global cooling. It seems
>> that the climatologists may recognize that the Milankovitch cycles are not
>> a good explanation after all.
>> Richard
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 7:40 AM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>>
>> Richard,
>>
>> Here's is new research into one possible contributor to ice ages. Edgar
>>
>> Airborne Iron May Have Helped Cause Past Ice Ages
>> 20 March 2014 2:00 pm
>> [image: Life from dust. Iron-rich dust streaming from Patagonian deserts
>> (red plume at left side of image) fertilizes nutrient-poor southern oceans,
>> thereby pulling planet-warming carbon dioxide from the 
>> atmosphere.]*NASA/Goddard
>> Space Flight Center, William M. Putman and Arlindo M. da Silva*
>>
>> *Life from dust.* Iron-rich dust streaming from Patagonian deserts (red
>> plume at left side of image) fertilizes nutrient-poor southern oceans,
>> thereby pulling planet-warming carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
>>
>> It seems straightforward: Iron-rich dust floating on the wind falls into
>> the sea, where it nourishes organisms that suck carbon dioxide from the
>> air. Over time, so much of this greenhouse gas disappears from the
>> atmosphere that the planet begins to cool. Scientists have proposed that
>> such a process contributed to past ice ages, but they haven't had strong
>> evidence--until now.
>>
>> "This is a really good paper, a big step forward in the field," says
>> Edward Boyle, a marine geochemist at the Massachusetts Institute of
>> Technology in Cambridge. The research doesn't directly measure the amount
>> of dissolved iron in the waters due to dust in previous eras, Boyle says,
>> but "they provide a much better case for what [nitrogen levels] have done
>> in the past"--information that can reveal the ebb and flow of ancient life.
>>
>> The notion that iron-rich dust could boost the growth of microorganisms
>> that pull carbon dioxide from the air took hold in the late 1980s. During
>> ice ages, when sea levels are low and broad areas of now-submerged coastal
>> shallows are exposed, sediments rich in iron and other nutrients would dry
>> out, the thinking went. Then, strong winds would loft that fine-grained,
>> dehydrated dust and carry it far offshore, where it would nourish carbon
>> dioxide-sucking phytoplankton at the base of the ocean's food chain.
>> Previous analyses of sediments that accumulated on sea floors during past
>> millennia suggest that increases in iron-rich dust falling into surface
>> waters boost biological productivity there, but those studies provide only
>> a correlation in timing, says Alfredo Martínez-García, a paleoclimatologist
>> at ETH Zurich in Switzerland.
>>
>> Now, Martínez-García and his colleagues have developed a new way
>>
>> ...
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

Richard,

Since ice ages have been fairly regular since they began, the theory is 
that the current arrangement of continents sets up a condition in which 
Milankovich cycles produce regular ice ages. The Milankovich cycles are 
certainly regular of course which seems to be something that is needed. The 
tectonic arrangements just have to be right for them to produce regular ice 
ages..

Edgar



On Saturday, March 22, 2014 8:18:49 AM UTC-4, yanniru wrote:
>
> Edgar,
>
> What mechanism do they propose for such an abrupt transition
>  from extreme warming to cooling?
>
> I would suggest a stoppage of the Gulf stream as a possibility 
> based on plate movement.
>
> But I favor the change in albedo due to an unstable jet stream
> known to result from arctic warming.
> Richard
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 8:03 AM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
> Richard,
>
> Yes, I noted that in the article. Another explanation I've read for the 
> current (geologically during the past million or so years) fairly regular 
> cycle of ice ages is that it is due to the current distribution of 
> continents, in particular the closing of the Isthmus of Panama which cut 
> off the Pacific Atlantic ocean interchange, and the isolation of Antarctica 
> at the S. pole which allows a free circulation of cold water around it the
>
> ...

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

Edgar,

I gather you have not looked at the link I provided which compares
isolation due to the Milankovitch cycles to the Vostok data as well as
comparable data over a longer time.

http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/milankovitch-cycles-chart-3.jpg

Please do so and tell me if you think the cycles support the conclusion
that the ice ages were caused by such cycles.
Richard


On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 8:32 AM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Richard,
>
> Since ice ages have been fairly regular since they began, the theory is
> that the current arrangement of continents sets up a condition in which
> Milankovich cycles produce regular ice ages. The Milankovich cycles are
> certainly regular of course which seems to be something that is needed. The
> tectonic arrangements just have to be right for them to produce regular ice
> ages..
>
> Edgar
>
>
>
> On Saturday, March 22, 2014 8:18:49 AM UTC-4, yanniru wrote:
>>
>> Edgar,
>>
>> What mechanism do they propose for such an abrupt transition
>>  from extreme warming to cooling?
>>
>> I would suggest a stoppage of the Gulf stream as a possibility
>> based on plate movement.
>>
>> But I favor the change in albedo due to an unstable jet stream
>> known to result from arctic warming.
>> Richard
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 8:03 AM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:
>>
>> Richard,
>>
>> Yes, I noted that in the article. Another explanation I've read for the
>> current (geologically during the past million or so years) fairly regular
>> cycle of ice ages is that it is due to the current distribution of
>> continents, in particular the closing of the Isthmus of Panama which cut
>> off the Pacific Atlantic ocean interchange, and the isolation of Antarctica
>> at the S. pole which allows a free circulation of cold water around it the
>>
>> ...
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

2014-03-22 Thread spudboy100

Veering  for a moment back to public policy, this is an example on why I prefer 
tech solutions as opposed to public policy, which is really control. This 
scientist aim to reduce stunting via plant breeding.


http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/03/make-plants-more-nutritious-to-prevent.html



-Original Message-
From: Richard Ruquist 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Sat, Mar 22, 2014 9:34 am
Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating


Edgar,


I gather you have not looked at the link I provided which compares isolation 
due to the Milankovitch cycles to the Vostok data as well as comparable data 
over a longer time.


http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/milankovitch-cycles-chart-3.jpg



Please do so and tell me if you think the cycles support the conclusion that 
the ice ages were caused by such cycles.
Richard




On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 8:32 AM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

Richard,


Since ice ages have been fairly regular since they began, the theory is that 
the current arrangement of continents sets up a condition in which Milankovich 
cycles produce regular ice ages. The Milankovich cycles are certainly regular 
of course which seems to be something that is needed. The tectonic arrangements 
just have to be right for them to produce regular ice ages..


