backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 212 comment(s) - last by bonerici.. on Mar 19 at 4:29 PM


A graph showing agreement of model predictions with data from both the Earth and Mars

A simplified view of the new equations governing the greenhouse effect
New derivation of equations governing the greenhouse effect reveals "runaway warming" impossible

Miklós Zágoni isn't just a physicist and environmental researcher.  He is also a global warming activist and Hungary's most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol. Or was.

That was until he learned the details of a new theory of the greenhouse effect, one that not only gave far more accurate climate predictions here on Earth, but Mars too. The theory was developed by another Hungarian scientist, Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist with 30 years of experience and a former researcher with NASA's Langley Research Center.

After studying it, Zágoni stopped calling global warming a crisis, and has instead focused on presenting the new theory to other climatologists. The data fit extremely well.  "I fell in love," he stated at the International Climate Change Conference this week.

"Runaway greenhouse theories contradict energy balance equations," Miskolczi states.  Just as the theory of relativity sets an upper limit on velocity, his theory sets an upper limit on the greenhouse effect, a limit which prevents it from warming the Earth more than a certain amount.

How did modern researchers make such a mistake? They relied upon equations derived over 80 years ago, equations which left off one term from the final solution.

Miskolczi's story reads like a book. Looking at a series of differential equations for the greenhouse effect, he noticed the solution -- originally done in 1922 by Arthur Milne, but still used by climate researchers today -- ignored boundary conditions by assuming an "infinitely thick" atmosphere. Similar assumptions are common when solving differential equations; they simplify the calculations and often result in a result that still very closely matches reality. But not always.

So Miskolczi re-derived the solution, this time using the proper boundary conditions for an atmosphere that is not infinite. His result included a new term, which acts as a negative feedback to counter the positive forcing. At low levels, the new term means a small difference ... but as greenhouse gases rise, the negative feedback predominates, forcing values back down.

NASA refused to release the results.  Miskolczi believes their motivation is simple.  "Money", he tells DailyTech.  Research that contradicts the view of an impending crisis jeopardizes funding, not only for his own atmosphere-monitoring project, but all climate-change research.  Currently, funding for climate research tops $5 billion per year.

Miskolczi resigned in protest, stating in his resignation letter, "Unfortunately my working relationship with my NASA supervisors eroded to a level that I am not able to tolerate.  My idea of the freedom of science cannot coexist with the recent NASA practice of handling new climate change related scientific results."

His theory was eventually published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal in his home country of Hungary.

The conclusions are supported by research published in the Journal of Geophysical Research last year from Steven Schwartz of Brookhaven National Labs, who gave statistical evidence that the Earth's response to carbon dioxide was grossly overstated.  It also helps to explain why current global climate models continually predict more warming than actually measured.

The equations also answer thorny problems raised by current theory, which doesn't explain why "runaway" greenhouse warming hasn't happened in the Earth's past.  The new theory predicts that greenhouse gas increases should result in small, but very rapid temperature spikes, followed by much longer, slower periods of cooling -- exactly what the paleoclimatic record demonstrates.

However, not everyone is convinced.  Dr. Stephen Garner, with the NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL), says such negative feedback effects are "not very plausible".  Reto Ruedy of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies says greenhouse theory is "200 year old science" and doubts the possibility of dramatic changes to the basic theory.

Miskowlczi has used his theory to model not only Earth, but the Martian atmosphere as well, showing what he claims is  an extremely good fit with observational results.  For now, the data for Venus is too limited for similar analysis, but Miskolczi hopes it will one day be possible.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Theory changes....
By Kenenniah on 3/6/2008 12:20:54 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
"200 year old science" and doubts the possibility of dramatic changes to the basic theory.


Of course....because no long standing theory has even needed to be changed.




RE: Theory changes....
By ChronoReverse on 3/6/2008 12:22:23 PM , Rating: 1
We didn't even know there was a speed limit 200 years ago O_o


RE: Theory changes....
By rcc on 3/6/2008 4:17:06 PM , Rating: 2
oops, I think the theory less than a hundred years ago was if you managed to get up to 60-70 mph it would do drastic things to your body. I'm going to have to look that up again.


RE: Theory changes....
By ChronoReverse on 3/6/2008 5:06:10 PM , Rating: 2
So it changed more than once (assuming what you're saying is true).


RE: Theory changes....
By erikejw on 3/7/2008 2:51:32 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah sure, and in the OJ case they had scientists who beleived that DNA was impossible to use to identify someone.

There is always a contrary view but when 95% of scientists agrees of something that is what counts.


RE: Theory changes....
By AlexWade on 3/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: Theory changes....
By Starcub on 3/8/2008 11:51:48 AM , Rating: 1
The article you linked to had this to say:

"A 2003 survey of 530 climate scientists in 27 countries, conducted by Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch at the GKSS Institute of Coastal Research in Germany, found

82 percent said global warming is happening, but only

56 percent said it’s mostly the result of human causes, and only

35 percent said models can accurately predict future climate conditions."

OK, so "only" 56% support for AGW, and you're using this to refute AGW?

Despite the spin, there is also nothing in the topic article that presents evidence against AGW. Some scientist developed a better mathematical model that more accurately predicts temps already determined from information extrapolated from the geologic record. We already knew that the earth had self correcting mechanisms in place; this guy just showed us that increased atmospheric energy radiation into space is a contribiting factor.


RE: Theory changes....
By ikkeman on 3/7/2008 11:32:11 AM , Rating: 3
a long time ago in a universe not so very far away -

100% of scientist knew the earth was flat.
100% of schientists knew the earth was the centre of this universe
100% of scientists knew god existed.

on of clarke's laws (I think)
If an elderly and distinguished scientists says something is impossible, he is nearly always wrong
When a young and enthousistic scientists says something is possible, he is nearly always right...

offcourse this has nothing to do with age


RE: Theory changes....
By OrSin on 3/17/2008 8:53:56 AM , Rating: 3
In the christian world yes. But Asia, africa and middle east all know this was completely wrong for 1000's of years before the Europeans. History is so funny when viewed from only 1 piont of view.


