There are other kinds of non-zero-sum dynamics besides win-win. For instance, if person A has 1 billion dollars and person B has 0 dollars, then transferring $10 has a very small harm to person A and a very large benefit to person B. The utility of money is basically logarithmic.

Perfectly good explanation. Thanks for clarifying your stance for me.

In reply to this comment by Psychologic:
^ Posting a video is not an endorsement of its contents unless stated as such. This was posted as a point of discussion. I'm also not concerned with the methodologies of a particular video, but of those used to construct conclusions within the general realm of climate change.

The Cassiopeia Project contains a wealth of wonderful resources on various scientific subjects (physics, chemistry, evolution, etc), but this particular video struck me as unusual. Something about it doesn't sit right with me, but it isn't because of any specific data point it contains.

Here are some random reactions I have to the video:
-If most of the recent warming happened toward the end of the last hundred years then the "average increase per century" isn't very relevant.
-Focusing on "the last few years" in a statistical analysis is not all that useful.
-Regardless of the cause, the general trend has been one of warming. Saying it isn't something to worry about can, at best, only apply to increases up to this point.

My main questions:
-What is the mathematical relationship between CO2 concentration and temperature due to the greenhouse effect? Is it linear, logarithmic, or something else?
-What effect has water vapor concentration had on historical temperature trends? Does a large increase in water vapor continue trapping heat, or can it be offset due to more cloud formation?


I'm not advocating for any side of the debate. The problem is that my fascination with the subject far outstrips the available free time I have to invest in researching it.

When I look into this stuff I find mostly crap from people who start with a conclusion and then find evidence to support it... sorting through that becomes very time consuming. I know there are people on the Sift that have put far more time into researching this topic, so my hope is that I can benefit from their endeavors.

I also happen to enjoy controversial subjects, so this video seems to fit. =)


>> ^Stormsinger:

Then why are you promoting a video that says nothing about its methodology? If you want to understand the methodology shouldn't you actually be -looking- for methodologies?
Actions really do speak louder than words...and your actions and words aren't saying the same things.>

^ Posting a video is not an endorsement of its contents unless stated as such. This was posted as a point of discussion. I'm also not concerned with the methodologies of a particular video, but of those used to construct conclusions within the general realm of climate change.

The Cassiopeia Project contains a wealth of wonderful resources on various scientific subjects (physics, chemistry, evolution, etc), but this particular video struck me as unusual. Something about it doesn't sit right with me, but it isn't because of any specific data point it contains.

Here are some random reactions I have to the video:
-If most of the recent warming happened toward the end of the last hundred years then the "average increase per century" isn't very relevant.
-Focusing on "the last few years" in a statistical analysis is not all that useful.
-Regardless of the cause, the general trend has been one of warming. Saying it isn't something to worry about can, at best, only apply to increases up to this point.

My main questions:
-What is the mathematical relationship between CO2 concentration and temperature due to the greenhouse effect? Is it linear, logarithmic, or something else?
-What effect has water vapor concentration had on historical temperature trends? Does a large increase in water vapor continue trapping heat, or can it be offset due to more cloud formation?


I'm not advocating for any side of the debate. The problem is that my fascination with the subject far outstrips the available free time I have to invest in researching it.

When I look into this stuff I find mostly crap from people who start with a conclusion and then find evidence to support it... sorting through that becomes very time consuming. I know there are people on the Sift that have put far more time into researching this topic, so my hope is that I can benefit from their endeavors.

I also happen to enjoy controversial subjects, so this video seems to fit. =)


>> ^Stormsinger:

Then why are you promoting a video that says nothing about its methodology? If you want to understand the methodology shouldn't you actually be -looking- for methodologies?
Actions really do speak louder than words...and your actions and words aren't saying the same things.>

>> ^Mcboinkens:
Haiti has a 7.0 quake that completely destroys everything, California has a 6.5 that doesn't even make the news. Pretty amazing how far structure and design technology has come. I hope things stay safe over there.

The scale is not linear, it's logarithmic. Every point up you go is 31 times more powerful than the one before. So a 7.0 is 31 times more powerful than a 6.0. However the shoddy building is of course to blame for much of the damage.

Very cool.

First, I was surprised how large our moon was in comparison to Earth (relatively speaking -- if I were to draw relative sizes of how I guessed they compared, I'd have pegged the moon with half the diameter). Then, I was surprised that the sun wasn't larger in comparison to the planets (I'd have guessed 30% bigger diameter). And then my mind was blown by the sun, an object so immense that it is basically beyond the limit of my human comprehension, being dwarfed by other stars.

I guess the scientific part of my mind has always been best suited towards understanding Biology. With animals there is variation between members of a species, but their physical characteristics generally fall into a bell curve without an extremely high standard deviation; the tallest human to ever live won't be orders of magnitude larger than the shortest. I guess I had been tempted to think of celestial bodies as falling into groups like "species" in animals: asteroids, planetoids, solid planets, gas giants, stars. Clearly I'll have to rethink that, because there aren't many ants the size of a house running around.

