« Singularity Scattershots – 5aug12 | Main | Does Economics Deserve Federal Funding? »

06 August 2012

Comments

Todd Juvinall

Darn, and I thought the press had finally given up supporting the cheating "scientist" but I guess not. The other liar Borenstein I think he name is, the AP Eco writer, is just as bab.

billy T

Mr. Juvinall, we have a worthy adversary in the debate and interpretation of Global Warming data. Did you think for one minute the other side would go softly into the still cool night? Nay. Obama and friends have simply starting funneling their agenda through the UN. Was it not just about 3 weeks ago that our Secretary of State delivered a 3 billion down payment to the UN on the 30 billion we have promised to fight global warming in the 3rd world countries? The evil non Muslin West must kick in 100 billion, so I guess our little 30 billion is a bargain. China told them to go blow smoke, in a diplomatic way of course. They never give up, so I admire their tenacity. Obama says his economic plan is working, so lets move on to Romney's tax returns. Rust never sleeps and there are strawmen to be slain. So many evil strawmen out there the sky is the limit, pun intended. Hope I did not sound ignorant by using Al Gore's term "Global Warming". Think that is so 2004 and not longer PC. I better tell my friends in Montana. They sent me a picture of a mountain pass that has just opened. Poor folks are all bundled up. Must be 20 feet of snow on the sides of the road. The caption read: "Montanans for Global Morning". Not PC I tell ya. Them strawmen Montanans are ignorant skinheads and totally not Nevada City friendly. They even sell organic firewood.

Paul Emery

Todd Is this kinda like all the security experts work wide believing Iraq had WMD's so we went to war and invaded a sovereign country based on faulty data. Is this what you mean?

Paul Emery

Even studies funded by the Koch Brothers find that global warming is real

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-kochfunded-climate-change-skeptic-reverses-course-20120729,0,7372823.story

" According to Richard A. Muller, professor of physics at UC Berkeley, MacArthur Fellow and co-founder of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project. Never mind that the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and hundreds of other climatologists around the world came to such conclusions years ago. The difference now is the source: Muller is a long-standing, colorful critic of prevailing climate science, and the Berkeley project was heavily funded by the Charles Koch Charitable Foundation, which, along with its libertarian petrochemical billionaire founder Charles G. Koch, has a considerable history of backing groups that deny climate change.

Tonya Mullins, a spokeswoman for the Koch Foundation, said the support her foundation provided, along with others, had no bearing on the results of the research. "Our grants are designed to promote independent research; as such, recipients hold full control over their findings," Mullins said in an email. "In this support, we strive to benefit society by promoting discovery and informing public policy."]

Paul Emery

sp 6:45 "security experts worldwide"

Gregory

Paul, yes, it's gotten warmer since the end of the Little Ice Age, including a net warming during the 20th century. However, as Muller's past collaborator Dr. Judith Curry has written regarding Muller's latest science by press release (no, the paper hasn't been peer reviewed or accepted for publication yet),
"Their latest paper on the 250 year record concludes that the best explanation for the observed warming is greenhouse gas emissions. In my opinion, their analysis is way over simplistic and not at all convincing . There is broad agreement that greenhouse gas emissions have contributed to the warming in the latter half of the 20th century; the big question is how much of this warming can be attributed to greenhouse gas emissions. I dont think this question can be answered by the simple curve fitting used in this paper, and I don’t see that their paper adds anything to our understanding of the causes of the recent warming."

As Muller has stated in the past, just 2% more clouds than the computer models predict would cancel out all of the theorized future warming, and it just so happens that clouds and their drivers have the most simplistic handling in the models. The great climate centers are said to be scared stiff they've gotten it wrong, that clouds and aerosols are running the show. As well they should.

Paul Emery

More from Mueller

"“Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.”

This is indeed the summary of his research. I recall this blog applauding this Koch Bros effort to study global warming and this is the conclusion. The wheels are falling off the opposition and those who will be making financial investments based on a clear understanding of the likely effects of global warming will be playing their cards with that in mind.

George Rebane

Gregory's 821pm is on the mark. Until Muller (or anybody) can appropriately analyze the contributing factors AND the sensitivities of each factor to the aggregate (and algorithmic) temperature, they are just doing data massaging and complex curve fitting that depends upon assumptions which can and will be counter argued.

Nevertheless, the climate change issue remains political, and those applauding it are only capable of appreciating consensus science - you know, democracy and all about who gets the most votes.

(For the technical reader - on physics side, there exist no general circulation models which can credibly fit historical data and 'predict' what has already been measured. Which means that we really don't understand the component processes that contribute to climate - e.g. the important carbon cycle of the earth is still not known.)

Russ Steele

Paul @06:53PM & 08:48PM

You might want to check out these links before going too far down the road holding hands with Muller.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/06/nasas-james-hansens-big-cherry-pick/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/07/31/best_barnum/

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/07/muller-the-pretend-skeptic-makes-three-claims-hes-half-right-on-one/

If your are short on time, read Jo Nova:

Muller’s three claims:

1. He’s a converted skeptic. (Naked, demonstrably wrong, PR.)
2. The world has warmed by 0.3C/decade. (He’s half right — he’s only exaggerating 100%.)
3. That it’s mostly due to man-made emissions. (Baseless speculation.)
As far as public policies go the only point that matters is 3, but most of the conversation is about 1 and 2. Worse, most journalists and many so-called scientists think evidence for warming is the same as evidence that coal fired power stations did it. How unscientific.

Jo Nova supports her case by examining each of Muller's claims in detail.

Gregory

“Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming."

Paul, that's just Muller's hyperbole, as most didn't have any real problem with seeing the world had warmed. It's always been an issue of how much, and why. The BEST, since it uses the data that had already been adjusted upwards on somewhat dubious grounds, and not raw instrumental data, and is affected by the urban heat island effects (consider how the Reno temp sensor data didn't used to be in between two of the largest runways in Nevada) of the past half century of urban development.

Muller's 'skepticism' was purely on the land surface temp data records from the same folks who were "hiding the decline". At least he's done a decent job of replicating the data while making the databases and the software code publicly available. What he hasn't done is any of the hard work to decide what actually drives the surface temperature changes.

Hint, the science of understanding how the oceans interact with land temps is even less ready for prime time than the surface temp simulations.

Paul Emery

Pretty much a predictable response. I strikes me that the Koch Bros. were looking for information they could count on for future decisions. They hired and funded a skeptic and this is what he came up with. That's how I see it. The truth does exist and will reveal itself in time.

Men come and go but earth abides

Ecclesiastes

Russ Steele

Paul@11:36

Yes a very predictable response! You did not even read the links provided. That is the problem when dealing with the AGW religion, the fact do not matter.

THEMIKEYMCD

Taxpayers spent upwards of $3,000,000,000 on 'Curiosity'. I would have 'voted' for a $3,000,000,000 prize for someone to engineer a car that provides 120+ miles per gallon or energy equivalent using another energy source. How 'curiosity' serves the collective (or the individual) is beyond me. #wasteoftimeandMYmoney

Thank God that we don't get the government we pay for.

Michael Anderson

AGW is a meme. As George correctly states, this meme is more about religion (Gaia) and politics than science. This particular Decree of Bad Weather by Bishop Hansen is just one in a long line of ecclesiastical decrees that originates from Pope Lovelock dating back to the 1970s.

You folks can talk about the science of aerosols, and ginned-up hockey sticks, and unfair and immoral CARB/Agenda21 initiatives all you want, but the AGW Meme will continue unabated, and will roll on w/o you.

Why? Because AGW is but a tiny piece of the overarching evidence that the human footprint on planet earth is problematic and perhaps needs an adjustment or two. The following issues are all tied together:

* AGW (whether true or not is irrelevant)
* Species loss (true; other-specie-habitats are being converted to human use)
* Over-consumption of wild food sources (fisheries)
* Human mega-regions vacuuming resources that surround them (contado concept)
* Asymmetrical human wars fought over said resources
* Larger, more complex, machine disasters (BP, Fukushima)

I could go on with this list, but you get the point. I would suggest that by addressing AGW in context with these larger issues will attract a larger and more receptive audience. BTW, I have made this suggestion to AGW-Memers as well, to no avail. I offer it here with the best of intentions.