RE: Theory changes....
By RedStar on 3/17/2008 12:01:17 PM , Rating: 2
those, who supported those three claims above, were not scientists back then but religious types with an agenda to maintain.

Scientists equal those that use the scientific method.


RE: Theory changes....
By tjr508 on 3/6/2008 7:33:04 PM , Rating: 5
Not to mention what happens at 88 mph.


RE: Theory changes....
By Scrogneugneu on 3/6/2008 7:59:01 PM , Rating: 4
Only depending on the type of car you're driving.


RE: Theory changes....
By dflynchimp on 3/6/2008 9:27:34 PM , Rating: 3
and if you're carrying plutonium or got a Mr. Fusion upgrade


RE: Theory changes....
By retepallen on 3/7/2008 4:56:34 AM , Rating: 3
or train


RE: Theory changes....
By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 3/7/2008 11:42:13 AM , Rating: 2
The theory stated that you would no longer be able to breathe above 60 mph. There may have been something related to increasing mass equalling ten times stationary mass at 60 mph as well.


RE: Theory changes....
By sporr on 3/8/2008 8:02:04 PM , Rating: 2
I think if the conditions were that, you were propelled in a direction at a speed of 60mph or more, but not within say a car or a plane, lets say a catapult for the sake of this discussion, the atmospheric pressure would be too much onto your lungs that it would be very hard if not impossible to breath without assistance, like if you were to sky dive without respiratory gear.

maybe.


RE: Theory changes....
By Kenenniah on 3/6/2008 12:22:41 PM , Rating: 2
Oops.

quote:
Of course....because no long standing theory has EVER needed to be changed.


RE: Theory changes....
By retrospooty on 3/6/2008 12:26:14 PM , Rating: 5
You may have a point about old theories, but the fact is that more and more scientists are looking at global warming and realizing that we are not in any danger, the planet is fine.

We do need to work to reduce emissions and improve efficiency to reduce our dependency on oil for 3 reasons 1. Economic 2. Political 3. environmental (by that I am referring to us breathing the smog, not the planet getting too warm)... In that order


RE: Theory changes....
By TomZ on 3/6/2008 12:38:48 PM , Rating: 1
Oh, the old bait-and-switch routine again! Get people interested and motivated because of the impending "crisis" of AGW, and then when that is proved to not be a problem, state that we should do all that stuff anyway for these other not so compelling or urgent reasons.

I just can't imagine why the environmentalists have such a poor reputation... </sarcasm>


RE: Theory changes....
By retrospooty on 3/6/2008 12:43:47 PM , Rating: 5
???

Not sure what you mean here... I am no environmantalist, nor have I ever thought global warming was an issue, and I live in Arizona, its hot as hell here already.

If you dont think we need to reduce our oil usage for economic, political and thirdly environmental reasons, you simply arent paying attention to the world you live in.


RE: Theory changes....
By TomZ on 3/6/08, Rating: 0
RE: Theory changes....
By retrospooty on 3/6/2008 1:25:48 PM , Rating: 5
I totally disagree with you on the economy, and political reasons to reduce our dependancy on oil.

Economically, it is a current problem, not a future one. Not a full blown crisis, but a problem today that will get worse each year that goes by, unless of course we reduce our demand.

Politically, it is a huge mess. We are in a world of crap over the middle east, because they have the oil. Once we dont need it, we dont have to take any crap from any of them, let them duke it out amongst themselves... We need to be able to stay out of that region of the world.


RE: Theory changes....
By Chimpee on 3/6/2008 1:42:14 PM , Rating: 3
But economically speaking, it is still better for the country to import the oil since we currently don't have any cost competitive way to compete with oil.


RE: Theory changes....
By retrospooty on 3/6/2008 1:47:33 PM , Rating: 5
Absolutely... I am not at all suggesting that we stop. We need to reduce, and look into alternatives more aggresively. not to the point we hurt our economy, but help it with new energy sources and possibly new jobs created by those energy sources.


RE: Theory changes....
By SilthDraeth on 3/6/2008 4:28:13 PM , Rating: 3
What you say is good and all, except that most practical forms of alternative energy solar, and wind, being the most touted are way more expensive than oil and coal. Hydro isn't an option because there simply are not enough rivers to provide all the power.

Nuclear is the cleanest source, but you can't run nuclear powered vehicles... as awesome as that would be.

And don't forget plastics, a staple in our society, and an oil product.


RE: Theory changes....
By retrospooty on 3/6/2008 4:33:50 PM , Rating: 2
"most practical forms of alternative energy solar, and wind, being the most touted are way more expensive than oil and coal"

Agreed... thus the need for research and development. Its going to take time and money to create an affordable alternative. Its not just going to fall in our laps, like oil sort of did, it has to be invented.


RE: Theory changes....
By dever on 3/7/2008 1:53:05 PM , Rating: 1
I think the underlying, yet unstated, point of disagreement with what you are saying is the often presumed conclusion that the "need" for alternatives be solved by a few politicians who decide for the rest of society the best solution.

I don't know if you are suggesting that we develop these alternatives by forcibly confiscating individual's income and redistributing it to large alternative power lobbyists, but it seems to be the most common proposal.

The best alternative, of course, is individual freedom to react to market pressures of decreased oil supply and vote with their wallets as to the best solution.


RE: Theory changes....
By Ajax9000 on 3/6/2008 8:44:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And don't forget plastics, a staple in our society, and an oil product.


And if we burn all the oil in cars and powerstations the plastics industry will be in deep sh!t ...


