Wednesday, December 22, 2010

Rabett Can Read

A very nice article (well except for the obligatory drive through by Richard Lindzen) by Justin Gillis about the Keeling curve and its implications in the New York Times. Two, rather personal statements from Charles Keeling's wife

In an interview in La Jolla, Dr. Keeling’s widow, Louise, said that if her husband had lived to see the hardening of the political battle lines over climate change, he would have been dismayed.

“He was a registered Republican,” she said. “He just didn’t think of it as a political issue at all.”

and son

As he watches these difficulties, Ralph Keeling contemplates the unbending math of carbon dioxide emissions first documented by his father more than a half-century ago and wonders about the future effects of that increase.

“When I go see things with my children, I let them know they might not be around when they’re older,” he said. “ ‘Go enjoy these beautiful forests before they disappear. Go enjoy the glaciers in these parks because they won’t be around.’ It’s basically taking note of what we have, and appreciating it, and saying goodbye to it.”

On Dec. 11, another round of international climate negotiations, sponsored by the United Nations, concluded in Cancún. As they have for 18 years running, the gathered nations pledged renewed efforts. But they failed to agree on any binding emission targets.

Late at night, as the delegates were wrapping up in Mexico, the machines atop the volcano in the middle of the Pacific Ocean issued their own silent verdict on the world’s efforts.

At midnight Mauna Loa time, the carbon dioxide level hit 390 — and rising.

resonate. Which brings Eli to the question that Eli would ask James Annan, when those about you are acting as if their hair were on fire, and you are calm and collected, maybe there is something you don't know? There is a strong tendency to confuse calm with knowledge, sometimes the truth can be very scary.


76 comments:

Sou said...

I just came across the article. Agree it was very well written - readable, plausible (except for Lindzen) and should be easily understood even by non-scientists.

I liked the prominence it was given by the NY Times - with both the print edition and the online edition.

Luboš Motl said...

"Rabett can read."

I am afraid that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Lazar said...

"when those about you are acting as if their hair were on fire, and you are calm and collected,"

"IF you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;" -- Kipling

"maybe there is something you don't know?"

JA knows the cover to the Hitchhiker's Guide which Greg Craven doesn't... panicking is foolish.

Word verif: Grando, yep.

Hank Roberts said...

Also useful, the parallel article. Among much else, it explains why "checking it twice" is a good idea, and how to do that (hint: not by auditing). By implication it explains what the main article points out, that septics have challenged almost every other climate finding but not this one:

------begin excerpt------

"Climate science is under intensive scrutiny these days, with contrarians questioning virtually every aspect of the research. Even though the government and Scripps take their samples from many of the same places, including Mauna Loa, the vital work of calibrating the measurements is performed in separate laboratories, and that means the programs are genuinely independent of each other. So any time the measurement record comes under attack, an alternate version is readily at hand.

One scientist who uses the Scripps record in exactly this way is none other than the man who runs the government’s measurement program, Pieter P. Tans. “I have a fair amount of interaction with so-called skeptics,” Dr. Tans told me in an interview. “They challenge me and say, ‘You have an artifact here, you’re not thinking of this, you’re doing that wrong.’ ”

One of his strategies is to point to the Scripps record. “I can say, here’s a completely independent program, and here’s how it compares,” he said. It matches the government record almost exactly, strong proof that the measurements are accurate. Comparisons are also routinely made with measurements taken by other governments.

------end excerpt------

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/21/does-the-keeling-curve-still-need-a-keeling/?ref=earth

Anonymous said...

Just a couple of quick questions... First how do these two machines work and are they analog or digital? Also, how come there are not two of these machines on inactive volcanoes over 11,000 feet elevation, around the world? It seems to me that a hard rock mountain range would be more of a pristine location than atop a volcano but what do you think? How much does it cost to make a pair of these witness machines, they are not very big, could we scale up production and check their work at other locations around the world? Thank you for your help in understanding science, in a PNS world. O I almost forgot to ask what are the machines margin of error? What is the effective/expected, life of these machines?

Anonymous said...

I just read the picture comments in the article and was struck by this quote "This is the original machine, operating with vacuum tubes, that was used to measure carbon dioxide at Mauna Loa Observatory starting in 1958. It is no longer in use." Why not just turn it on, the vacuum tubes in my truck radio still work... see what it says! I think they shut it down because the new digital one did not aqree...losing trust is a terrible thing.