George Rebane

MicharlA 825pm - Thanks for the broadening context. My two immediate (more later) reactions are -
1. Does not the inclusion of the controversial AGW issue (meme?) taint the entire list, and cause dismissal of the other items on the 'more of the same' basis?
2. How do you see managing the alleviation of the surviving items on such a list; what kind of organization or initiative is required?

My own hope is that given freedom, man's inventiveness and the promise of unlimited rewards will motivate the solution to almost all of the problems you outline. IMHO it all starts and ends with stabilizing earth's population. In the developed world broad-based education is the key.

During flights of reverie I have tried to imagine a society of nations with each enforcing its citizens be inoculated with education in the same manner as against infectious diseases. To their tested ability to absorb, no one would have the right to remain ignorant of the basic skills that define literacy and numeracy. In short, teach kids the tools to then learn, research, and understand the more esoteric subject areas of history, cultural traditions, law, art, the sciences, and, of course, politics. Government would maintain and administer the testing functions, but not instruction.

Michael Anderson

George, I wish I could spend some more time with my response this morning, but I appreciate very much what you wrote here. "Stabilizing the population," of course, is subject to a wide range of interpretation. But statistically speaking more educated human populations procreate in a more rational manner, so I completely agree with you that education is a huge component of mitigation.

I don't believe inclusion of an AGW discussion "taints the list," but I do think that it must be addressed in this broader context. For example, many environmentalists believe that we must cut back on our energy use and I happen to believe that this is impossible--it has never happened in human history (except for brief periods) and our destiny is to use energy to improve our lot.

BTW, the "organization or initiative" will be complex and evolve in chaotic fits and starts. It won't be pretty; that's all I know.

More later...

Paul Emery

George

George

If I might correct you, it all starts and ends with stabilizing mans consumption.

We cannot rely on "flights of reverie" to solve urgent and difficult problems of over consumption and pollution. Do you scribe to the 'seventh generation" level of responsibility to maintain our mother earth for the future?

" "We are looking ahead , as is one of the first mandates given us as chiefs, to make sure and to make every decision that we make relate to the welfare and well-being of the seventh generation to come. . "

Oren Lyons, Chief of the Onondaga Nation

Gregory

Paul, 11:36, Muller was never a "skeptic". The only thing he had expressed skepticism about was the accuracy of the UAE surface temperature record. BEFORE the BEST started he was clear that he thought that the CO2 positive feedback theory was "very probably true", and that is the AGW scare summarized.


"* AGW (whether true or not is irrelevant)" MA 8:25


Here is the crux of the catastrophic AGW scare; the believers don't CARE if it isn't true. The ends justify the means, the neo-Machiavellian credo, and the scare is the only whip the neo-Luddites have. That "tiny piece" was and is being used to, in essence, blackmail the developed world. California is going the way of Spain as we type.

MA's list of the horrors of modern technological life pales in comparison to life being comparatively nasty, brutal and short over most of human existence, before thermodynamics became a science central to humankind and James Watt figured out how to make steam engines work well enough to become important. Utopia is not an option. Diplomacy and dealing honestly with the results of progress is.

George Rebane

PaulE 1024am - I disagree totally. The causal drive for consumption is population, and not the other way around. Pre-columbian North American Indians were among the societies who demonstrated that, as were the Central American Indians who also corroborated that by eating themselves out of resources as their populations grew.

And please disregard future counsel from whomever told you to "rely" on flights of reverie - mine (859am) or anyone else's - for solutions to solving "urgent and difficult problems".

Re Chief Lyons of the Iroquois Turtle Clan - I have not found any evidence in the literature that any pre-Columbian Indians in the western hemisphere denied their current needs in order to secure the welfare of the next generation, let alone the "seventh generation".

Even Eurasian civilizations were not that smart (witness the defoliation of the lands surrounding the Mediterranean), they preserved the environment only to the extent that they were not able to destroy it. Our progressives look at that record and gush over themselves about the wise and noble aboriginals who lived in 'harmony with nature'. Now there's a flight of reverie upon which we should not base current public policy.

There are better ways to use our wealth and knowledge (technology) to preserve our environment than the denial of use approaches mandated through programs such as Agenda21 (q.v.). Large ignorant populations that cannot generate sufficient wealth and concentrate it have no hope for preserving their environment. Everything becomes a primitive commons and soon looks like Haiti or Madagascar.

Michael Anderson

Replies to Greg's 10:27:

"[T]he believers don't CARE if it isn't true. The ends justify the means, the neo-Machiavellian credo, and the scare is the only whip the neo-Luddites have."

This statement just puts everyone who doesn't agree with you into a nice, tidy box, and I don't think even you believe that is the best description of these loggerheads. People who are trying to understand AGW comes in all stripes and colors; it's complicated, so caution and a respect for complexity are the best approach. Not 'my way or the highway,' from either end.

"MA's list of the horrors of modern technological life pales in comparison to life being comparatively nasty, brutal and short over most of human existence..."

I completely disagree with you regarding the scale. Sure, lifespans were short and food was scarce, but the Galapagans (for example) had no way to destroy anything more than their own local habitat. Human habitat destruction on a global scale is real, and that is what I am talking about here.

"Utopia is not an option. Diplomacy and dealing honestly with the results of progress is."

Who's talking about utopia? Not me. And if we're going to deal honestly with the results of progress, what mechanism do we use to make the decision about how many species we are willing to lose?

Michael Anderson

Replies to George's 11:23:

I think you are correct that we would be hard-put to find a thriving ancient civilization that did not eat itself out of house and home.

"Large ignorant populations that cannot generate sufficient wealth and concentrate it have no hope for preserving their environment. Everything becomes a primitive commons and soon looks like Haiti or Madagascar."

I agree with this thesis, but with a caveat. I think there is a Holy Sweetspot by which humanity is able to create and concentrate wealth and protect the commons. But just as the commons can be destroyed when all the poor people rush into the forest and pull down the trees because there is no one to pump the NG out of the ground, so can it also be destroyed when the generated wealth becomes so concentrated that the drilling becomes the only goal.

For example, our national parks were created when we were a growing nation, our longevity was increasing, and the middle class was building.Eating the seed corn destroys the middle class.

It's a delicate balance, never been tried before and certainly with no track record of success. And when we talk past each other, we ensure success will never be achieved.

George Rebane

MichaelA 203pm - Agreed.

Russ Steele

As for “eating self out of house and home” one has to consider climate impacts. Science News has an article in the current issue, titled Ruined. “Climate may have had a far more profound impact on past societies than we realized" is the sub-title. Prolong drought being the main instrument of destruction. Prolonged drought would have led to famines which explains why cities were abandoned and the citizens whet in search of food in the surrounding forest and fields. As for the Maya rain fall dropped 40 percent with long dry periods, just before they abandoned their cites. I have not read the rest of the article but in California the Sierra have experienced droughts lasting 200 to 500 years long through out history.

The Sacramento Bee had an interesting story about large trees found 80 to 120 feet below the surface in Fallen Leaf Lake, indicating the lake level was once much lower and for a period of about 200 years.  More details HERE:
http://ncwatch.typepad.com/media/2010/07/long-term-drought-in-the-sierra.html

The researchers found:

During the last 500 years, a wet climate, punctuated by intermittent but substantial droughts, began to dominate the region, and lake levels again rose and cirques glaciers reformed in the Sierra. A series of substantial droughts are documented during this period, however. Dozens of submerged tree stumps are located up to 300 feet below the present day level of Donner Lake a tributary of the Truckee River; carbon –14 samples from one stump date from AD 1433 (Lindstrom and Bloomer 1994). Another warm period, documented by tree-ring studies and Truckee River run-off, dated between AD 1579-1585, and again around AD 1630 (Hardman and Reil 1936). It is possible that Lake Tahoe contributed relatively little water to the Truckee River during the last 200 years. During the century between the mid 1700s to mid 1800s, the level of Lake Tahoe may have been below its rim, with no water flow into the Truckee River. This is documented by a submerged stump in the Upper Truckee River Delta dating from AD 1720 (Lindstrom 1996a), one from Donner Lake dating from AD 1800 (Lindstrom and Bloomer 1994) and one in Emerald Bay dating to AD 1840 (Lindstrom 1992). The 40 years between AD 1875-1915 were the longest period during which the flow of the Truckee River was above the average. During the AD 1930s drought, Lake Tahoe ceased to flow from its outlet for six consecutive years. Drought within the last decade (late 1980s to 1990s) either stopped Tahoe’s flow into the Truckee or reduced it to almost nothing.