RE: Theory changes....
By EvilBlitz on 3/7/2008 1:00:19 AM , Rating: 2
Not all plastics are made from oil and many plastics are recyclabe. Ionic solvents are also a promising field as it will allow breaking down and recycling plastic that is currently not recyclable.


RE: Theory changes....
By Fanon on 3/7/2008 12:05:33 PM , Rating: 3
We're not even close to depleting the oil supply in the USA, much less the world. Raw supply isn't a problem.

The problem is politics. In the USA, it's congress that prevents us from expanding our oil production. The cost of oil, and thus gasoline and other oil-based products, would be extremely lower if:

1. We were allowed to explore and drill predicted oil rich locations.
2. Build more refineries.

I guarantee you if we could do those two things, the economic impact oil has had over the past years would be gone.


RE: Theory changes....
By ksuWildcat on 3/7/2008 1:17:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We're not even close to depleting the oil supply in the USA, much less the world. Raw supply isn't a problem.


Agreed, although I'd like to see us transition to a clean, renewable energy source before we do run out of oil, or we get to the point where driving becomes completely cost-prohibitive. This would be better for the U.S., economically, politically, and environmentally.

You can also blame the oil companies to a certain extent for our troubles. They tend not to reinvest in their current infrastructure, and they have little incentive to refine more oil/gas. Their profits soar when they get oil for $70-80/barrel, then refine it, and sell it to us for $3/gallon. For example, several of the big oil companies are getting heavier crude cheap right now, then making diesel, and ripping consumers off in the process.


RE: Theory changes....
By rebturtle on 3/6/2008 9:32:47 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
...except that most practical forms of alternative energy solar, and wind, being the most touted are way more expensive than oil and coal...


If we spend every day looking at what the cheapest solution is for us right now, the alternatives will be much more expensive to implement when we are short on time. Remember that, despite what reserves you can find or purchase, fossil fuels are non-renewable. There is a finite amount. Just because we may not see the end of that amount in our lifetime doesn't mean we should happily burn as much as we like now because it is relatively cheap.

There aren't any cheap alternatives when it comes to replacing infrastructure. Renewable energy uses considerable material and labor resources, and even has aesthetic tradeoffs. Nuclear has significant costs in the forms of mining, construction, and water consumption. Oil binds us to global politics in which we spend additional billions coercing/befriending governments, military actions, and are stuck being dependent upon a small minority of companies/countries dictating the perceived value of a product we cannot operate normally without.

Not everyone in the US gets their energy from fossil fuels, but as a nation we are still bound to the consequences. This is a collaborative effort, and a long term investment in our future.


RE: Theory changes....
By biohazard420420 on 3/7/2008 1:11:42 AM , Rating: 4
I have to disagree with you about the reason for the war in the middle east being about oil, you didn't say that specifically but implyed it. We import most of our oil form places other than the middle east such as canada and mexico among others. The problem is that we have OPEC that can control the price of oil worldwide because of speculators (the so called record prices you hear about) There are a myriad of other reasons why we have a war in the middle east but oil is not one of them. We have ways od decreasing our reliance on foreign oil but and this is a huge but to you environmentalists we MUST drill for oil here, off shore in ANWR oil shale deposits etc.

I am all for alternative sources of power, but at the moment they are cost prohibitive. Oil will one day run out that much we do know but we have a few countries in the middle east dictating what the entire world pays for oil which is mainly europe and asia etc. The small amout of oil we get from the middle east around 10 to 20 percent is tiny compared to how much we get from canada and mexico. Just think of it this way if we buy 1 barrel of oil from Saudi Arabia that oil goes on a huge ship that travels across the ocean it will take a few weeks to a month for that to even get to the US compared to a few days at best from canada or mexico. The middle east has to much control over the global price of oil in general but it is not the cause of high gas prices here, you can blame people betting on the FUTURE price of oil for that as well as those environmentalists who insist we switch between 10 to 17 different gas blends across the country.


RE: Theory changes....
By retrospooty on 3/7/08, Rating: -1
RE: Theory changes....
By dluther on 3/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: Theory changes....
By retrospooty on 3/7/2008 11:26:11 AM , Rating: 2
"
That's not even close to being true:
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_..."


I think your chart is correct, based on where the oil comes from... But much of it is brokered through a Canada company, this is why its always a confusing point, and people say Canada is our biggest supplier of oil. Brokered or not, the vast majority comes from the middle east.


RE: Theory changes....
By masher2 (blog) on 3/7/2008 11:28:11 AM , Rating: 3
> "That's not even close to being true:
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_..."


Did you misread your own link? It clearly states imports total 398 Mbbl, of which only 69 Mbbl comes from Persian Gulf nations.


RE: Theory changes....
By retrospooty on 3/7/2008 2:15:19 PM , Rating: 2
What of it? There is more to "the middle east" than just the persian gulf... Look at the Opec countries 189mbbl mostly from the middle east.

Whatever though. Its not entirely relevant to the main point here, which is we do need to conserve, and use less oil in a financially responsible manor


RE: Theory changes....
By retrospooty on 3/7/08, Rating: 0
RE: Theory changes....
By masher2 (blog) on 3/7/2008 9:22:43 PM , Rating: 3
> "Look at the Opec countries 189mbbl mostly from the Middle east."

Again, you're misreading. Among OPEC nations, #2 is Venezuela, #3 is Nigeria, #4 is Algeria and #5 Angola. None of those are in the Middle East.

A lot of people equate "OPEC" with "The Middle East". But they are not synonymous, and the US does *not* import anywhere near a majority of its oil from the Middle East.


RE: Theory changes....
By retrospooty on 3/8/08, Rating: 0
RE: Theory changes....
By rcc on 3/7/2008 1:59:13 PM , Rating: 2
Interesting way to list data. Confusing tho, for instance, Iraq, Kuwait, etc. are listed twice, once as Persian Gulf, and once as OPEC. While some are cited as having moved in or out of OPEC, those aren't among them.