Edgar




On Saturday, March 22, 2014 8:18:49 AM UTC-4, yanniru wrote:
Edgar,


What mechanism do they propose for such an abrupt transition
 from extreme warming to cooling?


I would suggest a stoppage of the Gulf stream as a possibility 
based on plate movement.


But I favor the change in albedo due to an unstable jet stream

known to result from arctic warming.
Richard




On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 8:03 AM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

Richard,


Yes, I noted that in the article. Another explanation I've read for the current 
(geologically during the past million or so years) fairly regular cycle of ice 
ages is that it is due to the current distribution of continents, in particular 
the closing of the Isthmus of Panama which cut off the Pacific Atlantic ocean 
interchange, and the isolation of Antarctica at the S. pole which allows a free 
circulation of cold water around it the


...


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.




-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

Richard,

Here is a much better graph showing the correlation. Edgar



On Saturday, March 22, 2014 9:34:08 AM UTC-4, yanniru wrote:
>
> Edgar,
>
> I gather you have not looked at the link I provided which compares 
> isolation due to the Milankovitch cycles to the Vostok data as well as 
> comparable data over a longer time.
>
>
> http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/milankovitch-cycles-chart-3.jpg
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

Spud,

Better evidence is that the little ice age was caused by solar variations 
esp the Maunder minimum. It lasted too long to be attributed to volcanos I 
would think. However volcanos and smaller asteroid impacts do certainly 
cause temporary temperature dips lasting for periods of a few years to 
perhaps a decade and these can initiate profound social changes. There is 
fairly good evidence that the dark ages were partially initiated by an 
eruption c. 535 AD. 
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_weather_events_of_535–536

Edgar



On Saturday, March 22, 2014 10:08:24 AM UTC-4, spudb...@aol.com wrote:
>
> What is your view on the Little Ice Age being caused by Pacific Rim 
> volcano's? Incidentally, erruptions have been proposed as the initiators of 
> the environments suitable for generating plagues, in the 6th century and 
> again, at the beginning of the 13th century. It gets colder so marmots and 
> rats dig tunnels and are in closer contact, and thus, easier to spread 
> bacilli that are bubonic, pneumonic, etc? 
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Edgar L. Owen >
> To: everything-list >
> Sent: Sat, Mar 22, 2014 7:40 am
> Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
>
>  Richard, 
>
>  Here's is new research into one possible contributor to ice ages. Edgar
>
>   Airborne Iron May Have Helped Cause Past Ice Ages
>20 March 2014 2:00 pm
>[image: Life from dust. Iron-rich dust streaming from Patagonian 
> deserts (red plume at left side of image) fertilizes nutrient-poor southern 
> oceans, thereby pulling planet-warming carbon dioxide from the 
> atmosphere.]*NASA/Goddard 
> Space Flight Center, William M. Putman and Arlindo M. da Silva* 
> *Life from dust.* Iron-rich dust streaming from Patagonian deserts (red 
> plume at left side of image) fertilizes nutrient-poor southern oceans, 
> thereby pulling planet-warming carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
>It seems straightforward: Iron-rich dust floating on the wind falls 
> into the sea, where it nourishes organisms that suck carbon dioxide from 
> the air. Over time, so much of this greenhouse gas disappears from the 
> atmosphere that the planet begins to cool. Scientists have proposed that 
> such a process contributed to past ice ages, but they haven’t had strong 
> evidence—until now.
> “This is a really good paper, a big step forward in the field,” says 
> Edward Boyle, a marine geochemist at the Massachusetts Institute of 
> Technology in Cambridge. The research doesn’t directly measure the amount 
> of dissolved iron in the waters due to dust in previous eras, Boyle says, 
> but “they provide a much better case for what [nitrogen levels] have done 
> in the past”—information that can reveal the ebb and flow of ancient life.
> The notion that iron-rich dust could boost the growth of microorganisms 
> that pull carbon dioxide from the air took hold in the late 1980s. During 
> ice ages, when sea levels are low and broad areas of now-submerged coastal 
> shallows are exposed, sediments rich in iron and other nutrients would dry 
> out, the thinking went. Then
> ...

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

Edgar,

It is hardly a 1:1 correlation. However, if those cycles worked for the
last 1/2 million years, they should be expected to still be working now and
we can expect global cooling to occur again.
Richard


On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Edgar L. Owen  wrote:

> Spud,
>
> Better evidence is that the little ice age was caused by solar variations
> esp the Maunder minimum. It lasted too long to be attributed to volcanos I
> would think. However volcanos and smaller asteroid impacts do certainly
> cause temporary temperature dips lasting for periods of a few years to
> perhaps a decade and these can initiate profound social changes. There is
> fairly good evidence that the dark ages were partially initiated by an
> eruption c. 535 AD. See
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_weather_events_of_535-536
>
> Edgar
>
>
>
> On Saturday, March 22, 2014 10:08:24 AM UTC-4, spudb...@aol.com wrote:
>
>> What is your view on the Little Ice Age being caused by Pacific Rim
>> volcano's? Incidentally, erruptions have been proposed as the initiators of
>> the environments suitable for generating plagues, in the 6th century and
>> again, at the beginning of the 13th century. It gets colder so marmots and
>> rats dig tunnels and are in closer contact, and thus, easier to spread
>> bacilli that are bubonic, pneumonic, etc?
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Edgar L. Owen 
>> To: everything-list 
>> Sent: Sat, Mar 22, 2014 7:40 am
>> Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating
>>
>>  Richard,
>>
>>  Here's is new research into one possible contributor to ice ages. Edgar
>>
>>   Airborne Iron May Have Helped Cause Past Ice Ages
>>20 March 2014 2:00 pm
>>[image: Life from dust. Iron-rich dust streaming from Patagonian
>> deserts (red plume at left side of image) fertilizes nutrient-poor southern
>> oceans, thereby pulling planet-warming carbon dioxide from the 
>> atmosphere.]*NASA/Goddard
>> Space Flight Center, William M. Putman and Arlindo M. da Silva*
>> *Life from dust.* Iron-rich dust streaming from Patagonian deserts (red
>> plume at left side of image) fertilizes nutrient-poor southern oceans,
>> thereby pulling planet-warming carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
>>It seems straightforward: Iron-rich dust floating on the wind falls
>> into the sea, where it nourishes organisms that suck carbon dioxide from
>> the air. Over time, so much of this greenhouse gas disappears from the
>> atmosphere that the planet begins to cool. Scientists have proposed that
>> such a process contributed to past ice ages, but they haven't had strong
>> evidence--until now.
>> "This is a really good paper, a big step forward in the field," says
>> Edward Boyle, a marine geochemist at the Massachusetts Institute of
>> Technology in Cambridge. The research doesn't directly measure the amount
>> of dissolved iron in the waters due to dust in previous eras, Boyle says,
>> but "they provide a much better case for what [nitrogen levels] have done
>> in the past"--information that can reveal the ebb and flow of ancient life.
>> The notion that iron-rich dust could boost the growth of microorganisms
>> that pull carbon dioxide from the air took hold in the late 1980s. During
>> ice ages, when sea levels are low and broad areas of now-submerged coastal
>> shallows are exposed, sediments rich in iron and other nutrients would dry
>> out, the thinking went. Then
>> ...
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 10:10 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 3/21/2014 9:59 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>  2014-03-21 17:19 GMT+01:00 John Clark :
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Quentin Anciaux 
>>> wrote:
>>>