Please note, the period from 1550 AD to 1850 AD this was known as the Little Ice Age which included three particularly cold intervals: one beginning about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850, each separated by intervals of slight warming. California longest drought came during the cold periods, not the dreaded AGW warming.

According to solar scientist we are on the cusp of another period of minimums sunspots that were thought to be major contributors to the LIA, when millions died in Europe from starvation. During the Dalton Minimum California experiences an 8 year drought, followed by three years of ample moisture and then five more years of drought. The one to three year drought we have experiences in the last century are nothing compared to what is yet to come.

Paul Emery

RE 07 Rebane August 2012 at 11:23 AM

Not true George. For example the consumption of meat squanders huge amounts of the worlds land and water. There would be no starvation if this land were used for non meat food production. It is well established that a meat-based diet requires 7 times more land than a plant-based diet. This is just one example of consumption habits causing food shortages.

Also George your equation that personal freedom and prosperity somehow is a remedy for the abuse or resources does not historically look very good. Look at the slaughter of the buffalo and the California antelope as examples from the good old days. Look at the destruction caused by hydraulic mining before government regulations restricted economic freedom by passing laws. Look at the water quality of Lake Erie before strict regulations came into effect. Indeed endangered species are the canary in the goldmine when it comes to being an indicator of a dying natural infrastructure.

George Rebane

PaulE 714pm - I have no idea what your first paragraph pertains to; certainly nothing in my 1123am. You just cited an anecdotal scenario for which you have no basis for arguing "there would be no starvation" without giving the related parameters of population. We eat plenty of meat, and so have the Europeans, without any starvation. Why, because the population was low relative to the production capacity of the land.

And your second paragraph expounds the heart of a true progressive. Constantly arguing that ALL government regulation is rejected by a free people, and that it is the wisdom of government, somehow separate from a free people, that brings goodness and reason to life. I'm afraid not. By any body count you care to examine, government has always been the incipient evil in human societies that crossed the threshold of civility more times than can be chronicled. It is a free people, with recourse, who have the best chance for sustaining a civil and beneficial government. These words are anathema to a collectivist who cannot conceive of such an order.

Russ Steele

Paul@07:14PM


Meat eating played a major role in human development. When early humans started to eat meat and eventually hunt, their new, higher-quality diet meant that women could wean their children earlier. Women could then give birth to more children during their reproductive life, which is a possible contribution to the population gradually spreading over the world. The connection between eating meat and a faster weaning process is shown by a research group from Lund University in Sweden, which compared close to 70 mammalian species and found clear patterns.

Learning to hunt was a decisive step in human evolution. Hunting necessitated communication, planning and the use of tools, all of which demanded a larger brain. At the same time, adding meat to the diet made it possible to develop this larger brain.

"This has been known for a long time. However, no one has previously shown the strong connection between meat eating and the duration of breast-feeding, which is a crucial piece of the puzzle in this context. Eating meat enabled the breast-feeding periods and thereby the time between births, to be shortened. This must have had a crucial impact on human evolution," says Elia Psouni of Lund University.

Red meat if a vital part of brain development. When we choose to eat meat we have a direct impact on our brain. Some people avoid red meat because they have heard that it is bad for their health. While red meat is an animal-based food that contains fat, it is also important for providing protein, vitamin B-12 and iron. When eaten in limited amounts, red meat can provide nutrients that are important to overall health, including brain growth and development. More here: http://www.livestrong.com/article/499111-red-meat-brain-development/#ixzz22uyMdMSF

I had two vegan engineers that world for me. They lunch pail was a cooler about two feet long and 18 inches wide and was filled with veggies. These tow engineers ate from start to end of shift. They snacked the whole day long. There were never more than 4 feet from their lunch box, except for bathroom brakes. While they were bright people they, seem to lack any more energy than it took to operate a computer terminal.

Russ Steele

opps hit the wrong button,

"I had two vegan engineers that worked for me. Their lunch pail" ... was the intended edit.

Paul Emery

George
"The causal drive for consumption is population, and not the other way around." 11:23AM


My comparison was pretty simple. The problem is consumption not population. Less consumption of meat leaves more land for food production. More use of mass transportation leaves more resources for future generations.

A good current example of the necessity of regulation is "fracking."

What, if any, regulation do you feel is appropriate and do you feel we have enough information about the long term effects on the environment?

George Rebane

PaulE 748pm - The current regulations governing fracking are sufficient. However, like all relatively new extraction methods, its impact on the environment should continue to be monitored and additional regulations drafted when/if needed. You can bet your sweet asset that the energy companies are monitoring the bejeezus out of their drilling sites to early detect any harm. And they and third parties are working on technologies in anticipation of problems (real and political) and to make that extraction method even safer. All driven by capitalistic greed.

Michael Anderson

I agree with George that fracking may have a good cost/benefit ratio. The whole question is about how close the petroleum deposits are to the water table, which usually is 'not very close.'

OTOH, I am not much a fan of the tar sands in mid-Canada. I have only spent time in the western upper territories and have not seen the tar sands in person, but the pictures are disturbing. These are habitats that will take hundreds of centuries to be made whole again.

Regarding Russ' meat discussion, I think we are pretty much in agreement. Paul E.'s point is well taken, that meat production is highly resource intensive, and all-meat diets are certainly not healthy.

But all-vegan and all-vegetarian diets are difficult to maintain, as Russ' anecdote outlines. I happen to (try to) follow the so-called Caveman Diet, which means no processed foods, very limited sugar and flour (best is none), some kind of meat every other day or so (fish is preferred), and lots of low-sugar fruits and vegetables. In our society it is difficult to follow this diet, let me tell you.

Gregory

Regulations should be reserved for real problems, not imagined or theorized ones. In any case, regulations or no, civil law remains and the basics are you break it, you fix it and make the folks inconvenienced or injured whole again.

I'm convinced that the main resistance to fracking is that it means we have cheap carbon fuels for a few extra generations, and that doesn't fit the AGW gameplan.

Paul Emery

Ask the people who have fire water from their faucets.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U01EK76Sy4A

http://www.propublica.org/article/scientific-study-links-flammable-drinking-water-to-fracking

"most of the wells had some methane, the water samples taken closest to the gas wells had on average 17 times the levels detected in wells further from active drilling. The group defined an active drilling area as within one kilometer, or about six tenths of a mile, from a gas well."

TomKenworth

The Zamboni should be brought out to clear the ice for a fresh skate, but I hear they don't work too good underwater....

TomKenworth

I've never seen a bathroom with brakes? How does that work? Sounds like Gregorian Engineering is at it again...

Russ Steele

Paul@11:01

Even the EPA could not come up with one proven case of contamination from sub surface fracking. EPA Backpedals on Fracking Contamination , WSJ http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303404704577313741463447670.html

Is Fracking Safe? The Top 10 Myths About Natural Gas Drilling: Myth #4
9/12/2011

"[THERE'S] NEVER BEEN ONE CASE—DOCUMENTED CASE—OF GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION IN THE HISTORY OF THE THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF HYDRAULIC FRACTURING [WELLS]"

SEN. JAMES INHOFE, R-OKLA., APRIL 2011

The senator is incorrect. In the past two years alone, a series of surface spills, including two blowouts at wells operated by Chesapeake Energy and EOG Resources and a spill of 8000 gallons of fracking fluid at a site in Dimock, Pa., have contaminated groundwater in the Marcellus Shale region. But the idea stressed by fracking critics that deep-injected fluids will migrate into groundwater is mostly false. Basic geology prevents such contamination from starting below ground. A fracture caused by the drilling process would have to extend through the several thousand feet of rock that separate deep shale gas deposits from freshwater aquifers. According to geologist Gary Lash of the State University of New York at Fredonia, the intervening layers of rock have distinct mechanical properties that would prevent the fissures from expanding a mile or more toward the surface. It would be like stacking a dozen bricks on top of each other, he says, and expecting a crack in the bottom brick to extend all the way to the top one. What's more, the fracking fluid itself, thickened with additives, is too dense to ascend upward through such a channel. EPA officials are closely watching one place for evidence otherwise: tiny Pavillion, Wyo., a remote town of 160 where high levels of chemicals linked to fracking have been found in groundwater supplies. Pavillion's aquifer sits several hundred feet above the gas cache, far closer than aquifers atop other gas fields. If the investigation documents the first case of fracking fluid seeping into groundwater directly from gas wells, drillers may be forced to abandon shallow deposits—which wouldn't affect Marcellus wells.

