This is probably the first time I ever seriously say this and mean it, but GO NAVY! As of 2226 last night, a US Navy cruiser launched a missile and scored a direct hit on a bus-sized, highly classified spy satellite falling from the sky. Congratulations to Raytheon on their excellent missiles and the US Navy for their superior marksmanship.
While the Pentagon states that the reason for destroying the satellite was to protect inhabitants of the impact zone from exposure to its hydrazine fuel, the fact that the satellite was highly classified and that pieces could survive reentry likely was the true reason for the shoot-down. The chance to prove our missile defense systems and the ability to drop a satellite from earth didn't hurt either, as China had done so not long ago.
Now China wants data on our successful operation, allegedly concerned about harm caused to other countries and the ambiguous term "outer space security." More likely, they want to compare their capabilities to those of the greatest military power in the nation in order to outdo us at our own game. Well I've got news for ya, China... YOU'RE NOT GETTING IT! GO AMERICA!
21 February 2008
01 February 2008
Global Warming: I Can Has Truth?
I thought I'd take the time to present my feelings on what is commonly known as global warming, or less specifically, "climate change." But I must first present my disclaimer: I am not a climatologist, geologist, or scientist of any kind. I do, however, possess (to the best of my knowledge) a fully functional mind and reasoning skills.
The definition according to the ever-popular Wikipedia (opinion of the masses = truth, right?) is as follows:
Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans in recent decades and its projected continuation.
This definition is commonly accepted as fact. According to a 2006 poll conducted by Time magazine, 85% of surveyed Americans believe that the global temperature has been slowly increasing over the last 100 years. 13% disagreed. Let us look at a graph to help visualize this perceived change. (Cue Al Gore riding scissor lift to point out dramatic rise in temperature.)
Without a doubt, global average temperature has been increasing over the last hundred years. In this respect, the majority of Americans are correct in their beliefs about global warming.
The poll further asked whether the increase in temperature was caused mainly by human or natural causes. 31% believed climate change to be due exclusively to human factors. Only 19% believed nature to be the cause of this relatively recent temperature change. A majority of 49% believed both to be the cause. To determine which is true, we must take a look further back in history to before the rise of human civilization, massive fossil fuel use, and the internal combustion engine.
What is this, you say? Global warming is true? Looking at this graph, it appears that we have been slowly digging our own graves since approximately the 1800s. However, this graph only covers the last 2000 years, and as any geologist can tell you, 2000 years is only a blink of an eye in terms of the earth's history. Let us look even further back in history to get a better idea of how we have affected the global climate.
This is an interesting graph, now isn't it? It seems that most of the general public has seen nothing like this before. Had they seen this, they would not be able to contend that humans have had any statistically significant change in global temperature. More likely, we are headed for another ice age.
But what about the recent increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? The following graph shows the correlation between the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperature.
There is, indeed a correlation between the level of carbon dioxide present in the atmosphere and average global temperature. However, the level of carbon dioxide has been fluctuating along with temperature since the early days of our planet. But if an increase in carbon dioxide means an increase in temperature, doesn't our current high level of CO2 output mean we are contributing to a warmer future? Not necessarily, as I will explain with a simple bit of high school chemistry.
It is a basic principle that as the temperature of a liquid increases, its solubility of gases decreases. This is why storing sodas in the refrigerator retains the carbon dioxide (fizz) longer than if they were kept at room temperature. The same principle applies to the oceans. As the global temperature increases, the oceans release vast amounts of carbon dioxide as its solubility decreases. When the temperature drops down again, the solubility of the oceans increases and they now can hold more excess CO2. Correlation does not equal causation.
By now you may be saying to yourself, if global climate change is cyclical and has nothing to do with human civilization, why do so many people believe it? There are many answers to this question. My personal favorite is that people like to believe that they have more control over their surroundings than they truly do. Believing that a mere 6.6 billion people can dramatically affect 5.1361×1018 kg of atmosphere by accident is pretty arrogant. Either that, or "Al Gore says so and his movie made lots of money, so it must be true."
Many global warming proponents also have personal agendas that would be well served if the populace thought future generations would be doomed if we did not buy hybrid cars and fund research into finding ways to save the planet. And let us not forget the role fear-mongering can play in winning elections.
