Al Jazeera, a multi billion-dollar influence buyer

3 Replies

Given the hand-wringing over the $300,000 spent by Russia to influence the 2016 US election, I thought it worthwhile to point out that Qatar spent roughly 2.5 billion on influence, mostly through Qatar’s news agency, Al Jazeera. Qatar is a Shiite (Shia) Moslem Emirate solely ruled by a Sunni Emir (king). Here’s a joke to help distinguish Sunni from Shia. It is also the 4th largest exporter of natural gas in the world behind Russia, Norway, and Canada. It’s a solid supporter of leftist political causes from anti-climate change to Hamas and Al Qaeda/ ISIS, and it is the host for the FIFA world cup of soccer, 2022. For more about Qatar and the logic of its behavior, see the American Foreign Policy Analysis. Interesting in general, but I’d like to focus on influence buying.

FILE - In this Aug. 20, 2013 file photo, Al Jazeera America editorial newsroom staff prepare for their first broadcast in New York. Shannon High-Bassalik former head of Al Jazeera America’s documentary unit has sued the news network, claiming it is biased against non-Arabs in stories that it produces and how it treats employees. (AP Photo/Bebeto Matthews, File)

Al Jazeera America prepares for its first broadcast from New York, August, 2013. AP Photo/Bebeto Matthews.

The Emir of Qatar is the sole owner of Al Jazeera, a news organization, that he uses as profit-losing, influence machine. It allowed him to support leftist politicians who he believes to be pro-Arab, pro-Muslim Brotherhood, anti-Israel, and anti-American. In Europe he pursues pro-immigration, anti-fracking policies. In conservative, Islamic countries, like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Iran, he’s used Al Jazeera to supported free elections to unseat the king, Shah, or military president. Al Jazeera uniformly portrays Qatar and its emir well, helping it get rights to host the FIFA world cup. No other country gets anywhere near such uniform, positive support.

A bit of history: Al Jazeera began operations in Doha, the capital of Qatar in 1996, as an antidote to Saudi Arabia’s arabic-language news outlet, MBC (Mid-East Broadcast Company, now called Al Arabia). By 2003, Al Jazeera was broadcasting in Europe in various EU languages, and had an english language version broadcast out of London, Al Jazeera-English. It is available in the US via cable TV, Channels 100, 200, and 300. In 2013, the Emir of Qatar expanded Al Jazeera directly to the US, paying 1/2 billion dollars for an Emmy-winning, non-profitable, cable news company “Current TV”, partially owned by Al Gore. “Current TV” operated out of San Francisco with a left-leaning, pro-environment message and a modest audience. Their shows include The War Room with Jennifer Granholm (Jennifer is the ex-governor of Michigan), Talking Liberally, The Stephanie Miller Show, and  Viewpoint with Eliot Spitzer. The Emir added a news headquarters in New York and gave it a new name: Al Jazeera America, or AJAM. The old Current TV was retained as AJ+, a video arm. Over the next 5 years the emir spent 2 billion dollars setting up 12 news bureaus in the US with instructions that there was no need for profit, but only for “influence”. It is arguable how much influence he got, but it is clear he didn’t make any profit.

Despite what you might imagine would be the opinions of a petro-monarch, AJAM continues to back Gore’s anti-fracking message. I will speculate this is because he is against US gas because it competes with Qatari gas. AJAM also strongly supports the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, and ISIS. Perhaps that’s radical chic (radical sheik?). He’s against any authoritarian ruler that isn’t him.

Trump, his daughter, el Sisi, and the King of Saudi Arabia. No Emir of Qatar.

Trump, his daughter, Ibn-Said (king of Saudi Arabia) and el Sisi, (president of Egypt). Global control with no Emir.

Some notable controversies — I got these from Wikipedia –Ahmed Mansour, a prominent Al Jazeera anchor, is quoted saying that Egyptian president, el-Sisi was “a Jew carrying out an Israeli plot.” Faisal al-Qassim, another Al Jazeera presenter, hosted a segment on whether Syria’s Alawite (Shia) population deserved to be killed en-mass, and in 2014, the channel’s Iraqi affairs editor tweeted approvingly about the Islāmic State killing more than 1,500 air-force cadets in Tikrit, singling out those who were Shia and non-Muslim. Closer to home, they charged a half-dozen athletes with doping, including Peyton Manning, hero of the super bowl. In the end, Shannon High-Bassalik, former head of the documentary unit, also sued claiming bias against non-Arabs in stories and in how it treats employees.

Among Republicans, AJAM became to be known as “The Terror Network”, while they retained some good reputation on left. The Emir bought not only the network, but spent liberally on sympathetic experts, and on academic think tanks. Further, it seems that Al Jazeera writers had no fixed budget or expense limit. The Russians are nowhere near this generous.

In April of 2016, with the world cup coming to Qatar, and American oil reviving, the emir cut AJAM staff by 900 workers. Part of the decision may have been that it looked like he had the 2016 election in the bag. Al Jazeera English remains, still operating out of London, and AJ+, the old Current TV, still operating out of San Francisco. And then Donald Trump was elected 45th US president. AJ / AJ+ was shocked (as was I); and called for protests. Trump, in a publicized meeting with el-Sisi of Egypt (the Jewish Spy), and Salmon al-Saud, (above, 2017) issued a set of 13 demands including that the emir stop to support for Hamas and the Brotherhood, and that he shut Al Jazeera. The emir has not complied, and the world cup is still on for Qatar.

I should mention that the Emir and Putin work together on some things and oppose on others. They both support politicians who oppose oil and gas production while opposing each other on pipeline construction. Qatar backs the pan Arabian pipeline to Turkey, while Russia funds Assad and the PKK (Russia-friendly, Kurdish independents) to block such access. The Emir supports ISS, Hamas, and Turkish Kurds, I suspect, as a way to fight Russia. It’s Byzantine politics in both senses of the word. Given how much Qatar has spent buying influence with Clinton and Gore, I don’t understand why the FBI is so focussed on Trump and Russia.