( It turns out the the EPA test found fracking fluid in the pure water used as the base line , water that has been certified to be free from any contaminates. The whole Wyoming case blew up in their face.)

There are natural deposits of gas that are close to the water table and have been been exploited in the news media and on You Tube. I am really surprised that a man of your intelligence was taken in by the fracking issue. The oil industry has been fracking for over 60 years. I worked in the Wyoming oil and gas fields in the 1950 and we they were fracking then. It is only now that we have horizontal drilling which is producing cheap natural gas from tight formations that challenge the economics of alternative energy has the environmentalist become concerned.

TomKenworth

" drillers may be forced to abandon shallow deposits"

I wonder if they'll abandon their false advertizing, which claims thousands and thousand of feet between fracking and aquafiers.? While claiming one thing on tv, they obviously were pushing the envelop out in the real world, and will only back down when caught. Now about all those earthquakes in OK.. What's your, "not proven" story there? Seems the legislature found proof enough.

TomKenworth

I suppose you like the tortured logic here:

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/15/more-on-the-link-between-earthquakes-and-fracking/

where we don't blame fracking , but claim that pumping the waste slurry into deep wells afterwards, or the increased extraction of gas, is responsible instead???

Hello?

"Love and Marriage. Love and Marriage,
Go together like a horse and carriage.
You can't have one,
You can't have one,
Without the other."

Ditto fracking and disposal of waste lube goo produced in the process.
Ditto earthquakes and taking out large quantities of gas.

Thinking in iso-logic* tight compartments leads to environmental and structural disasters.

*short for isolated logic, not "same."

Here's another group of idiots who try to comparmentalize the disposal of fracking fluids from the fracking process itself:

http://m.bhpioneer.com/mobile/local_news/article_98a28112-9bb7-11e1-804e-0019bb2963f4.html

So I guess we should say, "Fine, go frack all you want, but find some other way of disposing of all the frackwater, other than lubing up Mother Earth for another go-round of earthquakes."

TomKenworth

Since Crabb has pointed out the meat issue touched on slightly here, I thought I'd bring up a more significant item:

"The discovery of fire, or, more precisely, the controlled use of fire was, of necessity, one of the earliest of human discoveries. Fire's purposes are multiple, some of which are to add light and heat, to cook plants and animals, to clear forests for planting, to heat-treat stone for making stone tools, to burn clay for ceramic objects.

Discovery of Fire

The controlled use of fire was an invention of the Early Stone Age (or Lower Paleolithic). The earliest evidence for controlled use of fire is at the Lower Paleolithic site of Gesher Benot Ya'aqov in Israel, where charred wood and seeds were recovered from a site dated 790,000 years ago.

Not everybody believes that; the next oldest site is at Zhoukoudian, a Lower Paleolithic site in China dated to about 400,000 BP, and at Qesem Cave (Israel), between about 200,000-400,000 years ago.

In a paper published in Nature in March 2011, Roebroeks and Villa report their examinations of the available data for European sites and conclude that habitual use of fire wasn't part of the human (meaning early modern and Neanderthal both) suite of behaviors until ca. 300,000 to 400,000 years ago. They argue that the earlier sites are representative of opportunistic use of natural fires. "

Not only did fire make it possible to enjoy early barbeques undisturbed by the hungry beasties, it also allow for the discovery of hardened clays, then ceramics, then decorated ceramics, and finally, most important of all, the discovery of molten metal, from the glazes used for decorating ceramics.

And that of course finally led to the invention of drill bits for boring holes to get rid of frack water goo, earthquakes, and of course Howard Hughes:

"Hughes was born in Dallas, Texas, on Christmas Eve 1905. His father, Howard Sr., was an oil prospector who was nearly broke, and his mother, Allene Gano, a prominent Dallas socialite. Hughes Sr.'s fortunes soared in 1909 when he perfected an oil drill bit that pierced bedrock, an invention that would also make Howard Jr. a wealthy young man as head of the Hughes Tool Company, in Houston, Texas."

TomKenworth

Given the 4.5 quake that just occurred in Los Angeles, I wonder how much longer the State of California and the County governments will sit on the sidelines?

http://www.alternet.org/story/155829/fracking_los_angeles%3A_what_life_is_like_on_the_country%27s_biggest_urban_oilfield

Gregory

'Doug in Nevada City, you're on the air on KFBK', heard yesterday about 3:30PM.

Could it be *that* Doug? Well, he insisted on giving his bona fides as a Cal grad, as were his kids Then went on to browbeat the host (apparently not the regular guy, just one of the regular newsguys) for thinking there might be an issue for California to give a free UC education to some undocumented Democrats whose parents didn't bother to immigrate legally. The host hung up on him for continually talking over the host, trying to turn it into the Doug Show. There's a podcast. I give it a 99.9999% probability that it was *that* Doug.

Russ, yes, the EPA has tried hard to establish fracking as a threat, but without success, and I suspect they know about the youtube'd instances.


Paul Emery

There are also earthquakes in Texas where they've never been before and this from New York

"The U.S. Geological Survey has warned New York state regulators that their plan to allow drilling and hydraulic fracturing for natural gas in the Marcellus Shale could endanger private water wells, municipal aquifers and New York City’s drinking water supply.
http://www.ewg.org/report/federal-scientists-warn-ny-fracking-risks
The assessment of the USGS, widely regarded as impartial and authoritative on drilling issues, intensifies pressure on Gov. Andrew Cuomo not to proceed with a drilling plan drafted by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Cuomo has pledged to “let the science and the facts make the determination, not emotion and not politics.”1

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has separately written New York regulators arguing that they are ill- equipped to regulate a boom in shale gas drilling and have limited financial means to enforce the numerous new regulations they have proposed. The EPA has raised additional concerns, among them, that the state has understated the severity of radioactive pollution associated with drilling and doesn’t know how such contaminants would be disposed of."

TomKenworth

Give that man a cupie doll! Suckered him in and whacked him, for his non issue involving all of 35 students, who were dragged here by their parents, at tender ages, and then went on to be successful USA students, graduating high school. He was hoping that, given my bonefides (total UC family), I'd be in chorus with him. Fat Chance!

TomKenworth

"kewpie doll" Just remembered. Did 10 other things in between.

Gregory

Happened to be driving and had KFBK on at the same time again...they're laughing at you still, Keach, because you made no sense and just kept babbling. Pretty much like you do here.


Paul, let me know when you have official EPA documents, not drafts published by activist .orgs. So far, it appears current regulations have managed to keep up with actual problems, unless you think inexpensive natural gas is an actual problem.

Russ Steele

Human activities have been triggering earthquakes for decades. One of the earliest known examples came in the 1930s, when the Hoover Dam filled Lake Mead, exerting great pressure on the earth, and inducing a series of quakes. When the Oroville Dam was filling in the 1970s we had a strong earth quake in Nevada County which was attributed to the weight of the water behind the dam.

Since the 1960s, seismologists have been recording earthquakes that happen after liquids are injected into the ground, which happens during a variety of processes. Fluids, for example, are often used to increase pressure and push oil and gas from deep underground.

There was a project to sequester CO2 emission in the ground, which environmentalist are all for, also caused small earthquakes. Open pit blasting can cause small local earthquakes. Yes, we humans can cause earthquakes and they are small enough that USG does not even record any thing below a 3.0. Why, because there are hundreds of them every day. We live on a very active planet that is controlled by chaotic process over which we have no control. Get use to it.

Why is that the environmentalist are only concerned by fracking earth quakes and not CO2 sequestering earth quakes, or cold water injection in geothermal wells, or filing dams? Why, the low cost natural gas it produces makes alternative energy non-competitive.

Gregory

"Why, the low cost natural gas it produces makes alternative energy non-competitive" Russ, 637


Russ, you blew it with that one. Alternative energies are already non-competitive for feeding the grid. What fracking does is insure they will remain uncompetitive for a century or two.

