This image is from the Mendocino Headlands State Park. We have spent many a day snorkeling and diving in these waters. Em captured her first abalone here. Lot's of memories...
Thursday, July 27, 2006
Why do we like Northern CA?
This image is from the Mendocino Headlands State Park. We have spent many a day snorkeling and diving in these waters. Em captured her first abalone here. Lot's of memories...
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
Sir Bertrand Russell on life
"What I Have Lived For...
Three passions, simple but overwhelmingly strong, have governed my life: the longing for love, the search for knowledge, and unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind. These passions, like great winds, have blown me hither and thither, in a wayward course, over a great ocean of anguish, reaching to the very verge of despair.
I have sought love, first, because it brings ecstasy - ecstasy so great that I would often have sacrificed all the rest of life for a few hours of this joy. I have sought it, next, because it relieves loneliness--that terrible loneliness in which one shivering consciousness looks over the rim of the world into the cold unfathomable lifeless abyss. I have sought it finally, because in the union of love I have seen, in a mystic miniature, the prefiguring vision of the heaven that saints and poets have imagined. This is what I sought, and though it might seem too good for human life, this is what--at last--I have found.
With equal passion I have sought knowledge. I have wished to understand the hearts of men. I have wished to know why the stars shine. And I have tried to apprehend the Pythagorean power by which number holds sway above the flux. A little of this, but not much, I have achieved.
Love and knowledge, so far as they were possible, led upward toward the heavens. But always pity brought me back to earth. Echoes of cries of pain reverberate in my heart. Children in famine, victims tortured by oppressors, helpless old people a burden to their sons, and the whole world of loneliness, poverty, and pain make a mockery of what human life should be. I long to alleviate this evil, but I cannot, and I too suffer.
This has been my life. I have found it worth living, and would gladly live it again if the chance were offered me."
Friday, July 14, 2006
Wal Mart and the "rule of law"
Our former mayor in Centerville and his cohorts spoke incessantly about the "rule of law", essentially dictating to us why the monster store could not be kept out of the heart of our city. Well, it seems that a bunch of folk in California have concluded it is fair and legal to ban them from your town. The California State's Supreme Court agreed with the locals who opposed the Wal Martization of their communities.
Apparently, the brain trust of the mayor, city manager and their legal advisors got it wrong or maybe they did not want to get it right in the final analysis.
Here is the article:
The California Supreme Court rejected Wal-Mart's appeal Wednesday of a ruling that allows cities and counties in the state to outlaw big-box superstores.
The April 5 ruling by the Court of Appeal in Fresno upheld an ordinance enacted in 2004 by Turlock (Stanislaus County) that was backed by neighborhood supermarkets and labor unions. The court, setting a statewide precedent, said local governments can enact such restrictions to prevent the collapse of local businesses and resulting urban blight.
The state's high court denied review Wednesday without comment.
It was Turlock's second legal victory over Wal-Mart this month. On July 3, a federal judge in Fresno dismissed the company's constitutional challenge to the ordinance, saying the city was not interfering with interstate commerce or discriminating illegally against one type of store.
Rick Jarvis, a lawyer for Turlock, said Wednesday's state court action allows a city to "make its own land-use plans and decide for itself what's good for the community.'' It will also "make it much more difficult for Wal-Mart to file expensive legal challenges against other jurisdictions that decide to adopt similar ordinances,'' he said.
Wal-Mart spokesman John Simley said the company was disappointed but believed the effect of the Turlock law would be limited. The appeals court ruling "is narrowly based on facts that are specific to Turlock,'' he said.
He said Wal-Mart had not yet decided whether to appeal last week's federal court ruling.
The Arkansas-based retail giant has been trying to establish a California network of discount supercenters -- stores that exceed 100,000 square feet and contain full-size grocery stores -- and has encountered resistance.
Wal-Mart estimates that 20 cities and counties in Northern California have passed ordinances seeking to limit or block the stores. San Francisco, Oakland and Martinez have banned them.
A ban on supercenters in unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County was enacted by the Board of Supervisors in 2003 but repealed by voters in 2004. Alameda County supervisors then rescinded a similar ordinance, but adopted a more limited measure this March that requires big-box retailers to describe the effect of new stores on the local economy and give details of employees' pay and benefits.