>>  The thing I most want to know about  RCP4.5 is what RCP stands for,
>> Google seems to think it's "Rich Client Platform" but that doesn't sound
>> quite right. It must be pretty obscure, Wikipedia has never heard of RCP
>> either.
>>
>
  For your information, that means "Regional Climate Prediction"

>>>
>>>  I'm pretty sure it's not "Russian Communist Party" but are you sure
>>> it's not "Representative Concentration Pathways"?
>>>
>>
>>  I'm pretty sure you must be dumb as dumb if you really think this... As
>> I see we are in a thread talking about climate...
>>
>
>  This thread seems to be mostly about politics. To be fair, John seems to
> be in the minority here in wanting to discuss this from a scientific and
> technological perspective.
>
>  He raises a number of points that I have raised myself in previous
> discussions. Instead of focusing on such issues, pop culture distractions
> (Fox News etc.) and political tribalism seem to get all of the attention.
>
>  - Given the number of climate models and the fact that the majority of
> them failed to predict the climate of the last decade, how confident can we
> be in further predictions?
>
>
> "Failed" is a relative term
>

Of course. Here we can't know for sure, so we have to estimate the
probability that the models are correct -- especially given the potentially
horrible side-effects of the cure.


> and "decade" is too short to constitute climate.
>

Yes, what constitutes "climate" appears to be:
larger periods than can be observed in our lifetimes but smaller than what
can be observed in the Vostok data.


> So what exactly do you mean by "failed".
>

I mean that, if this wasn't an ideologically charged issue, no reviewer
would accept these models for publication at this point:
http://www.thegwpf.org/judith-curry-disagreement-climate-models-reality/


>   My view is that they were relatively accurate about some things and not
> so accurate about others.
>

Where they accurate significantly above what a null model would predict,
taking into account the amount of models that have been proposed?


>   They all include a calculated range of uncertainty.
>

Funnily, that was never mentioned before it became convenient.


>   Have they "failed" if the observed weather is withing the range of
> uncertainty.  The deniers and obfuscators seize on uncertainty as an
> obstruction to action, but uncertainty cuts both ways.
>

AGW proponents are asking for an incredible amount of power to implement
measures that could cause immense human suffering. It's not so abnormal
that people get nervous when there is no tangible evidence that the models
are even correct.


> As for further predictions, it's not as if we have to pick one (or a set)
> of these models and make THE prediction.  What we need to do is figure out
> why they were inaccurate in to some vaiables and improve the models.
>

Ok, and then validate them against reality -- hopefully.


>   As has been pointed out, the effect of clouds is a major source of
> uncertainty.  Clouds are generally much smaller than the grid size of GCMs,
> ~100Km square, and so it's not practical to directly model them within a
> simulation.
>

Where climate scientists aware of this problem when they claimed 100%
certainty and consensus on AGW? Because if they were, they lied to us.


>   The technique has been to use separate models just of cloud formation
> and dissipation to determine which GCM state would produce or dissipate
> clouds.  Those models are being improved by including the effects of
> aerosols and freezing/thawing.
>
> Another source of uncertainty in *weather* is how the extra energy
> absorbed due to greenhouse gases is distributed.  How much goes into
> warming the ocean vs the atmosphere?  Model projections have to make
> assumptions about human activity too.
>

Right, and all of this is an awful lot of uncertainty when we're dealing
with complex non-linear systems.


>
>
>
>
>  - With current technology, how much would we have to shrink the global
> energy budget to transition to sustainable sources?
>
>
> Read Donald McKay's book "Without Hot Air", which is free online at
> withouthotair.org.  He has detailed estimates of what it would take for
> the U.K. to almost eliminate fossil fuel consumption and still retain the
> same standard of living.  It takes a lot of change, but it is less per
> capita than, for example, the U.S. war in Iraq over a time scale of a few
> decades.
>

Ok, thanks.
Far from me to defend the war on Iraq (by the way). That was another shady
business, for sure.