Robert Buxbaum, May 29, 2018.

What drives the jet stream

2 Replies

Having written on controversial, opinion things, I thought I’d take break and write about earth science: the jet stream. For those who are unfamiliar the main jet stream is a high-altitude wind blowing at about 40,000 feet (10 km) altitude at about 50° N latitude. It blows west to east at about 100 km/hr (60 mph), about 12% of the cruising of a typical jet airplane. A simple way to understand the source of the jet stream is to note that the earth spins slower (in mph) at the poles than at lower latitudes, but that the temperature difference between the poles and equator guarantees that air at high altitude is always traveling toward the poles from the lower latitudes.

Consider that the earth is about 40,000 km is circumference and turns once every 24 hours. This suggests a rotation speed of 1667 km/hr at the equator. At any higher latitude the speed is 1667 cos latitude. Thus it’s 1070 km/hr at 50° latitude, 0 km/hr at the north pole; 1667km/hr cos 50°= 1070 km/hr.

Idealize north-south circulation of air around our globe.

Idealized north-south circulation of air around our globe.

It’s generally colder at the poles than it is at lower latitudes — that is nearer the equator (here’s why). This creates a north-south wind where the air becomes more compact as it cools in northern climate (50°latitude  and further north), and this creates a vacuum at high altitudes and a high pressure zone at low altitudes. The result is a high altitude flow of air towards north, and a flow of low altitude air south, a process that is described by the idealized drawing at right.

At low altitudes in Detroit (where I am) we experience winds mostly from the north and from the east. Winds come from the east — or appear to — because of the rotation of the earth. The air that flows down from Canada is moving west to east at a slower speed than Detroit is moving west to east. We experience this as an easterly wind. At higher altitudes, the pattern is reversed. At 9 to 12 km altitudes, an airplane would experience winds mostly from the south-west. Warm air from lower latitudes is moving eastward at 1200 or more km/hr because that’s the speed of the earth. As it moves north, it discovers that the land is moving eastward at a much slower speed, and the result is the jet stream. The maximum speed of the jet stream is about 200 km/hr, the difference in the earth’s east-speed between that at 40°N and at 50°N, while the typical speed is about half of that, 100 km/hr. I’d attribute this slower speed to friction or air mixing.

One significance of the jet stream is that it speeds west-east air-traffic, e.g. flights from Japan to the US or from the US to Europe. Airlines flying west to east try to fly at the latitude and altitude of the jet stream to pick up speed. Planes flying the other way go closer to the pole and/or at different altitudes to avoid having the jet stream slowing them down, or to benefit from other prevailing winds.

I note that Hurricanes are driven by the same forces as the jet stream, just more localized. Tornados are the same, just more localized. A localized flow of this sort can pick stuff up here’s how they pick stuff up. Robert Buxbaum, May 22, 2018

School violence and the prepositional subjective

1 Reply

There is a new specialty in the law, both in prosecution and defense: dealing with possible school shooters and other possible purveyors of violence. Making threats of violence has always been a felony — it’s a form of assault. But we’ve recently extended this assault charge to those student who make statements to the effect that they might like to commit violence, a conditional subjunctive statement of assault. This finer net manages to catch, in Michigan alone, about 100 per month. That’s a large number. Mostly they are male high-school age students who shot off their mouth, kids caught for saying “I’ll kill you” often in an argument, or following one. They are arrested for protection of others, but the numbers are so high and the charge so major, 15 – 20 year felonies, it’s possible that the cure is worse than the disease.

Eight students of the 100 charged in the last month in crimes of potential violence.

Putting some faces to the crime. Eight of the 100 charged in Michigan in the last month for potential violence. All or most are boys. 

Several of the cases are described in this recent Free-Press article, along with the picture at right. According to the article, many of those charged, are sentenced to lower crimes than the 15 -20 maximum, things like reckless endangerment. Many, the majority, I hope — they are not mentioned in the article — are let go with a warning. But even there, one wonder if these are the richer, white ones. In any case, it’s clear that many are not let go and have their lives ruined because they might come to commit a crime.

Let’s consider one case in-depth, outcome unknown: A top high school student, skinny, but without many friends, who gets picked on regularly. One day, one of the more popular kids in school calls him out and says, “You look like you’re one of those school shooters.” The loner responds, “If I were a school shooter, you’d be the first I’d shoot.” And that’s enough to ruin the kid’s life. Straight to the principal, and then to the police. The ACLU has not seen to get involved as there are competing rights at play: the right of the loner to have a normal education, and the rights of the other students. One thing that bothers me is that this crime hangs on the conditional subjunctive:  “If I were…., then you would be…”

What makes the threat subjective is that “I’ll kill you” or “I’d shoot you first” is something you’d like to be true at some time in the indefinite future. There is no clear time line or weapon, just a vague desire that the person should be shot. It’s a desire that more-likely than not, is a fleeting hyperbole, and not an actual threat. What makes the threat conditional on the person has yet to decide to show up with a weapon or show any sign of doing violence: “If I were to become a school shooter.”

The person who drew this faces 15 years in prison. The only evidence is this picture.

The person who drew this faces 15 years in prison. The only evidence of a threat is this picture.

It did not used to be that either the conditional or the subjunctive were considered threats. A person was assumed to be blowing off steam if he (or she) said “I’d like to see you dead” or even “I’ll kill you.” And we certainly never bothered folks who prefaced it with, “If I were a …” In theory, we had to extend the law to protect the weak from a shooter, but we’ve also put a weapon in the hands of the schoolyard bully. The school bully can now ruin the life of his fellow by accusing him of being a potential school scooter. We’ve weaponized the conditional subjunctive, and I don’t like it. The boy who drew the picture at right was charged with a 15 year felony for drawing something that, in earlier generations, would be called a fantasy picture.