Michael Tobis said...

Ah "the vacuum tubes in my truck radio still work". There's a compelling argument, obviously rooted in deep familiarity with the material.

Anonymous: the measurements in question have been replicated all over the world. The active volcano thing has been taken into consideration: the reported measures are the lowest ones, i.e., the ones where the wind does not blow plumes of volcanic CO2 over the devices. Whether the readout is analog or digital is a pretty trivial distinction; the smoothness of the curve is enough to indicate that the trend is physical and well-resolved. That's what I know about it.

I don't know how the instrument works. My guess is it uses optical depth at a particular frequency. If so, the "tubes" part would be a signal amplifier, not part of the transducer itself. Thus, whether the tubes themselves work or not would be irrelevant.

Finally, you had no faith to lose, and you know it. Do you really think that Dr. Keeling of Hawaii started this worldwide conspiracy in 1958, or what? Never mind answering, it's a rhetorical question.

turboblocke said...

Luboš Motl said...

"Rabett can read."

I am afraid that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
22/12/10 4:43 AM


What is the point of making a comment like that? It isn't remotely funny.

Anonymous said...

"could we scale up production and check their work at other locations around the world?"

Indeed, there are measurements all over the place:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/
http://co2now.org/Know-CO2/CO2-Monitoring/
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/cmdl-flask/cmdl-flask.html

Want ice core records? Continuous monitoring from the South Pole or Alaska? Air flasks from dozens of sites around the world?

And with regards to anonymous number two who has apparently lost his/her mind in addition to his/her trust - How much more trustworthy can this data get? Its only been reproduced by every single f'in competent scientist who has examined CO2 concentrations, all over the world. (Ernst Beck does not count as competent, by the way)

-M

Anonymous said...

Hey mt, just doing my thing. 52 GMC 6v Pos Ground, baseball game on the way to the dump, you gotta hat, you should know.)

Anonymous said...

mt, doc,... I have to say that from my experiences with AM tube radios, if any one tube is out you do not have a complete circuit. So the tube is relevant to the device. Not as you said, "I don't know how the instrument works. My guess is it uses optical depth at a particular frequency. If so, the "tubes" part would be a signal amplifier, not part of the transducer itself. Thus, whether the tubes themselves work or not would be irrelevant." But, thank you for your guess.

Anonymous said...

mt, After re-reading: "Anonymous: the measurements in question have been replicated all over the world." I hope that I am not puting too fine a point on this but how do You, define the word 'replicated' and at how many locations is this data being logged 24/7/364...world wide? Does elevation play any role if so why? Anyone?

Anonymous said...

Alas, my previous message is probably in moderation because of too many links: anyway, search for "NOAA CMDL CO2" on google and you'll find out that there are continuous CO2 measurements in several locations (Antarctica, Alaska, American Samoa, and Mauna Loa), along with other flask and aircraft and tower measurements scattered around the world. They are all consistent within our limits of understanding of the carbon cycle (eg, taking into account whether the monitor is in the northern hemisphere with a larger seasonal vegetation cycle and larger fossil fuel sources or the southern with a smaller and opposite vegetation cycle, less fossil sources, but more ocean interactions).

Also consistent are the AIRS satellite CO2 data.

-M

Anonymous said...

-M, I will check out the threads... Thank you.

Ethan Vishniac said...

turboblocke said...


What is the point of making a comment like that? It isn't remotely funny.

Google the name of the commenter and all will be clear.

Anonymous said...

Very much the time to panic. I see so many comparisons with climate over the last 800,000 years, but we are well out of that box. I see so many comparisons about how fast things changed over the last 800, 000 years, we are well out of that box too.

The last 800,000 years is no measure of where we will get to, or how fast we will get there.

We know that in previous times that if temperature rises nature increases the CO2, yet we are assuming that nature will continue to absorb a large proportion of the CO2 we emit. We continue with this assumption even as we calculate the sinks are filling.

I like where they put Lindzen, right with those who deny basic physics.

Little Mouse

Anonymous said...

Hey mt, It's lookin like I am gonna have to hit the books for a bit but before I go I felt like I should answer your question about the conspiracy..."Do you really think that Dr. Keeling of Hawaii started this worldwide conspiracy in 1958, or what?" No, I don't. Thanks for asking though.

seamus said...

