Near-IR video cameras aren't much different from visible-light ones. The one in this clip looks pretty sophisticated by comparison.
However I have to agree that the demonstration is nowhere near quantitative enough to infer much about absorption by CO2 of thermal radiation from Earth's surface. A far more accurate method is to calculate it line-by-line from theHITRAN line spectra tables.
However mere absorption of surface radiation is only about 6% of the impact of CO2 on global warming even in the no-feedback case. This is because what heats the Earth is reduction in outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) from the top of the atmosphere (TOA). Only 6% of that radiation is emitted by the surface, the rest is radiation from clouds and greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Clouds are not water vapor but droplets, which unlike water vapor but like the surface are much closer to being black body radiators. Although there is somewhat less CO2 above the clouds than above the surface (the difference being the amount of CO2 between the clouds and the surface), it's quite enough to absorb the same bands emitted by the clouds as those emitted by the surface.
Radiation from the atmosphere's greenhouse gases is narrow-band, even at sea level but increasingly so at higher altitudes as the effect of pressure-broadening decreases. Every greenhouse gas emits its own set of lines, and absorbs the same again, so there's a lot of emitting and absorbing going on in the atmosphere.
Looking down from above the atmosphere, a thermal imaging camera sees only the "top layer" of all this radiation. This layer is not sharply defined but rather is a separatephotosphere for each wavelength of IR. To quote the Wikipedia article, "The photosphere of an astronomical object is the region from which externally received light originates." Wavelengths that are absorbed more strongly create more opaque and therefore higher-altitude photospheres. The further below the photosphere, the lower the probability that a photon from that depth will escape to space. The probability is nonzero however no matter how deep, whence the indistinctness of each photosphere.
What increasing any greenhouse gas does is to make it more opaque, thereby raising the altitude of the photosphere associated with each wavelength at which that gas absorbs and emits. The higher you go the colder, namely 10 C/km for dry air (the Dry Adiabatic Lapse Rate or DALR) all the way down to 5 C/km for saturated air (the Moist Adiabatic Lapse Rate or MALR) when very warm. Hence a higher photosphere is colder. And since radiation follows the Stefan-Boltzmann law, the amount of radiation falls off as the 4th power of this decreasing temperature.
Higher temperatures raise the water vapor in the atmosphere. Hence heating the atmosphere by increasing the CO2 will increase water vapor, another greenhouse gas, which in turns heats the atmosphere even more. This vicious cycle is called a positive feedback, and is believed to add considerably to the basic no-feedback greenhouse effect attributable to CO2.
Richard Feynman said of quantum mechanics that if you think you understand it then you don't. The greenhouse effect is not quite that bad, but it runs a close second. John Nielson-Gammon has offered "The Best Ever Description of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect". I don't know if my account above is as good, but it's only half the length.
But the essence of a gold standard is that the units used in the above graph would become the units in which wages and prices would get reported and negotiated. Under a gold standard, a dollar always means the same thing in terms of ounces of gold that it would buy. So for example, if the dollar price of gold today was the same as it was in January 2000 ($283/ounce), and if the real value of gold had changed as much as it has since then, the dollar wage that an average worker received would need to have fallen from $13.75/hour in 2000 to $3.45/hour in 2012.
And the problem with that is, for a host of reasons ranging from minimum wage legislation, bargaining agreements and contracts, institutions, and human nature, it is very, very hard to get workers to accept a cut in their wage from $13.75/hour to $3.45/hour. The only way it could possibly happen is with an enormously high unemployment rate for a very long period of time. This strikes most of us as a pretty crazy policy proposal.