Turlock has a Wal-Mart store but responded to the company's plans for a supercenter by passing the ordinance in 2004. Without mentioning Wal-Mart, the law prohibits any retail store larger than 100,000 feet that devotes more than 5 percent of its space to nontaxable items such as groceries. The City Council said the purpose was to preserve neighborhood shopping centers.
In its April 5 ruling, the appeals court said the city's motives were legal, even if its action hurt competition.
"While zoning ordinances may not legitimately be used to control economic competition, they may be used to address the urban/suburban decay'' that can result from the entry of a large new business, the court said.
The case is Wal-Mart Stores vs. Turlock, S143488.
E-mail Bob Egelko at begelko@sfchronicle.com.
Monday, July 10, 2006
...para poder montar rápidamente
Q brought this interesting article to my attention and it merits a post. The question is how far can you ride in an hour? I think I hit 13 miles last week without too much strain.
"Thirty years after making the United States Olympic Cycling team, twenty years after winning the DuPont Prize for human-powered speed and ten years after retiring from professional cycling, "Fast" Freddy Markham won the Dempsey-MacCready Prize at the Nissan One Hour Challenge last week. He covered 53.43 miles in one hour, setting a world record, in his super-efficient Easy Racer recumbent bicycle. Markham, at age 49, wasn't considered a serious contender for a title or the record; he has won the One Hour Challenge three times previously, but not since 1989. As the owner of Easy Racers, Inc., the nation's largest recumbent bicycle manufacturer, he knows a thing or two about making bikes go fast; we tip our hat to him for proving that it's still tough to be a bicycle for getting yourself from here to there. Want to go 50 miles in an hour on a bike? He'll sell you an Easy Racer and you'll be halfway there."
Friday, July 07, 2006
Opponents of Global Warming...
Reasons given by opponents of the global warming theory from the online encyclopedia Wikipedia:
"Some of the assertions made in opposition to the global warming theory include:
IPCC draws firm conclusions unjustified by the science, especially given the acknowledged weakness of cloud physics in the climate models. For example, even those who accept that there is a warming trend point out that there is a big difference between correlation and causality. In other words, just because temperatures have generally been rising since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, that doesn't necessarily mean that the Industrial Revolution has caused the change in temperature (see post hoc, ergo propter hoc argument). On the other hand, the period since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution has indeed produced ever-growing "urban heat islands" (see below) that could be skewing temperature measurements that indicate the recent warming.
Using "consensus" as evidence is an appeal to the majority argument rather than scientific discussion. Ergo, because the issue has become so politicized, it is suspected that climatologists who disagree with the consensus as it is may be afraid to speak out for fear of losing their positions or funding.
Consensus is further compromised in this field of study due to students being attracted to the field by their belief that something should be done about global warming. They complete their education and add their voices to the consensus, which gives a perceived bias.
Earth's climate has been both colder and warmer than today, and these changes are adequately explained by mechanisms that do not involve human greenhouse gas emissions. There is no significant global warming relative to the expected natural trends.
CO2 in the atmosphere is mainly volcanic in origin, accounting for 97% of the CO2 found in the atmosphere, most of which travels to the oceans. Estimates at CO2's effectiveness as a greenhouse gas vary, but are generally around 10-100 times lower than water weight for weight, leaving a "net" greenhouse effect of man-made CO2 emissions at less than 1%.
Climate science can not make definitive predictions yet, since the computer models used to make these predictions are still evolving and do not yet take into account recently discovered feedback mechanisms. Climate models will not be able to predict the future climate until they can predict solar and volcanic activity.
Some global warming studies have errors or have not been reproduced. Global temperatures are directly related to such factors as: sunspot activity (an 11-year cycle).
The concern about global warming is analogous to the concern about global cooling in the 1970s. The concern about global cooling was unnecessarily alarmist. The concern about global warming is equally alarmist.
Some opponents of global warming theory give more weight to data such as paleoclimatic studies, temperature measurements made from weather balloons, and satellites which they claim show less warming than surface land and sea records, though early balloon records have been shown to be possibly erroneous due to mechanical design flaws in the sensors.
Opponents tend to define themselves in terms of opposition to the IPCC position. They generally believe that climate science is not yet able to provide us with solid answers to all the major questions about the global climate.