I wonder how the physics of things like solar flares, etc. works on those super massive stars -- do their flares scale up in size in a direct linear scale with diameter or mass, or are any increases bound by a more logarithmic scale?

Anyway, thanks for the good sift!

>> ^garmachi:
The cumulative effect seems to be logarithmic.

I'm sorry, but large words still won't get you laid.

The cumulative effect seems to be logarithmic.

>> ^stephenfryftw:
ahh yes, the "singularity". AKA, the rapture for obsessive nerds who love to cherry pick data for nice logarithmic meaningless graphs.


say that when you've accomplished as much as ray and THEN maybe someone will listen.

>> ^stephenfryftw:
ahh yes, the "singularity". AKA, the rapture for obsessive nerds who love to cherry pick data for nice logarithmic meaningless graphs.


Depends on who you ask I guess... there is no specific definition. The logarithmic extrapolations are an attempt to predict timing, not the nature of events. The stuff he talks about in the video would come well before any "singularity" anyway.


Here's Kurzweil's opinion on the religious aspect of that subject: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLy0tTfw8i0

ahh yes, the "singularity". AKA, the rapture for obsessive nerds who love to cherry pick data for nice logarithmic meaningless graphs.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'cu, boulder, growth, lecture, Bartlett' to 'cu, boulder, growth, lecture, Bartlett, exponential, natural logarithm, 70' - edited by doogle

QM,
"And if you think government research is ever going to surpass private enterprise research: HA"

I guess we should have put out bids on the Manhattan Project and the Apollo program... I'm sure that would have succeeded wildly... Also, I say this as an R&D engineer, private research is very good at developing technologies, but... Private research sucks at creating technologies, and it sucks at science, it always has, and I suspect it always will. The pay off in doing basic science research is so far down the road, and such a gamble that little or no private enterprise is willing to touch it.

Also, I used to be fiscally conservative, and socially liberal. I have read Adam Smith, and Thomas Malthus... But after I finished school, and entered the real world, I realized that it just doesn't work that well. If you look at economic history of the US, it is the times that we had liberal presidents that our economy grew the fastest, unemployment dropped the fastest, Carter was the one aberration.

The University of Nevada-Reno uncovered the following while conducting the economic comparison between Republican and Democratic presidential administrations from 1949 to 2005:
• Unemployment Rate- Republicans 6.0%, Democrats 5.2%
• Change In Unemployment Rate- Republicans +0.3%, Democrats -0.4%
• Growth of Multifactor Productivity- Republicans 0.9%, Democrats 1.7%
• Corporate Profits (share of GDP)- Republicans 8.8%, Democrats 10.2%
• Real Value of Dow Jones Index- Republicans 4.3%, Democrats 5.4%
(in logarithmic growth rates)- Republicans 2.8%, Democrats 4.4%
• Real Weekly Earnings- Republicans 0.3%, Democrats 1.0%
• CPI Inflation Rate- Republicans 3.8%, Democrats 3.8%

In short, it looks like Keynes is spot on.

Ideologically, I like fiscal conservatism, but pragmatism demands liberalization of fiscal policy. I am a liberal now, because of pragmatism, something I think you would understand with your comments about how great religion has been for the world (a statement I disagree with, btw. Sure good things have been done in the name of religion, but I am not so sure it outweighs the bad.).

Don't tell me that liberals know nothing of conservative thought. I used to think it my self, but then I looked around and grew up, became a liberal.

Also, calling our congress communist shows a complete ignorance of the definition of the term communism. Same with your use of the term socialism. Palin, and W are much more socialist than Obama. Bush with the buying of banks, and Palin with the paying of every citizen of Alaska.

I heard the Kyoto-Osaka commuter train is like this during rush hour. Osaka looks ghetto compared to Tokyo.

The short range subways run so frequently that this wouldn't happen.

And my god, a 2+ hour commute is insane. I'd rather live in a dorm room sized (150 sq. feet) apartment if it's within 10 minutes of everywhere I need to go. All I do in my apartment is eat, sleep, and computer, anyways. I'd rather work for 25k a year next door than work for 50k a year and have to commute 4 hours a day.

All this urban sprawl and commuterism is contributing a great deal to global warming.
Since people put up with this sardine bullshit just for fear of being fired for being late, they need to reevaluate their priorities and find a job closer to home. 99% of people think they need more money than they really need.

Not only is money useless if you don't have time to enjoy it, but there's not much worth buying with it beyond the first 30k a year. The utility function is like logarithmic. Especially for single computer geeks, what more do you need than a good computer on a fat pipe, good food, and a bed? Maybe a park next door?

Semiapies, choose to believe.

Logarithmic makes the cases. It's a company name. It's like describing a "plastic Samsonite suitcase", he is referring to a "malleable Logarithmic case". We spec Logarithmic's malleable cases all the time for HS bearing containment apps.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retro-Encabulator

I was only certain it *was* a gag at "malleable, logarithmic casing", I'll admit.