February 2010 Archives

This entry's title is a line from Roadhouse Blues, sung by Doors lead vocalist Jim Morrison. I think of it every time I find someone making important decisions about what to do now based on what they think is going to happen in the future. Of course, such behavior is the closest there is in Zen Buddhism to a sin. Non-buddhists, in general, don't have any idea what a horrible thing it is to sacrifice what you have today in order to secure some reward in an imagined future, so they do it, and even feel proud of it.

Eeeyyyeewww!

A case in point is the perenially stalled movement to curb carbon emissions to avoid global warming. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2007 claimed: "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal ... ." It goes on to detail a raft of dire consequences if we don't heed their warning, and make drastic changes to our lifestyles and energy infrastructure.

So, let's hypothesize a future in which governments of the world gang together, and force their citizens (remember, this is just an hypothesis) to conserve energy by, for example, installing gadgets that won't let you dry your clothes before 10:00 pm, drop your thermostats to, say, 65 degrees in winter and raise them to 80 degrees in summer. They mandate use of electric vehicles that won't go over 55 mph, and can't go farther than 30 miles before recharging (thus limiting personal travel to a radius of 15 miles), and many other good ideas.

Let's say that this goes on for two generations, or about 40 years, at which time the sky is clear and blue, and it's damn cold by anyone's standards. So, roughly 5 billion people have been miserable for forty years (that's one year for each of Ali Babba's thieves) in order to avoid a climate catastrophe that nobody knows would have happened, anyway.

Then, an asteroid falls on 'em and wipes 'em all out.

Is this good planning? Is it based on good science?

The answer to both questions is "No."

I'll leave as an exercise for the reader to figure out why it's bad planning. It is, and that's why the "Green" movement has been stillborn all these years. While everyone is willing to go along with the ideas that global warming is "unequivocal," that it's bad, and that something must be done. Nobody believes it enough to take action based on it.

It's bad science because of the use of the word "unequivocal" in the report summary.

No scientist worthy of the title would use the word "unequivocal." Any sentence containing the word, without a counterbalancing negative (such as in "No scientific theory is unequivocal."), is prima facie not a scientific statement.

On July 5, 1687, Sir Isaac Newton published Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, a three-volume book that was the seminal work for the science of physics. Nearly three centuries later, Albert Einstein published his special theory of relativity, which, among other things, showed that Newton had, after all, gotten it wrong. He followed that up ten years later, in 1915 with his general relativity theory, which pointed out how Newton got it wrong.

It's now 95 years later, and we're still trying to figure out what's wrong with Einstein's theory. We know he got it wrong, we just don't know what's wrong with it. So far, it's the second most successful scientific theory of all time.

The honor of being the single most successful theory ever elucidated goes to Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. On November 24, 1859, Charles Darwin turned the discipline of life science on its head by publishing a little tome entitled On the Origin of Species. It's now over 150 years later, and we still call it the "theory of evolution" despite its proven success. Scientists (the real scientists, not the pseudoscientists that creationists like to quote) realize that there's probably something wrong with it, but so far nobody's been able to get a whiff of what that might be.

In science, no statement is ever unequivocal. It's only the best idea we have at the time. So, if it's unequivocal, it's not science.

A flurry (pun intended) of articles in today's issue of The Wall Street Journal prompted me to drop another post about the controversy surrounding climate change research and efforts to curb global warming. Readers who have followed my posts here and in the Ask Charlie blog I wrote for Control Engineering know that I'm no fan of the IPCC report upon which most of the current nonsense is based. It's not that I think that there's anything wrong with the basic thesis that dumping loads of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere will likely ratchet up global temperatures, my problem is that so much of the so-called research, and especially the conclusions drawn therefrom, are prima facie so much politically motivated dreck (or to use the proper Yiddish spelling drek).

As I see it, there are two basic problems. First, the conclusions are based on a sophmoric physical model. Second, who ever said that higher global temperatures would be a bad thing, anyway?

The theory of global warming is based on a simple physical model - the greenhouse model - which is, in turn, based on the solid physics of radiative heat transfer. Specifically, it starts with the observation that the opacity of most atmospheric gasses is wavelength dependent. That is, while most of these gasses appear transparent to visible light, they are more opaque (sometimes very opaque) to infrared wavelengths.

