I was assigned to a F-105 fighter bomber wing flying out of Korat Thailand during the Viet Nam war. The day I arrived on base, we lost a Thud in combat. For the next 90 days, my wing lost a plane every single day. We saved some of the pilots, (never enough, but better than nothing). Despite the risks from AAA, SAM, MIGS, and the unreliability of late 1950's jets, twice a day the pilots climbed into the cockpits and took off for North Viet Nam (route pack 6 we called it). That took real guts.
John McCain was shot down in the year I was over there. He was flying off aircraft carriers which is even more dangerous than operating off the 10,000 foot concrete runway we had at Korat.
I heard The Donald had spoken disparagingly of John McCain the other day. I don't approve. In fact, it makes me think that the The Donald shoots off his mouth too much to be President of the US.
Sunday, July 19, 2015
Saturday, July 18, 2015
Cloudy, with a chance of greenies
The greenie's argument for global warming is based on computer models. We know how much energy the Sun pours onto the earth. (1345 Watts/sqm * area of the earth = 1.78 *10 **17 Watts) We know that the earth's temperature has remained reasonable steady thruout geological time. That means the earth has to throw off, by infrared radiation, or reflection the same amount of energy. If it didn't, the temperature would go up (or down).
Clouds are an important factor. Anyone who has stood on the beach in a bathing suit and felt the chill when a cloud goes in front of the Sun will have no problem believing that clouds cool the earth, by reflecting sunlight back into space. Less well known, unless you live in the north, clouds warm the earth. A clear winter night will get extremely cold, (-20 F) whereas a cloudy night will stay at +20F. On clear nights, the earth will emit infra red radiation, which travels up and away to interstellar space. This energy loss cools the world. On cloudy nights, the same infrared radiation strikes the cloud, warming it, and the air it floats in, and conserving the heat.
Which effect is stronger? I have never seen any discussion of that. I don't think anyone knows. What's more, it is generally assumed that a rise in global temperature will increase evaporation of water, increasing cloud coverage. If increasing clouds cool the earth, fine, that will limit the temperature rise. If increasing clouds warm the earth, hang onto your hats, as the earth warms, the clouds increase,which increases the warming. Bad.
But, until the effect of clouds is understood, and programmed into the computer models, they are worthless. Without an accurate treatment of cloudiness, the model's results will bear no resemblance to reality.
And those claiming "the science is settled" are peddling ideology, not science.
Clouds are an important factor. Anyone who has stood on the beach in a bathing suit and felt the chill when a cloud goes in front of the Sun will have no problem believing that clouds cool the earth, by reflecting sunlight back into space. Less well known, unless you live in the north, clouds warm the earth. A clear winter night will get extremely cold, (-20 F) whereas a cloudy night will stay at +20F. On clear nights, the earth will emit infra red radiation, which travels up and away to interstellar space. This energy loss cools the world. On cloudy nights, the same infrared radiation strikes the cloud, warming it, and the air it floats in, and conserving the heat.
Which effect is stronger? I have never seen any discussion of that. I don't think anyone knows. What's more, it is generally assumed that a rise in global temperature will increase evaporation of water, increasing cloud coverage. If increasing clouds cool the earth, fine, that will limit the temperature rise. If increasing clouds warm the earth, hang onto your hats, as the earth warms, the clouds increase,which increases the warming. Bad.
But, until the effect of clouds is understood, and programmed into the computer models, they are worthless. Without an accurate treatment of cloudiness, the model's results will bear no resemblance to reality.
And those claiming "the science is settled" are peddling ideology, not science.
Friday, July 17, 2015
Trump calls for arming our armed services
After the horrible massacre in Charlestown SC yesterday, Donald Trump called for the issue of firearms to the stateside military. As far back as when I was in uniform, service policy was to keep guns off base unless locked securely in the gunroom. We did not carry firearms, even in South East Asia during the Viet Nam war. Reason for the policy is accident prevention. If you have 400,000 troops carrying guns, you are gonna have some accidental discharges, and some people are gonna get themselves shot. And it only takes one bad accident to create career ending bad press coverage. So the Pentagon plays it safe and keeps guns out of the hands of the troops as much as possible.
Now that we have ISIS crazies gunning for our troops. Think Fort Hood and Charleston. It is time to stiffen the Pentagon's backbone, and make sure that when on duty, the troops have ready access to firearms. If not carried in a holster, at least a gun locker on the same floor in the workplace. Especial at small detachments, like recruiting stations, as well as big installations like the Washington Navy Yard. If just one soldier had had a gun at Fort Hood, they could have saved a dozen lives.
Now that we have ISIS crazies gunning for our troops. Think Fort Hood and Charleston. It is time to stiffen the Pentagon's backbone, and make sure that when on duty, the troops have ready access to firearms. If not carried in a holster, at least a gun locker on the same floor in the workplace. Especial at small detachments, like recruiting stations, as well as big installations like the Washington Navy Yard. If just one soldier had had a gun at Fort Hood, they could have saved a dozen lives.
Wednesday, July 15, 2015
Saved by Autobackup
I had a long spreadsheet open in Excel. Spent an hour working on it. Then catastrophe struck, the electric power failed before I saved it. Lights just blinked, the Sony TV kept right on playing, but trusty old Compaq Presario desktop shut right down.
But wait, all was not lost. I booted up, clicked on Excel, and lo and behold, there was a nice backup to the lost spreadsheet, right out on disk. Ancient Excel 2002 managed this feat. Best thing a piece of Microsoft software has done for me in a long time.