Putting a price on carbon would benefit energy markets. It's understood there's a problem, and that it will have to be dealt with, but uncertainty about how that's going to happen doesn't help things move along in the innovation department. Putting explicit numbers on the cost of carbon (coal, mostly [first and foremost: coal industry tax breaks and other subsidies must be eliminated]) would give everyone a better idea of the way forward.

And while the very real and huge costs of carbon remain hidden, it's all too easy to actively deny the reality of the issue. As we can see.

David B. Benson said...

FCOAD fee

Fossil Carbon Open Air Disposal

comes at a price just as does your solid wate disposal.

Anonymous said...

http://www.newsnet14.com/2010/12/22/the-student-loan-debt-bubble-and-the-great-college-education-scam/

There is always a cost... "comes at a price just as does your solid wate disposal."

Need we see more?

Atom

tamino said...

There are over 100 locations where atmospheric CO2 concentration is monitored. You can find most of the data at the World Data Center for Greenhouse Gases

http://gaw.kishou.go.jp/wdcgg/

This will enable you to confirm that the Mauna Loa data are in agreement with other data sources. There are differences, mainly due to the different seasonal cycle at different locations, and the fact that it takes time (on the order of a year) for CO2 to mix through the atmosphere globally.

But as far as the overall rise is concerned, they all agree.

Adam said...

@tamino:
"There are over 100 locations where atmospheric CO2 concentration is monitored."


Indeed.

Of all the witless denier memes, the idea that the CO2 measurements are suspect is surely the stupidest. If <388 PPMV could be measured at any spot on the globe, the usual suspects would be trumpeting that fact on their blogs.

Bryson said...

Motl's slogan is popular amongst deniers- I've seen it used by folk who deny human descent from a common ancestor with Pan, too. Trouble is, of course, that what's extraordinary is not just a matter of what does or doesn't fit with your preferred world view. Given what we know about biology, descent from a CA with Pan is exactly what we'd expect; the contrary would be extraordinary. Same goes for AGW, given what we know about CO2.

EliRabett said...

Progress, is important, that was about the first witty thing Eli has ever seen Lubos write.

EliRabett said...

Some comments on the M-L apparatus.

1. If you read the protocols, the instrument readings are calibrated against a standard mixture (maintained by Scripps) on (memory here but not far off) an hourly basis, so any instrument drift would be noted. The standard is, as it were, the "backup" instrument

2. Tubes are notorious for losing gain over their lifespan. While most are familiar with catastrophic failure due to filament burnout, if you find a tube tester (good luck these days) anyone with a tube set that has been running for years, will find a number of the tubes out of spec by now. Semiconductors do not age in this way. Catastrophic failures tend to come with voltage spikes, often as a result of capacitors going zit from aging (they dry out).

3. You can find out about how the volcanic emissions from Mauna Loa don't affect the readings on, of course, Rabett goes Romm including a link to Steve Ryan's paper about how the outgassing is dealt with. Even during the strongest eruptions, it accounts only for a few ppm and on average less than 0.1 ppm, which is way down in the weeds.

4. The reason not for putting the thing on a rock mountain, is that there are no rock mountains in the middle of the pacific. The beauty of the citing is that it is not effected by local emissions from down below, the winds blowing there from the west to east.

There is at least one site in Germany, Schauinsland, located on a rock mountain, but they have to wait for readings until the winds are blowing from the right direction to get readings from the free troposphere. There is a link at Rabett goes Romm to their data.

Jim Bouldin said...

"1. If you read the protocols, the instrument readings are calibrated against a standard mixture (maintained by Scripps) on (memory here but not far off) an hourly basis, so any instrument drift would be noted. The standard is, as it were, the "backup" instrument"

Responibility for maintaining those standards was transferred to the NOAA ESRL GMD Carbon Cycle Greenhouse Gas group about 15 years ago or so, and are calibrated against Keeling's mixtures. The precision for the several CO2 primary standards (from roughly 250 to 450 ppm) is on the order of 0.15 ppm--far below natural atmospheric variation or measurement error. The calibration gases meeting these standards, for all CO2 measurements worldwide (and CH4, N2O, CO), are made just about 3/4 mile from here, at about 10,000 feet elevation a couple miles from the continental divide in Colorado.

Jim Bouldin said...

p.s.
see: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccl/airstandards.new.html

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

Adam: "Of all the witless denier memes, the idea that the CO2 measurements are suspect is surely the stupidest."