RE: Theory changes....
By Hawkido on 3/10/08, Rating: -1
RE: Theory changes....
By ObiWanCeleri on 3/16/2008 12:27:44 AM , Rating: 5
Socialism works great in Canada, Finland and a whole bunch of other countries. Live with it.

By the way, look at Argentina - in the 80's it dismantled it's national petroleum infrastructures and privatized the rest ... the country crashed so badly it nearly went the way of third world countries. It still is in dire straights.

However look at Venezuela. It's emerging as one of the strongest countries in South America because it's nationalized it's petroleum industry. Get the picture?

The idea is that the state is often a better administrator than private enterprise. Just look at Enron, WorldCom, KBR, Haliburton & the lot. They are the best example that not all that glitters is gold.


RE: Theory changes....
By BansheeX on 3/6/2008 9:04:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Rising oil prices is driving a small bit of inflation


Rising prices of commodities like oil are not the cause of inflation, they are a symptom of it.


RE: Theory changes....
By Ringold on 3/6/2008 9:19:41 PM , Rating: 2
That's a definition game; you're thinking of expanding money supply, and possibly waiting to bring up the gold standard again. I'd instead say that since core inflation is so low, and wage-push inflation isn't showing up, that commodity prices seem to be a mixture of astounding global demand growth and a weak dollar due to lower bond yields versus the ECB's policy rates.

On a related note, I've cogitated on it since you last brought it up and asher supported bimetalism, but how does it stop the money supply from increasing? As long as there is fractional reserve banking then you have dollars replicating themselves through the system, and fractional reserve banking is the one of the pillars of the current financial system. I'm struggling to see the practicality, or how it could implemented (without causing chaos).


RE: Theory changes....
By masher2 (blog) on 3/6/2008 9:41:15 PM , Rating: 3
> "but how does it stop the money supply from increasing? "

It doesn't stop the supply from expanding, it stops it from expanding arbitrarily. It forces the government to play by the same rules as everyone else -- you can't spend what you don't earn (tax).

With fiat money, a government can coin as much as it wants-- and every new dollar it prints makes all the rest worth a little bit less. It's a hidden tax...and when a government goes too far, it results in hyperinflation.


RE: Theory changes....
By EvilBlitz on 3/7/2008 12:51:31 AM , Rating: 2
I think a better way of explaining it(if u don't mind) is to think of money as the physical representation of the goods that an economy produces.
If you print more money it does not change the amount of goods you have produced just the amount of dollars per good, hence inflation.


RE: Theory changes....
By BansheeX on 3/7/2008 7:54:56 AM , Rating: 5
Exactly. Too many dollars chasing a finite amounts of goods is inflation. If the fed were to print million dollar bills for every American, would we all become rich? No, because it's money from nothing. It's a giant pyramid scheme. The people who get and use the bills first will not feel the devaluation effects of the unused dollars that have yet to enter circulation, but the more of them that are spent and enter circulation, the faster sellers of products must raise their prices to account for how much more common they now are. The people who spend it last will have a practically useless piece of paper. Foreign U.S. stock and bond holders around the world would get owned overnight. Scarcity of money is what retains its value relative to other goods. Paper can be manipulated until eventual destruction. Gold can't. History is not on the side of fiat because governments can't restrain themselves from the conveniences allowed to them by this system.


RE: Theory changes....
By Ringold on 3/7/2008 11:23:04 AM , Rating: 1
My other response covers most my objections, but I'd like to ask when the last time the American or a Western European nation printed money to fund their expenses versus selling bonds on the open market. WW2 I know was funded by bonds, bonds, bonds and more bonds, even paying some military men in bonds instead of cash. I don't know off hand of WW1, but I know the Union didn't print much as a percentage of the money used to fund the war -- but the CSA let its printing presses run absolutely wild, with predictable effects. Atlanta looked like Zimbabwe before Grant burned it.

Europeans are such inflation zealots I doubt any of the Western states have played that game in the last several decades either.


RE: Theory changes....
By masher2 (blog) on 3/7/2008 12:17:31 PM , Rating: 3
> "when the last time the American or a Western European nation printed money to fund their expenses "

I know you limited the question, but China, Germany, Greece, and many other nations printed money to fund the war effort in WW2...China continued up to around 1949. Germany's worst period wasn't even during a war -- it was in the period between WWI and II. In fact, the hyperinflation caused by its running the presses is one of the major factors would brought Hitler to power.

Right after the war, Hungary printed so much money that inflation hit 5,000,000,000,000,000,000 percent per year. (no, I didn't add too many zeros).

Somewhat more recently, Brazil and Argentina both ran the printing presses full tilt during the early 1990s, in some cases resulting in inflation of several million percent per year.

Has the US been more restrained? Of course. But just because a problem is smaller in scale doesn't mean it still doesn't exist.


RE: Theory changes....
By EvilBlitz on 3/7/2008 4:27:55 PM , Rating: 3
There is nothing wrong with Fiat with strict inflation control policies and allowing and helping the market work. The problem is people always get cranky when quite high inflation sets in with a particular commodity. People need to realise that is exactly how the system is suppose to work. The price should rise to reflect its scarcity and encourage the development of alternaitves.
Moving to the gold standard will change none of this, nor make the system work magically better.

Anything you choose to represent value is fiat, even gold. The only reason gold is so valuable is because ppl see it as being a safe haven for wealth ie fiat, that gold is not REALLY needed.

Encouraging the unecessary mining of a mineral just to pay people to sit around and guard enormous vaults of it for me makes no economic, enviromental or practical sense.


RE: Theory changes....
By BansheeX on 3/8/2008 4:01:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There is nothing wrong with Fiat with strict inflation control policies and allowing and helping the market work.


