Toadfish Monastery

Ok, this one is also brought to you by Discover Magazine, a (somewhat) dissenting voice regarding global warming (another clue regarding the change in editorial policy, that and the free DVD with a Shell oil infomercial bundled with the magazine). None the less a valid argument:

Quote from: Henrik SvensmarkThe basic idea is that solar activity can turn the cloudiness up and down, which has an effect on the warming or cooling of earth's surface temperature. The key agents in this are cosmic rays (...). These energetic particles have to enter into what we call the heliosphere, which is the large volume of space that is dominated by our sun, through the solar wind, which is a plasma of electrons, atomic nuclei, and associated magnetic fields that are streaming nonstop from the sun. Cosmic rays particles have to penetrate the sun's magnetic field. And if the sun and the solar wind are very active -as they are right now-  they will not allow so many cosmic rays to reach Earth. Fewer cosmic rays mean fewer clouds will be formed, and so there will be a warmer Earth. If the sun and the solar wind are not so active, then more cosmic rays can come in. That means more clouds[reflecting away more sunlight] and a cooler Earth

During the interview the guy says that he thinks that solar activity (with the mechanism he is theorizing) should be included (to the CO2 effect) in weather simulations regarding global warming.

The question I have is exactly how this activity affects cosmic rays; IIUC, all cosmic rays that pass through the heliosphere (that covers all the solar system) would be affected, but that would prevent cloud formation all over the planet, meaning that while the energy that comes directly from the sun can come in, at the other side of the planet the absence of those clouds would allow heat to escape. Am I understanding it in a very simplistic manner?

For reference I supply this old link, because the current edition isn't online yet.

Just 2 days ago I was listening to an interview to NASA's Chief Michael Griffin, who after a question regarding global warming answered the following:

Quote from: Michael GriffinI have no doubt that global -- that a trend of global warming exists. I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with. To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change. First of all, I don't think it's within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown, and second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings -- where and when -- are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take.

Is just me or this is the most stupid answer you could hear from a supposed scientist in a position of responsibility? Sure, the climate change in the past century is less than a blip from a geological perspective but can you ignore so blatantly the potential human cost of any kind of climate change?

For more commentary you can look at the NPR blog here, also there is a note on the wiki on the subject.

I wasn't sure if this should be a science, health or spirituality topic, if the gods.. I mean, the mods consider it should be elsewhere...

In the latest printed edition of Discover Magazine (sorry, it isn't in the online version) I found an interesting article regarding the soul and quantum states:

Quote from: Discover MagazineStuart Hameroff, an anesthesiologist who has spent many years studying the brain functions, has collaborated with renowned Oxford University polymath Roger Penrose on a model that explains consciousness as the result of quantum precesses occurring in tiny structures called microtubules  in brain cells. "I think consciousnesses under normal circumstances occurs at the level of the space-time geometry in the brain, in the microtubules" Hameroff says. "But the fluctuations extend down to the Planck scale because the microtubules are driven bioenergetically to be in a coherent state.

It then goes on to suggest that the information remains after the coherence is lost due to oxygen starvation. The article then makes a link with the memories of past lives of children. Finally concludes that there is not enough information to prove the nature of the soul but just a compilation of interesting albeit incomplete evidence.

Given that the article is not online I link a commentary of it I found to give an idea (please ignore certain ramblings of the commentator):

http://www.thinkingchristian.net/C228303755/E20070511082921/index.html

I just went to see PotC 3 and I am very satisfied with the movie, recomended (as if I had to... ).

For those who haven't seen it yet I recommend taking notice of the very first scene. For some reason I read a small but significative political statement from the scene. My wife thinks that I am reading too much, so I ask to those who have seen it if I am going crazy or if there is a gram of truth in my perception?

Once again I had the *pleasure* to listen to another MLM *proposal*, promising the riches and free time of the world with a product that would make me healthier and handsome... er (and surely improve my sexual prowess or something of the sort, who knows, if it *kills* cancer according to them...) . 

Last night's winner: mona vie açai juice.

Is it the cult like zeal of the converts, the get-rich-quick talk or the inherent immoral business practice of screwing +99% suckers to allow the sleaziest members make a kill?