It bothers me is that the majority of those charged — perhaps all those charged — are boys. Generally these boys are doing things that normal boys have often done. The picture of a shooting is considered a written threat of violence, but to me it looks like a normal boy picture. Girls have not been caught, so far, perhaps because their words and pictures are more “girly” so their threats are not considered threats. Sometimes is seems that it is boy-behaviors themselves are being criminalized, or at minimum diagnosed as ADHD (crazy). There is so much we don’t like about boy-behaviors, and we’ve elevated the female to such an extent, that we may have lost the positive idea of what a male should be. We want boys to be “girly” or at least “trans,” and that’s not normal in the sense that it’s not normative. We’ve come to worry about boyness, creating a cure that may be worse than the harm we are trying to prevent.

Robert Buxbaum, May 7, 2018. I’ve also noted how bizarre US sex laws are, and have written about pirates and transgender grammar.

Map of Italian pasta

 

From the taste atlas of the world, Italy

Fresh from the taste atlas of the world.

As a brief explanation to the above map, Italy has had a troubled history over the last 2000 years. As the Roman Empire fell, the north-east got taken over by Germans. It still speaks German, and drinks beer. Spätzle is an Austrian pasta. The Italian northwest has been under French domination, off and on and it shows in the thick cream sauces. The south was controlled by the Moores for 1000 years, leaving dishes with fennel and olives. And then there is the amazing innovation: the tomato, a gift from Spanish America that seems to have found its home on the eastern seaboard, though Spain controlled the west. I don’t know why. Enjoy.

Robert Buxbaum, May 1, 2018

The worst president was John Adams

10 Replies

Every now and again a magazine cites a group of historians to pick the best and worst presidents. And there, at the bottom of the scale, I typically find James Buchanan, Franklin Pierce, Andrew Johnson; Warren Harding, and/or Ulysses Grant, none of whom deserve the dishonor, in my opinion. For Pierce and Buchanan, their high crime was to not solve the slavery /succession problem — as if this was a problem that any PhD historian would have been able to solve in a weekend. It was not so simple; the slavery question bedeviled the founding fathers, tormented Daniel Webster and Henry Clay; George Washington and Thomas Jefferson wrestled with it. None could solve it, and all served when the country had relative levels of good feeling. Now, in the 1850s, Pierce and Buchanan inherit this monster, and we blame them for not resolving the slave issue when the nation was at the boiling point and Kansas was burning. They did the best they could in impossible circumstance, buying us time (Pierce also bought us southern Arizona).

Similarly, with Johnson: our historians’ complaint is that he didn’t manage reconstruction well — as if any one of them could have done better. You can’t blame a person for failing in a hopeless situation. Be happy they filled their terms, avoided war with our neighbors, and left the country richer and more populous than they found it.

Moving on to Grant and Harding, their crime was to be president at a time of scandal. But the very essence of this condemnation is that it presents the scandal, a non-issue in the large sweep of America, as if it were the only issue. Both Harding and Grant drank in the white house, and played cards while members of their cabinets stole money. These are major scandals to blue noses, but not so relevant to normal people. Both presidencies were periods of prosperity, employment, and growth. Both presidents paid down the national debt. Harding paid down $2,000,000 of debt, a good chunk of the debt incurred in WWI. Grant paid down a similarly large chunk of the debts of the civil war. Both oversaw times of peace and both signed peace treaties: Harding from WWI, Grant from the civil war and the Indian wars. Both left office with the nation far more prosperous than when they came in. No, these are not bad presidents except in the eyes of puritans who require purity in everyone else, and care little for the needs of the average American.

The worst president, in my opinion, was John Adams, and I would say he set a standard for bad that’s not likely to be beat. How bad was Adams? He oversaw the worst single law ever in American history, the Sedition act. This act, a partner to the Alien act (almost as bad), was pushed though by Adams a mere 8 years after passage of the bill of rights. The act made it illegal to criticize the government in any way. In this, it made a mockery of free expression. Adams put someone in jail for calling him “his rotundancy” — that is, for calling him fat. The supreme court had to step in and undo this unbelievably horrible law, but this was only one of several horrible acts of president Adams.

Another horrible act of president Adams is his decision to pick a war with France, our ally from the revolution. Adams himself had signed the treaty of Paris guaranteeing that we would never go to war with France. So why did Adams do it? He was a puritan, literally. He didn’t like French immorality and hated French Catholicism. He was insulted that French officials had overthrown their king (not that we had done otherwise) that they wore fancy clothes, and that they wanted bribes. He leaked their request for bribes to the press (the XYZ affair) and presented this as the reason for war. So Adams, pure Adams, got us to war with our oldest ally, a war we could not win, and didn’t.

But Adams didn’t stop there. Having decided to go to war, he also decided to stop paying on US debt to the French. He was too pure to pay debt to a nation that overthrew its king and set up a more-egalitarian state than we had. One where slavery was abolished.

Adams, of course, did nothing to address slavery, though he berated others about it. And it’s not like Adams didn’t pay out bribes, just not to the despised Catholics. At the beginning of Adams’s single term a group of Moslems, the Barbary pirates, captured some American ships. Adams agreed to pay bribe after bribe to the Barbary Pirates for return of these US ships. But the more we paid, the more ships the Barbary pirates captured. So Adams, the idiot, just bribed them more. By the end of Adams’s term, 1/4 of the US budget went to pay these pirates. When Jefferson became president, he ended the war with France by the simple solution of buying Louisiana and he sent the US Marines to deal with the pirates of North Africa. Adams could have done these things but didn’t; Jefferson did, and is ranked barely above Adams as a result. So why is it that no historian calls out Addams as an awful president?.I think it’s because Adams wrote beautifully about all the right sentiments, especially to his wife. Historians like writers of high sentiment. According to 170 scholars, the top ten presidents, not counting those on Mount Rushmore are FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Reagan, Obama, and LBJ.

