Monday, March 31, 2014

Ownership fights are normal

...the IAU believes it is the only organization that has the right to name geological features on other planets.
They'd be wrong, wouldn't they? This is what happens when you fight a natural right. It is a natural right for people to name things. Naming things is part of property rights. Property rights are another natural right. Expect things to be renamed again once people actually start claiming property by possession.

Update: Uwingo says...

Friday, March 28, 2014

New Russian Navy

Chinese ship built by Russia

They are adding 40 new warships (and stealing two from the Ukraine.) Russian navy now larger than American!!! !!! !!! These are not all rust buckets (some are) many are very capable ships that are dangerous to ours. Our navy is still better with the operational capabilities our aircraft carriers and subs give us but Obama could certainly fix that. Our carriers are vulnerable and take a long time to replace. We could drastically lose capability in a very short period of time. We might not recover from such a disaster.

We're downsizing our navy. My son will have to translate Russian for me in the new world order.

Ukraine is toast. Arm Poland while there is still time (Is there still time?)

Istanbul and Sevastopol strategically linked

Do you think Putin is stupid enough to invade Turkey? That would keep him busy for a while, but they've already experienced Afghanistan. Poor Georgia would suffer more though.

We really need to start looking beyond the Ukraine. Russia isn't sitting on their borders for a picnic.

The other shoe.

Update: Remember these gathering rust? Might any be put to good use to defend the Ukraine? Do any of them work?

Visiting Mom

So I will have internet access for the next week or so. Mom keeps it on the chance that I'll come for a visit (it's part of a bundle.) She'd like to use it but doesn't. She wants to use email but hasn't since last time I was here and set up a yahoo account for her.

My 73 y.o. mom (who smokes like a chimney, is overweight and has two bad knees) is starting work at McDonald's today. Apparently she got the job by complaining about the service (the manager over heard her) and giving an awful interview ("I wouldn't have hired me," she said.) Did you know individual stores had bookkeepers? Corporate HQ sure, but individual stores? Anyway, I worry about the potential outcomes but hope for the best. She hasn't worked in over a decade and lost that job because she complained to the owner about decisions her supervisor made. Mom was right about the issue, having much more business experience and talent than the supervisor she had but misjudging how the owner would react lost her a job she enjoyed that didn't overtax her physically. This one will be two hours a day part time and involves daily deposits and setting up register drawers. I can see potential fall outs but I worry too much as a general rule. The store is across the street from the barber shop where (step-)dad works which is nice for both of them. Imagine Floyd the barber on the old Andy Griffith show... only Floyd also smokes like a chimney and spends much of his day sitting in front of the shop.

Every six months I renew my car insurance which is what brought me back to town. I don't have to come back to town for that, but it gives me an excuse to visit and I schedule medical appointments around the same time. I have one this coming Tuesday and will visit some other local businesses as well. I went in to see my agent around lunch yesterday so only the owner was in the office. I made some changes to my policy which brought it down from $239 to $210 even adding $3 a month for towing. I have no deductible (which is nice, but surprised me because my last policy before State Farm had a $500 deductible.) I had a nice visit with the owner who passed along a box of Girl Scout cookies (I guess it's that time of year) which I gave mom.

I left Phoenix two days ago and arrived here yesterday. I went through Payson rather than Globe but didn't take the direct route, instead taking I-17 toward Flagstaff and catching hwy 260E at Camp Verde. Phoenix is getting too warm and this place is too cold but I'm not staying long. I know a girl in Phoenix that I saw before I left. She's not the type I'm normally attracted to (too thin and blond) but I am. She has a story that would break your heart including a 32 y.o. son that is in and out of prison (out at the moment) and lives with her when he's out. She doesn't really like me, but will spend some days out with me. I'm a moth to her flame. She says I make her feel human. She also suffers from depression.

My brother-in-law says he didn't get the postal money order I sent him last december (I have no idea why he waited so long to tell me) so I'm probably going to be out another $175 (I can't find the receipt but he's checking his deposits and will get back to me. That was the final payment on a loan and it was a really good feeling to get it out of my way.) Last year I paid my bills. This year I plan to save. Next year I plan to make the money I save work for me. So far the only part of the plan working is I'm keeping myself alive. I have to keep away from entanglements with people. It always hurts me financially because I'm too giving and always see others as being in worse shape and deserving more than I do. Sure I'm a fool and know it. That's a choice. I'm working to make other choices. Anyway, I won't be sending $175 to him in the mail, so if he doesn't find the deposit (he has the onset of Alzheimers) he'll get paid on my next visit in a few months depending on my gas budget (he lives south of Sacramento giving me a chance to visit my stepson who lives in Sacramento.) My ex-wife is out of the picture now since the cold reception I got on my last visit. I didn't actually see her, but she got quiet on the phone when I said I was in town on the last trip. That told me all I needed to know. She's never quiet. So I didn't visit and haven't talked with her since. She's been horrible to her daughter-in-law (if I mention she seems to be describing a nice girl she would hang up on me) so her son limits his contact with his mom as well. I can't worry about it. Another reason to not be entangled in other lives. I've got to fix mine first.

