• Announcements

    • UnderDawg

      A Few Simple Rules   05/22/2017

      Sailing Anarchy is a very lightly moderated site. This is by design, to afford a more free atmosphere for discussion. There are plenty of sailing forums you can go to where swearing isn't allowed, confrontation is squelched and, and you can have a moderator finger-wag at you for your attitude. SA tries to avoid that and allow for more adult behavior without moderators editing your posts and whacking knuckles with rulers. We don't have a long list of published "thou shalt nots" either, and this is by design. Too many absolute rules paints us into too many corners. So check the Terms of Service - there IS language there about certain types of behavior that is not permitted. We interpret that lightly and permit a lot of latitude, but we DO reserve the right to take action when something is too extreme to tolerate (too racist, graphic, violent, misogynistic, etc.). Yes, that is subjective, but it allows us discretion. Avoiding a laundry list of rules allows for freedom; don't abuse it. However there ARE a few basic rules that will earn you a suspension, and apparently a brief refresher is in order. 1) Allegations of pedophilia - there is no tolerance for this. So if you make allegations, jokes, innuendo or suggestions about child molestation, child pornography, abuse or inappropriate behavior with minors etc. about someone on this board you will get a time out. This is pretty much automatic; this behavior can have real world effect and is not acceptable. Obviously the subject is not banned when discussion of it is apropos, e.g. talking about an item in the news for instance. But allegations or references directed at or about another poster is verboten. 2) Outing people - providing real world identifiable information about users on the forums who prefer to remain anonymous. Yes, some of us post with our real names - not a problem to use them. However many do NOT, and if you find out someone's name keep it to yourself, first or last. This also goes for other identifying information too - employer information etc. You don't need too many pieces of data to figure out who someone really is these days. Depending on severity you might get anything from a scolding to a suspension - so don't do it. I know it can be confusing sometimes for newcomers, as SA has been around almost twenty years and there are some people that throw their real names around and their current Display Name may not match the name they have out in the public. But if in doubt, you don't want to accidentally out some one so use caution, even if it's a personal friend of yours in real life. 3) Posting While Suspended - If you've earned a timeout (these are fairly rare and hard to get), please observe the suspension. If you create a new account (a "Sock Puppet") and return to the forums to post with it before your suspension is up you WILL get more time added to your original suspension and lose your Socks. This behavior may result a permanent ban, since it shows you have zero respect for the few rules we have and the moderating team that is tasked with supporting them. Check the Terms of Service you agreed to; they apply to the individual agreeing, not the account you created, so don't try to Sea Lawyer us if you get caught. Just don't do it. Those are the three that will almost certainly get you into some trouble. IF YOU SEE SOMEONE DO ONE OF THESE THINGS, please do the following: Refrain from quoting the offending text, it makes the thread cleanup a pain in the rear Press the Report button; it is by far the best way to notify Admins as we will get e-mails. Calling out for Admins in the middle of threads, sending us PM's, etc. - there is no guarantee we will get those in a timely fashion. There are multiple Moderators in multiple time zones around the world, and anyone one of us can handle the Report and all of us will be notified about it. But if you PM one Mod directly and he's off line, the problem will get dealt with much more slowly. Other behaviors that you might want to think twice before doing include: Intentionally disrupting threads and discussions repeatedly. Off topic/content free trolling in threads to disrupt dialog Stalking users around the forums with the intent to disrupt content and discussion Repeated posting of overly graphic or scatological porn content. There are plenty web sites for you to get your freak on, don't do it here. And a brief note to Newbies... No, we will not ban people or censor them for dropping F-bombs on you, using foul language, etc. so please don't report it when one of our members gives you a greeting you may find shocking. We do our best not to censor content here and playing swearword police is not in our job descriptions. Sailing Anarchy is more like a bar than a classroom, so handle it like you would meeting someone a little coarse - don't look for the teacher. Thanks.