Russ Steele

Gregory@08:35

You are correct, that was the point I was trying to make. With low cost natural gas there is no future for high cost alternative energy, wind and solar. The only hope the environmental wackos have is to regulate natural gas out of the market with claims that fracking is a danger to the public. Other nations are not going to buy that, and will soon be more competitive than the US because they have access to low cost natural gas. We need a regime change in Washington!

Gregory

Hi Russ, I figured that's what you meant, but don't forget distant places that aren't likely to ever be on the grid, where wind, solar and small hydro will always be viable, unless small fusion reactors ever become a reality. One can always dream ;)

Paul Emery

Gregory

Start with this. You can find the entire document on the The assessment of the USGS, link on the second paragraph of this link.

http://www.ewg.org/report/federal-scientists-warn-ny-fracking-risks

"Revisions to the draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (dSGEIS) propose many critical measures to help minimize the impact of shale-gas development on the water resources of New York State. However, a number of water-resource characterization and monitoring needs and opportunities related to shale-gas development have not been addressed by the revised dSGEIS. These issues include:
1) Shallow characterization of freshwater, saltwater, and gas;
2) Groundwater monitoring at shale-gas well pads;
3) Principal Aquifer delineation;
4) Sources of recharge to stratified-drift aquifers and groundwater supplies; 5) Microseismic monitoring of hydraulic fracturing;
6) Fractures, faults, and hydraulic-fracture barriers; 7) New York City aqueduct; and
8) Well water-quality sampling and data base.........
.

Michael Anderson

I'd like to see some pebble reactors...

Russ Steele

Paul@10:25

Did you read the whole report? The issue is insuring that the wells are properly cased to the proper depth. That is a technical issue, that any credible driller will address. I agree that some regulation and inspection necessary at the state level to insure that driller are professionals and following industry practice. We do not need more federal regulations.

Why state and not federal regulations. Because every geological formation is different. While there may be shallow water in New York, that water may not be present in any other state. Thus a one fits all regulation will only be an obstacle to efficiency and effectiveness.

Gregory

Paul, it's still an unapproved draft report from one guy in the USGS, who has a vested interest in getting the regulations he proposes into the books, as provided by an activist organization.

Paul Emery

Gregory

This is the reports origin. Where do you get the "one guy" theory? What is his "vested interest" and where do you read that? . It's the official USGS response to the proposal not an unfinished draft. It's an uncharacteristic stretch for you to make those unfounded assumptions.
U.S. Geological Survey, New York Water Science Center Comments on the Revised Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement

Here's one for you Russ

http://www.propublica.org/article/scientific-study-links-flammable-drinking-water-to-fracking

"For the first time, a scientific study has linked natural gas drilling and hydraulic fracturing with a pattern of drinking water contamination so severe that some faucets can be lit on fire."

TomKenworth

Just so you understand that I am busy with other items, I'll simply lay out some history for you here: http://farstars.blogspot.com/2012/08/higher-ed-in-california-history.html

The Doofus on KFBK attempted to equate UC System campuses with the State University system, because they had similar names, {but only since 1959) and both were state funded, a position I'm sure poor boy scholarshipped through Harvey Mudd must have treated himself to with relish. More on this later, and where is my podcast, I want a copy, L. W. GoodNugget says it exists ("There's a podcast.")? Meanwhile, go enjoy the fair!

TomKenworth

But let's facpolitics and centralized controle it. This arguement isn't about do-able science and engineering. It's about politics and centralized control over peoples lives by the energy monopolies, who want to keep things just the way they are, with them in control. The idea that every yahoo out there might be able to thumb his or her nose at what is draining every increasing amounts of their net income, just freaks out those on the right.

If you can figure out how to drill sideways, four miles down, and you can figure out how to lower a rover on a planet 20 million miles away, you sure as hell can figure out how to make cheaper than carbon emitting fuels solar panels. If the USA government were to put a $100,000,000,000 in gold bars prize on the individual or firm or government worldwide that developed such panels, turning over non-exclusive but complete rights to the USA government, you could bet that it would be done, and fast. It would be the best 100 billion the Feds had ever spent. Unfortunately, Big Energy and their lickspittle lackeys will see to it that it never happens, and anyone individual who comes close, privately, will most likely simply disappear, along with all their notes, prototypes, etc.

Unless, of course, they are very careful, say nothing until it is all working, and then spam the web with all the details on the day they first walk their agent into the Patent Office, to begin that process. How many moles does Big E maintain in that office? Probably willfind out in 200 years.

TomKenworth

"But let's facpolitics and centralized controle it"

should be:

"But let's face it, politics and centralized Big Energy firms control it."

( at that point in time, my typing must have totally over-run some other process my computer was doing. Glasses back in the car, still)

Gregory

"Doofus on KFBK attempted to equate UC System campuses with the State University system,"

That was not at all an issue. Doofus who called in tried to equate a US labor union program to find 2.7 gpa (or better) high school grads who were illegal aliens and committed to "social justice" to give them s couple years worth of a college education to being a balance with the UC's having business departments.

Really? That was the funniest thing I've heard all week!

TomKenworth

There was no question that the Doofus controlling the slider was attempting to further the disrespect higher ed in this state. What I pointed out was that our economy consists of businesses and labor, and yet, while in private and public universities and colleges we find many, many, well funded Schools of Business, we hard hard pressed to find even Departments looking at our economy from the viewpoint of the employees. "Committed to social justice" is a bad thing? Is that somehow worse than being, "committed to the free enterprise system?" The latter might well be a qualification for admission with a scholarship to a School of Business. It was at least somewhat apparent that for the youth admitted into this program, that, while they would receive credits, they would still have to get admitted into the regular campus at UCLA to be able to make anything out of them.

Additional things that people in science have been able to build, and still can't crack solar? Give me a break.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/09/us-cybersecurity-gauss-idUSBRE8780NJ20120809

Gregory

Paul, there's one guy in the USGS whose name is on it, and it's a draft, meaning it isn't official, and ewg.org is an activist site, not Federal.

Just because one guy in the USGS wants certain things to be done doesn't mean the USGS has given it their seal of approval.

TomKenworth

Waiting for the first Big One with fracking plastered all over it is like waiting for the next mass shooting. Aurora, Sikhs, who's next?

http://www.esa.org/esablog/ecology-in-the-news/increase-in-magnitude-3-earthquakes-likely-caused-by-oil-and-gas-production-but-not-fracking/

TomKenworth

BTW, again, the amazing disconnect between "fracking" and the later reinjection into the earth of excess fracking fluid that returns to the surface, just boggles my mind. They may be two "separate" events, but you don't get the need for the second (disingenuously here described as the causal agent, not fracking, "oh please, fracking is just fine") without doing the first. This is much like declaring that inserting semen has nothing to do with conception, it just happens to occur nearby. Classic Compartmentalized, (I hesitate to use the next term) Thinking!

Paul Emery

Gregory

It is the official response to the request for an environmental assessment. How can that be more clear? Please show me where it was com[piled by one personal to justifies your assumtion that it's an "unapproved draft report from one guy in the USGS, who has a vested interest in getting the regulations he proposes into the books".

Gregory

Paul, it clearly says "draft", which means it hasn't been "released". There is one person's name put to it, and checking his linkedin page, with four whole connections and no educational background listed, it's unclear just how much weight to give it.
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/john-williams/18/670/87/

Coincidentally, there's a new Muller (you like him) interview where he weighs in on the subject...: "Well, I totally don’t support the old kind of fracking, but I think clean fracking - in which you just fine the hell out of the companies if they spill anything or upset the water tables – they can fix it up – compared to developing really cheap solar, developing really clean fracking, I think, is relatively straightforward."

TomKenworth

As long as companies can simply write off as "expenses" any fines they incur, legislated or regulated, oil, gas, and coal will just go on their merry ways, as witness BP and the Deepwater Horizon rig and how it was written off, including the fines.

TomKenworth

And of course there is the advertising smoke screen in which Chevron claims they poured 8 billion back into the country, but in the background, they're trying to sell the Richmond refinery to China, moving it there, and driving up the gas prices for Californians.

http://www.scpr.org/blogs/economy/2012/08/07/9317/q-chevron-richmond-refinery-fire-and-higher-gas-pr/

George Rebane

TomK 1037pm - there is every reason to believe that Chevron has reinvested massively in the US, but they would have done more if the US were not becoming a nightmare for energy companies to do business in.