So, the radiative power flux of sunlight, a large fraction of which comes at visible wavelengths, gets through the atmosphere to warm the ground. The warm ground tries to radiate that power back out at lower wavelengths (basically, the color temperature of sunlight is about 6,000 K, while that of radiation from the ground is about 300 K). The infrared, however, is absorbed by the dense lower atmosphere. Ergo, the ground and lower atmosphere, which are roughly in thermal equilibrium, get warmer. Increasing the density of the more infrared-absorbtive gasses, especially carbon dioxide, (so the theory goes) will necessarily increase the infrared absorbtion, and lead to higher temperatures.

We teach this model as an example in second-semester freshman physics. It's simple, easy to understand, and illustrates the mathematics of radiative heat transfer (which is what we're trying to do in freshman physics). The only problem is that the model is dead wrong. The real world is vastly more complicated. The difference is so extreme that any conclusions drawn from the greenhouse model are unlikely to correspond to anything in the real world.

One of the biggest problems is that meteorologists have known for decades that the weather system is chaotic. Weather patterns cannot be reliably predicted for a time scale longer than about a week. Weather, of course, is critical to radiative heat transfer, so asking a climate model that uses radiative heat transfer to predict anything beyond about a week is simply stupid. Other parts of the climate system are similarly chaotic, such as solar flux variability, making the prediction of future climate via computer models an exercise in futility. It is of academic interest, but of academic interest only.

Moving on to the second problem, who says global warming is a bad thing, anyway? The medieval warm period (look it up) ushered in an age of prosperity, cultural advancement, and generally really good times. It was followed by the the Little Ice Age, which brought with it famine, plague, and death. Who th' heck wants that?

Lessons from history, and prehistory uniformly lead to the syllogism:

cooler = bad;

warmer = good.

You do the math.

First, I want to thank the large number of readers who have taken the time to add comments to my blog. I've been blogging for about three years now, and this is the highest volume of comments, and the kindest words in them, that I've ever encountered. It's very encouraging.

Second, I should apologize for being lazy about adding new posts. I've been busy with books. The third edition of my How-To book entitled How to Set Up Your Motorcycle Workshop is coming out momentarily (it was supposed to be out in mid-January, but the publisher warned me it would be delayed at the printer). I have a collection of short stories entitled Shakedown Blues, which is just out. I'm also hammering hard and heavy on the keyboard with my first full novel, provisionally entitled Red. I hope to have Red out sometime in the second quarter of 2010. I'll have more to say about these books later in this post.

The main subject of this posting, however, is blogging itself. I've received multiple requests for advice about blogging. Now, I do not consider myself an expert. Lots of other folks have blogs that generate a lot more traffic than mine. But, I've been at it awhile, so here goes.

Blogging is basically another in a long list of publishing methods. It fills a niche between social networking, and professionally produced news websites. Professional journalists treat blogging as the online equivalent of newspaper or magazine editorial writing. That is, they commit to a regular deadline schedule, and write more-or-less to a set length. Usually, they draft the copy for their postings using a word processor (WP), such as Microsoft Word (I use the Open Source equivalent: OpenOffice Writer). They revise and polish articles extensively in their WP, and transfer them to the blogging software for publication. I do a final polish in the blogging software, where I can see what the final result will look like, and then hit the "publish" button.

Blogging software was developed a few years ago to make it easier for journalists, who are generally not web experts, to create copy for Internet publication. I believe the original idea was to make it possible for journalists to bang out short, highly formatted articles quickly. The folks who wrote the software imagined that writers would type their articles directly into the blogging software, skipping the word processing step.

That goes to show that blogging software developers had no clue as to how professional writers work. Professional writers start by spending a pile of time researching what they're going to write, so they know what facts they'll use, and have organized and checked them beforehand. By the time they pull out the electronic equivalent of a blank sheet of paper, they already have a clear idea of what the article will be about, what facts they will include, what will be their "lead" (which is the first few sentences designed to pique the reader's interest). They also have a pretty clear outline in their heads.

