Geoengineering the climate

Another solution being proposed to counter the alleged global warming–in addition to reducing the carbon in the atmosphere–is “geoengineering.” Here is what Samuel Thernstrom of the conservative think tank the American Enterprise Institute is proposing:

The most promising ideas take their proof of concept from nature. Scientists noted that the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines cooled the planet for two to three years by roughly half a degree Celsius. There are ways of artificially reproducing this effect. For instance, ultra-fine sulfur particles injected into the upper atmosphere could deflect 1 or 2 percent of incoming sunlight — almost unnoticeable but enough to cancel out the warming expected to occur this century. This would not halt the slow acidification of the oceans caused by elevated levels of carbon dioxide, but it could cool the planet and drastically reduce the heat-related damages we would otherwise experience, buying time for emissions reductions to take effect.

There are other potentially effective geoengineering techniques that deserve serious study. For instance, low-altitude marine stratocumuli clouds, which cover about 25 percent of the world’s oceans, also reflect sunlight. Research suggests that it might be possible to increase the reflective abilities of these clouds by spraying a fine mist of seawater into the air. A fleet of roughly 1,500 ships (estimated cost: $2 million per ship) might be able to increase the reflectivity of these clouds by 10 percent, enough to counteract anticipated warming.

Into this category we could put the idea of painting the world’s roofs white so as to reflect more of the sun’s energy back into space.

My impression is that some conservatives are embracing such schemes–since they would supposedly be cheap and painless, as opposed to “cap and pay” schemes and eliminating carbon fuels–while they are being opposed by environmentalists for their trust in technology and for being, well, painless. But aren’t both approaches equally outlandish in their own ways?

Automotive criticism

I have often said that ANY subject can be made interesting by good writing. As an example, I have often used writing about cars. I’m not all that interested in them, but I enjoy reading good writing about them. Consider, for example, Car Talk with Click and Clack, the Tappet brothers. Just as there are literary critics, movie critics, and food critics, there are car critics. The most entertaining of the breed has to be Jeremy Clarkson, one of the hosts of one of my favorite television shows, BBC’s Top Gear. Here is his take on Honda’s new hybrid, the Insight:

Much has been written about the Insight, Honda’s new low-priced hybrid. We’ve been told how much carbon dioxide it produces, how its dashboard encourages frugal driving by glowing green when you’re easy on the throttle and how it is the dawn of all things. The beginning of days.

So far, though, you have not been told what it’s like as a car; as a tool for moving you, your friends and your things from place to place.

So here goes. It’s terrible. Biblically terrible. Possibly the worst new car money can buy. It’s the first car I’ve ever considered crashing into a tree, on purpose, so I didn’t have to drive it any more.

The biggest problem, and it’s taken me a while to work this out, because all the other problems are so vast and so cancerous, is the gearbox. For reasons known only to itself, Honda has fitted the Insight with something called constantly variable transmission (CVT).

It doesn’t work. Put your foot down in a normal car and the revs climb in tandem with the speed. In a CVT car, the revs spool up quickly and then the speed rises to match them. It feels like the clutch is slipping. It feels horrid.

And the sound is worse. The Honda’s petrol engine is a much-shaved, built-for-economy, low-friction 1.3 that, at full chat, makes a noise worse than someone else’s crying baby on an airliner. It’s worse than the sound of your parachute failing to open. Really, to get an idea of how awful it is, you’d have to sit a dog on a ham slicer.

So you’re sitting there with the engine screaming its head off, and your ears bleeding, and you’re doing only 23mph because that’s about the top speed, and you’re thinking things can’t get any worse, and then they do because you run over a small piece of grit.

Because the Honda has two motors, one that runs on petrol and one that runs on batteries, it is more expensive to make than a car that has one. But since the whole point of this car is that it could be sold for less than Toyota’s Smugmobile, the engineers have plainly peeled the suspension components to the bone. The result is a ride that beggars belief.

There’s more. Normally, Hondas feel as though they have been screwed together by eye surgeons. This one, however, feels as if it’s been made from steel so thin, you could read through it. And the seats, finished in pleblon, are designed specifically, it seems, to ruin your skeleton. This is hairy-shirted eco-ism at its very worst.

However, as a result of all this, prices start at £15,490 — that’s £3,000 or so less than the cost of the Prius. But at least with the Toyota there is no indication that you’re driving a car with two motors. In the Insight you are constantly reminded, not only by the idiotic dashboard, which shows leaves growing on a tree when you ease off the throttle (pass the sick bucket), but by the noise and the ride and the seats. And also by the hybrid system Honda has fitted.