But wait, all was not lost. I booted up, clicked on Excel, and lo and behold, there was a nice backup to the lost spreadsheet, right out on disk. Ancient Excel 2002 managed this feat. Best thing a piece of Microsoft software has done for me in a long time.
About that nuclear deal with Iran
Some Questions:
1. Could we scrap the deal and keep the sanctions on? The sanctions are an international matter, to bite, all countries have to apply them. If a few big countries decide to drop sanctions, the Iranians can do business with them and everything works for Iran. How does the rest of the world feel about keeping sanctions going? Remembering that every country is full of business people who want to do business with an oil rich country that can afford to pay its bills.
2. Given some softness in the mood for sanctions, does "snap back" work? Who decides when they are cheating? Us? Some ad hoc committee? With Iranians on the committee? If whoever calls for snap back, will it happen?
3. The Iranians really really want a bomb. Probably they view it as insurance against us doing regime change on them. Does a "treaty" make much difference in the face of such a threat to the regime's very existence? Can anything short of ground invasion and occupation stop their drive for the bomb?
4. International treaties require the advice and consent of the senate to go into effect. How can Obama threaten to veto advice and consent? Some newsies are saying that this deal isn't a treaty, how does that work really? If it's something magical and not-a-treaty, does it really bind the US to anything? Cannot a future administration repudiate it?
It would be nice if the newsies could enlighten us on any of this.
1. Could we scrap the deal and keep the sanctions on? The sanctions are an international matter, to bite, all countries have to apply them. If a few big countries decide to drop sanctions, the Iranians can do business with them and everything works for Iran. How does the rest of the world feel about keeping sanctions going? Remembering that every country is full of business people who want to do business with an oil rich country that can afford to pay its bills.
2. Given some softness in the mood for sanctions, does "snap back" work? Who decides when they are cheating? Us? Some ad hoc committee? With Iranians on the committee? If whoever calls for snap back, will it happen?
3. The Iranians really really want a bomb. Probably they view it as insurance against us doing regime change on them. Does a "treaty" make much difference in the face of such a threat to the regime's very existence? Can anything short of ground invasion and occupation stop their drive for the bomb?
4. International treaties require the advice and consent of the senate to go into effect. How can Obama threaten to veto advice and consent? Some newsies are saying that this deal isn't a treaty, how does that work really? If it's something magical and not-a-treaty, does it really bind the US to anything? Cannot a future administration repudiate it?
It would be nice if the newsies could enlighten us on any of this.
Tuesday, July 14, 2015
Hammacher Schlemmer catalog came today
I been getting more and more mail order catalogs over the years. Today I got the creme de la creme Hammacher Schlemmer catalog. This is the catalog for the 1%. Everything is really pricey, and they carry some extreme stuff for extreme prices. Like a $4500 Dutch bicycle. A $125,000 Mini Monster truck (for kids). A $185,000 most realistic motor racing simulator.
It's cool to read, but does anyone buy this stuff?
It's cool to read, but does anyone buy this stuff?
Monday, July 13, 2015
Forget about CO2, Water Vapor is in charge
The greenies have been beating the drum for years about CO2 as a green house gas in the earth's atmosphere. A green house gas blocks Infra Red (heat) radiation from escaping from the earth into outer space. Burning of wood, coal, oil, and natural gas releases vast amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. The CO2 level has increased since the industrial revolution, from some 300 parts per million to nearly 400 parts per million today. The greenies believe that this is cause of "global warming" and are pushing for expensive economy wrecking measures to reduce the CO2 level.
Trouble is, ordinary water vapor is just a strong a greenhouse gas as CO2. And there is a LOT more water vapor out there than CO2. According to this, water vapor is 2 to 3 percent of the atmosphere, call it 20,000 to 30,000 parts per million. 300 or 400 parts million of CO2 just doesn't matter compared to that.
Since the earth's surface is 3/4 ocean, the water vapor isn't going away.
The greenies claim that water vapor is different, as the global warming comes on, more water evaporates and the water vapor content of the atmosphere goes up. But this is just another way of saying that water vapor is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2, which means that CO2 matters even LESS, all things being equal.
Needless to say, I don't hold with poverty enhancers like "cap and trade", the "war on coal", bans on fracking, Corporate Average Fuel Economy, handouts for battery cars, regulation of wood stove emissions, or the alcohol mandate for motor fuel. These things make life more expensive for us plain citizens and don't cool the world. To say nothing of the power handed to bureaucrats to jerk us around.
Trouble is, ordinary water vapor is just a strong a greenhouse gas as CO2. And there is a LOT more water vapor out there than CO2. According to this, water vapor is 2 to 3 percent of the atmosphere, call it 20,000 to 30,000 parts per million. 300 or 400 parts million of CO2 just doesn't matter compared to that.
Since the earth's surface is 3/4 ocean, the water vapor isn't going away.
The greenies claim that water vapor is different, as the global warming comes on, more water evaporates and the water vapor content of the atmosphere goes up. But this is just another way of saying that water vapor is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2, which means that CO2 matters even LESS, all things being equal.
Needless to say, I don't hold with poverty enhancers like "cap and trade", the "war on coal", bans on fracking, Corporate Average Fuel Economy, handouts for battery cars, regulation of wood stove emissions, or the alcohol mandate for motor fuel. These things make life more expensive for us plain citizens and don't cool the world. To say nothing of the power handed to bureaucrats to jerk us around.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)