Re: Black holed sun . . .
- Thanks again, Mike. I appreciate it. I agree about Hemmingway. He's
amazing. Its a shame he went the way he did, before his time as far
as I'm concerned.
Sorry I didn't get a solar activity report posted last night. I was
too engrossed in watching the election returns! There was nothing
really earth-shaking to report anyway. The solar wind speed right now
is around 560 km/sec, with the density about 4 protons/cc. There have
been a few aurora displays in Canada and northern Europe. The solar
wind speed is down a little from yesterday from its peak at about 580,
which would indicate that the main part of the activity is over. No
major flares to report at this time. I'll post a full report tonight.
- David wrote:
> too engrossed in watching the election returns!As we probably all were.
Republicans did real well.
I am not surprised. Saddened. But not surprised.
It isn't magic nor is even that Bush was that charming.
Rather, the low density base grows.
In 1960, 60 percent of the population lived in small towns and
cities. That was your DFL base. The Republicans lived in the emerging
Now, 60% live in the burbs. And that number grows.
But it has its limits. That is why the economy fritters with
stagnation, as the intense, 10 trillion dollar subsidies of free
roads continuely looks for economic opportunity. Even now, people
don't drive not because of cost but wait. Gridlock is the price of
this transport--much like the lines for bread in the former Soviet
Union. Politicians are for sale, as certainly they were in this
election--because there is something basic to sell . . . like a war
for oil. A billion dollars spent in places like South Dakota . . .
But this shift in population is also why this Republican political
expansion is as short sighted as their energy and envioronmental
policy--and specific to my concern, to a living earth. And that is
why at the end of the day I would rather be right and teaching it
then wrong and belonging. My cup runneth over no matter how a long
commuter in South Dakota votes.
I have been posting on climate here and elsewhere for about 5 years
and as the politics change my message really has not yet it has
stayed on the cutting edge. And I am also convinced it will be there
for decades. Truth has a way. Already Texico has run ads about
a 'new' fuel that is not gas/oil in the Gulf of Mexico. What is this
fuel? Methane from hydrates, of course. The climate implications of
harvesting them will be enormous there. My view is what we are
discussing, debating, about the sun and the biosphere's role in
modulation, and to what degree and to what degree human activity
interacts with this dynamic is SO far ahead of the curve that it
isn't even in the scientific periodicals--but it will be. CO2 as a
GHG is a loser, but Gaia in the context of cloud behavior, EMFs, is
not, because it gets to the causal aspects of climate. It suffers
from complexity, is about all. That is where education comes in.
By 2009 Three Gorge will be filling and the climate implications of
that are going to be impossible to ignore. By then we will have a
visit to Hubbert's Peak, and I think the science of clouds will grow
to the point that when we as a general public look back at this
election, we will be very saddened collectively.
- If you look at the numbers, the shift was pretty small. Maybe 5 or
so House seats, and two or three Senate seats. The Democrats had a
net gain of one in Governors. What made it news was that the margin
in the Senate was so small that this small shift changed the
majority, and that this election went against the long-standing
tradition that the party in the White House looses Congressional
seats in off-year elections.
I think you, and perhaps many others, may be overestimating the
impact of last night. From a pure numbers standpoint, the Senate
only changed a small amount. The Democrats lost 2 seats, and the
Republicans gained 2. That's not that much. Rarely does a vote
split straight along party lines. You almost always see cross-overs,
and that's not going to change now.
Assuming Johnson(D) holds onto his Senate seat for SD, which I think
he will when all the recounting is over with, the worst the Democrats
will see is a 52/47/1 split, and even that's assuming that Terrell(R)
wins Louisiana in the upcoming runoff. If Landrieu(D) wins LA, then
you have a 51/48/1 split. Either way, it'll be narrow difference.
I just don't see that the numbers have changed enough to bring about
the massive changes you're alluding to. Its not like the Republicans
hold a 2/3 majority in both houses. Far from it, in fact. You will
see some things brought about by the changes in committee
chairmanships and changes in the legislative adgenda, which the
majority party sets. Hopefully we'll finally get a Homeland Security
Bill, and maybe some of the judicial nominations that Dachle has been
blocking can finally be completed.
And besides, just because I'm a Republican doesn't mean that I want
to commit wholesale rape upon Planet Earth! I like clean air, clean
water, a diverse and bountiful flora and fauna, etc etc, just as much
as you or anybody else! I think you'll find that's the case with
Republicans most of the time.