Oh, man, how would you decide in a competition like that? I mean you've got your "international scientific conspiracy" meme, in which scientists are becoming millionaire's off of grant money. You've got anything related to Anthony "Micro" Watts Surface Station Project. You've got G&T and their related "proofs" that there is no greenhouse effect. And on and on. Maybe we should have a contest for stupidest denialist claim of the year?

So much stupidity, so little time.

And as to Motl, I'm always relieved to see that he's taken the opposite point of view from mine. Not only does it serve to reassure me that I'm not too far out to lunch, but his general hamhandedness discredits any view he espouses.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Jim Bouldin, Thank you for the link... I think.) I must say, it is quite a scientific process to be able to measure such small amounts of nothing. The SCUBA pump system and some other things raise questions about the chain of evidence being pristine...I am sure it is expensive and all the scientists follow the dogma religiously. I don't like the fact that it is from a centralized source and Scripps has some sort of a Master can of stuff...? When compared to the picture of the simple first device and then to read about the process to get the samples it seems much bigger for something that went digital. What do you think? It all seems straight forward to you? Why not 200 Univ. Labs posting their own results on their own library notice board, every month? SnowCat CO2?... As to trust, when we all know that Hadrian's Wall, The Great Wall, The Maginot Line and now we spend X(N)th, on: Star Wars...all expensive to the point of breaking the nation that funded the project. Now we get New START, and the military is happy:) The dream of 'a good defense is the best offense' when speaking in terms of nuclear war is living in a fools paradise. CO2 is small potatoes. It looks like the military should have been forced to hire a Historian.

Nick Barnes said...

it is quite a scientific process to be able to measure such small amounts of nothing
Yes. Because science is kick-ass awesome. Consider, for instance, the electron mass. 9.10938215(45)×10^−31 kg. Not a large number. Count the significant figures. Any particular reason you're not challenging the chain of evidence for that?

Anonymous said...

How about this Nick Barnes, If you have a million cubic foot room that is 100'x100'x100'; when you look over in the corner there is a pile of 1 cubic foot blocks, a total of say 390 which when stacked in a nice pile in a corner & occupy a space of about: 7'4"x7'4"x7'4". You are telling us we are all gonna die & you know it for sure? That the little pile of invisible blocks, that you say represents the heavens? Is going to kill us all... You don't say.

guthrie said...

Anonymous 12:36pm.
(DAmmit, give yourself a name otherwise you're just being rude)

You will die quite happily with a few ppm of neurotoxin in your system, or suffer badly from 30ppm of Cl2. So why the disbelief over adding more than 3 times that concentration of Co2?

And anyway, nobody says we're all going to die, but it is likely that quite a lot of people will, not to mention loss of ecosystems, economic damage etc. For someone who apparently knows nothing you are sure confident.

Jim Bouldin said...

anonymous at 11:00,

Try to focus bro, it does wonders.

EliRabett said...

Metrology is wonderful. We can measure the electron mass and charge very accurately because we can isolate electrons. We can isolate CO2 from other stuff, because its spectrum is unique and there are places where only CO2 absorbs light

Ignorance on the other hand is often hard to isolate, but thanks for the wonderful example.

Anonymous said...

guthrie, I am not worried about curare & would be worried about Sarin... Not because one is organic and the other is synthetic, both are Man-Made. Almost like plastic some people conform to do anything they are asked to do... I wonder how much it is going to cost us all in the end. Now that we have aerosolized God only knows what, new and exciting forms of GM pollen, new virus strains and bacteria but the world must be warned that it is the carbon, just like ourselves that is trying to kill us. Who would have thought that in the Iron Age?

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

Anonymous, Nukes, nerve gas, biological agents, etc. will kill millions over a wide area. Climate change could may well kill billions over the entire globe:
millions-regional vs. billions-global. See the difference.

Anonymous said...

Eli, don't you want to inverse your assumed dead numbers when you put in a time line? Also factor in the RAD or RBE on the worlds ecosystems. Wow III, now we are talkin.) Got water?

Anonymous said...

Folks, just to be clear, as I understand the book: The Effects of Nuclear Weapons. Scientists that know explain in this book that it is the total RAD or Radioactive Absorptive Dose that you accumulate over your life, day by day. Scientists have a formula to help explain the ensuing expected biological damage to any living organism(you or any life form) with a value that scientist call Radioactive Biological Effectiveness RBE. What it takes to kill us or deform us or posion us. High math's. A little or a lot, it ALL adds up. What's up doc?... Eh...close enough?