They then bang out copy based on that plan. The idea is to avoid writer's block by typing whatever comes into their heads, no matter how inane, confused, or inappropriate. Then, they go back and revise the article to make sure it's clear, concise, interesting, and complete. They especially try to weed out extraneous material that shouldn't have been included, anyway. Finally, they go back to check for typos, spelling errors, bad sentence structures, and so forth. All this work is best done using fully functional word processing software. Blogging software just isn't up to the task.

Once the writer is happy with his or her manuscript in Word format, he or she can transfer it to the blogging software. The blogging software provides, usually, a window for entering the title, and another for entering the text. It also provides a WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get) view of the posting as it will appear on the website, and some means of adding images.

Professional writers are all familiar with the effect that text seems different when seen in its final form. It's a strange phenomenon where, when you look at the final copy in a letter, magazine, book, or whatever, you always see things that you wish you'd done differently. Typos appear out of nowhere. Sentences that looked great in the manuscript seem clumsy in the final form, and so forth. So, professionals always look at a final proof of their articles as the readers will see them before releasing them on an unsuspecting world. Blogging software provides that opportunity.

Another thing blogging software does is pre-format the article. The writer doesn't have to think about where to put the ads, where to put the navigation bar, what type face to use for the title, and so forth. That's all done ahead of time by a layout designer (who might be the author some time in the past), and enforced by the software itself. The author only has to worry about the words.

Don't agonize over what blogging software to use. All the blogging software I've used, and I've used four different systems, does pretty much the same thing, can be used pretty much the same way, and produces pretty much the same result. For this blog, I chose MoveableType for its compatibility with Google AdSense. I wanted to run Google ads, so I made sure the blogging software worked well with them.

I do not, generally, design my own layout, or set up the software. I hired a professional team through my Internet service provider (ISP) to set it all up and make sure it worked. I then did some minor tweaking to the blog's look and feel. I could do that because forty years ago I made the commitment to learn computer programming, and fifteen years ago I made the effort to learn how to build websites using HTML (the programming language of websites), and seven or eight years ago I taught myself how to write PHP (a language folks use to control all the fancy databases and such needed for interactive websites). Tweaking blog formats is a dawdle after that.

Most bloggers, who don't have the programming background, just use the templates the blogging software provides. That's what it's for, anyway.

So, that's a rundown on what it takes to write a blog. To be successful, you should post at least two entries a week. More is better. The most successful bloggers post every day. Some even post more than once a day.

I find that my readers prefer longer posts. I know bloggers, however, who post a few lines once or twice a day. I feel they'd be better off on Facebook or Twitter, but that's just my opinion.

Changing the subject, I promised to provide a little more information about my books for those readers who might be interested.

For some reason, the third edition of How to Set Up Your Motorcycle Workshop was delayed. It was supposed to come off the printing press by 15 January, but still isn't out. You can, however, preorder it on Amazon.com, Barnes and Noble, and other online booksellers. A few collector copies of the first and second editions are also available online for exhorbitant prices. Most motorcycle hobbyists are familiar with the book, but I think it might be of interest to more general readers who just like reading my stuff.

Shakedown Blues is a collection of motorcycle touring stories written originally for enthusiast magazines. I think they'd also be interesting to more general readers who like reading about road trips. Stealing an idea from Herman Melville, I've embedded the stories themselves in explanatory chapters that would be of interest to general readers, and to folks interested in some of what goes on behind the scenes at national magazine editorial departments.

The novel I'm working on now, Red, involves a transcontinental motorcycle trip; a six-foot three-inch red head with a chip on her shoulder; a mysterious biker with apparently limitless resources and a Zen attitude; an evil step father; and a lost gold mine. The title refers to our heroine's nickname, which she got for the color of her hair, and those cute little freckles she has all over ... . The story includes elements of science fiction, a murder mystery, sex, a love story (or four), more sex, eastern philosophy, a look behind the scenes at the biker lifestyle, a peek into how engineers develop advanced technology, and some hair-raising adventure. Did I mention the sex?

It'll be out in a few months, if I ever finish writing the thing.