Keynsian nonsense. The fed is the SOURCE of almost all inflation. You are justifying their existence and intervention based on problems that they themselves create. The market doesn't need a government to work or prosper. Do some research. Expecting politicians and international banking interests to manipulate the market in the best interest of the people is pure socialist idealistic nonsense and has historically achieved nothing short of the opposite. Or maybe the great depression and the collapse of the soviet union were just figments of people's imagination.

quote:
Anything you choose to represent value is fiat, even gold. The only reason gold is so valuable is because ppl see it as being a safe haven for wealth ie fiat, that gold is not REALLY needed.


But, of course, this is untrue. In modern civilization, people need a common means of exchange. It is by no arbitrary choice that, throughout history, gold has served this role rather than cucumbers. Gold is resilient but malleable, it requires no upkeep, and a small amount of it can represent a great deal of value relative to other goods, making it easy to carry and store. It is scarce in the world and must be mined, making it impossible to debase its value significantly by manufacturing too much of it. Paper needs a government decree to achieve high value to weight ratios. Gold does not. Because of these attributes, inherent to gold rather than authoritatively declared of it by a government or agency, people have gravitated towards gold as the most effective means of storing their wealth and transacting exchange, and it retains its attributes and value regardless of what the government chooses to monetize. Fiat is something intrinsically worthless declared valuable by authoritative command. Thus, gold is NOT fiat.


RE: Theory changes....
By Ringold on 3/9/2008 3:55:27 AM , Rating: 3
The concept that gold is fiat I think could've better been stated as the value of gold is fiat.

If you're serious with yourself, you'll realize that almost no one expects current gold prices to remain anywhere near where they are today. The price of it has gone parabolic, and investment advisors and the like are reporting on CNBC that everybody and their dog is calling in saying "Get me in to some gold." Just like a thunderstorm, this is the final huge upsurge of energy, pushing the price in to the stratosphere before it ultimately pours down.

Gold could easily be half of what it is now in a few years. Gold compared to the S&P500 has not been a very decent investment over the long haul -- very little, in fact, matches the S&P500.

Given that the current price represents not inflation (if there was real inflation in the economy, it would manifest itself more widely) but a speculative bubble, what would a commodity-backed currency do when the value belly-flopped? Suddenly a cheeseburger would cost twice the ounces of gold as it did a week ago? Madness. I don't see how one keeps the two tied to each other in value, or does a central bank 'defend' the price of gold, buying and selling to maintain a predetermined price so prices at the shelves dont change to reflect day-to-day speculative movements in the spot price? That stars to resemble the open market transactions used by the Fed BoNY to keep the short end of the yield curve in line...

I dislike Keynes as much as the next guy, he gave decades of young socialists someone to idolize, but I don't see a complicated return to a gold standard as the panacea to all the worlds problems.

By the way, interesting aside, but the man that was a staunch supporter of "sound money" happens to be the one that handed us this housing asset price bubble -- Greenspan. Not that I blame him, at least now we've experimented on ourselves and know what extremely low rates result in even though it should be no surprise, but just pointing it out.


RE: Theory changes....
By BansheeX on 3/9/2008 7:28:43 PM , Rating: 1
In the late 19th century, America was on a gold standard and had no federal reserve. We have never replicated that rate of growth to the economy. The fear of "spot price" fluctuations, I think, are exaggerated, due to your having lived in this system and being fixated on its market behavior. In this system you have both supply/demand and the currency in which it is priced (inflation) adding to its volatility. If gold IS the currency, how could inflation reach 10% based on the inability to manufacture it, and how could its value be debased to nothing like paper since it was never intrinsically worthless to begin with? Fiat defenders always resort to how much more "elastic" a fiat system is, and how we somehow "need" it to solve, you guessed it, problems that it tends to create.

Defenders of fiat always resort to "gold is a commodity, commodities are speculative" and "when reasonably managed, fiat currencies have done well enough." Note the utopian conditional statement characteristic of socialist thought. There is no perfect system. Just like gun ownership and gun prohibition both result in violence, the question then becomes which results in the least, and it is and statistically and explicably the former. So in pointing out gold's natural drawbacks, fiat supporters lead themselves to believe that gold is as bad or more idealistic than fiat, and it just isn't a fair assessment. Free market pricing is better than government or bank-managed pricing. Let the vipers try and dick with the market under a gold standard with no central bank. They never had anywhere near the gain or influence as they did when a central bank didn't exist and the government was small and of ill importance. We went from having a 10% savings rate to one which is negative. We went from being able to raise seven kids on a carpenter's income to needing two incomes to afford one. I don't see how how you can say that this monetary system of interest rate manipulation, inflationary bank bailouts, and easy credit is preferable or sustainable to what we once had. Wrangle with government statistics and speculation fears all you want, all this system leads to is indebtedness and higher taxes to fund spendthrift socialists.

quote:
If you're serious with yourself, you'll realize that almost no one expects current gold prices to remain anywhere near where they are today.


It is politically inconvenient for a recession in an election year, the people defending their seats will try and "fix" the problem with inflationary stimulus packages. Helicopter Ben is no Volcker. He will not raise interest rates and he is currently trying to re-inflate the real estate bubble with bailouts to lenders. You can be sure that commodities will continue to rise for at least two more years in this bull market. But these major boom/bust cycles are indicative of a fiat system. We've, for whatever reason, accepted them as natural cycles in the economy, but they're nothing more than symptoms of free market manipulation.


RE: Theory changes....
By bfonnes on 3/12/2008 8:36:34 PM , Rating: 2
I was thinking the other day about this kind of stuff, and realized that... An asset is only an asset if there is someone that will buy it at some point... The value of gold can drop just as much as the value of a house if there is no one to buy it, i.e. too expensive, can't eat it, etc. The bottom line is you can't eat gold or petroleum, so, paper money that is managed properly will perpetually have some sort of worth as long as it is used as a valid means of exchange.