The bottom ten presidents. And there's Trump at the very bottom, with the usual suspects. Harrison was only president for a month.

The bottom ten presidents. And there’s Trump at the very bottom, with the usual suspects. Harrison was only president for a month.

And that brings us to the new poll. It includes William Henry Harrison among the worst. Harrison took office, became sick almost immediately, and died of Typhoid 31 days after taking office. The white house water supply was just down river from the sewage outlet, something you find in Detroit as well. He did nothing to deserve the dishonor except drinking the water after running a great presidential campaign. His campaign song, Tippecanoe and Tyler too is wonderful listening, even today.

And that brings us to the historian’s worst of the worst. The current president, Donald J. Trump. This is remarkable since it’s only a year into Trumps term, and since he’s done a variety of potentially good things: He ended a few trade deals and regulations that most people agree were bad. The result is that the stock market is up, employment is up, people are back at work, and historians are unhappy. What they want is another FDR, someone who’ll tell us: “We have nothing to fear, but fear itself.” whatever that means. By historian polls FDR is the second or third best president ever.

Robert Buxbaum. April 25, 2018. Semi-irrelevant: here’s a humorous song about Harrison. 

Alkaline batteries have second lives

Leave a reply

Most people assume that alkaline batteries are one-time only, throwaway items. Some have used rechargeable cells, but these are Ni-metal hydride, or Ni-Cads, expensive variants that have lower power densities than normal alkaline batteries, and almost impossible to find in stores. It would be nice to be able to recharge ordinary alkaline batteries, e.g. when a smoke alarm goes off in the middle of the night and you find you’re out, but people assume this is impossible. People assume incorrectly.

Modern alkaline batteries are highly efficient: more efficient than even a few years ago, and that always suggests reversibility. Unlike the acid batteries you learned about in highschool chemistry class (basic chemistry due to Volta) the chemistry of modern alkaline batteries is based on Edison’s alkaline car batteries. They have been tweaked to an extent that even the non-rechargeable versions can be recharged. I’ve found I can reliably recharge an ordinary alkaline cell, 9V, at least once using the crude means of a standard 12 V car battery charger by watching the amperage closely. It only took 10 minutes. I suspect I can get nine lives out of these batteries, but have not tried.

To do this experiment, I took a 9 V alkaline that had recently died, and finding I had no replacement, I attached it to a 6 Amp, 12 V, car battery charger that I had on hand. I would have preferred to use a 2 A charger and ideally a charger designed to output 9-10 V, but a 12 V charger is what I had available, and it worked. I only let it charge for 10 minutes because, at that amperage, I calculated that I’d recharged to the full 1 Amp-hr capacity. Since the new alkaline batteries only claimed 1 amp hr, I figured that more charge would likely do bad things, even perhaps cause the thing to blow up.  After 5 minutes, I found that the voltage had returned to normal and the battery worked fine with no bad effects, but went for the full 10 minutes. Perhaps stopping at 5 would have been safer.

I changed for 10 minutes (1/6 hour) because the battery claimed a capacity of 1 Amp-hour when new. My thought was 1 amp-hour = 1 Amp for 1 hour, = 6 Amps for 1/6 hour = ten minutes. That’s engineering math for you, the reason engineers earn so much. I figured that watching the recharge for ten minutes was less work and quicker than running to the store (20 minutes). I used this battery in my firm alarm, and have tested it twice since then to see that it works. After a few days in my fire alarm, I took it out and checked that the voltage was still 9 V, just like when the battery was new. Confirming experiments like this are a good idea. Another confirmation occurred when I overcooked some eggs and the alarm went off from the smoke.

If you want to experiment, you can try a 9V as I did, or try putting a 1.5 volt AA or AAA battery in a charger designed for rechargeables. Another thought is to see what happens when you overcharge. Keep safe: do this in a wood box outside at a distance, but I’d like to know how close I got to having an exploding energizer. Also, it would be worthwhile to try several charge/ discharge cycles to see how the energy content degrades. I expect you can get ~9 recharges with a “non-rechargeable” alkaline battery because the label says: “9 lives,” but even getting a second life from each battery is a significant savings. Try using a charger that’s made for rechargeables. One last experiment: If you’ve got a cell phone charger that works on a car battery, and you get the polarity right, you’ll find you can use a 9V alkaline to recharge your iPhone or Android. How do I know? I judged a science fair not long ago, and a 4th grader did this for her science fair project.

Robert Buxbaum, April 19, 2018. For more, semi-dangerous electrochemistry and biology experiments.

Calculating π as a fraction

2 Replies

Pi is a wonderful number, π = 3.14159265…. It’s very useful, ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter, or the ratio of area of a circle to the square of its radius, but it is irrational: one can show that it can not be described as an exact fraction. When I was in middle school, I thought to calculate Pi by approximations of the circumference or area, but found that, as soon as I got past some simple techniques, I was left with massive sums involving lots of square-roots. Even with a computer, I found this slow, annoying, and aesthetically unpleasing: I was calculating one irrational number from the sum of many other irrational numbers.

At some point, I moved to try solving via the following fractional sum (Gregory and Leibniz).

π/4 = 1/1 -1/3 +1/5 -1/7 …

This was an appealing approach, but I found the series converges amazingly slowly. I tried to make it converge faster by combining terms, but that just made the terms more complex; it didn’t speed convergence. Next to try was Euler’s formula:

π2/6 = 1/1 + 1/4 + 1/9 + ….