California has already lost attraction to any legitimate business that cannot make money from its economic insanity. From the recent demonstrations in council chambers against oil refineries, hell yes Chevron wants to get rid of its California holdings. And it is Californians, not the energy companies, that make California gasoline expensive.

The tipping point is now behind us, and that you and yours don't have a clue as to how you have destroyed this state is reason enough for everyone to leave who can. There is not a shred of sanity coming out of Sacramento, and IMHO all of you progressives in the hustings here are now the democratic majority that provides no plan for recovery, and every new initiative to take us downward faster.

Your philosophy has now reached the bankrupt level where you will have to start taking private property at gunpoint to pay for all of those on the dole. And in my view, most of the state's employees are effectively on the dole along with those Californians on welfare who reliably vote for whomever promises the biggest monthly check.

TomKenworth

My philosophy and where the business leaders of this state, country and world have taken us, are two entirely different things. The highest paid California State employees are athletic coaches at UC. Are you calling them welfare recipients? The next highest paid are all doctors who are heads of departments in the UC teaching hospitals. Are they welfare recipients?

TomKenworth

On the Richmond refinery fire. We've had banks too big to fail, and now we have fires too big to call arson. If wonder if the guy who jiggered the computer software is still alive...

Gregory

"My philosophy and where the business leaders of this state, country and world have taken us, are two entirely different things."

Thank goodness. Imagine if the state, country and world were run according to the views of retired public school teachers from San Francisco with unconstrained left wing lack-of-sensibilities and overactive imaginations... the movies "Brazil" and "Idiocracy" are all that come to mind. In the case of California, it's a shambles with only the first "Kenworth" (Keachie) steps of out of control spending, a punitive regulatory climate and lack of consequences for failed schools and school districts.

George Rebane

TomK 1218am - These conversations are so hard with you. Take from my 1101pm, "... most of the state's employees are effectively on the dole along with those Californians on welfare ...". How on earth did you conclude that this statement asserted that the higher and more productive state paid employees are on welfare?! Professors of medicine teach physicians which society sorely needs (now more than ever with Obamacare), and university coaches create profitable circuses which pleasurably vacuum the pockets of the alumni and the general population. It is ever a wonder how the progressive mind parses and ponders.

TomKenworth

According to the logic of Rebane and L.W. GoodNugget, I should be flat broke and on the dole. Instead I do receive money from an account which I paid into 50% up front deducted from my salary, and 50% paid into by the school district IN LIEW of paying a higher salary to begin with. A deal is a deal, so deal with it. I also continue to do new and creative endeavors, in the finest tradition of free enterprise. Here is some work I did for a recent client. http://www.swapntalk.com/Minatures4Sale/FirstBatch/ We also grow food, and will be doing a lot more of that soon, since corn no longer grows in the midwest, , thanks, deniers. Oh, and the native grasses are being replaced by woody scrub plants, due to too much nitrogen from polluting cars possibly? Apparently they emit a compound that is readily absorbed by the woody plants, which are replacing the tall grasses native to the region, as the woody plants' roots grow deeper and steal the water..

TomKenworth

BTW, Liew GoodNugget, I also paid into social security from my freelance activities down through the years, but under current laws, will never collect a cent as a teacher, due to special interests deciding teachers shouldn't be rewarded for stepping outside the classroom and doing additional legitimate free enterprise work. In short, the taxpayers said, "let's make sure our teachers won't get rich, and keep them out of the marketplace, too many competitors already." Or maybe more succinctly, "No Uppity Teachers!"

Actually did have one colleague whose sideline vinegar business took off so well he left teaching altogether, well before retirement.

In lieu of more postings today, have an Obama time at the Faire!

Oh, and do keep on working on your plans for fixing the economy, and do the projection for just how it will all play out, for everyone. So far, your plans seem to include anyone without a stash being shoved off the cliff. That's not acceptable, and certainly won't make Romney electable.

TomKenworth

"the higher and more productive state paid employees" and just where do you draw the cutoff point? Which employees do you feel are unproductive and therefore on welfare? Are the profs in the business schools of the UC system above or below the line. How about Robert Reich at Berkeley? Could it just be that you don't like what some state employees are paid to do, so you smear them with the tar and feathers of "welfare leeches?" In that case, Rush Limbaugh is an octo-duodecahedron fourth dimensional welfare queen. May his tessarac collapse and soon.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/10/Rectified_tesseract2.png

Paul Emery

Gregory

It is the working document in the environmental review process required by state and federal law. It is required for approval of this project much like EIR's (commonly called draft EIR's) are required in California to recognize and suggest mitigation for recognized problems. Call it what you want. Of course it's an "approved " document and is an official and legally required document. Can you tell me what information you have to accuse the writer of being a rouge individual and what justifies your statement that he "has a vested interest in getting the regulations he proposes into the books, as provided by an activist organization." Where did you get that information or did you make it up to fit your theory?

Gregory

Paul, can you find it on the EPA website?

"Of course it's an "approved " document"

Then it should be available from a public agency. LOOK AT THE DOCUMENT TITLE. "Revised draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement"

Try to find something that is titled something like "Final Environmental Impact Statement".


1) The *draft* version we see is courtesy an activist website, not the EPA.
2) If the guy whose name is on it is the only author, he has a vested interest in seeing his work upheld. If it gets tossed out by superiors, he is not likely to get a get a good review.

Paul Emery

You would have had better luck going to the USGS (United States Geological Survey) site. They are the ones who authored the report


The EPA had nothing to do with this. Williams works for the USGS
Here are some details about John Williams that you missed

John H. Williams has a BA in Geology from Colgate University, and a MS in Geosciences from Pennsylvania State University. John currently is the Groundwater Specialist for the U. S. Geological Survey Water Science Center in New York, and is responsible for technical oversight of the Survey’s groundwater program in the State.

https://profile.usgs.gov/jhwillia/


John has provided technical assistance to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Army Corp of Engineers, and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission on investigations of contaminated fractured-bedrock aquifers. He has worked with the Geological Survey of Canada in the investigation of transboundary aquifers in New York and Quebec.

In addition, John is an integral part of the geophysical training and technology transfer program of the Office of Groundwater - Branch of Geophysics. He has provided support in borehole geophysics to Survey offices throughout the U. S. and in the United Arab Emirates. He recently co-taught a borehole geophysics workshop in northern Iraq for the Iraqi Central and Kurdish Regional Governments that was supported by the U. S. Department of Defense.

Over the past several years, John has made presentations on water-resource issues related to shale-gas development to the U. S. Department of Energy, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Ground Water Association, North American Energy Marketers Association, Empire State Water Well Drillers Association, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, professional associations of geologists, geophysicists, and engineers, universities, and environmental groups. He also has provided testimony to the New York State Assembly and New York City Council on these issues."

Here is his report that was the basis for his response

http://ny.water.usgs.gov/projectsummaries/CP30/Marcellus_Presentation_Williams.pdf

Gregory

USGS is of course what I meant and correctly typed a number of times.

While you didn't actually find a released version of the draft you were saying was final, the slideware you found was even better. The last page shows a number of activist sentiments (No Fracking, no fracking with NY water) that seems to indicate he's not exactly a neutral scientist in the matter.


Gregory

George 08:41 AM

Perhaps we can agree that BA anthropologists trying to teach high school computer science without significant work in the subject are effectively on the dole.

Gregory

"Can you tell me what information you have to accuse the writer of being a rouge [sic] individual"

Going rouge... is that like lipstick on a pitbull?

Sorry, Paul, but I made no accusation of the author being a rogue. Only an implying of being fallible and opinionated, like everyone else. More to the point, there remains no good reason (including anything in his reports as he's far more sober than you or the activist site you were first linking to) to stop fracking. It's here to stay in the absence of hard findings to the contrary.

George Rebane

Gregory 330pm - Don't exactly who the BA anthropologist would be, but I do agree it is a stretch to make that curriculum connection; unless 'high school computer science' was the name of a course in which you learned to use a couple of MS Office apps.

TomKenworth

That would be B.A. plus 90 units, 18 of which were in computer science for educator classes, plus four years experience selling hardware and software, and experience with computing dating back to 1965, look up Keachie and Goines, but remember who really figured out the application Goines miss-remembers as his own. I figured out how it would be useful,and explained it to him and the rest to get the manpower to enter the data.