RE: Theory changes....
By Ringold on 3/7/2008 11:15:12 AM , Rating: 2
I understood the effect it would have on the government printing presses (not that the federal government prints money anyway, they sell bonds, and the reserve buys or sells them to have the desired effect on liquidity and interest rates). I was referring to the process where you deposit a dollar in a fractional reserve banking system, and its in your account, supposedly liquid, and the bank holds .10c and loans out the other .90c. In the first step, the M1 has nearly doubled in my example, but the gold reserves backing up these nearly $2 stilly only amounts to $1.

Thus, 'arbitrary' expansion of M1 grinds on. The governments ability to print money is removed, though, sure. Again, the only way I can think to end that is to up reserve requirements to 100%, but that would dry up credit markets. Credit markets are a good thing; we have problems not because credit and bringing forward income is inherently not good but because people lack the education (or integrity) to use it responsibly.

It wouldn't even get rid of the Federal Reserve, would it? They could still be out there, buying down or selling up the short end of the yield curve. Nothing they do now is arbitrary, it's all done with open market transactions of teasuries and repurchase agreements.

I would think a gold standard currency would have a larger positive effect in countries with less government constraint then the US and the EU, where money is arbitrarily created from thin air by the government.


RE: Theory changes....
By gsellis on 3/7/2008 8:15:05 AM , Rating: 2
Rising oil prices are the cause of inflation. This is a commodity that has shocked the system and the economy has dependencies on it because of transportation and manufacturing needs. Oil's price change is effected by speculation and political influence which cannot be modeled. Same thing happened the last time and is what is the key ingredient in a stagflation scenario. Stagflation does not follow regular economic theory and it is because oil is not following any inflationary or deflationary models. It is changing outside of normal economic forces.

AND oil price is way off topic.


RE: Theory changes....
By BansheeX on 3/8/2008 4:23:53 PM , Rating: 2
Definition of inflation: "a persistent, substantial rise in the general level of prices related to an increase in the volume of money and resulting in the loss of value of currency."

Oil rising in dollar denominated price because of decreased supply or increased demand is not inflation. That's called the marketplace working. Look at a long-term chart pricing oil in terms of gold, and you'll see that the price of oil hasn't risen at all when priced in a commodity like gold. Since both goods are equally afflicted by monetary inflation, you can measure them against each other and determine that you are wrong. And if the price of food goes up because of rising oil costs (a result of inflation), this is also ultimately a symptom of inflation.

It's a total brainwash to believe that the fed must step in and interfere with the marketplace. It doesn't make you any richer to print dollars that don't represent produced goods. It makes every dollar you hold worth less relative to other goods, including oil. If supply and demand makes gas go to $5, all the better, because then demand is created for alternative energy technologies and subsequently, the capitalistic incentive for companies to produce and research products using them.


RE: Theory changes....
By Ringold on 3/9/2008 4:43:31 AM , Rating: 1
The price of food going up hasn't had anything to do with oil prices; it has had everything to do with crop failures and ethanol consuming food stocks.

As for everything else, with billions of people living in rapidly developing nations, you don't think that huge increases in demand might not have a little bit to do with it? I mean, China's only building entire cities from scratch.

If it were true inflation, then why has prices in the core CPI not shown anything exciting?

Also, the drop in the dollar relative to other currencies is easily explained by the fact that a) our stock market sucks and b) our treasury bond yields are lower than Europes, thus less attractive.

Removing food and energy, inflation from Jan 07 to Jan 08 was 2.5%. Strip out medical care, another secular demand-driven price inflation story and it'd look even better. If from Jan 08 to Jan 09 it looks more like 5%, then I'd agree with you; there could be too much money floating around. As it stands now, you're making a valid philosophical point but aren't able to stand on any hard data, not until the core CPI shifts in your favor.


RE: Theory changes....
By BansheeX on 3/9/2008 6:01:34 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The price of food going up hasn't had anything to do with oil prices; it has had everything to do with crop failures and ethanol consuming food stocks.


Increases in transportation and manufacturing costs as a result of oil price are certainly carried on to the consumer.

quote:
If it were true inflation, then why has prices in the core CPI not shown anything exciting?


Countless people have ridiculed the government's CPI measurements as manipulative hogwash deliberately designed to understate real inflation and retain market confidence.

http://www.kitco.com/ind/Schiff/nov022007.html


RE: Theory changes....
By ElFenix on 3/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: Theory changes....
By Procurion on 3/6/2008 3:02:55 PM , Rating: 5
Not a Bush supporter, particularly, but if we're going to make humorous remarks let's make sure it is in the right context.

The reasons concerning the oil production and protecting our interests there can be included as motivation to put military force in the area. Consider that this isn't a new set of circumstances, there has been turmoil in the Middle East for many decades. The compelling reason for "going to war" is not necessarily as transparent as the rhetoric from people opposed to the events that have transpired would have you believe.

The compelling reason for the invasion and restructuring Iraq was to move terrorist activity ofF American soil. To remain passive and not send troops into the fray would have invited more attempts to kill Americans on our own soil. To wait and respond is to fight in your own yard. To take the initiative and move the fight into the original aggressors' back yard is to fight there. Our military has done an impressive job of making sure that the terrorists are so busy defending themselves that they cannot plan and execute terrorist attacks here. It is simple and incontrovertable. History shows this very clearly.


RE: Theory changes....
By Christopher1 on 3/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: Theory changes....
By MozeeToby on 3/6/2008 4:37:27 PM , Rating: 4
I know (or atleast hope) that it wasn't your intention to blame religion for all violence, rape, murder, and racism throughout the world. Wars have been fought over a huge variety of reasons, religious jihad only one of them. The second largest terrorist attack in the US was the result of a simple hatred of the government (Oklahoma City).