>
>
>   What would the human impact of that be? This is too serious an issu

Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3

2014-03-22 Thread ghibbsa


On Thursday, March 20, 2014 6:26:53 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 19 Mar 2014, at 21:21, ghi...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
> On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 9:19:52 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 17 Mar 2014, at 23:19, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, March 16, 2014 3:46:23 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 16 Mar 2014, at 13:03, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> I am not sure if I have any clue where we would differ, nor if that has 
>> any relevance with the reasoning I suggest, to formulate a problem, and 
>> reduce one problem into another.ia
>>
>>  
>> Well, I do differ in general on the view that Science - why it worked - 
>> has been understood. I also differ on the idea that philosophy - which is 
>> pre-scientific or non-scientific - can explain science. The problem is that 
>> logicallyjust the act of doing philosophy on science, pre-assumes that 
>> philosophy *can* explain science. I meando you really think that if, as 
>> it turned out, philosophy cahnnot explain science, that doing philosophy on 
>> science would actually reveal that? no! the philosopher would find an 
>> explanation. 
>>  
>> So just doing philosophy on science pre-assumes the answer to the 
>> question. 
>>
>>
>> I can agree. I don't believe in "philosophy". Nor do I really believe in 
>> "science". I believe in scientific attitude, and it has no relation with 
>> the domaon involved. Some astrolog can be more scientific than some 
>> astronomers.
>>
>> The problem is that since theology has been excluded from academy, 
>> "science" is presented very often as a pseudo-theology, with its God (very 
>> often a primitive physical universe), etc.
>>
>>
>>  
>> There's two camps Bruno. One is that science was just an extension of 
>> philosophy, among other things. Almost everyone is in this camp, whether 
>> explicitly or by default. 
>>
>>
>> Many believe that philosophy is an extension, sometimes without rigor, of 
>> science. 
>>
>>
>>  
>> The other camp is that something fundamental, and profound, happened with 
>> science, that is extremely mysterious and unresolved. 
>>
>>
>> With science and with "conscience", I can agree with that. In the comp 
>> theory, it is the birth of the universal (Löbian) machine. The singling out 
>> of the "[]", from the arithmetical reality. 
>>
>>
>>  
>> Membership of either camp is an act of faith. I'm in the second camp. 
>> Sometimes I wonder if I'm the only one.
>>
>>
>> I might feel to be more in "the second camp" myself, except that 
>> precisely here, computationalism explains what happens, somehow.
>>
>>
>>  
>>  
>>
>> You do look unhappy with something, apparently related to comp, or to the 
>> UDA, or to AUDA? 
>>
>>  
>> Absolutely not. I've recently concluded my personal work on the wider 
>> matter. It's been hugely valuable. Talking to you has been a part of it. 
>>
>>
>> Thanks for reassuring me.
>>
>>
>>  
>> I would like to give you something back...maybe I feel frustrated that I 
>> can't get you to see what I am saying. 
>>
>>
>> We might be closer than you thought, especially from above.
>>
>>
>>
>>  
>> But never unhappy with you or your work. I'm very appreciative that you 
>> talk to me at all. I'm not careful with what I say. I touch type about 
>> 100wpm and rarely check what I said before posting. I'm sorry if that is 
>> conveying an impression of not being happy. It isn't the case I assure you. 
>> If I was unhappy, or I thought you were, I'd leave you alone. You don't owe 
>> me anything...I'd consider it very rude to put emotional shit onto you. 
>>
>>
>> OK. No problem.
>>
>>
>>
>> I just try sincerely to understand your point.
>>
>>  
>> I know
>>
>>
>> OK. Keep in mind, that I am really a sort of simple minded scientist. I 
>> understand only mathematical theories, and, when applied, I believe to 
>> criterion of testability, or to the simplification they provide to already 
>> tested theories.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ?
>> Case is both mathematic standard, and theoretical computer science 
>> standard. 
>>
>>  
>> These aren't the parts that matter. It's possible to use math in 
>> philosophy. It's possible to do philosophy of computing. The part that 
>> matters is the analysis of the philosophy and the nature of the refutation. 
>>  
>> I didn't write the refutation to be a proper standard of argument. I 
>> wrote for youbecause I thought you'd get it. 
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>> I would not classify this as philosophy (a word which has different 
>> meaning from one university to another one).
>>
>>  
>>
>  
>  
> How many different methodologies are used in the course of producing all 
> those definitions? 
>  
> If science is fundamentally different in 'kind' then the differences in 
> method only count at the core. 
>
>
>
> ?
>
> On the contrary, science is not different in kind of philosophy, or 
> gardening or whatever. Science is only a question of attitude, which, 
> beyond curiosity and some taste for astonishment, is an

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

2014-03-22 Thread spudboy100

Another reason to favor something robust as a true answer, (technology) rather 
then orders from above. If we need an example of the biggest human-created 
disaster in history, it would be Mao's Great Leap Forward (1958-62) where Mao 
ordered the peasants to chase birds around and make sure that they didn't eat 
up the rice and wheat crops. Millions of birds died of exhaustion, being chased 
around by peasants and all, and with less birds to eat locusts, the crops were 
devoured by pestilence. 40 million dead, and perhaps almost 60 million 
depending on who we ask. Technology for energy and water purification is the 
way to go, in Africa and here, too. Governments can do a lot, including turning 
individuals into lemmings.  Its quicker and more flexible than government 
edicts too. 

Where climate scientists aware of this problem when they claimed 100% certainty 
and consensus on AGW? Because if they were, they lied to us.




-Original Message-
From: Telmo Menezes 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Sat, Mar 22, 2014 11:08 am
Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating







On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 10:10 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

  

On 3/21/2014 9:59 AM, Telmo Menezes  wrote:


  



  
  
On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 5:24 PM,Quentin Anciaux 
 wrote:

  



  
  
2014-03-21 17:19 GMT+01:00 John Clark 
:

  


  



  On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Quentin 
 Anciaux   
wrote:
  



  
  

  

  

  

  

  

  

  
  
  
 
  
  
  
The thing  I most want 
to  know about  
 RCP4.5 is what 
 RCP stands 
 for, Google
  seems to think
  it's "Rich  
Client  Platform" but   
   that doesn't 
 sound quite
  right. It must
  be pretty 
 obscure,  
Wikipedia has  never 
heard of  RCP  either.
  

  

  

  

  




  
  
For your information, thatmeans 
"Regional ClimatePrediction"

Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3

2014-03-22 Thread ghibbsa


On Thursday, March 20, 2014 1:38:07 AM UTC, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 03:53:02PM -0700, ghi...@gmail.com 
> wrote: 
> >   
> > Then - the notion of Computation being intrinsically conscious  - a 
> basic 
> > assaumption that I'[d call a major recurrent theme of computionralism 
>  over 
> > a pretty long period. A lot o.f your friends have said they buy it. 
> Russll 
> > has said it a few times. 
>
> I have not "bought" the idea that computation is intrinsically 
> conscious. I do not believe that the emacs process I'm typing this 
> email into is in any way conscious, for example. 
>
> I do accept, for the sake of argument, the possibility that 
> consciousness is a computational process, or can be implemented in 
> one. This is COMP. I don't believe it, and certainly have somne 
> reservations about it. 
>
> But I do buy the UDA, and its conclusion of reversal. In fact I think 
> its conclusion probably remains valid, even if you relax COMP to a 
> more general functionalism position (not Putnam's functionalism, mind 
> you, but the more usual variety), although this has more to do with 
> observers finding themselves in the Library of Babel, as one cannot 
> rely on the Church Thesis as one does with the UDA. 
>
> Cheers 
>
 
I would accept consciousness is a computational process, if the term 
'computational' were stripped right down to its bare bones, with all 
assumptions removed that link the term to computing concepts as they stand 
at the moment. 
 