In a Prius the electric motor can, though almost never does, power the car on its own. In the Honda the electric motor is designed to “assist” the petrol engine, providing more get-up-and-go when the need arises. The net result is this: in a Prius the transformation from electricity to petrol is subtle. In the Honda there are all sorts of jerks and clunks.

Jeremy is not just trying to be funny. He is not just making fun of the car. He is dealing with actual technical problems in the vehicle. And if you read the rest of the review, you will find that he is not against alternative energy at all and that he has positive suggestions for how the automotive industry could proceed. He makes the point that for a new automotive technology to succeed, it will need to be at least as good and preferably better than what people currently have; otherwise, they won’t buy it. He gives credit to Prius, but puts his hope in hydrogen technology.

Stop smiling

Arkansas, Indiana, Nevada and Virginia will no longer allow you to smile for your driver’s license picture. It seems that smiling throws off facial recognition technology used to detect fraudulent licenses. Residents in these states will have to display “neutral facial expressions.”

So smiling heightens individuality? Being happy would foil surveillance technology that some Big Brother might use to keep track of us? There may be something telling here, though I’m not sure what it is.
.

Military funding for telepathy

Wired.com reports that the Pentagon is investing in the possibilities of telepathy on the battlefield:

Forget the battlefield radios, the combat PDAs or even infantry hand signals. When the soldiers of the future want to communicate, they’ll read each other’s minds.

At least, that’s the hope of researchers at the Pentagon’s mad-science division Darpa. The agency’s budget for the next fiscal year includes $4 million to start up a program called Silent Talk. The goal is to “allow user-to-user communication on the battlefield without the use of vocalized speech through analysis of neural signals.” That’s on top of the $4 million the Army handed out last year to the University of California to investigate the potential for computer-mediated telepathy.

Before being vocalized, speech exists as word-specific neural signals in the mind. Darpa wants to develop technology that would detect these signals of  “pre-speech,” analyze them, and then transmit the statement to an intended interlocutor. Darpa plans to use EEG to read the brain waves. It’s a technique they’re also testing in a project to devise mind-reading binoculars that alert soldiers to threats faster the conscious mind can process them.

The project has three major goals, according to Darpa. First, try to map a person’s EEG patterns to his or her individual words. Then, see if those patterns are generalizable — if everyone has similar patterns. Last, “construct a fieldable pre-prototype that would decode the signal and transmit over a limited range.”

The military has been funding a handful of  mind-tapping technology recently, and already have monkeys capable of telepathic limb control. Telepathy may also have advantages beyond covert battlefield chatter. Last year, the National Research Council and the Defense Intelligence Agency released a report suggesting that neuroscience might also be useful to “make the enemy obey our commands.” The first step, though, may be getting a grunt to obey his officer’s remotely-transmitted thoughts.

The approach seems to be physiological rather than New Age mystical, as such, but still. . . .Does this bother you? What about working on neuroscience that would “make the enemy obey our commands”? Couldn’t the state use that technology to make its citizens obey its commands?

Pontiac blues

I am lamenting the end of the Pontiac line, as GM sheds brands in an effort to stay alive. In my teenage years, the family car was a Pontiac, so that was the one I got to drive every chance I got. More than that, my friend down the street had a GTO, a shiny black muscle car of the kind Pontiac specialized in. I would go over to his house and help him work on his car. Not that it needed fixing but that he was always buying things for it–mag wheels, pipes to make it louder–and trying to “soup it up” so that it would go even faster.

Do teenage guys get together to soup up Priuses? Do teenage guys even work on cars anymore?

1966 GTO

More pirates brought to justice

Internet music pirates, that is. Pirate Bay four jailed for breaking copyright in Swedish file-sharing trial – Telegraph: “The founders of file-sharing website The Pirate Bay have been sentenced to a year in jail in Sweden for breaking copyright laws by helping millions of users download music, movies and computer games for free.”

As someone has said, we need to get Somalia wired for the internet so that their pirates can ply their trade in a more non-violent and possibly more lucrative way.

How Durer & Cranach helped invent the internet

Durer was one of the first artists to take advantage of printing technology. He carved drawings into blocks of wood, which were then inked and put onto a printing press, which then made thousands of copies. Others had done woodcuts before, but Durer turned the “print” into great art.

Cranach too made prints of great quality. He added an innovation: making prints in color, first by just coloring them in and later developing printing with multiple blocks. Furthermore, Cranach owned a printing press. Not only did he churn out prints that expressed the message of the Reformation. He made illustrations for Luther’s vernacular translations of the Bible. And he was its first publisher.