Opponents frequently characterise supporters arguments as alarmist and premature, so as to emphasize what they perceive as the lack of scientific evidence supporting global warming scenarios.
Opponents also say that if global warming is real and man-made, no action need be taken now because:
Future scientific advances or engineering projects will remedy the problem before it becomes serious and for less money.
A small amount of global warming would be benign or even beneficial, as increased carbon dioxide would benefit plant life, thus potentially becoming profitable for agriculture world-wide.
There is a distinct correlation between GDP growth and greenhouse gas emissions. A cutback in emissions might lead to a decrease in the rate of GDP growth."
"Some of the assertions made in opposition to the global warming theory include:
IPCC draws firm conclusions unjustified by the science, especially given the acknowledged weakness of cloud physics in the climate models. For example, even those who accept that there is a warming trend point out that there is a big difference between correlation and causality. In other words, just because temperatures have generally been rising since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, that doesn't necessarily mean that the Industrial Revolution has caused the change in temperature (see post hoc, ergo propter hoc argument). On the other hand, the period since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution has indeed produced ever-growing "urban heat islands" (see below) that could be skewing temperature measurements that indicate the recent warming.
Using "consensus" as evidence is an appeal to the majority argument rather than scientific discussion. Ergo, because the issue has become so politicized, it is suspected that climatologists who disagree with the consensus as it is may be afraid to speak out for fear of losing their positions or funding.
Consensus is further compromised in this field of study due to students being attracted to the field by their belief that something should be done about global warming. They complete their education and add their voices to the consensus, which gives a perceived bias.
Earth's climate has been both colder and warmer than today, and these changes are adequately explained by mechanisms that do not involve human greenhouse gas emissions. There is no significant global warming relative to the expected natural trends.
CO2 in the atmosphere is mainly volcanic in origin, accounting for 97% of the CO2 found in the atmosphere, most of which travels to the oceans. Estimates at CO2's effectiveness as a greenhouse gas vary, but are generally around 10-100 times lower than water weight for weight, leaving a "net" greenhouse effect of man-made CO2 emissions at less than 1%.
Climate science can not make definitive predictions yet, since the computer models used to make these predictions are still evolving and do not yet take into account recently discovered feedback mechanisms. Climate models will not be able to predict the future climate until they can predict solar and volcanic activity.
Some global warming studies have errors or have not been reproduced. Global temperatures are directly related to such factors as: sunspot activity (an 11-year cycle).
The concern about global warming is analogous to the concern about global cooling in the 1970s. The concern about global cooling was unnecessarily alarmist. The concern about global warming is equally alarmist.
Some opponents of global warming theory give more weight to data such as paleoclimatic studies, temperature measurements made from weather balloons, and satellites which they claim show less warming than surface land and sea records, though early balloon records have been shown to be possibly erroneous due to mechanical design flaws in the sensors.
Opponents tend to define themselves in terms of opposition to the IPCC position. They generally believe that climate science is not yet able to provide us with solid answers to all the major questions about the global climate.
Opponents frequently characterise supporters arguments as alarmist and premature, so as to emphasize what they perceive as the lack of scientific evidence supporting global warming scenarios.
Opponents also say that if global warming is real and man-made, no action need be taken now because:
Future scientific advances or engineering projects will remedy the problem before it becomes serious and for less money.
A small amount of global warming would be benign or even beneficial, as increased carbon dioxide would benefit plant life, thus potentially becoming profitable for agriculture world-wide.
There is a distinct correlation between GDP growth and greenhouse gas emissions. A cutback in emissions might lead to a decrease in the rate of GDP growth."
Proponents of the Global Warming theory...
This is from the online encyclopedia Wikipedia:
"Reasons given by supporters of the global warming theory:
Supporters of the global warming theory assert that gas bubbles trapped in ice cores give us a detailed record of atmospheric chemistry and temperature back more than four hundred thousand years, with the temperature record confirmed by other geologic evidence. This record tells us that carbon dioxide and temperature rise and fall tightly together.
The recent rise in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is greater than any in hundreds of thousands of years and this is human-caused, shown by isotopic signature of CO2 from fossil fuels. We know carbon dioxide captures IR radiation and converts it to heat because we use these physics to measure carbon dioxide concentration the historical temperature record shows a rise of 0.4–0.8 °C over the last 100 years. The urban heat island effect makes no significant contribution.