But that would mean specifically not assuming it's a possibility for 
software compiled and run on hardware currently in play. 
 
I'd be interested to hear your view about this (and Bruno's)

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

2014-03-22 Thread spudboy100

Agreed, Edgar. I remember the Mount Pinatubo eruption in the Philippines, that 
destroyed a US air force base (Subic Bay?) and provided the continental US 
with, a year without a summer. There were a couple of large meteor strikes in 
the 3rd and 5th century, the later in northern Italy, the previous in the 
Baltic.  One scholar believes that the Viking Gotterdamerung feature of the 
old, Nordic, faith, evolved from that strike.  



-Original Message-
From: Edgar L. Owen 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Sat, Mar 22, 2014 10:19 am
Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating


Spud,


Better evidence is that the little ice age was caused by solar variations esp 
the Maunder minimum. It lasted too long to be attributed to volcanos I would 
think. However volcanos and smaller asteroid impacts do certainly cause 
temporary temperature dips lasting for periods of a few years to perhaps a 
decade and these can initiate profound social changes. There is fairly good 
evidence that the dark ages were partially initiated by an eruption c. 535 AD. 
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_weather_events_of_535–536


Edgar





On Saturday, March 22, 2014 10:08:24 AM UTC-4, spudb...@aol.com wrote:
What is your view on the Little Ice Age being caused by Pacific Rim volcano's? 
Incidentally, erruptions have been proposed as the initiators of the 
environments suitable for generating plagues, in the 6th century and again, at 
the beginning of the 13th century. It gets colder so marmots and rats dig 
tunnels and are in closer contact, and thus, easier to spread bacilli that are 
bubonic, pneumonic, etc? 



-Original Message-
From: Edgar L. Owen 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Sat, Mar 22, 2014 7:40 am
Subject: Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating


Richard,


Here's is new research into one possible contributor to ice ages. Edgar




Airborne Iron May Have Helped Cause Past Ice Ages



20 March 2014 2:00 pm




NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center, William M. Putman and Arlindo M. da Silva
Life from dust. Iron-rich dust streaming from Patagonian deserts (red plume at 
left side of image) fertilizes nutrient-poor southern oceans, thereby pulling 
planet-warming carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.



It seems straightforward: Iron-rich dust floating on the wind falls into the 
sea, where it nourishes organisms that suck carbon dioxide from the air. Over 
time, so much of this greenhouse gas disappears from the atmosphere that the 
planet begins to cool. Scientists have proposed that such a process contributed 
to past ice ages, but they haven’t had strong evidence—until now.
“This is a really good paper, a big step forward in the field,” says Edward 
Boyle, a marine geochemist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 
Cambridge. The research doesn’t directly measure the amount of dissolved iron 
in the waters due to dust in previous eras, Boyle says, but “they provide a 
much better case for what [nitrogen levels] have done in the past”—information 
that can reveal the ebb and flow of ancient life.
The notion that iron-rich dust could boost the growth of microorganisms that 
pull carbon dioxide from the air took hold in the late 1980s. During ice ages, 
when sea levels are low and broad areas of now-submerged coastal shallows are 
exposed, sediments rich in iron and other nutrients would dry out, the thinking 
went. Then



...


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

Richard,

The correlation is actually pretty solid, though the discrepancies may 
indicate some other factors at play also. 

And what makes you think another ice age isn't coming? it's more or less 
time for the next one.

Or perhaps global warming is what will either stop it or make it less 
intense, and thus may be the best thing to happen for the preservation of 
civilization?
:-)

Edgar



On Saturday, March 22, 2014 10:41:10 AM UTC-4, yanniru wrote:
>
> Edgar,
>
> It is hardly a 1:1 correlation. However, if those cycles worked for the 
> last 1/2 million years, they should be expected to still be working now and 
> we can expect global cooling to occur again.
> Richard
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Edgar L. Owen 
> > wrote:
>
> Spud,
>
> Better evidence is that the little ice age was caused by solar variations 
> esp the Maunder minimum. It lasted too long to be attributed to volcanos I 
> would think. However volcanos and smaller asteroid impacts do certainly 
> cause temporary temperature dips lasting for periods of a few years to 
> perhaps a decade and these can initiate profound social changes. There is 
> fairly good evidence that the dark ages were partially initiated by an 
> eruption c. 535 AD. See http://en.wikipedia.o
>
> ...

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Entropy and curved spacetime

2014-03-22 Thread John Clark

On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 6:00 PM, Jesse Mazer  wrote:

>>Chaos theory tells us that even in classical physics a change in a micro
>> state can soon lead to a change in the macro state. And if it's a
>> reversible theory then there are NOT 2 different states of the universe
>> that could have produced things as they are now.
>>
>
> > Are you claiming that if the underlying micro-physics is reversible,
> then it's impossible for there to be two different past states that would
> lead to the present MACROstate?
>

Then 2 different states of the universe could still lead to the PRESENT
macrostate, but depending on if the system is chaos sensitive  or not (not
everything is, a cylinder of gas isn't)  it might not lead to the
macrostate after next.

>> The fact remains that if  Entropy is proportional to the logarithm of
> the number of microstates something can be in and still have the same
> macrostate then it's also proportional  to the logarithm of the number of
> ways the thing could have been produced and still have the same macrostate.
>

> Only if physics is unitary, which is an open question in black hole
> physics.
>

Then Entropy is NOT proportional to the logarithm of the number of
microstates something can be in and still have the same macrostate because
a Black Hole would have no microstates.

>  >> Bekenstein DERIVED that the entropy of a Black Hole was proportional
>> to it's 2D surface area, to just define it that way without any arguments
>> showing how it was consistent with physics previous use of the word
>> "entropy" would have been imbecilic,  and Jacob Bekenstein is not an
>> imbecile.
>>
>
> > As I already explained, what he showed was that IF you define "black
> hole entropy" by the specific equation he gave, and IF black holes also
> have a specific temperature defined by another equation,  then the known
> laws of classical thermodynamics will be preserved in the presence of black
> holes.
>

And that is just another way of saying Bekenstein DERIVED that the entropy
of a Black Hole was proportional to it's 2D surface area.