Update: Mom's two hours took four because a supervisor brought in to free up the managers time to train her kept interrupting both of them. Both agreed the supervisor was a jerk. She's getting along well with the manager who lost his brother to suicide recently. Her first day on the job and she has to encourage the manager not to punch out his boss from out of town that seemed determined to demean him in front of his employees. My advice was not to try to fix anything and support that manager as much as she can. I think she will do well there. I've got to meet this manager. He seems more than your usual employee.

Also met a nice candy store owner (I avoid sugar generally, but then I was there wasn't I?) She actually seemed interested in my thoughts which went on for almost two hours. She even picked the topic for the next time I happen by... note to self: avoid entanglements. I'll be gone in a few weeks, but she was very nice.

Friday, March 21, 2014

News coverage in Poland has been wall-to-wall Ukraine...

...and should be here as well. What the hell is wrong with America!!!

Obama! We don't need no stinkin' defense our mole in chief says.

Friday, March 7, 2014

Correlation is not causation - though sometimes it's the opposite.

What first opened my eyes (I admit to being a AGW believer in the late 90′s) was the CO2-temperature graphs. They’;re beloved by the AGW crowd because they show a relationship (correlation) between the two, a very strong one. They use this to argue causation. Turns out, there’s a huge problem with that.
The CO2-temperature graphs show a close tracking for the last 400,000 years (ice core data). If, as was done, the two are separated by height on the graph, only the relationship is evident. (and that, I suspect, is why they present it in that format)

The real eye-opener is when you overlay the two lines. Then, you clearly see what isn’t easy to see on the most commonly used charts – a time lag. It varies from 2 to 10 centuries (it trends toward the lower limit in warming periods, the longer in cooling)

It’s the time lag that’s the key. What it boils down to is the cause must come before the effect.
Short version: it’s absolutely clear in both the Greenland and Antarctic ice cores that there is a relationship between CO2 and temperature. Temperature goes up, *then* CO2 does the same. Temperature goes down, so does CO2. The two, when graphed, do track each other. But it’s temperature, not CO2, that’s the leader; CO2 follows temperature (by several hundred years) not the other way around.

This is most clearly evident at both the start and end of the most recent glacial era. At the end of the Eemian interglacial, temperature and CO2 diverged massively; CO2 continued to rise for several hundred years after the drop in temperature. Likewise, at the end of the last glacial era, temperatures rose several hundred years before CO2 began to rise. This is also true (though based on antarctic ice cores only) of the prior four glacial eras, so five glacial eras in all. It’s evident through the entire timeline not just at the glacial era interfaces, but it’s most obvious there.

So, unless we want to assume violations of the law of cause and effect (or time-traveling CO2) then it’s abundantly clear that temperature drives CO2 levels, and not the other way around. This makes sense, because while it’s difficult to beleive that a gas that’s a tiny fraction of earth’s atmosphere (four hundredths of one percent) could have a major impact on temperature, it’s very easy to see how temperature, through its effects on both geochemical and organic processes, could have an effect on trace gas levels. (and also, why there’s a time lag in this effect).

Now, we get to the Eemian interglacial era (the last interglacial warm period prior to the one in which we live). CO2 levels then were lower than today, and also lower than our per-industrial levels, yet the climate then was both hotter and wetter, worldwide. This is seen clearly from the fossil record in many location on earth; hippopotamus fossils on the Thames in the UK, iguanas in Greenland, tropical shells in presently-temperate areas… and most glaring of all, raised coral islands worldwide. (surface level coral reefs in the Eemian, when sea levels were about 17 feet higher.) It’s true that in some cases raised coral islands are caused by geologic uplift, but that’s not the case with most. Yet, all over the globe, even in areas where it’s currently too cold for coral, we see raised coral islands of approximately the same height, all dating from the Eemian.

The AGW claim is twofold. First, they denied (ahha, deniers!) that the Eemian was warmer than the present (Much as they currently still do regarding Holocene warm periods, such as the Medieval Warm Period, that was warmer than today) . Then, they adapted, and now the current commonplace AGW explanation for the Eemian is that this warmth (that they denied) was due to solar forcing, not CO2. If that were true, it would, amongst other things, negate the cause and effect they claim from the close tracking of CO2 and temperature.
Some of the current warmist claims are that the Eemian was only warmer in non-polar regions, and was colder at the poles, and that’s why polar bears didn’t go extinct, and thus global temp averages weren’t warmer than today. Unfortunately for them, this doesn’t pass the snicker test; the ice cores, especially in Greenland, show this isn’t the case, and it also ignores the higher sea level. Even if every bit of Greenland ice (the only significant ice volume in the northern hemisphere) melted, it’d raise sea levels by about six feet. The sea ice on the arctic ocean is meaningless for sea level changes, because it could all melt and not raise sea levels at all (it’s floating, of course).
So, that leaves Antarctic ice as the source of the majority of the Eemian high sea levels (the water had to come from somewhere, and that’s the only source large enough). So, taken to a logical conclusion, the current AGW claims for the Eemian can be summed up as “the ice melted because it got colder”. They can’t claim sublimation; precipitation was higher then, too.

But, that makes just as much sense as time-traveling CO2.