Anonymous said...

Sorry, I thought I heard my cell phone ringing...

Anonymous said...

Just a question to anyone who might know... How does anyone expect a Honey-Bee to digest synthetic pollen with Roundup as an out-gas or shell...? Anyone.

EliRabett said...

Take two aspirin and see the doc in the morning.

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

Anonymous, You are far off topic. However, radiation is my day job. The thing you need to understand when considering the effects of radiation is that it is more than just total dose. Our DNA has considerable redundancy--much more than just the double helix--for important processes. To some extent, it can heal itself. Moreover, our environment has a natural low level of radiation, so it is likely that this level is not particularly damaging, at least over timescales needed to mature and reproduce. The interaction of radiation with biological systems is complicated. It is still an area of active research--by NASA and the medical imaging community.

We have established pretty much beyond doubt that 1)you can't live without food; 2)you can't grow food without water; 3)Climate change will increase the portion of the globe in severe drought.

Anonymous said...

Jim Bouldin.

"Maybe we should have a contest for stupidest denialist claim of the year?"

I suggested this over at Deltoid, where my current favourite nomination is Donald Rapp, who (as I said at Deltoid):

"..."believes Tim Curtin to be a distinguished climatologist", and from whom Rapp has apparently "profitted" in his Renaissance Man self-elevation to climatological doyen."

On the matter of the anonymouse at 23/12/10 12:36 PM, I would pose this in return (poor grammar and vocabulary left intact), in the context of ozone:

"If you have a million cubic foot room that is 100'x100'x100'; when you look over in the corner there is a pile of 1 cubic foot blocks, a total of only 0.6 of one block, actually, which when stacked in a nice pile in a corner occupies a space of about: 10" x 10" x 10". You are telling us we are all not gonna die & you know it for sure if we lose that 10" x 10" x 10" block of ozone? That the little pile of invisible inch-cubed blocks, that you say represents the heavens? Is NOT going to kill us all, if it disappears... You don't say."

In case you're not getting it, ozone only makes up 0.00006% of the atmosphere.

I suspect that functioning grey matter similarly makes up somehwere in the order of 0.00006% the volume within your cranial cavity.


Bernard J. Hyphen-Anonymous XVII

Anonymous said...

turboblocke said...
Luboš Motl said...

"Rabett can read."

I am afraid that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
22/12/10 4:43 AM

What is the point of making a comment like that? It isn't remotely funny.


Au contraire, it is remarkably funny for a Lubos motl.

Anonymous said...

O, I see now a__ray..., lets see DDS X-ray, MRI, broken bones as a kid, TSA, residual fallout from the 50's & 60's & 70's, radiated foods,... milk that lasts for months it seems...even microwave ovens and the lowly cell phone... on and on and on & just what is the shelf life of the atom. When we all take into account such phrases as "DNA has considerable redundancy--much more than just the double helix--for important processes. (If the Zen masters are right the 'spacers' should be even more important than the nucleotides that make up DNA)To some extent, it can heal itself....Moreover, our environment has a natural low level of radiation(all background, we even got a little sun today), so it is likely that this level is not particularly damaging, at least over timescales needed to mature and reproduce....The interaction of radiation with biological systems is complicated. It is still an area of active research--by NASA(I wonder if the government threw out their old stuff:) and the medical imaging community....We have established pretty much beyond doubt that 1)you can't live without food; 2)you can't grow food without water; 3)Climate change will increase the portion of the globe in severe drought.

If am feeling all warm and tingly hearing the power phrases like:

considerable redundancy...

To some extent...

natural low level of radiation...

it is likely...

this level is not particularly damaging...

pretty much beyond doubt...

Last but not least, Now the NWO scientists are finally to get the opportunity they have all been longing for, to finally finish the experiment & prove their thesis...

"We have established pretty much beyond doubt that 1)you can't live without food; 2)you can't grow food without water; 3)Climate change will increase the portion of the globe in severe drought.

One man from the city only got thirty pieces of silver and he was up for the task. What a world. I will take my aspirin now doc.


Merry Christmas, One & All

Steve Bloom said...

The phrase "studied ignorance" comes to mind. What was the Orwell quote again?