This series converges barely faster than the Gregory/Leibniz series, and now I’ve got a square-root to deal with. And that brings us to my latest attempt, one I’m pretty happy with discovering (I’m probably not the first). I start with the Taylor series for sin x. If x is measured in radians: 180° = π radians; 30° = π/6 radians. With the angle x measured in radians, can show that

sin x = x – x3/6 + x5/120 – x7/5040 + …

Notice that the series is fractional and that the denominators get large fast. That suggests that the series will converge fast (2 to 3 terms?). To speed things up further, I chose to solve the above for sin 30° = 1/2 = sin π/6. Truncating the series to the first term gives us the following approximation for pi.

1/2 = sin (π/6) ≈ π/6.

Rearrange this and you find π ≈ 6/2 = 3.

That’s not bad for a first order solution. The Gregory/ Leibniz series would have gotten me π ≈ 4, and the Euler series π ≈ √6 = 2.45…: I’m ahead of the game already. Now, lets truncate to the second term.

1/2 ≈ π/6 – (π/6)3/6.

In theory, I could solve this via the cubic equation formula, but that would leave me with two square roots, something I’d like to avoid. Instead, and here’s my innovation, I’ll substitute 3 + ∂ for π . I’ll then use the binomial theorem to claim that (π)3 ≈ 27 + 27∂ = 27(1+∂). Put this into the equation above and we find:

1/2 = (3+∂)/6 – 27(1+∂)/1296

Rearranging and solving for ∂, I find that

27/216 = ∂ (1- 27/216) = ∂ (189/216)

∂ = 27/189 = 1/7 = .1428…

If π ≈ 3 + ∂, I’ve just calculated π ≈ 22/7. This is not bad for an approximation based on just the second term in the series.

Where to go from here? One thought was to revisit the second term, and now say that π = 22/7 + ∂, but it seemed wrong to ignore the third term. Instead, I’ll include the 3rd term, and say that π/6 = 11/21 + ∂. Extending the derivative approximations I used above, (π/6)3 ≈ (11/21)3 + 3∂(11/21)2, etc., I find:

1/2 ≈ (11/21 + ∂) -(11/21)3/6 – 3∂(11/21)2/6 + (11/21)5/120 + 5∂(11/21)4/120.

For a while I tried to solve this for ∂ as fraction using long-hand algebra, but I kept making mistakes. Thus, I’ve chosen to use two faster options: decimals or wolfram alpha. Using decimals is simpler, I find: 11/21 ≈ .523810, (11/21)2 =  .274376; (11/21)3 = .143721; (11/21)4 = .075282, and (11/21)5 = .039434.

Put these numbers into the original equation and I find:

1/2 – .52381 +.143721/6 -.039434/120 = ∂ (1-.274376/2 + .075282/24),

∂ = -.000185/.86595 ≈ -.000214. Based on this,

π ≈ 6 (11/21  -.000214) = 3,141573… Not half bad.

Alternately, using Wolfram alpha to reduce the fractions,

1/2 – 11/21+ 113/6•213 -115/(120•215) = ∂ (24(21)4/24(21)4 – 12•112212/24•214+ (11)4/24•214)

∂ = -90491/424394565 ≈ -.000213618. This is a more exact solution, but it gives a result that’s no more accurate since it is based on a 3 -term approximation of the infinite series.

We find that π/6 ≈ .523596, or, in fractional form, that π ≈ 444422848 / 141464855 = 3.14158.

Either approach seems OK in terms of accuracy: I can’t imagine needing more (I’m just an engineer). I like that I’ve got a fraction, but find the fraction quite ugly, as fractions go. It’s too big. Working with decimals gets me the same accuracy with less work — I avoided needing square roots, and avoided having to resort to Wolfram.

As an experiment, I’ll see if I get a nicer fraction if I drop the last term (11)4/24•214: it is a small correction to a small number, ∂. The equation is now:

1/2 – 11/21+ 113/6•213 -115/(120•215) = ∂ (24(21)4/24(21)4 – 12(11221)2/24•214).

I’ll multiply both sides by 24•214 and then by (5•21) to find that:

12•214 – 24•11•213+ 4•21•113 -115/(5•21) = ∂ (24(21)4 – 12•112212),

60•215 – 120•11•214+ 20•21^2•113 -115 = ∂ (120(21)5 – 60•112213).

Solving for π, I now get, 221406169/70476210 = 3.1415731

It’s still an ugly fraction, about as accurate as before. As with the digital version, I got to 5-decimal accuracy without having to deal with square roots, but I still had to go to Wolfram. If I were to go further, I’d start with the pi value above in digital form, π = 3.141573 + ∂; I’d add the 7th power term, and I’d stick to decimals for the solution. I imagine I’d add 4-5 more decimals that way.

Robert Buxbaum, April 2, 2018

What drives the gulf stream?

1 Reply

I’m not much of a fan of todays’ kids’ science books because they don’t teach science IMHO. They have nice pictures and a few numbers; almost no equations, and lots of words. You can’t do science that way. On the odd occasion that they give the right answer to some problem, the lack of math means the kid has no way of understanding the reasoning, and no reason to believe the answer. Professional science articles on the web are bad in the opposite direction: too many numbers and for math, hey rely on supercomputers. No human can understand the outcome. I like to use my blog to offer science with insight, the type you’d get in an old “everyman science” book.

In previous posts, I gave answers to why the sky is blue, why it’s cold at the poles, why it’s cold on mountains, how tornadoes pick stuff up, and why hurricanes blow the way they do. In this post, we’ll try to figure out what drives the gulf-stream. The main argument will be deduction — disproving things that are not driving the gulf stream to leave us with one or two that could. Deduction is a classic method of science, well presented by Sherlock Holmes.