Poor GoodNuggets. If it doesn't come stamped with an official degree, it can't possibly work. The Wright Brothers never attended an aeronautical school, so of course they couldn't fly. Trust me L.W., if politicALLY CORRECT SFUSD could have found anyone one other than a white male who even had the slightest clue as to how to connect and operate computers, they would have. Essentially, I was both the pick of the litter, and the only one applying, and in fact was invited to apply by my first principal, when he found out what I knew. If you had ANY real concerns about public education, YOU could have gone and gotten a credential and brought a lot to the classroom. Was the pay scale too low for you? Was the work too degrading for a Harvey Mudd graduate? Why didn't you step up to the plate then, instead of being such an _______ now?

As for what I taught, it was initially BASIC and Pascal, and a couple of computer literacy courses, using MS Works, and some early multimedia items I was able to get donated. I also wrote grants and got some Fischer Technics robotic kits donated, which the kids loved. In time BASIC was replaced by C++. Of course times have changed, and now the curriculum looks like: http://lhs-sfusd-ca.schoolloop.com/cms/page_view?d=x&piid=&vpid=1275747746574 and I believe a teacher has continued the robotics side of things, and has sent a team or two out into the national competitions.

http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/education/2012/05/robotics-spark-youths-math-science-interests

In reading this article it warms the cockles of my heart to see that an idea I proposed over 20 years ago has finally come to fruition. They've established a school on Treasure Island for the ghetto kids to have a chance to completely leave the "hood" and feel free to experience a brand new lifestyle. I originally suggested ferries to get them there, but buses are fine.

Way back when, before events derailed the train, I would have gone on to finish the MA in anthro and then gone on for a doctorate, specializing in ethnographic film making, and in a way, I'm doing that today, just locally. I am proud of the students I gave a good start to, and the countless hours I spent learning on the job, over and beyond the full time job of teaching, in order to advance our kids. When it comes time up at the Pearly Gates, I have no qualms about whether or not my life was well spent. He who spends his time constantly belittling others, may not be so confident. A public apology from HUWLW Greg Gregory Goodknight is still in order (and he insists on adding to the list daily), or those nuggets will roll after him forever.

Russ Steele

Fracking update from Watts Up With That


Frohlich, 2012 found no correlation between fracking and earthquakes… NONE, NADA, ZIP, ZERO-POINT-ZERO…

Most earthquakes identified in the study ranged in magnitude from 1.5 to 2.5, meaning they posed no danger to the public.

“I didn’t find any higher risks from disposal of hydraulic fracturing fluids than was thought before,” says Frohlich.”My study found more small quakes, nearly all less than magnitude 3.0, but just more of the smaller ones than were previously known. The risk is all from big quakes, which don’t seem to occur here.”

All the wells nearest to the eight earthquake groups reported high injection rates (maximum monthly injection rates exceeding 150,000 barrels of water). Yet in many other areas where wells had similarly high injection rates, there were no earthquakes. Frohlich tried to address those differences.

If water injection cause earthquakes, then it must cause them everywhere and according to Frohich it does not happen.

“It might be that an injection can only trigger an earthquake if injected fluids reach and relieve friction on a nearby fault that is already ready to slip,” says Frohlich. “That just isn’t the situation in many places.”

Gregory

Golly, I do owe Doug Keachie's sock puppet an apology; I chose Anthro as a placeholder because I'd mis-remembered Keach's major as the equally unrelated Sociology and I didn't want it to be a specific dig at Keachie. Not that the shoe wouldn't fit.

To teach high school math in California you pretty much need a BA/BS in Math, though a major in a math intensive discipline coupled with passing the non-trivial Praxis exam is another path. Computer science should be no different, and I'd expect someone teaching, for example, AP Computer Science to have the equivalent to BA/BS in Computer Science or Math.

One take on what's required:
"In most computer science teaching certification programs, students pursue a bachelor's degree in computer science but also take education classes."
http://education-portal.com/computer_teacher_certification.html

Here's one program aimed at a secondary CS credential, and while it might be light for someone wishing to be a practitioner, it's a pretty good coverage of the subject:
http://catalog.emich.edu/preview_program.php?catoid=3&poid=3002&returnto=265

It is a shame that school administrators, if they can't find someone actually qualified to teach the subject, will assign someone who is legally able to be the teacher (ie able to fill out the attendance report); it's a tragedy when it's a key subject like math.

TomKenworth

Well spoken Greg, but that is now, not then. Again, if you were so concerned about the lack of qualified computer science teachers, why didn't you become one? Schools make do, and school administrators make do with who's available. And, I never taught math, except when I occasionally, as a sub prior to become a computer science teacher, did so, and also in post retirement as a sub, and as a tutor.

As for filling out the attendance report, let's add in sys admin for Novell 3.11 and then 4.11, for the whole school, as unpaid extra duties.

BTW, why didn't you bother to respond in the other thread where you got roasted in more detail? Do you really think I couldn't go back and repost it?

Actually, I've done better than that: http://farstars.blogspot.com/2012/08/response-to-gregory-goodknight.html

TomKenworth

My bad, we are still in the same thread. I didn't notice that out of all the recent comments, only this one went back a column.

TomKenworth

Steele, it is wildly possible that in time lubing mama Earth may be seen as a way to prevent Big Ones from ever happening. In the meantime, little quakes where there had previously been virtually none, does seem to be a direct result of the lube job. The lawyers will have great fun if New Madrid opens up and some scientists even vaguely suggest that there is a connection to Oklahoma.

Gregory

"if politicALLY CORRECT SFUSD could have found anyone one other than a white male who even had the slightest clue as to how to connect and operate computers, they would have"

Doug Keachie (aka TK) that isn't "computer science". Computer science is real programming languages, algorithms, data structures. Operating systems. Boolean logic. A special case of discrete mathematics.

"Schools make do, and school administrators make do with who's available". Yes, that's also how gym teachers end up teaching math; thanks for letting all know that's how you ended up 'teaching' computers.

TomKenworth

I actually went back to school and filled in the blanks with the courses needed to be fully qualified to teach computer science, during my first year of teaching, and have the credential to prove it. You, on the other hand, apparently have never done diddly squat to prepare yourself for teaching by completing any credential that you have admitted to. Do you have a credential in anything? Thanks for your commitment to education, which appears to amount to kvetching from the sidelines, and moaning about the costs. If all the computer science and math majors choose to pursue careers outside of teaching, then maybe it says the tax payer is not willing to pay for what those talents can command elsewhere, and pass the laws requiring majors in a given field for teaching. These days most teachers do have the credentials for the fields they are teaching, and you can check this online pretty easily.

TomKenworth

Ah gee shucks, looks like the charter schools are having a hard time complying with NCLB:

http://www.charterconference.org/CACharter/2012/program/search_results.php?selection_id=4452261&gopage=80

TomKenworth

NOw, if we are going to have a level playing field in California, we might want to review the situation in Milwalkee, WI, as in this draft report:

"We close, however, with the assertion that we raised in framing this paper: that accountability for private schools carries with it the additional, and perhaps more fundamental, meaning than it does in typical public school systems. More than one hundred private schools serve nearly 20,000 students in Milwaukee, making the program approximately one-fifth the size of the surrounding public school district. As of 2010 the performance of students in each school is posted on the state’s website, making such outcomes as easy to gauge for prospective parents as nearly any other attribute. The city’s leading newspaper, moreover, ran front-page stories detailing each private school’s performance for the first time. The educational environment in Milwaukee, created in no small part by the voucher program, is one in which private schools quite literally compete for public support. The vast majority of these schools depend, in many cases entirely, on voucher money to exist. Although some public schools in Milwaukee close or are reorganized from time to time—and although such trends are increasingly common elsewhere (e.g., Enberg et al. 2011), suffice it to say that private schools that cannot attract students face the far greater likelihood, and perhaps even certainty, that they will cease to exist.
In a real sense, then, the results we observe represent outcomes of an accountability regime in which the stakes could not be higher. Voucher schools in Milwaukee are now accountable not only to forces at work in the private educational market, but also to public regulation and oversight. This may limit the generalizability of our study to other, similarly intense conditions. But the law introduced in 2010 appears here to stay, along with the basic reality that private schools are entirely dependent on the market for the good each can uniquely provide. In that context, we might speculate that the effects we observe here may be sustained
WORK IN PROGRESS, PLEASE DO NOT CITE WITHOUT AUTHOR PERMISSION
21
over a long run in which schools, public and private alike, are brought increasingly to account for their performance."

http://www.aefpweb.org/sites/default/files/webform/MPCP_Accountability_Spring_2012_AEFP.pdf

I'd love to know what Greg is doing to bring such accountability to California's charter schools. It would be a good place for him to refocus his purpose.

