View 406 April 3 - 9, 2006 (original) (raw)
Saturday, April 8, 2006
Today's LA Times has a story on why radio stations are all playing the same tunes now: they're afraid they'll be investigated if they introduce any new bands or artists. "Let some other station take the chance," said one program director after hearing an enthusiastic pitch for a new band that had got some rave reviews. "I don't want my emails being looked at because I put up a new band."
(I'll write the rest of this when I get an exact title to search for. Google has never heard of this article although I read it in today's paper. One gets used to being able to find things instantly and forgets that indexing takes time. Meanwhile I have wasted enough time searching for the article to reference. I need the exact title and writer's name.)
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/
la-fi-playlist8apr08,1,2614938.story?coll=la-
headlines-entnews&ctrack=1&cset=true
Thanks to Mike for finding this for me.
But what I really need is to begin to document such matters: how we are entering the democratic despotism that Tocqueville warned of. A fine network of rules and regulations that stifles innovation and reduces us to sameness. Of course Tocqueville did not see the anarchotyranny that inevitably accompanies that state. And of course Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy makes it inevitable that we will get there. Welcome to the future.
==================
This morning's LA Times has a book review, although it is disguised as an article on global warming. I can't find an on-line source, but that may be coming later (as was the article referred to in the previous section). The article is entitled "Dissecting a world of trouble," by Anne-Marie O'Connor.
Let me give you the first paragraph:
The causes and consequences of global warming are still debated. But few still dispute its existence. According to NASA, 2005 was the warmest year since the late 1800's. The next four warmest were 2004, 2003, 2002, and 1998. The last time the Earth was this warm, by many estimates, was 100,000 years ago.
Anyone notice something odd about this? The Earth had warmer years in the late 1800's, but it hasn't been this warm for 100,000 years. Say what?
If you continue to the inside continuation you find this is a review of a book by an Australian scientist, Tim Flannery, who will speak at Cal Tech in Baxter Lecture Hall at 2 PM Sunday (tomorrow). I regret I won't be able to get there. If any of you do, I would appreciate a report. Either he is off his head, or Anne-Marie O'Connor is off hers (those two conditions are not mutually exclusive or collectively exhaustive).
We are, according to Flannery, about to experience disasters that set off the eradication of 95% of the Earth's species. Flannery blames fossil fuels for 80% of the Earth's warming. He predicts hurricanes if we don't stop burning fossil fuels. Needless to say, he has a new book, The Weather Makers (publisher not given in the review article, nor are Anne-Marie's credentials for statements made on her own behalf).
"This is no part of any known cycle," said Flannery, a burly Australian scientist who is a professor at the University of Adelaide and likes to be photographed in full bush regalia.
(His full regalia includes a brimmed hat, but it isn't a Digger Hat.)
"About 100,000 years ago, Flannery says, the Earth was just slightly warmer than it is now -- and sea level was 12 feet higher.
"The biggest immediate issue," Flannery said, "is the melting of the polar ice caps.
"We know that ice cap has been stable for at least a million years and more likely 3 million years," he said. "The north polar cap won't be there by 2020 and 2100 if it keeps up. Some people say it won't be there in 15 years time. That polar ice cap reflects sunlight back into space. Instead of reflecting the sun's energy, it is now absorbing the sun's energy, and that is heating the planet more. The ice is much thinner, maybe 40% of its thickness 30 to 40 years ago.
"You don't have to be a Rhodes scholar or a Harvard graduate to see that's a problem."
I don't have to be a Harvard graduate to see that if the Earth were this warm 100,000 years ago, but the polar ice cap was stable for 1 million years or more, there is something wrong with his data. Nor do I recall that 95% of all species died off 100,000 years ago, but my education in those matters may be deficient. Does anyone know of such a die-off?
Flannery also tells us that hurricanes will make the East Coast uninhabitable. Well, to be fair, he says it "may" get to that. But beware 2008.
And finally, he tells us, we ought to engage in grass roots pressure and local measures. Rooftop solar heaters for hot water, as an example. Now I have no objection to such measures, and indeed if you have the proper facing and sloping roof and your house structure is strong enough to support a lot of extra weight, heating your swimming pool by passive solar heaters can save money, provided you live where there's enough solar energy.
But I also know that at higher latitudes you get less sunlight, and for horizontal surfaces less than that, so that if you're up there in the Arctic there won't be all that much insolation to begin with, particularly on flat ground surfaces. But that's another story.
I haven't time to look into all of Flannery's allegations and predictions, although they seem more or less consistent with things Hansen has been saying. Perhaps he is right. But I still don't understand how the ice cap can have been there for a million years when 100,000 years ago the Earth was warmer and the seas 12 feet higher. Perhaps someone more learned in these matters can explain it to us. I fear Anne-Marie O'Connor didn't think to ask.
================
Subject: New defensive shield
Dr. Pournelle, My son showed me this today and my first thought was of the Langston Field.
http://media2.foxnews.com/040606/040606_fr_tobin_300.swf
Keep up the good work!
Ron Booker
WOW. Actually, of course, rather than a "force field" this is an active counter-measure, but it sure looks good. And while it can't detect and protect ships from torpedoes, it sure ought to be able to keep them safe from many kinds of cruise missiles. It won't protect anyone from pure ballistic attacks, but attacks with shaped charges and active warheads may be a lot smaller threat now.
Thanks. I wish we did have a "field" but active counter measures will have to do.