Anyhow, reading a bit I find that under the FTC any scheme in which less than 70% of income is NOT made through retail is considered an illegal pyramid but -oh surprise- few are ever prosecuted.

This guys make look casinos as charities!

As you all know (or should) the monastery currently runs by the grace of our beloved MB. In other threads he has mentioned the idea to get a new server over a nice FiOS connection, which in the light of the problems with the hosting lately sound great.

In any case it is my belief that we should help MB in his (our) quest. I don't know if MB has a Paypal account (do you?, not hard to make one anyway) but we could contribute to a fund to that end.

Other ideas are obviously welcome.

Mmm, we don't have a thread to talk about our pets but we have a folder...

We have a hamster un-originally called Hamly or Ham for short.

Here is a picture of her in my son's hands.

In the Democracy thread there was an interesting discussion regarding opera houses:

Quote from: goat starer on January 20, 2007, 02:30:45 AM

Quote from: beagle on January 19, 2007, 09:45:12 PM
I don't necessarily agree with Goat about the superiority of local government, at least when carried to extremes.  Below a certain size it seems to me that as well as being more representative, it is also more prone to populism, corruption, and small-mindedness.
We'd probably get the death penalty back, no opera houses anywhere, and a whole tier of local officials who only joined to sign their own planning applications.

beagle. I fear you may be talking about the kind of local government you get in western democracies whilst I am talking about entirely new forms of government. This is not about petty politicians and first past the post but real decision making by the people who actually have to live in the places that are drained of money by opera houses. I will not make friends with Swato here but if you gave me the choice of £100 million ofd new parks and play areas in the poorest bits of Britain or 1 royal opera house I know where my money would be! Most people do not get these choices. it is vote for the representative of one of the corrupt corporate funded parties or another and they will both feed the rich by bleeding the poor dry. 

Also, a month ago I heard a related note in NPR:

Quote from: ROBERT REICHLots of charitable dollars — especially from the wealthy, who have the most to donate — are going to culture palaces: to the operas, art museums, symphonies, and theaters where they spend much of their leisure time. And to the universities they once attended and expect their children to attend, perhaps with the help of what's known as affirmative action for "legacies."

I happen to be a trained musician, and incidentally I sing in an opera company. Needless to say that I have mixed feelings on the subject. On one hand, I do recognize that the arts are elitist, and that the immediate beneficiaries of the money spent on them are usually on the upper quarter (if not less) of the population.

But on the other hand I do know the value of the so-called high culture, how it can help students academically, and how art reflects our civilization as well as help us to understand it.

Now, I do know the costs of art, how much the simple payroll of an orchestra can be, how much the rent of a venue for a few days can cost, the rent for a stage, advertising, etc. Those high costs, happen to be mirrored also with museums or theater companies. Perhaps the "cheaper" and most obvious returns come from libraries.

In a place like the US where the state doesn't directly fund the arts, a stop on the tax credits for those kinds of donations would be a fatal blow; so it would be in Europe or the other parts of the world if the state stops funding them.

So yes, immediately speaking, the hunger of many is a more pressing priority than a concert hall, some old paintings or some fancy dresses for a show, but what is the price of letting the arts die, how would you feel if the only way to see a Picasso, or Renoir, or Degas would be if you happen to be invited to the house of one of those ultra-rich? Yes, you could buy a CD with a symphony or a DVD with an opera, but it will never, ever be the same as a live performance. And no one would compose for orchestra if there are no living orchestras to play (unless you consider the hideous electronic replacements worth listening to).

That is troubling me, the arts are no longer profitable (have they ever really been profitable?) therefore we should let them die.

How very, very sad.

I was thinking that we may have a thread for books also.

Currently I am starting The First Circle by Alexander Solzhenitsyn. An interesting glimpse to Stalin's Russia, that in some aspects might hint things to come.

I was thinking that we could have a thread for nice or interesting pictures.

As an example, last night while driving home from my rehearsal I saw the moon in a redish color that caught my attention. Once I got home I pulled my camera (Dimage Z5) and took a few pictures of it. Sadly it was more yellowish by the time I took them but still nice, I think (perhaps a bit overexposed?). For the inclined these are the specs: ASA100, F4.5, 1/10s (with a tiny tripod and temporizer).