This is not to say that we should scrap research into alternative fuels. Alternative fuels could be produced domestically, reducing our nation's dependence on other nations, as well as being easily renewed and reducing local pollution. The reason we don't have these fuels is because none of them are currently viable, either economically or physically. (Some say that this is due "big oil" fighting possible competition, although many oil corporations have big bucks invested in alternatives.) In order to become widely accepted, alternative fuel has to be cheap to produce both in terms of dollars and energy, as well as yield a return on energy investment comparable to that of oil. Gasoline is cheap (camparatively speaking), gives a good energy return, and we have the necessary infrastructure to support it.
Documentaries of misinformation with respect to climate change are everywhere. I will leave you with sources so you can find out more from the mouths of those more qualified than I:
Professor Bob Carter's Lecture (Quite Entertaining)
Part One
Part Two
Part Three
Part Four
Temperature Change History
TIME's Poll
The definition according to the ever-popular Wikipedia (opinion of the masses = truth, right?) is as follows:
Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans in recent decades and its projected continuation.
This definition is commonly accepted as fact. According to a 2006 poll conducted by Time magazine, 85% of surveyed Americans believe that the global temperature has been slowly increasing over the last 100 years. 13% disagreed. Let us look at a graph to help visualize this perceived change. (Cue Al Gore riding scissor lift to point out dramatic rise in temperature.)
Without a doubt, global average temperature has been increasing over the last hundred years. In this respect, the majority of Americans are correct in their beliefs about global warming.
The poll further asked whether the increase in temperature was caused mainly by human or natural causes. 31% believed climate change to be due exclusively to human factors. Only 19% believed nature to be the cause of this relatively recent temperature change. A majority of 49% believed both to be the cause. To determine which is true, we must take a look further back in history to before the rise of human civilization, massive fossil fuel use, and the internal combustion engine.
What is this, you say? Global warming is true? Looking at this graph, it appears that we have been slowly digging our own graves since approximately the 1800s. However, this graph only covers the last 2000 years, and as any geologist can tell you, 2000 years is only a blink of an eye in terms of the earth's history. Let us look even further back in history to get a better idea of how we have affected the global climate.
This is an interesting graph, now isn't it? It seems that most of the general public has seen nothing like this before. Had they seen this, they would not be able to contend that humans have had any statistically significant change in global temperature. More likely, we are headed for another ice age.
But what about the recent increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? The following graph shows the correlation between the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperature.
There is, indeed a correlation between the level of carbon dioxide present in the atmosphere and average global temperature. However, the level of carbon dioxide has been fluctuating along with temperature since the early days of our planet. But if an increase in carbon dioxide means an increase in temperature, doesn't our current high level of CO2 output mean we are contributing to a warmer future? Not necessarily, as I will explain with a simple bit of high school chemistry.
It is a basic principle that as the temperature of a liquid increases, its solubility of gases decreases. This is why storing sodas in the refrigerator retains the carbon dioxide (fizz) longer than if they were kept at room temperature. The same principle applies to the oceans. As the global temperature increases, the oceans release vast amounts of carbon dioxide as its solubility decreases. When the temperature drops down again, the solubility of the oceans increases and they now can hold more excess CO2. Correlation does not equal causation.
By now you may be saying to yourself, if global climate change is cyclical and has nothing to do with human civilization, why do so many people believe it? There are many answers to this question. My personal favorite is that people like to believe that they have more control over their surroundings than they truly do. Believing that a mere 6.6 billion people can dramatically affect 5.1361×1018 kg of atmosphere by accident is pretty arrogant. Either that, or "Al Gore says so and his movie made lots of money, so it must be true."
Many global warming proponents also have personal agendas that would be well served if the populace thought future generations would be doomed if we did not buy hybrid cars and fund research into finding ways to save the planet. And let us not forget the role fear-mongering can play in winning elections.
This is not to say that we should scrap research into alternative fuels. Alternative fuels could be produced domestically, reducing our nation's dependence on other nations, as well as being easily renewed and reducing local pollution. The reason we don't have these fuels is because none of them are currently viable, either economically or physically. (Some say that this is due "big oil" fighting possible competition, although many oil corporations have big bucks invested in alternatives.) In order to become widely accepted, alternative fuel has to be cheap to produce both in terms of dollars and energy, as well as yield a return on energy investment comparable to that of oil. Gasoline is cheap (camparatively speaking), gives a good energy return, and we have the necessary infrastructure to support it.