> But this is not the same as "deriving" either of these things,
>

Why the hell not? I suspect you're insisting on this not because you have a
strong opinion on the matter but simply because you've developed a reflex
to contradict anything I say. If I say white you must say black.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

>> Regardless of what English word you call it  if  X is proportional to
>> the logarithm of the number of microstates something can be in and still
>> have the same macrostate then X is also proportional  to the logarithm of
>> the number of ways the thing could have been produced and still have the
>> same macrostate.
>>
>
> > Only if physics is unitary
>

No such qualification is necessary because if physics is not unitary then X
is NOT proportional to the logarithm of the number of microstates something
can be in because if that something is a Black Hole then it has no
microstates. And today almost all physicists think physics is unitary, even
Stephen Hawking now thinks so and he was among the last holdouts.

> Do you deny that the number of microstates something can presently be in
> could be different from the number of past microstates that could have led
> to the present macrostate
>

I never denied that. if the very concept of microstates is still meaningful
(that is to say if physics is unitary)  then I can't say it better than
what I said on   March 18:

"I'm saying that in classical physics a state can produce only one future
state, but any given state can have been produced in more than one way,
therefore the number of microstates in a Black Hole must equal to k times
the number of states that made it where k is some constant integer.
Therefore if X is proportional to the logarithm of the number of
microstates in a system then according to the laws of logarithms X MUST
also be proportional to the logarithm of the number of ways the system
could have been produced."

>  in the Game of Life on a finite grid
>

Then it's not the Game of Life. Let's not needlessly complicate things and
stick to the original.

>  if you define macrostates in terms of the ratio of black (live) to white
> (dead) cells, then the macrostate with ratio 0:100 has only one PRESENT
> microstate it could be in (since every single cell must be white to have
> that ratio), but lots of past microstates that could have led to it.
>

The  physical laws in the Game of Life are not unitary, so a large block of
dead cells would be equivalent to a Black Hole in our universe if the laws
of physics were not unitary. In both cases it would be gibberish to talk
about the microstates of a block of dead cells or of a Black Hole because
they would have none, they would only have a macrostate. So if you want to
talk about Entropy you can only talk about the ways something could get
made; however you should keep in mind that unlike the Game of Live the
physics in our universe i

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

2014-03-22 Thread meekerdb

On 3/22/2014 8:08 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 10:10 PM, meekerdb > wrote:

On 3/21/2014 9:59 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Quentin Anciaux mailto:allco...@gmail.com>> wrote:

2014-03-21 17:19 GMT+01:00 John Clark mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com>>:

On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Quentin Anciaux
mailto:allco...@gmail.com>> wrote:

The thing I most want to know about RCP4.5 is what RCP
stands
for, Google seems to think it's "Rich Client Platform"
but that
doesn't sound quite right. It must be pretty obscure,
Wikipedia
has never heard of RCP either.

For your information, that means "Regional Climate Prediction"

I'm pretty sure it's not "Russian Communist Party" but are you sure
it's
not "Representative Concentration Pathways"?

I'm pretty sure you must be dumb as dumb if you really think this... As
I see
we are in a thread talking about climate...

This thread seems to be mostly about politics. To be fair, John seems to be
in the
minority here in wanting to discuss this from a scientific and technological
perspective.

He raises a number of points that I have raised myself in previous
discussions.
Instead of focusing on such issues, pop culture distractions (Fox News
etc.) and
political tribalism seem to get all of the attention.

- Given the number of climate models and the fact that the majority of them
failed
to predict the climate of the last decade, how confident can we be in
further
predictions?

"Failed" is a relative term

Of course. Here we can't know for sure, so we have to estimate the probability that the
models are correct -- especially given the potentially horrible side-effects of the cure.

and "decade" is too short to constitute climate.

Yes, what constitutes "climate" appears to be:
larger periods than can be observed in our lifetimes but smaller than what can be
observed in the Vostok data.

So what exactly do you mean by "failed".

I mean that, if this wasn't an ideologically charged issue, no reviewer would accept
these models for publication at this point:

http://www.thegwpf.org/judith-curry-disagreement-climate-models-reality/

My view is that they were relatively accurate about some things and not so
accurate about others.

Where they accurate significantly above what a null model would predict, taking into
account the amount of models that have been proposed?

They all include a calculated range of uncertainty.

Funnily, that was never mentioned before it became convenient.

That's simply false. Hansen's prediction in 1980 already included error margins. Every
IPCC report has included uncertainty ranges. In fact it's very annoying to read because
every almost every assertion has "likely" or "probabale" or "very likely" in it.

Have they "failed" if the observed weather is withing the range of uncertainty.
The deniers and obfuscators seize on uncertainty as an obstruction to action, but

uncertainty cuts both ways.

AGW proponents are asking for an incredible amount of power to implement measures that
could cause immense human suffering.

Jim Hansen is asking for power? You're just spreading FUD. NOT implementing any measures
is "very likely" to cause immense human suffering.

It's not so abnormal that people get nervous when there is no tangible evidence that the
models are even correct.

AGW doesn't depend on the accuracy of models. It is observed. It is consistent with the
most basic science. Models are only needed to predict exactly how big the problem will be
- not whether there's a problem.

As for further predictions, it's not as if we have to pick one (or a set)
of these
models and make THE prediction. What we need to do is figure out why they
were
inaccurate in to some vaiables and improve the models.

Ok, and then validate them against reality -- hopefully.

As has been pointed out, the effect of clouds is a major source of uncertainty.
Clouds are generally much smaller than the grid size of GCMs, ~100Km square, and so

it's not practical to directly model them within a simulation.

Where climate scientists aware of this problem when they claimed 100% certainty and
consensus on AGW? Because if they were, they lied to us.

Show me where climate scientists claimed 100% certainty. The consensus on AGW (97% by
count) is that human burning of fossil fuel is increasing CO2 in the atmosphere and that
is raising the Earth's temperature. Consensus on AGW is not the same as agreeing about
every aspect of every model. You're just trying to pick at gaps in knowledge in an
ideologically motivated attempt to discredit the science. Exactly the same t

Re: Entropy and curved spacetime

2014-03-22 Thread meekerdb


On 3/22/2014 10:52 AM, John Clark wrote:
"I'm saying that in classical physics a state can produce only one future state, but any 
given state can have been produced in more than one way, 


This is only true if you equivocate on "state".  If "state" means microstate of a closed 
system (in either classical or quantum physics without collapse) then a state can produce 
only one future state. So the first clause would be true.  And since the evolution 
equations are reversible it can come from only one prior state.  For the second clause 
above to be true, "state" must be interpreted as a macrostate.  But for a macrostate, the 
first clause is false since a macrostate can evolve into different future states, even 
different macrostates (c.f. Poincare return).