The gulf stream. The speed in the white area is ≥ 0.5 m/s (1.1 mph.).

The gulf stream. The speed in the white area is ≥ 0.5 m/s (1.1 mph.).

For those who don’t know, the Gulf stream is a massive river of water that runs within the Atlantic ocean. As shown at right, it starts roughly at the end of Florida, runs north to the Carolinas, and then turns dramatically east towards Spain. Flowing east, It’s about 150 miles wide, but only about 62 miles (100 km) when flowing along the US coast. According to some of the science books of my youth this massive flow was driven by temperature according to others, by salinity (whatever that means), and yet other books of my youth wind. My conclusion: they had no clue.

As a start to doing the science here, it’s important to fill in the numerical information that the science books left out. The Gulf stream is roughly 1000 meters deep, with a typical speed of 1 m/s (2.3 mph). The maximum speed is the surface water as the stream flows along the US coast. It is about 2.5 metres per second (5.6 mph), see map above.

From the size and the speed of the Gulf Stream, we conclude that land rivers are not driving the flow. The Mississippi is a big river with an outflow point near the head waters of the gulf stream, but the volume of flow is vastly too small. The volume of the gulf stream is roughly

Q=wdv = 100,000 x 1000 x .5 =  50 million m3/s = 1.5 billion cubic feet/s.

This is about 2000 times more flow than the volume flow of the Mississippi, 18,000 m3/s. The great difference in flow suggests the Mississippi could not be the driving force. The map of flow speeds (above) also suggest rivers do not drive the flow. The Gulf Stream does not flow at its maximum speed near the mouth of any river.  We now look for another driver.

Moving on to temperature. Temperature drives the whirl of hurricanes. The logic for temperature driving the gulf stream is as follows: it’s warm by the equator and cold at the poles; warm things expand and as water flows downhill, the polls will always be downhill from the equator. Lets put some math in here or my explanation will be lacking. First lets consider how much hight difference we might expect to see. The thermal expansivity of water is about 2x 10-4 m/m°C (.0002/°C) in the desired temperature range). To calculate the amount of expansion we multiply this by the depth of the stream, 1000m, and the temperature difference between two points, eg. the end of Florida to the Carolina coast. This is 5°C (9°F) I estimate. I calculate the temperature-induced seawater height as:

∆h (thermal) ≈ 5° x .0002/° x 1000m = 1 m (3.3 feet).

This is a fair amount of height. It’s only about 1/100 the height driving the Mississippi river, but it’s something. To see if 1 m is enough to drive the Gulf flow, I’ll compare it to the velocity-head. Velocity-head is a concept that’s useful in plumbing (I ran for water commissioner). It’s the potential energy height equivalent of any kinetic energy — typically of a fluid flow. The kinetic energy for any velocity v and mass of water, m is 1/2 mv2 . The potential energy equivalent is mgh. Combine the above and remove the mass terms, and we have:

∆h (velocity) = v2/2g.

Where g is the acceleration of gravity. Let’s consider  v = 1 m/s and g= 9.8 m/s2.≤ 0.05 m ≈ 2 inches. This is far less than the driving force calculated above. We have 5x more driving force than we need, but there is a problem: why isn’t the flow faster? Why does the Mississippi move so slowly when it has 100 times more head.

To answer the above questions, and to check if heat could really drive the Gulf Stream, we’ll check if the flow is turbulent — it is. A measure of how turbulent is based on something called the Reynolds number, Re#, it’s the ratio of kinetic energy and viscous loss in a fluid flow. Flows are turbulent if this ratio is more than 3000, or so;

Re# = vdρ/µ.

In the above, v is velocity, say 1 m/s, d is depth, 1000m, ρ = density, 1000 kg/m3 for water, and  0.00133 Pa∙s is the viscosity of water. Plug in these numbers, and we find a RE# = 750 million: this flow will be highly turbulent. Assuming a friction factor of 1/20 (.05), e find that we’d expect complete mixing 20 depths or 20 km. We find we need the above 0.05 m of velocity height to drive every 20 km of flow up the US coast. If the distance to the Carolina coast is 1000 km we need 1000*.05m/20 = 1 meter, that’s just about the velocity-head that the temperature difference would suggest. Temperature is thus a plausible driving force for 0.5 m/s, though not likely for the faster 2.5 m/s flow seen in the center of the stream. Turbulent flow is a big part of figuring the mpg of an automobile; it becomes rapidly more important at high speeds.

World sea salinity

World sea salinity. The maximum and minimum are in the wrong places.

What about salinity? For salinity to work, the salinity would have to be higher at the end of the flow. As a model of the flow, we might imagine that we freeze arctic seawater, and thus we concentrate salt in the seawater just below the ice. The heavy, saline water would flow down to the bottom of the sea, and then flow south to an area of low salinity and low pressure. Somewhere in the south, the salinity would be reduced by rains. If evaporation were to exceed the rains, the flow would go in the other direction. Sorry to say, I see no evidence of any of this. For one the end of the Gulf Stream is not that far north; there is no freezing, For two other problems: there are major rains in the Caribbean, and rains too in the North Atlantic. Finally, while the salinity head is too small. Each pen of salinity adds about 0.0001g/cc, and the salinity difference in this case is less than 1 ppm, lets say 0.5ppm.

h = .0001 x 0.5 x 1000 = 0.05m

I don’t see a case for northern-driven Gulf-stream flow caused by salinity.

Surface level winds in the Atlantic.

Surface level winds in the Atlantic. Trade winds in purple, 15-20 mph.