Ray, did you happen to see the recently-published results of the Egyptian mummy necropsies? Look, ma, no cancer (well, hardly any, and even then it's not like there was zero toxic crap exposure back in the bronze/iron ages, smelters and bitumen being obvious examples). So the modern plague of cancer is down to lifestyle and toxic crap, the latter being the obvious one to finger with major responsibility, with background radiation pretty much off the hook.

Nick Barnes said...

Maybe it's the Christmas spirit, but I really can't make head or tail of these comments by Anonymous. They seem rambling and disconnected, rarely grammatical, hopelessly ill-informed, and very far off-topic. It could just be my exhaustion from preparing for Christmas. Now that everything is baked, bought, wrapped, sent, fetched, erected, lit, decorated, and assembled, and the mince pies, whisky, and carrots are out for Father Christmas, I'm going to sign off until Boxing Day. Maybe it will all seems clearer after about 15,000 calories of festive goodness. A happy Christmas to all.

Word verification: "twere". As in "'twere the night before Christmas...".

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

Anonymous, You want certainty, may I refer you to the theology department. There you can get certainty if you don't care if it's correct. Otherwise, try to understand the uncertainty and deal with it.

Radiation is like any other risk. Understand it and you can mitigate it. Fail to understand it and it could kill you. For radiation, your friends are time (minimize it), distance (maximize it) and shielding (maximize it).

For climate, we're still learning, but that one's gonna be a lot harder to mitigate.

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

Steve Bloom,
I believe the Egyptian mummies mostly died below age 50, often well below. I'm sure we're putting lots of nasty crap into our bodies, but it is certainly true that cancer is a disease that usually takes its time. Usually, it and heart disease are what kill us after we've lived a long life.

Anonymous said...

Hi a__ray..., I thought you knew already... I have Hope, it was a gift from a friend. Fits well too. You may have some if you want. Ask anytime. All the best. Your friend

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

Anonymous, how nice for you and your imaginary friend. If it's all the same to you, I'll continue to look for hope among those like me who choose to face the realities of the threats we are creating for our progeny.

Anonymous said...

OK a__ray..., Have it your way, just like always. Happy Holiday to you and all of your Pen-Pocket-Pals... Be Happy. Out

Anonymous said...

a__ray..., After re-reading,..."I'll continue to look for hope among those like me who choose to face the realities of the threats we are creating for our progeny." I know that the statement is oxymoronic but what concerns us all I think, is that the State would even consider issuing you a 'progeny license'. Please let us know that you were just boasting. Thank you for your time.

Atom

EliRabett said...

Atom, that's exactly the point, if we want to avoid tyranny, we need to handle climate disruption and species extinction now. What comes later without action will not be pretty.

Anonymous said...

Eli, You don't have to worry about people like myself. One way, or the other, we won't bow to a tyrant. We have faith & Hope in the outcome. We may be the 'ekklesia', but that does not mean that we are adrift in life. We understand the world better than you may think. These are trying times for all, that is for sure. A Season, for reflection world wide. The times, they are a changing... All the Best to You & Yours,

Atom

dhogaza said...

Here's a claim by one of the cancer/mummy researchers:

"There is nothing in the natural environment that can cause cancer."

Odd given the number of carcinogens in tobacco ...

Anonymous said...

Say hey fly catcher, I thought everyone knew the cancer sticks got their 'punch' from all the exotic chemicals they use in the tobacco preparation process.

Bubba

Horatio Algeranon said...

"Rabett can read."

Now if he could just learn to spell.

Anonymous said...

At least the major components were designed & tested here in the US before we shipped them overseas for final installation. I am sure that if it had not been a 'Black' project, it could have helped our trade balance. What's left, right Eli?... Wee-Bee-Happy:)

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/27/china-deploying-carrier-sinking-ballistic-missile/

What a shame this not a parody, Yue knows...

Anonymous said...

Scooby-Doo-A-W82...

EliRabett said...

Interesting article that, esp.

"China's missile technology has always been the pointy edge of its spear, ever since Qian Xuesen, the gifted rocket scientist who was kicked out of the United States during the McCarthy period in the 1950s, returned to China. "

Anonymous said...

Hi Eli, another commie?

Anonymous said...