[snip: discussion showing that gold demand is not U.S.-driven, and thus that a gold standard for the dollar would not have prevented this depreciation]
Therefore I give unto you a commandment to teach these things freely unto your Children Saying that in as much as they were born into the World by reason of the fall which bringeth death by water & blood & the Spirit which I have made & so became of dust a living soul even so ye must be born again of water & the spirit & cleansed by blood even the blood of mine only begotten into the mysteries of the kingdom of Heaven
Therefore, I give unto you a commandment, to teach these things freely unto your children, saying that by reason of transgression cometh the fall, which fall bringeth death. And in as much as they were born into the world by watter, and blood, and the spirit which I have made, and so became of dust a living soul; even so ye must be born again, into the kingdom of heaven, of watter, and of the spirit, and be cleansed by blood, even the blood of mine only begotten
the Lord said unto Enoch, behold, these thy Brethren, they are the workmanship of mine own hands, & I gave unto them their knowledge in the day that I created them & in the Garden of Eden gave I unto man his agency; & unto thy brethren have I said, & also gave commandment, that they should love one another, & that they should Choose me their Father
the Lord said unto Enoch, behold, these thy Brethren, they are the workmanship of mine own hands, & I gave unto them their knowledge intelligence in the day that I created them & in the Garden of Eden gave I unto man hisad agency; & unto thy brethren have I said, & also gave commandment, that they should love one another, & that they should Choose me their Father serve me their God
[<Property(Arbitrary=[| typeof<ArbitraryModifiers> |])>]OUTPUT:
let ``Closed under multiplication`` (y : WholeNumber) (z : WholeNumber) =
(WholeNumber.get y) * (WholeNumber.get z) >= 0
Test.Geometry.Closed under multiplication [FAIL]
Falsifiable, after 3 tests (0 shrinks) (StdGen (603380185,295587877)):
(WholeNumber 13118, WholeNumber 227510903)
[<Property(Arbitrary=[| typeof<ArbitraryModifiers> |])>]
let ``Closed under multiplication`` (y : WholeNumber) (z : WholeNumber) =
(WholeNumber.get y) * (WholeNumber.get z) >= 0I
Tests complete: 1 of 3Tests complete: 2 of 3Tests complete: 3 of 33 total, 0 failed, 0 skipped, took 1.790 seconds
Happiness isn't something God, from outside of the situation of love, bestows on those who love; happiness is something internal to love itself. It's, in Ostler's appropriate word, a byproduct of love.
I couldn't agree more about all this. My question, then, is simply: Why not begin and end here? Why bother with Kant? I suspect that Ostler's reason is that byproducts aren't enough to ground moral obligation. How can one claim to have a moral obligation to love if one's simply after love's associated affects? (As a byproduct and not simply a product, it might be said that happiness can't be called love's teleology, and so obligation doesn't return in the form of a consequentialist ethics here.) And I think Ostler would be right to point out this problem, were he—as I suspect he would—to do so. But then my question would become: What's so important about moral obligation? Is it so necessary for Mormonism to have a theory of moral obligation? Why can't we say simply that God reveals to us the happy way to live? Why do we need to say that God reveals to us the happy way to live toward which we have an obligation?
All of this is to ask, in the end, why we can't simply agree with the several individuals Ostler refers to at the beginning of the chapter. Why not just confess that Mormonism can't, given its ontological commitments, produce a satisfactory theory of moral obligation? Why not argue that that incapability is one of Mormonism's strengths? Why not agree with the so-called critics that Mormonism is more like training in the good life than exposition of universal moral obligation?
Triggered by a comment from Bill regarding the work of John Ioannidis, I dug through my file of draft posts and found this article by Ioannidis in the Scientific American, about a year ago, entitled An Epidemic of False Claims. Subtitle: Competition and conflicts of interest distort too many medical findings
Excerpts:
False positives and exaggerated results in peer-reviewed scientific studies have reached epidemic proportions in recent years. The problem is rampant in economics, the social sciences and even the natural sciences, but it is particularly egregious in biomedicine. Many studies that claim some drug or treatment is beneficial have turned out not to be true. Even when effects are genuine, their true magnitude is often smaller than originally claimed.
The problem begins with the public's rising expectations of science. Being human, scientists are tempted to show that they know more than they do. Research is fragmented, competition is fierce and emphasis is often given to single studies instead of the big picture.