Now consider winds. The wind velocities are certainly enough to produce 5+ miles per hour flows, and the path of flows is appropriate. Consider, for example, the trade winds. In the southern Caribbean, they blow steadily from east to west slightly above the equator at 15 -20 mph. This could certainly drive a circulation flow of 4.5 mph north. Out of the Caribbean basin and along the eastern US coat the trade winds blow at 15-50 mph north and east. This too would easily drive a 4.5 mph flow.  I conclude that a combination of winds and temperature are the most likely drivers of the gulf stream flow. To quote Holmes, once you’ve eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

Robert E. Buxbaum, March 25, 2018. I used the thermal argument above to figure out how cold it had to be to freeze the balls off of a brass monkey.

New Chinese emperor, will famine not follow

6 Replies

For most of its 2300 year history, the Chinese empire has rattled between strong leaders who brought famine, and weak leaders who brought temporary reprieve. Mao, a strong leader, killed his associates plus over 100 million by his “great leap forward” famine. Since then, 30+ years, we’ve had some weaker leaders, semi-democracy, and some personal wealth, plus the occasional massacre, e.g. at Tiananmen square, and a growing demographic problem. And now a new strongman is establishing himself with hopes of solving China’s problems. I hope for the best, but fear the repeat of the worse parts of Chinese history.

Two weeks ago, Chairman Xi amended the Chinese constitution to make himself emperor for life, essentially. He’s already in charge of the government, the party, and the military. Yesterday (Tuesday), he consolidated his power further by replacing the head of the banks. The legal system is, in theory, is the last independent part of government, but there is hardly any legal system in the sense of a balance of power. If history is any guide, “Emperor” Xi will weaken the courts further before the year is out. He will also likely remove many or all of his close associates and relatives. It is not for nothing that Nero, Stalin, and Mao killed their relatives and friends — generally for “corruption” following a show trial.

China's Imperial past is never is quite out of sight. Picture from the Economist.

China’s past is never is quite out of sight. Picture from the Economist.

Xi might be different, but he faces a looming demographic problem that makes it likely he will follow the president of the stronger emperors. China’s growth was fueled in part by a one child policy. Left behind is an aging, rural population with no children to take care of the elderly. As top-down societies do not tolerate “useless workers,” I can expect a killing famine within the next 10 years. This would shed the rural burden while providing a warning to potential critics. “Burn the chicken to scare the monkey,” is a Chinese Imperial aphorism. Besides, who needs dirt farmers when we have modern machines.

Lazy beds (feannagan) use only half the soil are for planting. The English experts were sure this was inefficient and land-wasting. Plowing was imposed on Ireland, and famine followed

“Lazy beds” of potatoes were used in Ireland for a century until experts forced their abandonment in the mid 1800s. The experts saw the beds, and the Irish as lazy, inefficient, and land-wasting. Famine followed.

Currently about 40% of the country is rural, about 560 million people spread out over a country the size of Canada or the US. The rest, 60% or 830 million, live concentrated in a few cities. The cities are rich, industrial, and young. The countryside is old, agricultural and poor, salaries are about 1/3 those of the cities. The countryside holds about 2/3 of those over 65, about 100 million elderly with no social safety net. The demographic imbalance is likely to become worse — a lot worse — within the next decade.

What is likely to happen, I fear, is that the party leaders — all of whom live in the cities — will decide that the countryside is full of non-productive, uneducated whiners. They will demand that more food should be produced, and will help them achieve this by misguided science and severe punishments. Mao’s experts, like Stalin’s and Queen Victoria’s, demanded unachievable quotas and academic-based advice that neither the leaders nor the academics had ever tried to make work. Mao’s experts told peasants to kill the birds that were stealing their grain. It worked for a while until the insects multiplied. As for the quotas, the party took grain as if the quotas were being met. If the peasants starved, they starved.

I expect that China’s experts will propose machine-based modern agriculture, perhaps imported from the US or Israel: Whatever is in style at the time. The expert attitude exists everywhere to this day, and the results are always the same. See potato famine picture above. When the famine comes, the old will request food and healthcare, but the city leaders will provide none, or just opioids as they did to ailing Elvis. When the complaining stops the doctor is happy.

China's population pyramid as of 2016. Notice the bulge of 40-55 year olds.

China’s population pyramid as of 2016. Notice the bulge of 40-55 year olds. Note too that there are millions more males (blue) than females (pink).

In single leader societies, newspapers do not report bad news. Rather, they like to show happy, well-fed peasants singing the leaders’ praise. When there’s a riot too big to ignore, rioters are presented as lazy malcontents and counter-revolutionaries. Sympathizers are sent to work in the fields. American academia will sing the praises of the autocratic leader, or will be silent. We never see the peasants, but often see the experts. And we live in a society where newspapers report only the bad, and where we only believe when there pictures. No pictures, no story. As with Stalin’s Gulags, Mao’s famine, or North Korea today, there are likely to be few pictures released to the press. Eventually, a census will reveal that tens of million aged have vanished, and we’ll have to guess where they went.

I can expect China to continue its military buildup over the next decade. The military will be necessary to put down riots, and keep young men occupied, and to protect China from foreign intervention. China will especially need to protect its ill-gotten, new oil-assets. Oil is needed if China is to replace its farmers with machines. It will be a challenge for a wise American leader to avoid being drawn into war with China, while protecting some of our interests: Taiwan, Hong Kong, etc. As with Theodore Roosevelt, he should offer support and non-biassed mediation. Is Trump up to this?  Hu Knows?

Robert Buxbaum, March 21, 2018. The above might be Xi-nephobia, Then again, this just in: Chairman Xi announces that Taiwan will face punishment if it attempts to break free. Doesn’t sound good.

Beyond oil lies … more oil + price volatility

2 Replies
One of many best selling books by Kenneth Deffeyes

One of many best-selling books by Kenneth Deffeyes

While I was at Princeton, one of the most popular courses was geology 101 taught by Dr. Kenneth S. Deffeyes. It was a sort of “Rocks for Jocks,” but had an unusual bite since Dr. Deffeyes focussed particularly on the geology of oil. Deffeyes had an impressive understanding of oil and oil production, and one outcome of this impressive understanding was his certainty that US oil production had peaked in 1970, and that world oil was about to run out too. The prediction that US oil production had peaked was not original to him. It was called Hubbert’s peak after King Hubbert who correctly predicted (rationalized?) the date, but published it only in 1971. What Deffeyes added to Hubbard’s analysis was a simplified mathematical justification and a new prediction: that world oil production would peak in the 1980s, or 2000, and then run out fast. By 2005, the peak date was fixed to November 24, of the same year: Thanksgiving day 2005 ± 3 weeks.

As with any prediction of global doom, I was skeptical, but generally trusted the experts, and virtually every experts was on board to predict gloom in the near future. A British group, The Institute for Peak Oil picked 2007 for the oil to run out, and the several movies expanded the theme, e.g. Mad Max. I was convinced enough to direct my PhD research to nuclear fusion engineering. Fusion being presented as the essential salvation for our civilization to survive beyond 2050 years or so. I’m happy to report that the dire prediction of his mathematics did not come to pass, at least not yet. To quote Yogi Berra, “In theory, theory is just like reality.” Still I think it’s worthwhile to review the mathematical thinking for what went wrong, and see if some value might be retained from the rubble.

proof of peak oilDeffeyes’s Maltheisan proof went like this: take a year-by year history of the rate of production, P and divide this by the amount of oil known to be recoverable in that year, Q. Plot this P/Q data against Q, and you find the data follows a reasonably straight line: P/Q = b-mQ. This occurs between 1962 and 1983, or between 1983 and 2005. Fro whichever straight line you pick, m and b are positive. Once you find values for m and b that you trust, you can rearrange the equation to read,

P = -mQ2+ bQ

You the calculate the peak of production from this as the point where dP/dQ = 0. With a little calculus you’ll see this occurs at Q = b/2m, or at P/Q = b/2. This is the half-way point on the P/Q vs Q line. If you extrapolate the line to zero production, P=0, you predict a total possible oil production, QT = b/m. According to this model this is always double the total Q discovered by the peak. In 1983, QT was calculated to be 1 trillion barrels. By May of 2005, again predicted to be a peak year, QT had grown to two trillion barrels.

I suppose Deffayes might have suspected there was a mistake somewhere in the calculation from the way that QT had doubled, but he did not. See him lecture here in May 2005; he predicts war, famine, and pestilence, with no real chance of salvation. It’s a depressing conclusion, confidently presented by someone enamored of his own theories. In retrospect, I’d say he did not realize that he was over-enamored of his own theory, and blind to the possibility that the P/Q vs Q line might curve upward, have a positive second derivative.

Aside from his theory of peak oil, Deffayes also had a theory of oil price, one that was not all that popular. It’s not presented in the YouTube video, nor in his popular books, but it’s one that I still find valuable, and plausibly true. Deffeyes claimed the wildly varying prices of the time were the result of an inherent quay imbalance between a varying supply and an inelastic demand. If this was the cause, we’d expect the price jumps of oil up and down will match the way the wait-line at a barber shop gets longer and shorter. Assume supply varies because discoveries came in random packets, while demand rises steadily, and it all makes sense. After each new discovery, price is seen to fall. It then rises slowly till the next discovery. Price is seen as a symptom of supply unpredictability rather than a useful corrective to supply needs. This view is the opposite of Adam Smith, but I think he’s not wrong, at least in the short term with a necessary commodity like oil.

Academics accepted the peak oil prediction, I suspect, in part because it supported a Marxian remedy. If oil was running out and the market was broken, then our only recourse was government management of energy production and use. By the late 70s, Jimmy Carter told us to turn our thermostats to 65. This went with price controls, gas rationing, and a 55 mph speed limit, and a strong message of population management – birth control. We were running out of energy, we were told because we had too many people and they (we) were using too much. America’s grown days were behind us, and only the best and the brightest could be trusted to manage our decline into the abyss. I half believed these scary predictions, in part because everyone did, and in part because they made my research at Princeton particularly important. The Science fiction of the day told tales of bold energy leaders, and I was ready to step up and lead, or so I thought.

By 2009 Dr. Deffayes was being regarded as chicken little as world oil production continued to expand.

By 2009 Dr. Deffayes was being regarded as chicken little as world oil production continued to expand.

I’m happy to report that none of the dire predictions of the 70’s to 90s came to pass. Some of my colleagues became world leaders, the rest because stock brokers with their own private planes and SUVs. As of my writing in 2018, world oil production has been rising, and even King Hubbert’s original prediction of US production has been overturned. Deffayes’s reputation suffered for a few years, then politicians moved on to other dire dangers that require world-class management. Among the major dangers of today, school shootings, Ebola, and Al Gore’s claim that the ice caps will melt by 2014, flooding New York. Sooner or later, one of these predictions will come true, but the lesson I take is that it’s hard to predict change accurately.

Just when you thought US oil had beed depleted for good, production began rising. It's now higher than the 1970 peak.

Just when you thought US oil was depleted, production began rising. We now produce more than in 1970.

Much of the new oil production you’ll see on the chart above comes from tar-sands, oil the Deffeyes  considered unrecoverable, even while it was being recovered. We also  discovered new ways to extract leftover oil, and got better at using nuclear electricity and natural gas. In the long run, I expect nuclear electricity and hydrogen will replace oil. Trees have a value, as does solar. As for nuclear fusion, it has not turned out practical. See my analysis of why.

Robert Buxbaum, March 15, 2018. Happy Ides of March, a most republican holiday.