cmilliken

Members
  • Content count

    3,649
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About cmilliken

  • Rank
    Anarchist
  • Birthday 08/19/1965

Recent Profile Visitors

4,454 profile views
  1. Truth!
  2. Sometime we can get into it if you want! Actually, one of the more interesting topics I've been reading about lately is the implication of 'negative' numbers. In essence, the entire collection of imaginary numbers only exists because we decided to include negatives (which was resisted for centuries) in our basic number line. That has good and bad implications, but one of the foremost was to create a periodicity - a time like effect - in an otherwise non repeating scheme. The first time I ran into that kind of problem was in crystallography. In that field, there's a collection of 'forbidden' reflections - in essence, signals that should exist but don't in practice. As a student or engineer, you're just remember which ones are forbidden for which crystal structures. A few years later, in solid state physics, I learned the truth - the crystals that we describe include extra information that is redundant. The forbidden reflections are an artifact of that assumptions - if you use the minimum information necessary just based on energy and repeating structures instead, then there are no forbidden reflections. So why did early scientist include information that was redundant? Because humans like symmetry and like common shapes - squares, circles, triangles. Nature cares about energy. We can fit a parallelepiped into a square box and do so because we like squares. But that means you include extra information - namely, the information of what 'else' has to be included to make the parallelepiped fit the imposed geometry. That creates echos that show up throughout later calculations.
  3. Wind is bit like real estate - location, location, location!
  4. Wind is an interesting opportunity and problem. One of the big advantages of wind is that it's offset seasonally from solar. As the Germans discovered, the north sea generation tends to be highest in January while the solar was highest in July. That's actually great news for being able to balance the grid. Without some sort of counter generation, the seasonal energy production varies by about 700%. That means in the winter you need 7x more solar panels than you need in the summer to create the same amount of energy. That either leads to a massive oversupply and stranded capital in the summer or a dramatic undersupply and shortages in the winter. Wind offsets that so the ratio is only like 4 to 1 which is much better. So there is opportunity. The problem with wind is that the power goes as the cube of the velocity. In practice that means that relatively small fluctuation in wind speed create dramatic fluctuations in output power. The Germans end up free-spinning their windmills due to wind velocity being too high as they do shutting them down because wind velocity is too low. The best answer to that is taller (not necessarily bigger) windmills. Modern construction cranes only go up to about 90 meters in practice. Freaking high but not high enough to get into the more ideal constant wind conditions. Also, because the weight of the turbines is at the top, higher turbines mean longer arms which means much larger towers at the base. In practice, it's really hard to lift wind turbines up to where they'd be most useful without the tower costs and dynamics being unweildy. That's why there's interest in alternate technologies like vertical turbines but those have stability issues too. I'm OK with the turbines planned for Lake Erie. The CAFE standards are nice because they're 'goals' that industry can try and achieve but they're also 'blunt' meaning you can get a lot of unintended consequences. I'm an all of the above person. Put wind in where it makes sense. Put solar in where it makes sense. Keep working diligently on alternative energy. Let oil and gas bear the true costs of extraction. Those are not new industries and they don't need help. The biggest impediment to innovation is cheep energy. I'm actually OK with a carbon tax but that's for another thread.
  5. The end point of any fully oxidized hydrocarbon is CO2 + H2O. CO is one of the molecules created during high temperature oxidation wherein the moles of O2 is less than the stoichiometric ratio of [C]+[2H2]. There's significant energy left in CO compared to CO2 so if your mixture and conditions are such that you're creating a lot of CO, then you're wasting a lot of energy so that's never done in practice. You want to convert all the carbon over to CO2 for maximum efficiency. However, there's always an equilibrium concentration of CO in any practical device so most engines will include some sort of post reaction cleanup to shift trace CO to CO2 for safety reasons - small home generators not withstanding.
  6. Long post! I'll try and return the favor. The 'conservative' umbrella contains many ridiculous people from true racists to homophobes to deniers in the bad meaning of that word. Conservatives are forced to share the bus with them in the same way that liberals are forced to share the bus with lgbtqrstuvwxy-etc, no matter how weird it gets. No, I'm not going to try and defend the undefensible. It's foolish. But I would make some points. The idea that 'conservatives' don't believe in science is a popular trope but it's no more accurate than to say that liberals don't like science because they deny gender studies or genetics. It's a broad over generalization that turns off the middle and makes them LESS interested in hearing an opposing point of view. That's why I push back. It's not true or helpful. The global warming debate has been hijacked. That's the simple truth. What began as a 'save the future' movement became a redistribute wealth movement, then morphed into a "banana" movement - 'Build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything" and finally has evolved into the shrine of the solar gods. The environmental arguments have become reversed abortion arguments. In the same way that there is NO liberal on earth that wants to kill babies, it's really easy to tar them with the 'right to life' arguments. So the conservatives have taken the same approach as the liberals did on abortion - they argue a different point. Namely, economic development. The connection between CO2 and climate change isn't great. Frankly CH4 and HFCs are dramatically better forcing gases and concern me more. Yes, I'm familiar with Venus and Mars and Earth as templates and the problems with those observations as well. If you dig into it, you'll find out that the variations in the predicted models for THOSE planets are comparable to the variations on THIS planet. Yes, I'm aware of the physics. Why are conservatives objecting to climate change? Because that's not the fight that's actually going on. It may be for you. But it's not the larger argument. For example, you mentioned CAFE laws. If you follow that industry, you'll know that the reason the restrictions were lifted were because the car companies COULDN'T hit the targets! Even with massive rebates, Americans aren't buying enough electric and high efficiency cars. Starting next year, the auto industry would have to start paying fines because American consumers don't want those cars. It's not that the cars don't exist -- Americans don't want to buy them. Sales of Teslas in Demark fell 80% YOY because the Danish government stopped subsidizing them. Simple truth - if the CAFE laws weren't suspended, American workers would get fired. So what do you do? You can take the job hits or you can suspend the law and hope to do better later. The high efficiency cars keep getting built and hope springs eternal that enough Americans will want to buy them. Obama himself would have suspended the CAFE rules - he wasn't an idiot. I mentioned my support for the Keystone Pipeline. Why? Because I'd much rather have American refineries that are built to handle shitty sulfur laden tar sands process the oil and treat the crap than build a terminal in western Canada and send it off to the Philippines or Thailand or Tibet where it would get processed and the crap dumped into the China sea. I trust our regulated industry to do a better job than their non-regulated 40 year old cracking plants. I believe its the best answer to a generally bad question. Do you consider that answer to be fair or not fair? Can I have a different view and not be evil? I don't know. I know I've thought about it, weighted the pros and cons, and have made an opinion. Republicans that blame global warming on cow farts or body heat are simply idiots. It's embarrassing that they would even say such a thing and they deserve scorn and ridicule. Trump is an idiot. I had hoped he would grow into the job. I was completely wrong. He's gotten worse. We're releasing 429 quads of energy into the environment every year. It is ridiculous and stupid to think that has no impact. In the next 20 years, we will bring an additional 200 quads of energy online. I would much rather that be done in a reasonable way and that we can focus on maybe trying to make it 150 quads instead. I want the 3 billion people who don't have reliable energy and live in constant threat of disease and food deprivation to not have to be that way. For that to occur, we MUST bring the 200 quads online which means we CANNOT meet the Paris accord limits. I've read and linked to you the reports from the Fraunhofer institute. Yes, I'm aware of what Germany has done and it's pretty amazing. I'm also aware of how they've run into the storage problem, how they're focusing on trying to deal with it, and what the economic impact (good and bad) of their migration has been on their economy. I'm familiar with the West Australia debacle. Here the Fraunhofer report again - they update it every 4-5 months. It's a very cool read if you're a renewable energy enthusiast. https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/en/documents/publications/studies/recent-facts-about-photovoltaics-in-germany.pdf I appreciate your perspective. There are conservatives that are evil and stupid. There are also conservatives that simply have a different point of view. If you want to convince them to YOUR point of view, you have to understand their perspective and show them where they can do better. Good luck.
  7. I think you're totally self-deluded if you actually believe what you wrote. Hollywood isn't liberally dominated and cranking out virtue signaling tripe packaged for liberal consumption? REALLY? Pop culture isn't liberally biased? Higher Education? Come on man! Conservatives have ONE medium (AM radio that they share with sports talk) and ONE cable channel yet THEY are the ones who are narrow minded? Good luck and be safe.
  8. The brilliance and evil of FOX was that they hybridized news and opinion pieces into a single narrative. Shep Smith is one of the more traditional news shows which is why he's been been more harsh. Wallace and Bret Baier are like 50:50 shows. They'll take their shots but they'll also trot out the 'round table' of pure opinion stuff and mix it in so it's hard to tell what's news and what's just opinion. The other shows.. Hannity, Carlson, etc. are pure opinion shows with just a smattering of news. I consider Fox and Friends to be quite possibly the worst TV show ever produced.. ever. I think FOX broadly follows their demographics. Most of FOX was actually pretty anti-Trump right up until he sewed up the nomination. I think they'll ride the Trump Big Red Tie right up to the point where their profits drop off and then they'll drop him.
  9. It's never that bimodal. Temperature is rising. CO2 is rising. The question is to what degree the two are correlated. The answer, thus far, is not as much as we originally thought. That doesn't mean they're NOT related - it just means the coefficients aren't as big and that there may be other factors. My personal boogieman is HFCs and CH4 but we'll see. I don't know enough about the models to know what their assumptions are - I can only judge based on what THEY actually say. Your boat analogy isn't far off. How safe do you want to be? CO2 is integrally tied to most energy production, either directly or indirectly, and energy production is literally the lifeblood of a modern economy. The argument has gone religiously toxic. To reject any principle of global warming is to threaten GAEA herself. The conservative reaction is not to do nothing. That's a straw man. There's 1.5 TRILLION dollars going into energy production and research globally. There's VAST piles of money being thrown at fusion, fission, advanced turbines, hydro, solar photovoltaics, solar concentrators, geothermal energy, wind, tidal, carbon capture and storage, advanced oil extraction, advance battery technology, flywheels, gas storage, hydrogen production, advanced fertilizers, and biochar, just to name a few of the things. Do you truly believe that all that work is being done ONLY by liberals? That conservatives truly don't care?
  10. Wrong about what? That the temperature is going up? I don't think they're wrong. Be safe.
  11. They have the data already. Publications are always 1-2 years after the fact. Even fast non-reviewed tracked "Letters" typically have a 3-6 month delay. We should be conserving hydrocarbon fuels for materials fabrication. We NEED the advanced plastics and chemicals that come from these precursors. Frankly, burning natural gas and oil for heat is like making penny nails out of titanium. They work but it's a pretty expensive way to make them in the long run. We should stop subsidizing coal and fossil fuel exploration. Those costs should be handled as the cost of doing business and come out of profits. We should be investing in distributed energy and soft-start motors. We should have an honest conversation about smart grids and time of use pricing and the true costs of water and sanitation. We should absolutely be focusing on advanced air conditioning. Two BILLION people are about to start buying window units - if they end up buying the $100 dollar walmart versions, the climate is doomed, regardless of CO2. As the Paris Climate treaty affirmed - generation is not the problem - conservation is the problem. We need to move away from concrete as the primary building material and use those hydrocarbons we're burning for insulation and structural components instead. I'm sorry to point this out but your method of persuasion isn't working. There's all kinds of reasons to do advanced development but CO2 was the wrong beach to have this fight.
  12. Correlation doesn't equal causation. To understand causation requires a model of understanding or mechanism of action. Cause and Effect. Data and result. The point of the original article is that the current model didn't work, is likely incomplete, and needs to be modified to account for new observations. Many climate scientists said last year this was likely the case and asked for help, including detailing the areas they felt were least accurate. That is science in action. This happens all the time. If science were easy, somebody else would have done it. The geocentric models of the solar system were 97% accurate at predicting the locations of celestial bodies and 100% wrong in mechanism. If you follow astrophysics, you'll find a growing body of data that says our understanding of the big bang may be wrong. The inflation model has some pretty glaring holes that are getting harder and harder to cover up as more and more data comes in. In genetics, the big thing is epigenetics - it turns out that DNA may contain all the instructions but WHEN you read them matters as much as what they say. This is all normal research.
  13. I only have a few people on my ignore list - it's pretty short. I'm a firm believer in the Hegelian dialectic. To find truth, you have to entertain ideas that are outside your normal understanding. It's important to be uncomfortable sometimes and then look at why. Hypothesis, Antithesis, Synthesis. Nice concept. But I also believe that there are some cases where the cost - benefit ratio just isn't there. I don't have any great love of being someone's pinata for example. I've done that and learned about the personality of people that like to use others for their own amusement. I gained the truth I wanted and don't need to re-learn that. In some cases, the truth is burred under so much just evil shit that it's not worth the effort. Things like ape-pictures of Obama or just nakedly anti-religious sentiments, or anything else that's just based on blind hate. I've talked with those folks and understand where that's coming from too but again, once learned I don't need to repeat those lessons. Life is too short and evil eats your perspective too easily. Then, there's those who can't actually formulate a cogent argument - There's only so much you can gain from random walk experiments. I've tried that too.
  14. This whole silly mess is to try and use reconciliation to drive through tax reform. The ends, no matter how laudable, don't always justify the means. So far, I'm completely unimpressed. The Obamacare negotiations were filled with lies and half-truths to jam it through. This bill is no better. More accounting gimics. A pox on both. We'll see if the States show some testicular fortitude, step up to the plate, and propose the necessary tax increases to avoid the Medicaid cuts or if they pussy out and hide behind Trump's giant red tie.