I am afraid that you are wrong Eli. The W82 is more a tactical, low yield device, capable of MIRV. This is from a different vintage for sure. Thank your for your history lesson though. Just the thought of a High Altitude Blast and then laser in on a battle group from high space... very clean too, don't you think(they can always Go-Neutrons)? At about 4 million before exchange rate takes effect for the warhead alone, quite a value. One Chinese Anti-Carrier Missile complete, less than say 10 Million dollars each and a battle group with a total value of 50-75 Billion. Not counting the men & women, time and labor factors to replace said 'Battle Group' or even considered really, given the time lines in such a situation... What a waste & time.

Anonymous said...

Eli, you may not want to read this but someone should wright it. I don't know if anyone in the Pentagon really has time for strategic thought anymore:) They are all so busy. If a person will take a moment out of their day to consider if perhaps the age of the Aircraft Carrier as the primary capital ship(Battleship ends in 1941 @ Pearl, then the Aircraft Carrier and accompanying 'battle group' took over the roll), though a potent force to have had to deal with as an adversary, proven in many different circumstances over the course of seventy years... as soon as one CAG has been eliminated they will all become just castles on mountain tops. Possibly covered in a heavy fog. If recent events off a deep sea canyon seventy five miles from the northern tip of Catalina Island are any indication of new threats? If you happened to see the exhaust from what looked to me to have been a gimbaled solid fuel guided missile. Houston, we got problems... Obviously the Submarine is the new Big Kid on the block. We do not seem to have seen it coming. We do not have thirty minutes any more... How about that? Do you think we are going to get a good bang for out buck$? My pencil still works and a rough equivalent in understandable terms the yield on a 2 kiloton air burst would be like setting off 200,000, 16" shells from the USS Missouri, all at once. Not much time between pressure waves either just bang! O well.

Anonymous said...

Help. Would someone informed, or perhaps many who are informed, care to post a reply to this?

http://subrosa-blonde.blogspot.com/2010/12/warmth-that-cools.html

dhogaza said...

" If you happened to see the exhaust from what looked to me to have been a gimbaled solid fuel guided missile. Houston, we got problems..."

Actually, we got airline flights, a Delta flight, IIRC.

I found the rest of your post somewhat incomprehensible, I'm afraid.

Jim Baxter said...

Thanks Eli, re Subrosa (63)

ccpo said...

"Anonymous said...

Help. Would someone informed, or perhaps many who are informed, care to post a reply to this?

http://subrosa-blonde.blogspot.com/2010/12/warmth-that-cools.html
28/12/10 12:04 PM "

Yes. It's flat stupid. The writer can't figure out why more open water causes warming, tho they have some physics background?

Anonymous said...

Say hey fly catcher, the one from Gaza? If you know more than we do; please give us the information you have. What flight do you say it was. What was the speed when first picked up on radar and the speed at the EOT as the missle or airliner moved out of range. One engine or two perhaps four? How many thick plumes of long lasting vapor trails have you seen at Sea-Tac? How many radars got a good track? Did VAFB? Help us mister,... please help us...)

Anonymous said...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-492804/The-uninvited-guest-Chinese-sub-pops-middle-U-S-Navy-exercise-leaving-military-chiefs-red-faced.html

Marion Diabolito said...

Ethan Vishniac beats me to it.

WV: In honor of James Annan: "rogin"

hey, I lived in Japan for years :)

EliRabett said...

As Eli recalls, the original of

"There is nothing in the natural environment that can cause cancer."

was, "there is so much in the natural environment that can cause cancer that tobacco can't" - Bruce Ames

OK, Eli is pushing it a bit, but not that much.

Anonymous said...

http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/01/64900.html

Anonymous said...

http://www.naturalnews.com/030959_GM_corn_insecticides.html#ixzz1AdPD3ChE

Anonymous said...

sarin-dippity-doo
Into the Way-back machine, to review our leadership in days past and their loyalty to their system. Just a moment in time that did not get it's 'fifteen minutes'. Even today we are fed half truth as fact. Read about K & 'O' file too.) 'We killed em for the kids'...)
Who you gonna trust...

http://www.specialoperations.com/MACVSOG/MOORER.txt

Have a hard time reading, in the weakening lite?
Try: 0229-0236, 0240-0257, 0267-0301, 0322-0345, 0350,0351...
Sleep well, they are watching, over us. Saul good...
Just could not pass up A big One?:o)

Anonymous said...

http://www.optimumpopulation.org/reducingemissions.pdf