Documentaries of misinformation with respect to climate change are everywhere. I will leave you with sources so you can find out more from the mouths of those more qualified than I:
Professor Bob Carter's Lecture (Quite Entertaining)
Part One
Part Two
Part Three
Part Four
Temperature Change History
TIME's Poll
30 January 2008
SoBe Life (-ending) Water
So I'm on my way to class today and I realize that I have about fifteen minutes before class starts. I pop into the bookstore for something to quench my thirst, something a little healthy and caffeine free. I walk to the end refrigerator and grab a grape flavored SoBe Life Water. Awesome, I say to myself, water with flavor to keep my taste buds occupied and all kinds of herbs and vitamins to boot! I twist off the cap (paying for it first, of course) and take a swig. Hmm, something's not right here. I take another swig and the problem is all too obvious. Each sip tastes like someone dumped a restaurant-type packet of sugar onto my tongue! Alarmed, I take a look at the nutrition facts on the bottle. 24 grams of sugar?!
Despite this disconnect between the name and the actual nutrition of the stuff, I soldiered on, knowing that every sip was bringing me closer to the dreaded "beetis". I managed to down the entire bottle. It did quench my thirst, but at what cost?!
Despite this disconnect between the name and the actual nutrition of the stuff, I soldiered on, knowing that every sip was bringing me closer to the dreaded "beetis". I managed to down the entire bottle. It did quench my thirst, but at what cost?!
Cigars: Rocky Patel CI Fuma
If you know me, you know I enjoy fine tobaccos. From time to time I may post reviews of notable cigars I have smoked on my blog. This is my first review (i.e. n00b palate warning) so please bear with me.
Just finished off an RP Fuma. It's a short filler mixture of Vintage 1990, 1992, and Fusion trimmings. I think these are a CI exclusive, I haven't found any information about them anywhere else. Anyway, on to the review!
I was pleasantly surprised by the construction. Wrapper was smooth and dark, no veins. My cheapo cutter made a nice cut. A small flake of the wrapper came loose, but no problem.
Pre-light draw was delicious. Reminded me of a well-seasoned steak, leathery with hints of cinnamon and chocolate. (Imagine a well-worn leather shoe with a piece of dark chocolate inside and sprinkled with cinnamon... scratch that, that sounds horrible.) I could savor that flavor forever. The light took a couple attempts to get the burn even, but once it was done it burned perfectly all the way through.
The first half tasted of leather with the cinnamon i mentioned earlier and a bit of something... citrusy maybe? There was definitely some tanginess in it that picked up in the second half, enough to make my mouth water. The last 1.5-2 inches it got a bit harsh and had to let it go.
This is definitely a great cigar for the price. If I can ever get hold of a box (CI's out of stock) this will become my go-to smoke. If anyone knows where to get some of these, please to let me know. 8/10
Just finished off an RP Fuma. It's a short filler mixture of Vintage 1990, 1992, and Fusion trimmings. I think these are a CI exclusive, I haven't found any information about them anywhere else. Anyway, on to the review!
I was pleasantly surprised by the construction. Wrapper was smooth and dark, no veins. My cheapo cutter made a nice cut. A small flake of the wrapper came loose, but no problem.
Pre-light draw was delicious. Reminded me of a well-seasoned steak, leathery with hints of cinnamon and chocolate. (Imagine a well-worn leather shoe with a piece of dark chocolate inside and sprinkled with cinnamon... scratch that, that sounds horrible.) I could savor that flavor forever. The light took a couple attempts to get the burn even, but once it was done it burned perfectly all the way through.
The first half tasted of leather with the cinnamon i mentioned earlier and a bit of something... citrusy maybe? There was definitely some tanginess in it that picked up in the second half, enough to make my mouth water. The last 1.5-2 inches it got a bit harsh and had to let it go.
This is definitely a great cigar for the price. If I can ever get hold of a box (CI's out of stock) this will become my go-to smoke. If anyone knows where to get some of these, please to let me know. 8/10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