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Video of VCR

2014-03-22 Thread Craig Weinberg

Continued...

On Saturday, March 22, 2014 4:54:41 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 21 Mar 2014, at 19:43, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, March 21, 2014 4:44:20 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 21 Mar 2014, at 02:28, Craig Weinberg wrote: 
>>
> I don't think logic can study reality, only truncated maps of maps of 
>> reality.
>>
>
>
> Whatever is reality, it might not depend on what you think it is, or is 
> not.
>

Of course, but it might not depend on logic or computation either.
 

>
>
> I do. That's why I insist that comp asks for a non trivial leap of faith, 
>> and we are warned that comp might be refuted. Without the empirical 
>> evidences for the quantum and MWI, I am not sure I would dare to defend the 
>> study of comp. It *is* socking and counter-intuitive.
>>
>>
>> It's not shocking at all to me. For me it's old news. 
>>
>>
>> Not to me, and I don't take anything for granted. I assume comp, and this 
>> includes elementary arithmetic, enough to explain Church's thesis.
>>
>>
>> I don't take arithmetic for granted.
>>
>>
>>
>> Then you have no tools to assert non-comp. 
>>
>
> Why not? I assert sense. Computation need not even exist in theory. 
> Computation arises intentionally as an organizational feature - just as it 
> does on Earth: to keep track of things and events.
>
>
> Question begging.
>

If an explanation falls out of the hypothesis, why is it question begging?
 

>
>
>
>  
>
>>
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> What is shocking and counter-intuitive is that the nature of 
>> consciousness is such that there is a very good reason why consciousness is 
>> forever incompatible with empirical evidence.
>>
>>
>> Again, you talk like Brouwer, the founder of intuitionism (and a 
>> solipsist!), also a great guy in topology. Well, the easiest way to 
>> attribute a person to a machine (theaetetus) provides S4Grz, (the logic of 
>> []p & p) which talks like Brouwer too, and identify somehow truth and 
>> knowledge, and makes consciousness out of any 3p description.
>>
>>
>> Truth and knowledge, []p & p...these things are meaningless to me. All I 
>> care about is what cares. Truth and knowledge care for nothing.
>>
>>
>> I was beginning to suspect this. But then why still argue?
>>
>
> Because consciousness is what cares.
>
>
>
> Truth or knowledge of consciousness only can make sense of this.
>

Consciousness includes knowledge of itself by definition.
 

>
>
>
>  
>
>>
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>>
>> And you are right on this, again. It *is* a theorem of comp. 
>>
>> I hope you try to follow the modal thread, as it will help you to put 
>> sense on that last sentence. But there is some amount of work to do, and 
>> you have to be willing to change your mode of arguing, going from your []p 
>> & p to the usual "scientific and 3p" []p. 
>>
>>
>> I think that it's you who should try paddling away from the shallow 
>> waters of modal logic and truth and surf the big waves of  sense.
>>
>>
>> Why do you judge something shallow, and at the same time confess not 
>> studying this. It makes you look rather foolish, and wipe o
>>
>
> I'm not trying to be an expert in sailing to China from Italy. I'm trying 
> to show whoever is interested that there is another continent or two in the 
> way.
>
>
> The other continents has been found, and you don't need to invoke sense 
> other than at the metalevel. If not, what you do is the persisting hulman 
> error to invoke God in science. It cannot work.It makes science into 
> pseudo-religion.
>

It has nothing to do with God or religion for me. It's about grounding 
physics and mathematics in aesthetic sense. This does help explain ideas of 
God and religion, but that is completely optional. I find your fear and 
prejudice toward this possibility interesting.


Craig

 

>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Craig 
>
>> ...
>
>
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com
> .
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating

2014-03-22 Thread ghibbsa


On Saturday, March 22, 2014 9:45:56 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 22 Mar 2014, at 10:07, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 6:11 PM, Quentin Anciaux 
> 
> > wrote:
>
>
>
>
> 2014-03-21 17:59 GMT+01:00 Telmo Menezes 
> >:
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Quentin Anciaux 
> 
> > wrote:
>
>
>
>
> 2014-03-21 17:19 GMT+01:00 John Clark >:
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Quentin Anciaux 
> 
> > wrote:
>
>
>
> The thing I most want to know about  RCP4.5 is what RCP stands for, Google 
> seems to think it's "Rich Client Platform" but that doesn't sound quite 
> right. It must be pretty obscure, Wikipedia has never heard of RCP  either.
>
>
> For your information, that means "Regional Climate Prediction" 
>
>
> I'm pretty sure it's not "Russian Communist Party" but are you sure it's 
> not "Representative Concentration Pathways"?  
>
>
> I'm pretty sure you must be dumb as dumb if you really think this... As I 
> see we are in a thread talking about climate...
>
>
> This thread seems to be mostly about politics. To be fair, John seems to 
> be in the minority here in wanting to discuss this from a scientific and 
> technological perspective.
>
> He raises a number of points that I have raised myself in previous 
> discussions. Instead of focusing on such issues, pop culture distractions 
> (Fox News etc.) and political tribalism seem to get all of the attention.
>
>
> The thing is that I don't know much in climate and I prefer to let persons 
> in the field handle that, by default I would believe them in these matters, 
> they have more knowledge than me on these.
>
>
> I agree, and it would take years of study for a non-expert to be able to 
> have an informed opinion.
>
> But scientists are humans, and unfortunately we have seen over and over 
> again that they can fall prey to group think, confirmation bias and other 
> -- very human -- tendencies. One contemporary exemple is nutrition science 
> -- more and more, we are seeing that the consensus here was 
> pseudo-scientific and influenced by lobbies. The food pyramid probably 
> killed more than cigarettes.
>
> In the case of climate science, there are a number of red flags. For me, 
> the major ones are:
>
> - claims of 100% consensus: never a sign of serious, rigorous science;
>
>  
Any such claims are heavily contextualized. There is only an effectively 
100% consensus through three basic points (a) Co2 is a greenhouse gas  (b) 
Co2 is increasing in the atm (c)  the world has warmed. All three are 
heavily empirical. 
 