Much research is conducted for reasons other than the pursuit of truth. Conflicts of interest abound, and they influence outcomes. Even for academics, success often hinges on publishing positive findings. The oligopoly of high-impact journals also has a distorting effect on funding, academic careers and market shares. Industry tailors research agendas to suit its needs, which also shapes academic priorities, journal revenue and even public funding.
The crisis should not shake confidence in the scientific method.But scientists need to improve the way they do their research and how they disseminate evidence.
Dear K.,
Your friend asks two questions, one about doctrine and canonization and the other about salvation. You asked for my take and I'll give it to you as scripturally and clearly as I can. Hopefully I've gotten all the typos out.
Love,
M.
I. Are prophetic teachings considered canon?
In relation to the first question, "Are the teachings of Presidents of the Church considered canon or just educational material?": while I am comfortable expressing my own opinions, one of the major functions of a prophet is to speak on the Lord's behalf, not necessarily to reveal new and unusual information, but to say it in a way that will touch the heart and enlighten the mind of the hearer. Therefore instead of speaking for myself, I have selected relevant quotations from two past Presidents of the Church (Joseph Fielding Smith and Harold B. Lee), in which they themselves quote the scriptures and other past Presidents to explain this matter.
[I'm not sure whether the italics in the following are in the original, or if the emphasis was added by me when I threw these quotes into my Gmail account a while back.]
Joseph Fielding Smith - It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My word, and teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man's doctrine. You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards of doctrine, only in so far as they accord with revealed word in the standard works.
Every man who writes is responsible, not the Church, for what he writes. If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it. If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted." (Doctrines of Salvation, v. 3, p.203-204)
Harold B. Lee - If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speaks a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth. (The Teachings of Harold B. Lee, p. 544)
Harold B. Lee – We can know when a man speaks as a prophet. Now, when does a person speak as a prophet? Do you recall that oft-repeated revelation in which the Lord said:
"And, behold, this is an ensample unto all those who were ordained unto this priesthood [and he is talking of General Authorities], whose mission is appointed unto them to go forth-"They shall speak as they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost."And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation." (D&C 68:2-4.)
If upon reading this you find that there are aspects of the standard which rely upon individual interpretation ("how do you know when a prophet is speaking as a prophet?", "was President Lee speaking as a prophet when he said this?"), all I can say is, "Exactly!" There are many things which are true but which are not taught as doctrine, but revealed by the Spirit to an individual as he ponders the scriptures and words of the prophet. Individual study and meditation are a necessary part of the process, including the process of distinguishing where individual interpretation is needed and/or valid. I'm conscious of the irony in this infinite regress: like Hawking's story of the mythical flat earth on the back of a giant turtle carried by other turtles, "It's turtles all the way down!"
This is so when a General Authority is speaking by the power of the Holy Ghost.
Someone has rightly said that it is not to be thought that every word spoken by our leaders is inspired. The Prophet Joseph Smith wrote in his personal diary: "This morning I visited with a brother and sister from Michigan, who thought that 'a prophet is always a prophet'; but I told them that a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 278.)
It is not to be thought that every word spoken by the General Authorities is inspired, or that they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost in everything they write. I don't care what his position is, if he writes something or speaks something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard Church works, unless that one be the prophet, seer, and revelator - please note that one exception - you may immediately say, "Well, that is his own idea." And if he says something that contradicts what is found in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false, regardless of the position of the man who says it. We can know or have the assurance that they are speaking under inspiration if we so live that we can have a witness that what they are speaking is the word of the Lord. There is only one safety, and that is that we shall live to have the witness to know. President Brigham Young said something to the effect that "the greatest fear I have is that the people of this church will accept what we say as the will of the Lord without first praying about it and getting the witness within their own hearts that what we say is the word of the Lord" (see Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 135).
Clearly everybody is "saved" to a greater or lesser degree through the actions of Jesus Christ, even the sons of Perdition who at least receive a resurrection. What kind of "salvation" someone is talking about needs to be judged from the context, but in the Church we tend to talk mostly about celestial glory because that is the Church's raison d'être, and we also want to see everyone attain their full potential. Elder McConkie would, if pressed, admit that murderers and adulterers will receive a kind of salvation, but they will also be missing out on even more, and that is why he said salvation is only available within the Church.
1.) Those who are (103) "liars, and... adulterers, and whoremongers, and whosoever loves and makes a lie..." (106) "are cast down to hell and suffer the wrath of Almighty God, until the fulness of times, when Christ... shall have perfected his work" and then receive (89) "the glory of the telestial, which surpasses all understanding". They are (109) "as innumerable... as the sand upon the seashore."
2.) The (75) "honorable men of the earth, who were blinded by the craftiness of men", (79) "who are not valiant in the testimony of Jesus... obtain not the crown over the kingdom of our God." They receive even greater happiness than the liars and adulterers do, because (91) "the glory of the terrestrial... excels in all things the glory of the telestial, even in glory, and in power, and in might, and in dominion." They (77) "receive of the presence of the Son, but not of the fulness of the Father."
3.) Those who (51) "received the testimony of Jesus, and believed on his name and were baptized after the manner of his burial... keeping the commandments they might be washed and cleansed from all their sins..." and who (53) "overcome by faith... [and] are just and true" are (54) "the church of the Firstborn" and (62) "shall dwell in the presence of God and his Christ forever and ever." (58-59) "They are gods, even the sons of God—wherefore, all things are theirs," and the glory they receive is (70) "celestial... even the glory of God, the highest of all." Entering into celestial glory requires making covenants, and the reason the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was restored to the earth was to enable men and women to make and keep celestial covenants.
4.) Finally, there are those who "[deny] the Only Begotten Son of the Father, having crucified him unto themselves and put him to an open shame... who shall go away into the lake of fire and brimstone, with the devil and his angels." They are (38) "the only ones who shall not be redeemed in the due time of the Lord, after the sufferings of his wrath." They (D&C 88:32) "shall also be quickened [resurrected]; nevertheless, they shall return again to their own place, to enjoy that which they are willing to receive, because they were not willing to enjoy that which they might have received." Usually in the church they are called the "sons of Perdition", which means "loss", and (D&C 88:24) "he who cannot abide the law of a telestial kingdom cannot abide a telestial glory; therefore he is not meet for a kingdom of glory. Therefore he must abide a kingdom which is not a kingdom of glory."
" A wise policy-maker consequently expects that his policies will achieve only part of what he hopes and at the same time will produce unanticipated consequences he would have preferred to avoid. If he proceeds through a succession of incremental changes, he avoids serious lasting mistakes in several ways."
"The test is agreement on policy itself, which remains possible even when agreement on values is not."
For instance, I used to get frustrated when I couldn't figure out why a girl agreed to a particular date, e.g. sushi lunch Wednesday. Is she just being nice, or does she just like sushi, or does she think we might be interested in each other? This principle says, "It doesn't matter. Do you want to eat sushi with her? Then go eat sushi."
"Consider options themselves as assets. Try to retain them or create new ones.""Seek alternatives whose consequences are observable.""Plan to allocate resources for monitoring consequences and (if appropriate) gathering more information."Fencing analogy: I usually do better when I remember to be patient. Eventually the other guy makes a mistake and I can exploit it, but that doesn't happen when I rush to create my own openings, or commit to an all-out attack just because I can't think of anything better to do.
"Seek alternatives that are 'robust' regardless of outcome."This is a weaker than a "dominant strategy" in game theory: the decision doesn't have to be better than every other decision under every possible set of circumstances, but it has to be pretty good regardless of circumstances. Of course, dominant strategies are always robust if you can find them.
"Don't assume that getting rid of ignorance and uncertainty is always a good idea.""Build and utilize relationships based on trust instead of contracts... Trust relationships are more flexible and robust under uncertainty."Uncertainty is uncomfortable, but it may be better to tolerate uncertainty than to pay the costs of getting rid of it. It depends upon what the cost is. See point #3 above for an example. "DTRs" between friends could be another example, if it puts stress on the friendship.
-Max