You seem to think that religion is the root of all amoral and unethical behavior in the world; it isn't. At times, religion is taken advantage of to use as a rallying cry to this behavior, but the religion itself is almost never to blame.

For crying out loud, most of the things you advocate are the central pillars of the most common religions. Don't lust after power, don't take advantage of others, do help your fellow man. It's fine to be atheist, I'm not even sure how much I believe anymore, but there's no reason to blow things out of proportion.


RE: Theory changes....
By TheJian on 3/6/2008 9:42:46 PM , Rating: 1
LOL. You want to stop rape and murder? Or just crime in general? KILL the people committing rape and murder and do it on nightly news. Look at crime rates in countries where the punishment FITS the crime and the crime rate is through the floor instead of the roof. Sorry that peace and love BS and reform the prisoner crap doesn't work! We have such high crime today because even if you get caught you get 3 squares a day and free rent. OH and you get free gym equipment to work out on everyday too.

You may not like it but the death penalty used on TV would stop this stuff. ONLY the lunatics that TRULY do not know the difference between right and wrong would still kill/rape. If every rapist knew the first thing we did to them when caught is cut off their balls or light their dicks on fire with a blow torch how many do you think would still do it if sane and rational? It wouldn't take more than a week to see rape drop to 10% of normal today. If murders got their kneecaps blown off (then medically taken care of to sustain you for the next week), then a few arms shot off on TV next week until you finally die one week (yeah, I mean terrible deaths, more creative each week until you croak) would you even PONDER the idea of killing someone? Again assuming your sane. Murder would drop to 10% in a week. The only people left would be the complete nuts.

Sure you can make up some laws regarding it. Like "we only do this to you if your on camera committing the crime" etc. Unequivocally guilty that is. Or after a DNA sample your proven guilty of rape. Whatever, the point is people pay attention when the penalty sucks. Jail just isn't a deterrent today. It's free food and rent forever and no little to no work. I'm not even going to bother with your "get rid of religion and we save the world " BS. Those "more aggressors" as you call them already celebrated "death to america" day long before we got there. They were celebrating that day when I was in high school in '89. I think it dates back to '79 actually. Google it. I just did, i'm right. LOL. Were we in their back yard in '79?

You know why our military men are dying? Because pussies like you won't just let us blow them up. War is HELL! But people like you make it a gentle game of chess. We have to make sure we kill no innocent people (so bad guys just hide amongst them...great plan guy), or we can't blow up a mosque because it's not politically correct (so they hide in mosques...great plan guy). If you aren't willing to go the extra mile you can't get anything done. If we just flew into everywhere (stealth bombers with moab) that a terrorist was seen camping in arab nations and dropped MOAB's every single time, being a terrorist would become an unpopular idea indeed. Mosque or not. BOOM. No more hiding. You're going to die anyway. It would be the end for all but the completely stupid. Abu Graib? Deck of cards people we picked up. Kill them all. Nobody would want to be them. FEAR brings peace. PERIOD. We have terrorists because they can't attack us outright. Everyone who has tried that has been severely punished by our superior military. We had a chance to KILL Bin Laden. But it was politically incorrect to kill a few innocent people. So he slipped away. We had him dead to rights, ready to blow him away. Fear of the pussies freaking out in this country caused them to not make a move. I'm not saying having to do this stuff is good. It's terrible. But you can't make an omelet without breaking eggs...LOL. If conservatives actually agreed with you they weren't conservatives at all. I agree with NONE of what you said and I'm a conservative :) About people saying your a "Liberal Fantasizing Idiot". IF you know that's what people will say... I just blew a blood vessel...ROFL


RE: Theory changes....
By robinthakur on 3/7/2008 5:30:39 AM , Rating: 2
I imagine that the problem would be if you or anyone you cared about were one of those "innocent" but apparently disposable people which you refer to. The 9/11 planners probably thought in very similar ways, just so you know. What you advocate is for most of the world to be living in fear of America (inlcuding the americans) which would be a pretty grim situation for all involved. Mind you, you're hopefully only an 12 year old kid and you clearly have some growing up to do still.


RE: Theory changes....
By ithis on 3/7/2008 5:37:05 AM , Rating: 1
We have been fighting violence with violence since the beginning of time. We are still fighting violence with violence today. One would think that after ten thousand years we would get that in the end IT DOESN'T FREEKIN WORK.

Sadly, we don't. :(


RE: Theory changes....
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 3/7/2008 10:34:49 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
One would think that after ten thousand years we would get that in the end IT DOESN'T FREEKIN WORK.

Actually it does work, that is why it is still in use. Cracking down gets results.


RE: Theory changes....
By Fanon on 3/7/2008 12:15:16 PM , Rating: 3
Because talking with the school bully and asking him nicely not to stick your head in the toilet, take your lunch money, and kick your butt on the playground works any time it's tried. Oh wait...


RE: Theory changes....
By Kanti on 3/6/08, Rating: -1
RE: Theory changes....
By Ringold on 3/6/2008 9:02:36 PM , Rating: 3
There were indeed some holes in his argument, at least in my view.

Unfortunately though.. your brain shut down completely at "That's the supidest fu---," etc. Your obvious hatred for the opposite party, as well as apparently a lesser degree of at least strong disdain for business, must blind you. For example, defense contractors are expected to do well under either a McCain, Clinton or Obama White House. Jim Cramer, of Mad Money fame, seemed to my ear to be suggesting KBR would benefit from a withdraw from Iraq so it could focus on more profitable private industry work in the region! At least it still sounded like it'd do well.

Further, and it can be forgiven since it was past the brain shut-down point, but you don't seem to know at all what you're talking about when you say we "stole" their oil production. Their reserves were not forked over to private firms. Private US and UK firms were brought in to repair and develop fields, but ownership -- well, their constitution states it plainly:

quote:
Oil and gas are the ownership of all the people of Iraq in all the regions and governorates.


Section Four, article 108, towards the bottom.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic...

I found another draft of the constitution that has it in article 111 -- who knows what it is, but it's in there all the same.

Less blind rejection of "right wingers", more logic -- if thats possible for you. Based on other blind-rage liberals I know, it may not be. Good luck. :P


RE: Theory changes....
By Starcub on 3/8/2008 12:32:59 PM , Rating: 2
The Iraqi constitution is a deliberately vague document. It doesn't say that "All" oil and gas are the ownership of all the people of Iraq. It also doesn't say what portions of the resources will be given to the various factions.

While I have read elsewhere that the details of the oil deal are held in secret by the World Bank, I recall watching C-SPAN a few weeks ago and I believe it was a former US cabinate official who was saying that 20% of Iraqi oil would go to the Sunni's, 20% to the Shiites, and 20% to Kurds+others (others including most of the Christian population I would imagine). If what she said is believable, then the seeds for future discontent are being sown due to the disparity in population and political power that exist between the factions.

Of primary importance is that it appears that 40% of Iraq's oil will be going to foriegn oil interests, probably mostly western companies and not really the US taxpayer. To be clear, empire building has always been about bolstering someone's bottom line at someone else's expense, not altruism. If the US were really as committed to combating international 'terror' as our government has been telling us it is, I think we would have long ago been fighting the Muslim extremists who are helping the Sudanese goverment to commit genocide in Darfur.

If you are realy interested in becoming educated, there is plenty of info on the net about the oil situation. Read up on this link for example:
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4399


RE: Theory changes....
By BansheeX on 3/6/2008 9:35:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The compelling reason for the invasion and restructuring Iraq was to move terrorist activity off American soil.


Huh? You got rated up for this? What kind of misinformed neo-cons visit this site? The real reasons for going to Iraq may never be totally clear, but one thing is for sure, it was not to fight terrorists in their own backyard. Saddam Hussein was a brutal tyrant, but he hated terrorists. They were a threat to his own power circle, and there were certainly no Al-Qaeda cells there before we invaded.

quote:
To remain passive and not send troops into the fray would have invited more attempts to kill Americans on our own soil.


I agree, which is why I supported going after Bin Laden then and now, wherever he may be. But Iraq had nothing to with that, and what also should not be forgotten is

a. the role our interventionist foreign policy has played in inciting hatred and fostering an environment ripe for pro-terrorism propaganda. Such activities include radicalizing Afghan militants to fight the soviets, bringing about the Iranian revolution with the CIA deposing their elected leader and helping nationalization of Iranian oil, dealings with Saddam Hussein, support of Musharraf in Pakistan (an unelected military leader hated by his people and associated with the west), permanent bases on holy land (most of the hijackers were Saudis who took offense to this, enough that they would be willing to do what they did). The list just goes on and on.
b. the neo-con downgrade of anti-terrorism operations that occurred when Bush took office, as well as the sheer incompetence and inaction on intelligence which should have been enough to prevent the attacks in the first place (middle easterners learning to fly planes and not land them).

quote:
Our military has done an impressive job of making sure that the terrorists are so busy defending themselves that they cannot plan and execute terrorist attacks here. It is simple and incontrovertable. History shows this very clearly.


History also shows that this is not sustainable long-term and is an enormous drain on the economy, so much so that it could cause us not only to withdraw on economic terms, but subsequently fall into a far more weakened and vulnerable state than if we had not acted militarily to begin with. These countries may be poor in comparison to our own, but whack-a-mole intervention doesn't work, because for every terrorist you kill, the damage and hatred you have incited in the attempt is enough for two more to be recruited in their place. Charging head first into their provocational rhetoric is playing exactly into their hands. We are making the same mistake the soviets made when they went into Afghanistan.


RE: Theory changes....
By EvilBlitz on 3/7/2008 1:08:37 AM , Rating: 1
Im sorry but you Americans still do not get it. Taking unilateral actions only annoys the rest of the worlds population. Them being annoyed with you is why they are attacking you in the first place, maybe you try pissing off your neighbours a little less first?

Second I find that Americans don't even realise what your greatest weapon is. It it not any of your military or military hardware. It is your culture. Your best weapons are McDonalds, MTV, Starbucks, Hollywood etc.
Look at teenagers all over the world, even in countries such as Iran, they love alot of the same music bands, the same clothes and same food.
Cultural assimilation is a far far more effective weapon than riding in gluns a blazing.


RE: Theory changes....
By retrospooty on 3/7/2008 9:55:59 AM , Rating: 1
I have to say you are right... But don't assume that all Americans dont "get it". Half of us do, its just that our half lost the last 2 elections... its a 50/50 split in this country.

If you say the right wing/religios/neocons/republicans dont get it, then you are correct. If you say they have totally embarrassed our country on the world stage, you are also correct. This election will go differently, if for no other reason that the reps have screwed it up so badly that they have little to no chance of winning in November.


RE: Theory changes....
By EvilBlitz on 3/7/2008 4:35:13 PM , Rating: 2
The problem for me though is that Hillary voted for the War and I have seen statements from Obama supporting unilateral action, the foreign policy of the Democrats imho is not really much if any better than the republicans :(


RE: Theory changes....
By andyjary on 3/10/2008 7:15:47 PM , Rating: 1
Thank you for clarifying the situation, retrospooty. This will make a lot of people, the world over, reading this topic feel at lot more comfortable in the knowledge that 50% of us are really good at heart. As for the other 50% of 'Holes', it's a worry to say the least.

BTW: I also heard Obama proposed closing Guantanamo? I hope that hasn't changed too...


RE: Theory changes....