The current warmth is unusual in the past 1000 years (see Temperature record of the past 1000 years).
The warming of the last 50 years is likely caused by human activity (see attribution of recent climate change), using analysis based on climate modeling; and that natural variability or solar variation cannot explain the recent change.
Carbon dioxide is a first order forcing on climate change—other effects such as water vapour greenhouse effects are either roughly constant over time, act as amplifiers, or do not have a large effect. Humankind is performing a great geophysical experiment and if it turns out badly—however that is defined—we cannot undo it. We cannot even abruptly turn it off. Too many of the things we are doing now have long-term ramifications for centuries into the future. Climate models can reproduce this trend, but only when using greenhouse gas.
Climate models predict more warming, and other climate effects (sea level rise, more frequent and severe storms, drought and heat waves, etc) in the future. For instance, Atlantic hurricane trends have been recently linked to climate change, June 2006. Action should be taken now to prevent or mitigate warming (see Precautionary principle).
The IPCC reports correctly summarise the state of climate science. There is a scientific consensus behind all of the above.
Our existence is poised within a fluid-dynamic, ocean-atmosphere-biosphere system, where non-linear feedbacks are common and where climate states are only relatively stable (i.e., "metastable"). Unknown unknowns are likely to surprise us, particularly if they trigger a non-linear, positive feedback that flips climate to a new meta-stable state.
Proponents of global warming tend to support the IPCC position and thus represent a broadly unified viewpoint, though with considerable differences over what action should be taken. Optionally, supporters may go on to point out that there is a good chance that the future changes may be undesirable, and that planning to avoid or mitigate them would be a good idea. Only 2 of the 120 contributing authors to the IPCC TAR are known to have voiced any complaint.
Science Magazine analyzed 928 peer-reviewed scientific papers on global warming published between 1993 and 2003 (Oreskes, 2004). Not a single one challenged the scientific consensus the earth’s temperature is rising due to human
activity."
The IPCC referred to is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and was established in 1988 by two United Nations organizations, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to assess the "risk of human-induced climate change". The Panel is open to all members of the WMO and UNEP.
IPCC reports are widely cited in almost any debate related to climate change. The reports have been influential in forming national and international responses to climate change. A small but vocal minority (less than 1.5%) of the scientists involved with the report have accused the IPCC of bias.
"Reasons given by supporters of the global warming theory:
Supporters of the global warming theory assert that gas bubbles trapped in ice cores give us a detailed record of atmospheric chemistry and temperature back more than four hundred thousand years, with the temperature record confirmed by other geologic evidence. This record tells us that carbon dioxide and temperature rise and fall tightly together.
The recent rise in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is greater than any in hundreds of thousands of years and this is human-caused, shown by isotopic signature of CO2 from fossil fuels. We know carbon dioxide captures IR radiation and converts it to heat because we use these physics to measure carbon dioxide concentration the historical temperature record shows a rise of 0.4–0.8 °C over the last 100 years. The urban heat island effect makes no significant contribution.
The current warmth is unusual in the past 1000 years (see Temperature record of the past 1000 years).
The warming of the last 50 years is likely caused by human activity (see attribution of recent climate change), using analysis based on climate modeling; and that natural variability or solar variation cannot explain the recent change.
Carbon dioxide is a first order forcing on climate change—other effects such as water vapour greenhouse effects are either roughly constant over time, act as amplifiers, or do not have a large effect. Humankind is performing a great geophysical experiment and if it turns out badly—however that is defined—we cannot undo it. We cannot even abruptly turn it off. Too many of the things we are doing now have long-term ramifications for centuries into the future. Climate models can reproduce this trend, but only when using greenhouse gas.
Climate models predict more warming, and other climate effects (sea level rise, more frequent and severe storms, drought and heat waves, etc) in the future. For instance, Atlantic hurricane trends have been recently linked to climate change, June 2006. Action should be taken now to prevent or mitigate warming (see Precautionary principle).
The IPCC reports correctly summarise the state of climate science. There is a scientific consensus behind all of the above.
Our existence is poised within a fluid-dynamic, ocean-atmosphere-biosphere system, where non-linear feedbacks are common and where climate states are only relatively stable (i.e., "metastable"). Unknown unknowns are likely to surprise us, particularly if they trigger a non-linear, positive feedback that flips climate to a new meta-stable state.
Proponents of global warming tend to support the IPCC position and thus represent a broadly unified viewpoint, though with considerable differences over what action should be taken. Optionally, supporters may go on to point out that there is a good chance that the future changes may be undesirable, and that planning to avoid or mitigate them would be a good idea. Only 2 of the 120 contributing authors to the IPCC TAR are known to have voiced any complaint.
Science Magazine analyzed 928 peer-reviewed scientific papers on global warming published between 1993 and 2003 (Oreskes, 2004). Not a single one challenged the scientific consensus the earth’s temperature is rising due to human
activity."
The IPCC referred to is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and was established in 1988 by two United Nations organizations, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to assess the "risk of human-induced climate change". The Panel is open to all members of the WMO and UNEP.
IPCC reports are widely cited in almost any debate related to climate change. The reports have been influential in forming national and international responses to climate change. A small but vocal minority (less than 1.5%) of the scientists involved with the report have accused the IPCC of bias.
Thursday, July 06, 2006
Cycling is good...but how much?
I found this info from Ken Kiefer's 'Bike Pages' on the net:
"One very interesting question is how much aerobic exercise should one get every day? Some medical authorities recommend as little as 20 minutes a day, three times a week, while others recommend 2,000 kCal, which would be at least four times that amount. Why the great difference? Well, most authorities recognize the more exercise the better up to some undetermined point, but many are afraid that if they expect too much, people won't exercise at all. Another reason for lowering the recommendation was due to the damage caused by jogging, a problem cycling does not share. I am afraid that those setting very low requirements are giving people the mistaken impression that they don't need any more exercise than their usual, basically sedentary activity.
How much exercise do I recommend? I find that 45 minutes of cycling six days a week (about 2,000 kCal) keeps me feeling good, but not great, two hours per day keeps me very strong and controls my weight, and six hours a day on my bicycle trips makes me feel like superman after several weeks. We might say that lower amounts of exercise improve one's health and higher amounts improve one's fitness. I would recommend a minumum of 45 minutes a day and as much addition cycling as time permits. The time spent cycling will not be wasted; in addition to having a good ride, the cyclist will be more productive during the remaining time and will live longer as well."
I find riding every day to be too much for me as I need recovery time. Two hours every other day seems to be comfortable for the present in allowing joints and ligaments to recover. I seem to be losing FAT at this schedule, The 19" shirts are roomier and I have dropped back successfully to 18 1/2" size after two months. The belt is one or 1-1/2 nothes tighter too. Who has time for 6 hours a day in the saddle?
"One very interesting question is how much aerobic exercise should one get every day? Some medical authorities recommend as little as 20 minutes a day, three times a week, while others recommend 2,000 kCal, which would be at least four times that amount. Why the great difference? Well, most authorities recognize the more exercise the better up to some undetermined point, but many are afraid that if they expect too much, people won't exercise at all. Another reason for lowering the recommendation was due to the damage caused by jogging, a problem cycling does not share. I am afraid that those setting very low requirements are giving people the mistaken impression that they don't need any more exercise than their usual, basically sedentary activity.
How much exercise do I recommend? I find that 45 minutes of cycling six days a week (about 2,000 kCal) keeps me feeling good, but not great, two hours per day keeps me very strong and controls my weight, and six hours a day on my bicycle trips makes me feel like superman after several weeks. We might say that lower amounts of exercise improve one's health and higher amounts improve one's fitness. I would recommend a minumum of 45 minutes a day and as much addition cycling as time permits. The time spent cycling will not be wasted; in addition to having a good ride, the cyclist will be more productive during the remaining time and will live longer as well."
I find riding every day to be too much for me as I need recovery time. Two hours every other day seems to be comfortable for the present in allowing joints and ligaments to recover. I seem to be losing FAT at this schedule, The 19" shirts are roomier and I have dropped back successfully to 18 1/2" size after two months. The belt is one or 1-1/2 nothes tighter too. Who has time for 6 hours a day in the saddle?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)