What this means is that Durer and Cranach turned visual art into a mass medium. Now, people didn’t have to go to church or to a palace to see a picture. They could own pictures themselves and tack them up on the walls of their homes. The mechanical reproduction of images–and print technology, which eventually made use of chemicals on metal plates–would eventually lead to other mass media, including photography, motion pictures, television, and what we now take for granted on the internet.

So the next time you see a mass produced image, thank a Reformation artist.

Durer’s “Last Supper”:

Durer's Last Supper

Cranach’s “Law & Gospel”:

Cranach's Law & Gospel

Virtual and automated prayer

Thanks to Rich Shipe for alerting us to Information Age Prayer, a site that will pray your prayers for you–audibly and regularly–for a subscription fee. For $3.95 a day, your computer can recite the Lord’s Prayer for you. It can pray for your child for only $1.99. From the site’s FAQ:

Are the prayers meaningless, will subscribing really make a difference?
As with all prayer, the final results are up to God as everything follows His will. We make no claims regarding the efficacy of the service, however it is our opinion that the omniscient God hears the prayers when they are voiced, as He hears everything on this Earth. The omniscient God knows exactly who has subscribed and who each prayer is from when their name is displayed on screen and their prayer voiced. He is also aware of all donations to charity from each subscriber and we can surely make a difference in these charities supported.

Are prayers blasphemous when voiced by a computer?
We recommend you contact your local clergy for a personal answer, however we think that Information Age Prayer is a new and exciting way to connect with God.

How exactly will my prayer be voiced?
We use state of the art text-to-speech synthesizers to voice each prayers at a volume and speed equivalent to typical person praying. Each prayer is voiced individually, with the name of the subscriber displayed on screen. If the prayer is for someone else, then that name is displayed on screen instead. For more information see our terms of use.

Can I purchase a subscription for a friend or relative?
Yes, simply list their name as the person the prayer will belong to. Start by choosing their religion from the links on the top left. [The choices are Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Unaffiliated, and Other Religions.]

Is it wrong to charge for prayers?
The fees assure our customers that we are the most reliable service provider for Information Age Prayer. While most companies only donate a small portion of profits to charity, Information Age Prayer donates a full 10% of revenue to charity before subtracting  our operating costs. For more information see our terms of use. If you are a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization and would like us to donate to you see this page. . . .

Can I get a direct Peer to Peer connection with God?
God is not your peer, His connection with you is ever-present. What we offer is a way you can tell God that you think of Him every day with our Information Age Prayer Services.

This reminds me of the medieval practice of hiring monks and nuns to pray for you, which Luther was so irked about. Only now you don’t even need monks and nuns.

Obama allows doing anything to embryos except clone them

President Obama went further than anyone thought in lifting the restrictions on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Not only did he allow funding for research using existing stem cell lines made from embryos and making new stem cell lines from embryos set to be thrown away. Our taxpayer money may now be used to engender new living embryos just so they can be experimented upon and killed!

President Obama, however, said at the signing ceremony, that he does NOT believe in and will see that the government does not allow human cloning. He said, “It is dangerous, profoundly wrong and has no place in our society or any society.”

Well, good. But why does he call opposing human embryo experimentation being hostile to science and interfering with the progress of scientific research, while his opposing human cloning is OK? Why is he for one kind of embryo engineering but against another kind? Might not grinding up human embryos in an attempt to make medicine for adults also be ” dangerous, profoundly wrong,” deserving “no place in our society or any society”?

To me, it seems that human cloning is LESS wrong than harvesting embryos. With cloning, you at least get life. With embryo experimentation you kill life. Of course, cloning procedures usually generate many embryos that are later “disposed of.” So I am against cloning also. But I am struck by how repulsed many people are at the very thought of cloning, considering a clone some kind of soulless monster that should be killed. But if you are cloned, what you would end up with is just an identical twin. Who is also your sibling. “Profoundly wrong,” yes, but what the president has just allowed is “dangerous.”

Stem cells from regular skin

In another breakthrough, scientists have found a way to make cells from ordinary skin revert back to stem cells. No embryos were harmed in the making of this experiment. I like this comment:

“Stem cell research that requires destroying embryos is going the way of the Model T,” Richard M. Doerflinger of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said. “No administration that values science and medical progress over politics will want to divert funds now toward that increasingly obsolete and needlessly divisive approach.”

Nevertheless, the advocates of fetus harvesting to make medicine for adults keep demanding that right.