The past 30 years science has focussed on the question of climate 
sensitivity and there is no consensus on that matter. On the question of 
whether the warming is human caused, this is given as a consensus 
probability. It was about 90% and I think it's about 95% at the moment. 

> - claims of certainty over the behaviour of a highly complex system -> I 
> don't have to be a climatologist to raise my eyebrows at this;
>
> There aren't any such claims. There is on the other hand a large body of 
science now for co2 as a dominant greenhouse gas. As a scientist are you 
aware of the basics of why this is? 

> - scientists using emotional, loaded terms like "deniers";
>
> There's a case for the existence of an organized campaign to disrupt the 
ability of science to inform the public, along the same lines as that 
which existed for 30 years regarding the evidence for links between smoking 
and cancer. 
 
Thinking about that tobacco campaign, would you agree that it existed? Was 
it a strategy to sow doubt in legitimate or illegitimate ways? If you do 
acknowledge such a campaign existed, then this should shed some light on 
basis for regarding one section of scepticism as denialism.

> - so many models that any correct predictions don't appear to have 
> statistical significance 
>
> This looks pretty uninformed on the nature of the models, in terms 
of which ways they are the same and which ways different. For example, 
models are almost the same, save for exploring different theories about the 
effects of clouds. The reason for doing it that way makes scientific sense 
as one way to resolve the matter based on which ones work better over time. 

> - retroactive cherry picking of models;
>
>  Models differ in small ways regarding matters that are regarded as 
unresolved but likely influential in the question of sensitivity. It isn't 
clear what your allegations are or their basis in fact.

>  
>
> - there doesn't seem to be any amount of falsification that will lead the 
> mainstream of the field to reconsider their hypothesis;
>
>  
Which level of hypothesis? That Co2 is a greenhouse gas? That Co2 is 
rising? That industrial emissions since 1850 are roughly equivalent to co2 
increases in the air and oceans allowing for other known factors? That the 
world has warmed since 1850? That the warming is tied to increased co2? 
 
Are you aware of the structure of this science at basic?

>
>  
>

Re: Tegmark and UDA step 3



On 22 Mar 2014, at 16:25, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:



On Thursday, March 20, 2014 6:26:53 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 19 Mar 2014, at 21:21, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:



On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 9:19:52 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 17 Mar 2014, at 23:19, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:


On Sunday, March 16, 2014 3:46:23 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 16 Mar 2014, at 13:03, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:



I am not sure if I have any clue where we would differ, nor if that  
has any relevance with the reasoning I suggest, to formulate a  
problem, and reduce one problem into another.ia


Well, I do differ in general on the view that Science - why it  
worked - has been understood. I also differ on the idea that  
philosophy - which is pre-scientific or non-scientific - can  
explain science. The problem is that logicallyjust the act of  
doing philosophy on science, pre-assumes that philosophy *can*  
explain science. I meando you really think that if, as it  
turned out, philosophy cahnnot explain science, that doing  
philosophy on science would actually reveal that? no! the  
philosopher would find an explanation.


So just doing philosophy on science pre-assumes the answer to the  
question.


I can agree. I don't believe in "philosophy". Nor do I really  
believe in "science". I believe in scientific attitude, and it has  
no relation with the domaon involved. Some astrolog can be more  
scientific than some astronomers.


The problem is that since theology has been excluded from academy,  
"science" is presented very often as a pseudo-theology, with its  
God (very often a primitive physical universe), etc.




There's two camps Bruno. One is that science was just an extension  
of philosophy, among other things. Almost everyone is in this camp,  
whether explicitly or by default.


Many believe that philosophy is an extension, sometimes without  
rigor, of science.




The other camp is that something fundamental, and profound,  
happened with science, that is extremely mysterious and unresolved.


With science and with "conscience", I can agree with that. In the  
comp theory, it is the birth of the universal (Löbian) machine. The  
singling out of the "[]", from the arithmetical reality.




Membership of either camp is an act of faith. I'm in the second  
camp. Sometimes I wonder if I'm the only one.


I might feel to be more in "the second camp" myself, except that  
precisely here, computationalism explains what happens, somehow.





You do look unhappy with something, apparently related to comp, or  
to the UDA, or to AUDA?


Absolutely not. I've recently concluded my personal work on the  
wider matter. It's been hugely valuable. Talking to you has been a  
part of it.


Thanks for reassuring me.



I would like to give you something back...maybe I feel frustrated  
that I can't get you to see what I am saying.


We might be closer than you thought, especially from above.




But never unhappy with you or your work. I'm very appreciative that  
you talk to me at all. I'm not careful with what I say. I touch  
type about 100wpm and rarely check what I said before posting. I'm  
sorry if that is conveying an impression of not being happy. It  
isn't the case I assure you. If I was unhappy, or I thought you  
were, I'd leave you alone. You don't owe me anything...I'd consider  
it very rude to put emotional shit onto you.


OK. No problem.



I just try sincerely to understand your point.

I know

OK. Keep in mind, that I am really a sort of simple minded  
scientist. I understand only mathematical theories, and, when  
applied, I believe to criterion of testability, or to the  
simplification they provide to already tested theories.





?
Case is both mathematic standard, and theoretical computer science  
standard.


These aren't the parts that matter. It's possible to use math in  
philosophy. It's possible to do philosophy of computing. The part  
that matters is the analysis of the philosophy and the nature of  
the refutation.


I didn't write the refutation to be a proper standard of argument.  
I wrote for youbecause I thought you'd get it.




I would not classify this as philosophy (a word which has different  
meaning from one university to another one).





How many different methodologies are used in the course of  
producing all those definitions?


If science is fundamentally different in 'kind' then the  
differences in method only count at the core.



?

On the contrary, science is not different in kind of philosophy, or  
gardening or whatever. Science is only a question of attitude,  
which, beyond curiosity and some taste for astonishment, is an  
attitude of doubt, and attempt to be clear enough for colleagues.


But that would quite rightly be regarded as a philosophical position  
Bruno. All we are doing is playing around with word definitions. You  
are saying that your philosophy of science is that it iswhat you  
say above.


No, it is just some vag

Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating