During the campaign, Trump railed about windmills, emphasizing the birds killed by them and the supposed hypocrisy of liberals for wanting windmills despite this problem., At his rallies, he often expressed it as "killing all the birds". So I did a little research. All these numbers are bird mortality for the US
0.2-.35M Windmills
1-2M Oil and wastewater pits
15M Hunters
60M Collisions with cars
72M Pesticides
174M Collisions with power lines
400-900M Collisions with windows
1400-3700M Cats
So windows are at least 1000 times more dangerous to birds than are windmills. And cats. We need to ban cats and windows!!!!
Sheesh!
Of course we should do everything reasonable to minimize all of these, but the idea that it would be a reason to not build windmills is foolish. The oil business kills far more.
The real reason he doesn't like windmills is because some would be built in the view of one of his resorts and he thinks that would reduce the price he could charge (maybe, maybe not), but more importantly, he is beholden to fossil fuel interests and wants to drag his feet as much as possible on the inevitable switch to renewables.
He also claimed that all of the wind turbines come from Germany and Japan. Uh, no, there are several wind turbine manufacturers in the US, and GE owns wind companies in several other countries.
China 10
South Korea 6
Germany 4
US 3
Japan 3
Spain 2
Denmark 1. but it's by far the biggest
There were 88,000 wind power workers in the US at the start of 2016, growing at about 20% per year. The American Wind Energy Association estimates that there will be 380,000 wind power jobs in the US by 2030. The vast majority of these are in rural areas or semi-rural areas. There were 63,000 US jobs in the coal business in 2015 and this number can only decline. Virtually all coal mining is done in strip mines and mountaintop removal, which substitutes big machines for workers, and there is nothing Trump or anyone else can do to change this.
addenda 10 Mar 2017
Predatory birds like eagles are particularly susceptible to poisoning because many of them are also scavengers. A particularly serious problem is birds and animals killed by hunters and abandoned, either because the hunter only took enough to make a trophy, or because they couldn't find their victim. Eagles and other scavengers eat the decaying flesh, including the lead shot. Lead is a slow neurotoxin, so they don't die immediately, but their thinking and coordination is damaged, and they often crash into things that they'd have otherwise been able to avoid.
Eagles and other raptors are also particularly susceptible to being hit by windmills, because their hunting methods may put them at the same height as the moving blades.
23 November 2016
07 November 2016
Living Presidents
I've come down with a cold, so between naps, I've been using wikipedia to figure out how many living presidents and ex-presidents there have been at any one time.:
1800 1: John Adams. Washington died in Dec 1799
1801 2: Thomas Jefferson and John Adams (both died in 1826)
1809 3: James Madison (1836), Thomas Jefferson and John Adams
1817 4: James Monroe (1831), Madison, Jefferson and Adams
1825 5: John Quincy Adams (1848), Monroe, Madison, Jefferson, Adams
1826 3: Adams Sr and Jefferson died in July: Adams Jr, Monroe, Madison
1829 4: Andrew Jackson (1845), Adams, Monroe, Madison
1831 3: Jackson, Adams, Madison
1836 2: Jackson, Adams
1837 3: Martin van Buren (1862), Jackson, Adams
1841 4: William H Harrison (1841), Van Buren, Jackson, Adams
1841 4: John Tyler (1862), Van Buren, Jackson, Adams
1845 5: James K Polk (1849), Tyler, Van Buren, Jackson, Adams
1845 4: Jackson died in June: Polk, Tyler, Van Buren, Adams
1848 3: Polk, Tyler, Van Buren
1849 3: Zachary Taylor(1850), Tyler, Van Buren
1850 3: Millard Fillmore (1874), Tyler, Van Buren
1853 4: Franklin Pierce (1869), Fillmore, Tyler, Van Buren
1857 5: James Buchanan (1868), Pierce, Fillmore, Tyler, Van Buren
1861 6: Abraham Lincoln (1865), Buchanan, Pierce, Fillmore, Tyler, Van Buren
1862 4: Lincoln, Buchanan, Pierce, Fillmore
1865 4: Andrew Johnson (1875), Buchanan, Pierce, Fillmore
1868 3: Johnson, Pierce, Fillmore
1869 4: Ulysses S Grant (1885), Johnson, Pierce, Fillmore
1869 3: Grant, Johnson, Fillmore
1874 2: Grant, Johnson
1875 1: Grant
1877 2: Rutherford B. Hayes (1893), Grant
1881 3: James Garfield (1881), Hayes, Grant
1881 3: Chester A Arthur (1886), Hayes, Grant
1885 4: Grover Cleveland (1908), Arthur, Hayes, Grant
1885 3: Cleveland, Arthur, Hayes
1886 2: Cleveland, Hayes
1889 3: Benjamin Harrison (1901), Cleveland, Hayes
1893 2: Harrison, Cleveland
1897 3: William McKinley (1901), Harrison, Cleveland
1901 2: Theodore Roosevelt (1919), Cleveland
1908 1: Roosevelt
1909 2: William H Taft (1930), Roosevelt
1913 3: Woodrow Wilson (1924), Taft, Roosevelt
1919 2: Wilson, Taft
1921 3: Warren G Harding (1923), Wilson, Taft
1923 3: Calvin Coolidge (1833), Wilson, Taft
1924 2: Coolidge, Taft
1929 3: Herbert Hoover (1964), Coolidge, Taft
1930 2: Hoover, Coolidge
1933 1: Coolidge died in January. FDR took office in March. for those 2 months, Hoover was the only living president
1933 2: Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1945), Hoover
1945 2: Harry S Truman (1972), Hoover
1954 3: Dwight Eisenhower (1969), Truman, Hoover
1961 4: John F Kennedy (1963), Ike, Truman, Hoover
1963 4: Lyndon Baines Johnson (1973), Ike, Truman, Hoover
1964 3: Johnson, Ike, Truman
1969 4: Richard Milhous Nixon(1994), Johnson, Ike, Truman
1969 3: Ike died in March. Nixon, Johnson, Truman
1972 2: Nixon, Johnson
1973 1: Nixon
1974 2: Gerald Ford (2006), Nixon
1977 3: James E Carter(still alive), Ford, Nixon
1981 4: Ronald Reagan (2004), Carter, Ford, Nixon
1989 5: George HW Bush (still alive), Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon
1993 6: William Clinton (still alive), Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon
1994 5: Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford
2001 6: George W Bush (still alive), Clinton, HW, Reagan, Carter, Ford
2004 5: W, Clinton, HW, Carter, Ford
2006 4: W, Clinton, HW, Carter
2009 5: Barack Obama (still alive), W, Clinton, HW, Carter
There have been 3 times that we've had 6 living presidents and ex-presidents:
1861 to early 1862, 1993 to the death of Nixon in 1994, and 2001-2004.
We may have another starting next year.
There have been 5 times that there were no living ex-presidents: 1799-1801, 1875-77, 1908-9, 1933, 1973-4
addenda 1 Dec 2018. GHW Bush died yesterday, so there are two new lines:
2017 6: Trump, Obama, W, Clinton, HW, Carter
2018 5: Trump, Obama, W, Clinton, Carter
I was hoping Trump would be run out of town on a rail before HW or Carter died and we'd have 7 for the first time, but no such luck.
1800 1: John Adams. Washington died in Dec 1799
1801 2: Thomas Jefferson and John Adams (both died in 1826)
1809 3: James Madison (1836), Thomas Jefferson and John Adams
1817 4: James Monroe (1831), Madison, Jefferson and Adams
1825 5: John Quincy Adams (1848), Monroe, Madison, Jefferson, Adams
1826 3: Adams Sr and Jefferson died in July: Adams Jr, Monroe, Madison
1829 4: Andrew Jackson (1845), Adams, Monroe, Madison
1831 3: Jackson, Adams, Madison
1836 2: Jackson, Adams
1837 3: Martin van Buren (1862), Jackson, Adams
1841 4: William H Harrison (1841), Van Buren, Jackson, Adams
1841 4: John Tyler (1862), Van Buren, Jackson, Adams
1845 5: James K Polk (1849), Tyler, Van Buren, Jackson, Adams
1845 4: Jackson died in June: Polk, Tyler, Van Buren, Adams
1848 3: Polk, Tyler, Van Buren
1849 3: Zachary Taylor(1850), Tyler, Van Buren
1850 3: Millard Fillmore (1874), Tyler, Van Buren
1853 4: Franklin Pierce (1869), Fillmore, Tyler, Van Buren
1857 5: James Buchanan (1868), Pierce, Fillmore, Tyler, Van Buren
1861 6: Abraham Lincoln (1865), Buchanan, Pierce, Fillmore, Tyler, Van Buren
1862 4: Lincoln, Buchanan, Pierce, Fillmore
1865 4: Andrew Johnson (1875), Buchanan, Pierce, Fillmore
1868 3: Johnson, Pierce, Fillmore
1869 4: Ulysses S Grant (1885), Johnson, Pierce, Fillmore
1869 3: Grant, Johnson, Fillmore
1874 2: Grant, Johnson
1875 1: Grant
1877 2: Rutherford B. Hayes (1893), Grant
1881 3: James Garfield (1881), Hayes, Grant
1881 3: Chester A Arthur (1886), Hayes, Grant
1885 4: Grover Cleveland (1908), Arthur, Hayes, Grant
1885 3: Cleveland, Arthur, Hayes
1886 2: Cleveland, Hayes
1889 3: Benjamin Harrison (1901), Cleveland, Hayes
1893 2: Harrison, Cleveland
1897 3: William McKinley (1901), Harrison, Cleveland
1901 2: Theodore Roosevelt (1919), Cleveland
1908 1: Roosevelt
1909 2: William H Taft (1930), Roosevelt
1913 3: Woodrow Wilson (1924), Taft, Roosevelt
1919 2: Wilson, Taft
1921 3: Warren G Harding (1923), Wilson, Taft
1923 3: Calvin Coolidge (1833), Wilson, Taft
1924 2: Coolidge, Taft
1929 3: Herbert Hoover (1964), Coolidge, Taft
1930 2: Hoover, Coolidge
1933 1: Coolidge died in January. FDR took office in March. for those 2 months, Hoover was the only living president
1933 2: Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1945), Hoover
1945 2: Harry S Truman (1972), Hoover
1954 3: Dwight Eisenhower (1969), Truman, Hoover
1961 4: John F Kennedy (1963), Ike, Truman, Hoover
1963 4: Lyndon Baines Johnson (1973), Ike, Truman, Hoover
1964 3: Johnson, Ike, Truman
1969 4: Richard Milhous Nixon(1994), Johnson, Ike, Truman
1969 3: Ike died in March. Nixon, Johnson, Truman
1972 2: Nixon, Johnson
1973 1: Nixon
1974 2: Gerald Ford (2006), Nixon
1977 3: James E Carter(still alive), Ford, Nixon
1981 4: Ronald Reagan (2004), Carter, Ford, Nixon
1989 5: George HW Bush (still alive), Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon
1993 6: William Clinton (still alive), Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon
1994 5: Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford
2001 6: George W Bush (still alive), Clinton, HW, Reagan, Carter, Ford
2004 5: W, Clinton, HW, Carter, Ford
2006 4: W, Clinton, HW, Carter
2009 5: Barack Obama (still alive), W, Clinton, HW, Carter
There have been 3 times that we've had 6 living presidents and ex-presidents:
1861 to early 1862, 1993 to the death of Nixon in 1994, and 2001-2004.
We may have another starting next year.
There have been 5 times that there were no living ex-presidents: 1799-1801, 1875-77, 1908-9, 1933, 1973-4
addenda 1 Dec 2018. GHW Bush died yesterday, so there are two new lines:
2017 6: Trump, Obama, W, Clinton, HW, Carter
2018 5: Trump, Obama, W, Clinton, Carter
I was hoping Trump would be run out of town on a rail before HW or Carter died and we'd have 7 for the first time, but no such luck.
addenda 19 Mar 2021
2021 6: Biden, Trump, Obama, W, Clinton, Carter
To their credit, all living ex presidents had sharply rebuked Trump, including the second worst, GW Bush, who looks positively Periclean in comparison.
21 October 2016
Biggest Landslides
Sorted by percentage
1: 1920: Warren Harding & Calvin Coolidge (R) vs James M Cox & FDR
16,144,093 to 9,139,661 (7,004,432 differential)
60.3% to 34.2% (26.1%)
404 to 127 electors
One of our most corrupt presidents and one of the most popular during his time in office.
2: 1924: Calvin Coolidge & Charles Dawes(R) v John W Davis & Charles W Bryan(D) v Robert La Follette (Progressive)
15,723,789 to 8,386,242 to 4,831,706 (7,337,547 differential)
54% to 28.8% (25.2%)
382 to 136 to 13 electors
Davis, a southern democrat and La Follete, a Wisconsin progressive, split the D vote, making the landslide appear larger than it really was. Harding and Coolidge presided over the bubble that led to the great depression
3: 1936: FDR & John Nance Garner v Alf Landon and Frank Knox
27,747,636 to 16,679,543 (11,068,093 differential)
60.8% to 36.5% (24.3%)
523 to 8 electors.
FDR, his policies successful at beating back the depression, carried all but two states: VT and ME
4: 1972: Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew vs George McGovern & Sargent Shriver
47,168,710 to 29,173,222 (17,995,480 difference)
60.7% to 37.5% (23.2%)
520 to 17 electors
McGovern was forced to change VPs after the convention and Nixon ran a terribly dirty campaign, which included the watergate breakin.
5: 1964: LBJ & Hubert Humphrey vs Barry Goldwater & William Miller
43,127,041 to 27,175,754 (15,951,287 difference)
61.1% to 38.5% (22.6%)
486 to 52 electors
Goldwater made a lot of noise about using A-bombs against North Vietnam, which scared pretty much everybody. He won only his home state Arizona and the deep south.
6: 1904: TR & Charles Fairbanks vs Alton Parker & Henry Davis
7,630,457 to 5,083,880 (2,546,577 difference)
56.4% to 37.6% (18.8%)
336 to 140 electors
Incumbent TR was successful in foreign affairs and trustbusting, and immensely popular. He'd have easily won a third term but he elevated his protege, Taft, who turned against his successful policies.
7: 1984: Ronald Reagan & GHW Bush vs Walter Mondale & Geraldine Ferraro
54,455,472 to 37,577,352 (16,878,120 difference)
58.8% to 40.6% (18.2%)
525 to 13 electors.
Reagan touted his "Morning In America" as he presided over the end of the 10 year stagflation caused by the multiple OPEC oil embargoes. Mondale won only his home state and DC
8: 1932: FDR & John Nance Garner vs Herbert Hoover & Charles Curtis
22,821,277 to 15,761,254 (7,060,023 difference)
57.4% to 39.7% (17.7%)
472 to 59 electors
Hoover presided over the start of the Great Depression and exacerbated it immensely with his misguided policies.
9: 1928: Herbert Hoover & Charles Curtis vs Al Smith and Joe Robinson
21,427,123 to 15,015,464 (6,411,659 difference)
58.2% to 40.8% (17.4%)
444 to 87 electors
Hoover, presiding over the continuing bubble, ran against Smith, the first Catholic to run for president.
10: 1832: Andrew Jackson & Martin van Buren vs Henry Clay & John Sergeant
701,780 to 484,205 (217,575 difference)
54.2% to 37.4% (16.8%)
219 to 49 electors
127M people voted in the 2012 election. Inexplicably, there are at least 50 million people who will vote for Trump, despite, or perhaps because of his open dishonesty and appalling behavior, or any Republican, no matter how grotesquely unqualified the candidate is. At this moment, fivethirtyeight.com has Trump at 42.7% and Clinton at 49.2%, a 6.5% difference. If these numbers hold and there are 130M votes cast, Trump will get 55.5M and Hillary 63.9M votes, an 8.4M vote difference. It's a good attempt so far, but he's got to alienate a lot more voters to get the Yuugest landslide in history. He is certainly giving it his best shot.
1: 1920: Warren Harding & Calvin Coolidge (R) vs James M Cox & FDR
16,144,093 to 9,139,661 (7,004,432 differential)
60.3% to 34.2% (26.1%)
404 to 127 electors
One of our most corrupt presidents and one of the most popular during his time in office.
2: 1924: Calvin Coolidge & Charles Dawes(R) v John W Davis & Charles W Bryan(D) v Robert La Follette (Progressive)
15,723,789 to 8,386,242 to 4,831,706 (7,337,547 differential)
54% to 28.8% (25.2%)
382 to 136 to 13 electors
Davis, a southern democrat and La Follete, a Wisconsin progressive, split the D vote, making the landslide appear larger than it really was. Harding and Coolidge presided over the bubble that led to the great depression
3: 1936: FDR & John Nance Garner v Alf Landon and Frank Knox
27,747,636 to 16,679,543 (11,068,093 differential)
60.8% to 36.5% (24.3%)
523 to 8 electors.
FDR, his policies successful at beating back the depression, carried all but two states: VT and ME
4: 1972: Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew vs George McGovern & Sargent Shriver
47,168,710 to 29,173,222 (17,995,480 difference)
60.7% to 37.5% (23.2%)
520 to 17 electors
McGovern was forced to change VPs after the convention and Nixon ran a terribly dirty campaign, which included the watergate breakin.
5: 1964: LBJ & Hubert Humphrey vs Barry Goldwater & William Miller
43,127,041 to 27,175,754 (15,951,287 difference)
61.1% to 38.5% (22.6%)
486 to 52 electors
Goldwater made a lot of noise about using A-bombs against North Vietnam, which scared pretty much everybody. He won only his home state Arizona and the deep south.
6: 1904: TR & Charles Fairbanks vs Alton Parker & Henry Davis
7,630,457 to 5,083,880 (2,546,577 difference)
56.4% to 37.6% (18.8%)
336 to 140 electors
Incumbent TR was successful in foreign affairs and trustbusting, and immensely popular. He'd have easily won a third term but he elevated his protege, Taft, who turned against his successful policies.
7: 1984: Ronald Reagan & GHW Bush vs Walter Mondale & Geraldine Ferraro
54,455,472 to 37,577,352 (16,878,120 difference)
58.8% to 40.6% (18.2%)
525 to 13 electors.
Reagan touted his "Morning In America" as he presided over the end of the 10 year stagflation caused by the multiple OPEC oil embargoes. Mondale won only his home state and DC
8: 1932: FDR & John Nance Garner vs Herbert Hoover & Charles Curtis
22,821,277 to 15,761,254 (7,060,023 difference)
57.4% to 39.7% (17.7%)
472 to 59 electors
Hoover presided over the start of the Great Depression and exacerbated it immensely with his misguided policies.
9: 1928: Herbert Hoover & Charles Curtis vs Al Smith and Joe Robinson
21,427,123 to 15,015,464 (6,411,659 difference)
58.2% to 40.8% (17.4%)
444 to 87 electors
Hoover, presiding over the continuing bubble, ran against Smith, the first Catholic to run for president.
10: 1832: Andrew Jackson & Martin van Buren vs Henry Clay & John Sergeant
701,780 to 484,205 (217,575 difference)
54.2% to 37.4% (16.8%)
219 to 49 electors
127M people voted in the 2012 election. Inexplicably, there are at least 50 million people who will vote for Trump, despite, or perhaps because of his open dishonesty and appalling behavior, or any Republican, no matter how grotesquely unqualified the candidate is. At this moment, fivethirtyeight.com has Trump at 42.7% and Clinton at 49.2%, a 6.5% difference. If these numbers hold and there are 130M votes cast, Trump will get 55.5M and Hillary 63.9M votes, an 8.4M vote difference. It's a good attempt so far, but he's got to alienate a lot more voters to get the Yuugest landslide in history. He is certainly giving it his best shot.
07 October 2016
Seattle Minimum Wage
There's a widely held belief that the minimum wage hurts low wage employment. There's basically no evidence of this.
Washington state has one of the highest minimum wages in the country and among the lowest unemployment. The statewide was $9.19 in 2013 and rose to $9.47 at the start of 2015.
Seattle is one of several cities that's voted in a gradual rise to a $15 minimum wage. Prior to 1Apr2015, it was the same as the state, $9.47. On that date, it went up to $10 for small businesses and $11 for big ones. 1Jan2016, it went up a further dollar to $11 for small businesses and $12 for big ones (big is defined by 500 or more workers).
Conservatives insisted that this would surely cause a spike in unemployment. And sure enough, they managed to find one. The very conservative "American Enterprise Institute" put together BLS data that seemed to show it and conservatives and business columnists around the country jumped on board. Here's one from Forbes. Ooh, scary, 9 months (8 actually, but we all know conservatives aren't good with anything that involves numbers) of declining employment.
But wait: here's the same data, charted out to August this year
The pattern is almost exactly the same, and the rest of the MSA only got the statewide wage hike, not the city one. Note also that Seattle's unemployment is almost a point lower than the regional, despite the higher wage, and the difference seems to be the same, irrespective of what Seattle's minimum wage is. From these data, we can't be exactly sure what's causing these fluctuations, but this is pretty good evidence that it's not the minimum wage. It's plainly dominated by events that are taking place at a much larger scale than the city itself. Seattle is the biggest employment hub in the region, but it's not a large enough share to have this universal effect. And of the 5 minimum wage hikes captured in these graphs (1Jan2013, 1Jan2014, 1Jan2015, 1Apr 2015, 1Jan2016), only one of them correlates with climbing unemployment.
Washington state has one of the highest minimum wages in the country and among the lowest unemployment. The statewide was $9.19 in 2013 and rose to $9.47 at the start of 2015.
Seattle is one of several cities that's voted in a gradual rise to a $15 minimum wage. Prior to 1Apr2015, it was the same as the state, $9.47. On that date, it went up to $10 for small businesses and $11 for big ones. 1Jan2016, it went up a further dollar to $11 for small businesses and $12 for big ones (big is defined by 500 or more workers).
Conservatives insisted that this would surely cause a spike in unemployment. And sure enough, they managed to find one. The very conservative "American Enterprise Institute" put together BLS data that seemed to show it and conservatives and business columnists around the country jumped on board. Here's one from Forbes. Ooh, scary, 9 months (8 actually, but we all know conservatives aren't good with anything that involves numbers) of declining employment.
But wait: here's the same data, charted out to August this year
Note that the climb in unemployment seems to have ended, and by August (the latest that data has been compiled for, it was back down almost to the low. Well then, couldn't it have been lower without the burden of the high minimum wage? Perhaps, but notice that the biggest declines took place after the second hike, which was almost double the size of the first hike. And mysteriously, the sharpest drop occurred after the statewide wage hike that took place that January.
But here's the regional data. Seattle (population 630K) is the biggest city in King County (pop 2M), and the whole thing is in the Seattle Tacoma Bellevue Metropolitan Statistical Area (pop 3.7M)
The pattern is almost exactly the same, and the rest of the MSA only got the statewide wage hike, not the city one. Note also that Seattle's unemployment is almost a point lower than the regional, despite the higher wage, and the difference seems to be the same, irrespective of what Seattle's minimum wage is. From these data, we can't be exactly sure what's causing these fluctuations, but this is pretty good evidence that it's not the minimum wage. It's plainly dominated by events that are taking place at a much larger scale than the city itself. Seattle is the biggest employment hub in the region, but it's not a large enough share to have this universal effect. And of the 5 minimum wage hikes captured in these graphs (1Jan2013, 1Jan2014, 1Jan2015, 1Apr 2015, 1Jan2016), only one of them correlates with climbing unemployment.
This author makes a pretty good case that the insistence is not, and never has been, about the minimum wage depressing employment, but about employers wanting to keep their workers a little bit scared and desperate. Scared and desperate workers don't make waves, like demanding better wages or safer working conditions.
20 September 2016
2016 Calendar
Fri 1 Jan New Year's Day
Mon 18 Jan Martin Luther King Day (Holiday)
Tue 2 Feb Groundhog's (midwinter) Day
Sun 7 Feb Superbowl L, Santa Clara, CA
Mon 15 Feb Presidents Day (Holiday)
Sun 13 Mar Daylight Savings Time begins
Mon 20 Mar 04:30UT (19 Mar 21:30PDT) Spring Equinox
Sun Mar 27 Easter
Mon 1 May May Day (midspring)
Mon 30 May Memorial Day (Holiday)
Sun 5 Jun Ramadan begins
Mon 20 Jun 22:34UT (15:34PDT) Summer Solstice
Mon 4 Jul Independence Day (Holiday)
Tue 5 Jul Ramadan ends
Mon 1 Aug Midsummer day
Mon 5 Sep Labor Day (Holiday)
Thu 22 Sep 14:21UT (07:21PDT) Autumn Equinox
Sun 2 Oct Sundown Rosh Hashana begins year 5777
Mon 10 Oct Columbus Day (Holiday for some people)
Wed 12 Oct Yom Kippur
Mon 31 Oct Hallowe'en
Tue 1 Nov Mid autumn day
Sun 6 Nov Daylight Savings Time ends
Tue 8 Nov Election Day
Fri 11 Nov Veterans Day
Thu 24 Nov Thanksgiving (Holiday)
Fri 25 Nov Holiday
Thu 21 Dec 10:44UT (02:44PST) Winter Solstice
Sat 24 Dec Sundown Hannuka begins
Sun 25 Dec Christmas (Holiday)
Mon 26 Dec Holiday
Sun 1 Jan Sundown Hannuka ends
Days off work in bold
Astronomical events in italic
Mon 18 Jan Martin Luther King Day (Holiday)
Tue 2 Feb Groundhog's (midwinter) Day
Sun 7 Feb Superbowl L, Santa Clara, CA
Mon 15 Feb Presidents Day (Holiday)
Sun 13 Mar Daylight Savings Time begins
Mon 20 Mar 04:30UT (19 Mar 21:30PDT) Spring Equinox
Sun Mar 27 Easter
Mon 1 May May Day (midspring)
Mon 30 May Memorial Day (Holiday)
Sun 5 Jun Ramadan begins
Mon 20 Jun 22:34UT (15:34PDT) Summer Solstice
Mon 4 Jul Independence Day (Holiday)
Tue 5 Jul Ramadan ends
Mon 1 Aug Midsummer day
Mon 5 Sep Labor Day (Holiday)
Thu 22 Sep 14:21UT (07:21PDT) Autumn Equinox
Sun 2 Oct Sundown Rosh Hashana begins year 5777
Mon 10 Oct Columbus Day (Holiday for some people)
Wed 12 Oct Yom Kippur
Mon 31 Oct Hallowe'en
Tue 1 Nov Mid autumn day
Sun 6 Nov Daylight Savings Time ends
Tue 8 Nov Election Day
Fri 11 Nov Veterans Day
Thu 24 Nov Thanksgiving (Holiday)
Fri 25 Nov Holiday
Thu 21 Dec 10:44UT (02:44PST) Winter Solstice
Sat 24 Dec Sundown Hannuka begins
Sun 25 Dec Christmas (Holiday)
Mon 26 Dec Holiday
Sun 1 Jan Sundown Hannuka ends
Days off work in bold
Astronomical events in italic
2017 Calendar
Sun 1 Jan New Year's Day
Mon 2 Jan Holiday
Mon 16 Jan Martin Luther King Day (Holiday)
Fri 20 Jan Inauguration Day
Thu 2 Feb Groundhog's (midwinter) Day
Sun 5 Feb Superbowl LI, Houston, TX
Mon 20 Feb Presidents Day (Holiday)
Sun 12 Mar Daylight Savings Time begins
Mon 20 Mar 10:28UT (03:28PDT) Spring Equinox
Sun 16 Apr Easter
Mon 1 May May Day (midspring)
Sat 27 May Ramadan begins
Mon 29 May Memorial Day (Holiday)
Wed 21 Jun 04:24UT (20 Jun 21:24PDT) Summer Solstice
Sun 25 Jun Ramadan ends
Tue 4 Jul Independence Day (Holiday)
Tue 1 Aug Midsummer day
Mon 4 Sep Labor Day (Holiday)
Wed 20 Sep sundown Rosh Hashana begins year 5778
Fri 22 Sep 20:02UT (13:02PDT) Autumn Equinox
Fri 29 Sep sundown Yom Kippur
Mon 9 Oct Columbus Day (Holiday for some people)
Fri 13 Oct Friday the 13th
Fri 31 Oct Hallowe'en
Sat 1 Nov Mid autumn day
Sun 2 Nov Daylight Savings Time ends
Sat 11 Nov Veterans Day
Thu 23 Nov Thanksgiving (Holiday)
Fri 24 Nov Holiday
Tue 12 Dec Sundown Hannuka begins
Wed 20 Dec Sundown Hannuka ends
Thu 21 Dec 16:28UT (08:28PST) Winter Solstice
Mon 25 Dec Christmas (Holiday)
Days off work in bold
Astronomical events in italic
Mon 2 Jan Holiday
Mon 16 Jan Martin Luther King Day (Holiday)
Fri 20 Jan Inauguration Day
Thu 2 Feb Groundhog's (midwinter) Day
Sun 5 Feb Superbowl LI, Houston, TX
Mon 20 Feb Presidents Day (Holiday)
Sun 12 Mar Daylight Savings Time begins
Mon 20 Mar 10:28UT (03:28PDT) Spring Equinox
Sun 16 Apr Easter
Mon 1 May May Day (midspring)
Sat 27 May Ramadan begins
Mon 29 May Memorial Day (Holiday)
Wed 21 Jun 04:24UT (20 Jun 21:24PDT) Summer Solstice
Sun 25 Jun Ramadan ends
Tue 4 Jul Independence Day (Holiday)
Tue 1 Aug Midsummer day
Mon 4 Sep Labor Day (Holiday)
Wed 20 Sep sundown Rosh Hashana begins year 5778
Fri 22 Sep 20:02UT (13:02PDT) Autumn Equinox
Fri 29 Sep sundown Yom Kippur
Mon 9 Oct Columbus Day (Holiday for some people)
Fri 13 Oct Friday the 13th
Fri 31 Oct Hallowe'en
Sat 1 Nov Mid autumn day
Sun 2 Nov Daylight Savings Time ends
Sat 11 Nov Veterans Day
Thu 23 Nov Thanksgiving (Holiday)
Fri 24 Nov Holiday
Tue 12 Dec Sundown Hannuka begins
Wed 20 Dec Sundown Hannuka ends
Thu 21 Dec 16:28UT (08:28PST) Winter Solstice
Mon 25 Dec Christmas (Holiday)
Days off work in bold
Astronomical events in italic
15 September 2016
Life on Other Planets?
Is there life on other planets? Of course there is. There are 100 billion stars in this galaxy and it looks like the majority of them have planets. There are at least 100 billion galaxies in the universe. that's 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (10 septillion) stars with planets. most of them will not be inhabited, but even if only one in a trillion is inhabited, that's 10 billion planets with life. I'm confident will be far higher than that.
The circumstances that allow life as we understand it are fairly narrow:
the only specific chemistry that this requires is water. Our life is based on carbon and water, but silicon or potentially any other chemistry is conceivable.
So far, there is only one planet that we know meets all these criteria, and it's the one we live on. About 3000 exoplanets have been detected so far and only one of them doesn't have obvious disqualifying factors. The Kepler spacecraft is looking at 145,000 stars and has only detected planets on a few thousand of them. The mechanism used wouldn't detect a system with one of the poles pointed at us--around half of the stars examined--and virtually all qualifying planets are below the minimum size that can be detected with Kepler.
Of course, it may not be necessary for the physics we're familiar with to be relevant at all:
They're Made Out of Meat
A Fire Upon the Deep
The Drake equation:
calculates the number of extraterrestrial civilizations that might be able to generate signals that we can detect. Most of the parameters are unknown.
R* is the rate of star creation (known)
fp is the fraction of stars that have planets (still unknown but appears to substantial)
ne is the number of planets per such star that could contain life (still unknown, but in our system, if we count all moons and planets, it's about 2%)
fl is the fraction that actually go on to develop life (totally unknown)
fi is the fraction that develop intelligent life (totally unknown)
fc is the fraction that release detectable signals into space. (totally unknown)
L is the average length that such civilizations are able to communicate (totally unknown)
he omitted one: fraction that are close enough that any signal might be detected. It's hard to imagine this coming from anywhere outside of our galaxy and probably only the local quarter.
The first four terms address the same question I'm asking. The only one that's still completely unknown is fl, the fraction of planets or moons that actually develop life. The earliest fossil record found so far of life on earth is about 3.5 Billion years ago. The first time life as we know it could possibly have formed--the first time that liquid water was available on earth--was about 4.4 Billion years ago. So we know life started at some time in the first 900m years that it was possible. There's not much left of the fossil record from that long ago, so it's probable that it was a lot longer than 3.5B year ago.
Life tooled along making stromatolites and other primative things, until about 1.2B years ago, some protozoa figured out how to reproduce sexually. This created lots of new things: species that would breed true, yet allowed a lot of very small variation, to allow evolution by natural selection to take place. It took another 650m years for the real excitement to happen, in what's called the Cambrian Explosion, when all of the multicellular phyla of plants and animals evolved.
So we took at least 3 Billion years to develop above the protazoa stage (and most of that to develop to the protazoa stage), and more than another half billion years to develop intelligence. if this is typical, chances are pretty good that whatever life we find will be very, very simple. We know that over 3/4ths of the time that life has been possible on earth, that it has existed. It is entirely possible that the first life occurred in the first few million years, or even earlier. As it stands, it seems like that 3/4ths is a plausible guess for fl.
So far, we have only sent missions capable of detecting life to one of the extraterrestrial bodies in our planet where life would be at all possible, Mars, and we know that it's unlikely there because atmospheric pressure is too low to sustain liquid water and temperature too high to allow a permanent frozen shell. There are a handful of moons that probably do have liquid water, around Jupiter and Saturn, although in all cases, it's under a very thick layer of ice. Until we find out whether there is life there, we really have no handle on that all important term: fl. But we have the beginnings of a handle on some of the others. Life on about 1 in 200 planets seems possible based on what we know. And since most stars that have any planets probably have multiple planets, the number of stars with life is probably similar.
The circumstances that allow life as we understand it are fairly narrow:
- the ambient temperature needs to stay fairly close to the melting point of water: a little above it and not too far below it. too hot and too much of the water will be vapor.
- the ambient temperature can't vary too much.
- enough gravity that most of the water will stay liquid.
- not so much gravity that complex molecules break down.
- enough solar energy to provide a source of energy
- not so much solar that complex molecules will break down
- enough radiation to generate some mutation.
- not so much that a species can't be stable long enough to reproduce widely.
- has another big planet in the same system that cleans out most of the asteroids
- has a relatively circular orbit (to keep temperature constant)
the only specific chemistry that this requires is water. Our life is based on carbon and water, but silicon or potentially any other chemistry is conceivable.
So far, there is only one planet that we know meets all these criteria, and it's the one we live on. About 3000 exoplanets have been detected so far and only one of them doesn't have obvious disqualifying factors. The Kepler spacecraft is looking at 145,000 stars and has only detected planets on a few thousand of them. The mechanism used wouldn't detect a system with one of the poles pointed at us--around half of the stars examined--and virtually all qualifying planets are below the minimum size that can be detected with Kepler.
Of course, it may not be necessary for the physics we're familiar with to be relevant at all:
They're Made Out of Meat
A Fire Upon the Deep
The Drake equation:
calculates the number of extraterrestrial civilizations that might be able to generate signals that we can detect. Most of the parameters are unknown. R* is the rate of star creation (known)
fp is the fraction of stars that have planets (still unknown but appears to substantial)
ne is the number of planets per such star that could contain life (still unknown, but in our system, if we count all moons and planets, it's about 2%)
fl is the fraction that actually go on to develop life (totally unknown)
fi is the fraction that develop intelligent life (totally unknown)
fc is the fraction that release detectable signals into space. (totally unknown)
L is the average length that such civilizations are able to communicate (totally unknown)
he omitted one: fraction that are close enough that any signal might be detected. It's hard to imagine this coming from anywhere outside of our galaxy and probably only the local quarter.
The first four terms address the same question I'm asking. The only one that's still completely unknown is fl, the fraction of planets or moons that actually develop life. The earliest fossil record found so far of life on earth is about 3.5 Billion years ago. The first time life as we know it could possibly have formed--the first time that liquid water was available on earth--was about 4.4 Billion years ago. So we know life started at some time in the first 900m years that it was possible. There's not much left of the fossil record from that long ago, so it's probable that it was a lot longer than 3.5B year ago.
Life tooled along making stromatolites and other primative things, until about 1.2B years ago, some protozoa figured out how to reproduce sexually. This created lots of new things: species that would breed true, yet allowed a lot of very small variation, to allow evolution by natural selection to take place. It took another 650m years for the real excitement to happen, in what's called the Cambrian Explosion, when all of the multicellular phyla of plants and animals evolved.
So we took at least 3 Billion years to develop above the protazoa stage (and most of that to develop to the protazoa stage), and more than another half billion years to develop intelligence. if this is typical, chances are pretty good that whatever life we find will be very, very simple. We know that over 3/4ths of the time that life has been possible on earth, that it has existed. It is entirely possible that the first life occurred in the first few million years, or even earlier. As it stands, it seems like that 3/4ths is a plausible guess for fl.
So far, we have only sent missions capable of detecting life to one of the extraterrestrial bodies in our planet where life would be at all possible, Mars, and we know that it's unlikely there because atmospheric pressure is too low to sustain liquid water and temperature too high to allow a permanent frozen shell. There are a handful of moons that probably do have liquid water, around Jupiter and Saturn, although in all cases, it's under a very thick layer of ice. Until we find out whether there is life there, we really have no handle on that all important term: fl. But we have the beginnings of a handle on some of the others. Life on about 1 in 200 planets seems possible based on what we know. And since most stars that have any planets probably have multiple planets, the number of stars with life is probably similar.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)