Gregory

I'm sure Keachie met the minimum standards for California teachers for every class he was assigned to. Let's check the California Administration Assignment Manual:

"Computer Science: If a class covers the general use of computers, the teacher should hold
the supplementary authorization in computer concepts and applications or use a local
teaching assignment option. Title 5 §80005(a) clarifies the authorization for the subject
areas for service in departmentalized classes. An individual may be assigned to teach
classes that fall within the broad single subject areas listed on their document. In Title 5
§80005(a), the subject area of computers is listed under three broad subject areas:
business, industrial and technology education, and mathematics. Since January 31, 2001,
employing agencies may no longer choose any credentialed teacher to teach computers
but assign an individual who holds a credential, teaching permit, or waiver in one of
these three broad subject areas."

So Keachie, you have the "supplementary authorization in computer concepts and applications"?

http://www.extension.ucr.edu/academics/certificates/supplementary_authorization_computer.html

That looks to me to be about 4 years of work short of a BA/BS in Computer Science.

TomKenworth

That is indeed the credential I hold, or at least the earlier version of the same thing. You can check it yourself, as I suspect you have.

https://educator.ctc.ca.gov/esales_enu/start.swe?SWECmd=GotoView&_sn=E6qDMaOfaPtAasEpP4ZAkwZzm-F1bgpV.pFRWH3kaMhjLcsbWuBiulvSIo1uDUj9&SWEView=CTC+Search+View+Web&SWEHo=educator.ctc.ca.gov&SWETS=1344826989

You as a voter are responsible for the fact that it does not represent four years of work towards the degree that you think should be a minimum requirement to teach the subject. Funny how nobody else is beating the drum with you.

Now ______, explain if I have broken any laws, or if my school district has? I did not design the system, and I suspect that if the system required what you seem to think it should, computer science would not be offered as a subject in high school, or middle school. Are you down with that? How far behind in computer science would you like the USA to be? How exactly is it that students at HS all across the land are passing the AP exams in computer science, given the terrible situation in high schools as you see it. Would you like to trash the AP programs next? Busy boy!

BTW, statewide, there are all of TWO (2) teaching positions open for full time teachers, in the state of California. Do note, I do not have the TCIS credential required for one of them. Do I have knowledge equal to it. Most likely. When was the last time you changed the hydraulic hose on a backhoe? Or wired a commercial building for electricity? Installed a sink or toilet? Shingled a roof? Worked on a car, or maybe even worked at a school that owned it's own working jet engine, with colleagues in every tech specialty, from sewing to welding? Have you ever sewn your own backpacking equipment? Can you fix your own washing machine?

http://www.edjoin.org/viewPosting.aspx?postingID=437891&countyID=37&onlineApp=1#requirements

Also note, without an AP score of at least four under your belt, I rather doubt either Harvey Mudd or UC Berkeley would accept you into their computer science programs. You got in back when it was EASY.

TomKenworth

BTW, I also passed the CBEST (who couldn't!), got my CLAD, and have well over 200 of the 100 points needed for NCLB, between years of teaching, Mentor Teacher years (I was one), and college units taken in the CORE areas. Given a choice between Greg Goodknight, for all of his experience with computers, and myself, if there were a job open in computer science teaching full time at a public OR charter school, Gregory would not be qualified, tsk, tsk...lost again. You know Greg, this is getting rather old and stale, like AV fuel gone bad. You keep crashing.

TomKenworth

Prior to the www on the Internet, I had plenty of training for the likes of Gregory Goodknight. More old chestnuts coming back to life:

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/alt.save.the.earth/koe7hG--9X8[1-25]

Gregory

"I do agree it is a stretch to make that curriculum connection; unless 'high school computer science' was the name of a course in which you learned to use a couple of MS Office apps." -GR 10 August 2012 at 03:49 PM

George, Bingo.


Keach, congratulations, the schools in California designed a "supplemental authorization" (not a credential) that insured they could have a minimal standard for teachers to keep a computer lab running. It is so far away from the single subject credentialing given math, science, English and other subjects as to not even be funny; like I said, get that supplemental authorization and you'd still be four years away from earning a BA/BS in computer science.


Tell me, Lowell has an AP Computer Science offering. Do they have a "meathead" major with a supplemental authorization leading the class, or do they have a BA/BS Math credentialed teacher who can credibly teach an entry level college Computer Science class?

Finally, high school kids who apply to Mudd don't apply to any program, and they don't declare a major until their sophomore year after they've already taken the first three semesters of every major possible there, math, physics, chemistry, engineering, computer science and biology. There aren't quotas and they don't think you know enough to choose until you've sampled everything. Nice try. Besides, I was offered an early admission there and UCLA (my backup), and never gave Berkeley a thought.

No, it was never "EASY" to get into Harvey Mudd; it was designed from the start to be the hard core school of science and engineering of the Claremont Colleges, and the proof was the fact that Mudd took over from CalTech as the school with the percentage of graduates with PhD's very early on, now a bit behind CalTech but remaining ahead of MIT.

However, it was awfully easy to get into Cal in the dark ages, especially in one of the "Meathead" majors discussed in an earlier Rumination. Harvard, too.

[PS I first overhauled an engine in '76, and do the maintenance on the 520 cubic inch Teledyne-Continental I own. 12 spark plugs take time to clean and gap]

TomKenworth

When I left Lowell, Art Simon took over. He was a regular math teacher, and most likely had what you were looking for, degree-wise. When I came to Lowell, none of the regular math teachers wanted the job, or they would have had it. This included not only the teachers at Lowell, but every teacher in San Francisco Unified, and in fact every teacher in the entire USA, as it was an open position.

A "supplimental authorization" was and still is the ONLY "computer science" credentialialing available through the state. I'm reasonable certain that Art Simon or whoever took over for him has had to get one, even though they already had a standard single subject credential in math. I'll leave it up to you to prove otherwise. Bureaucracies are idiots, as you well know, and once they've assigned a this to a that, they like to keep it that way.

"and the proof was the fact that Mudd took over from CalTech as the school with the percentage of graduates with PhD's very early on, now a bit behind CalTech but remaining ahead of MIT. " ~Posted by: Gregory | 12 August 2012 at 11:38 PM~

where are these stats located? Who compiles them? Some Meathead?

I'd hazard a guess that you fly one of these three, without bothering to look it up, based on your previous comments about fuel usage:

Beechcraft Bonanza
Bellanca Viking (17-30 and 17-30A)
Cessna 185

And please note, that I never, ever claimed to have a 4 year degree in computer science. That's your straw man, and everyone here knows it. Now go find another dead horse to beat, H.U.W.L.W zuchandbelladue MH!

for the rest of you C'est Si Bon!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kTV4gysuYs

Gregory

Keach, I never intimated you had anything other than a meathead degree, and everyone here knows it. And yes, the supplemental authorization is just a fig leaf for inadequate computer teachers in California schools. That was an underlying point.

TomKenworth

And you sir, with your uppity attitudes, haven't contributed one damn bit to changing the situation you profess to abhor. It seems obvious to me that you enjoy spreading contempt, much more than you enjoy doing anything about your perceived woes of society, so unjustly foisted upon you. I have met a lot of very bright people in my life, and been a teacher for at least four certifiable geniuses, and none have ever come even faintly close to your level social stupidity, all of them were way too smart to even think of going there.

Frankly, I am very close to making a very nice compilation of your bon mots, and shipping them off to the alumni association, for perusal, and posting them with full and complete ID, tags for you on the web, so that you may be known far and wide for who you really are. You certainly have all the qualifications for an M.H. all right, such as might be granted by the College of William and White, which recently moved back to the USA.

Gregory

Keach, your bizarre and myopic threat to escalate your defamatory harassments is noted.

Otherwise, I do thank you for your forfeit, as you seem to have capitulated in your attempt to actually engage in a conversation over "computer science" in California classrooms and have instead collapsed into a pit of baseless ad hominem slanders.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad