POTF 17 - Nominations

[Aexodus]

POTF is about recognising the very best posts, the best arguments and discourse in the D&D, and appropriately rewarding it. You shall progressively earn these medals once you achieve enough wins, but first you must be nominated in threads such as this one. And it works like this.

Post of the Fortnight - Rules

-Each user can nominate up to 2 posts per round, and the only valid form of nomination is by quoting with a link as shown below the chosen post in the PotF thread designated for it.

Looking forward to getting this kicked off for real!

-Each 15 days there will be a new Nomination thread put up, and all the posts written during this period are considered eligible, if properly nominated. Exception are posts who are somewhat breaking the ToS; upon being acted by Moderation, they are always considered uneligible.

- Remember: It is possible to nominate up to 2 posts each round of the competition; it is also possible to change a nomination anytime before the actual round of nominations ends.

- There will be two competitions held every month, with a period for nominations followed by a period of voting. The submitted posts can be discussed in a dedicated space.

- Only posts that have not participated in a previous poll and that have been published in the current period of given time in any section of the D&D area may be nominated.

- The authors of the nominated post will be informed so they can withdraw the candidacy if that is their wish.

- The maximum number of participating posts in the final vote will be ten. If more than ten nominations are submitted, seconded nominations will take priority. After seconded nominations are considered, earliest nominations will take priority. If the number of posts submitted to the contest is less than ten, the organizing committee may nominate posts if it considers it appropriate.

-The members of the committee will never nominate a post belonging to one of them, but the rest of the users can nominate their posts (organizers posts), and vice versa.

-In the event of a tie, both posts will be awarded and both posters will receive rep and 1 competition point.

- Public or private messages asking for a vote for a candidate post are forbidden. Violators (and their posts) may not participate in the running contest.

- People are expected to consider the quality and structure of the post itself, more than the content of the same. While it's certainly impossible to completely split the two aspects when making our own opinion on a post, it remains intended, as also explained in the Competition Commentary Thread, that commenting and discussing on the content rather than on the form/structure of the post is considered off-topic for the purpose of this competition. You are free to nominate and vote for whatever reason you want, but what happens in public has to strictly follow up with the competition rules.

A nominated post should:

1. Be focused and relevant to the topic(s) being discussed.
2. Demonstrate a well-developed, insightful and nuanced understanding of the topic(s) it is discussing.
3. Be logically coherent, well organized and communicate its points effectively.
4. Support its contentions with verifiable evidence, either in the form of links or references.
5. Not be deliberately vexatious to other users.

Good luck everyone!

[Flinn]

Never noticed this one. Given the recent anniversary I thought a bump might be useful.

First how is there no 9/11. Ramzi Yousef did not seem to roil the world all that even given the scale of some of plots and potential for the one's he did pull off. So if AQ simply whiffed somehow. The hijackers made to many mistakes or people were more alert and only one plane was even taken over and say that was downed early by passenger crew activity... Would the scale of the potential of what AQ planned impact the US any more then the scale of Yousef planned. Let's call that case 1. Case 2. the Sytems works even better, AQ is less lucky and whole largely fizzles before even leaving the ground and US intel never really see's a bigger picture.

In either case I can't really see Chaney really getting green light for Iraq. But case 2 would make in profoundly difficult.

TWCs Dick Cheney cited the Duffer report and basically all its a big list of so what. Saddam wanted to reconstitute military post sanctions so to deter his enemies. Really what rational person in his neighborhood would not???? Yep Saddam was gifting off sanctions relief big deal that was obvious at the time. What threat did raise? I think the rapidly of of his military collapse upon invasion pretty proves there no secret military resection happening.

None of the Admin's somewhat farcical claims would hold much water in isolation w/o 9/11

So Bush just cruises. Retroactively trying to show how the budget would be w/o Bush Tax cuts, the Wars and Military spending increases is imprecise. But it seems clear the Bush tax cut will have by itself killed the year over years surplus. But before the 2004 election the growth would seen a real and and a projected downward trend (ceteris paribus). That would have made interesting politics. With deficits on a downward trend the Republicans would not have much of a leg to argue for some massive attack on Social security or Medicare/Medicare etc. One assumes the arguments would be rather banal Republicans for a bit more tax cutting, Dems for tinkering with social programs, a big infrastructure program might appeal to both sides...

The 2004 election would be interesting in a lot many different ways. The Dems could try to run on where is our surplus. Without 9/11 a sense that Bush was not a legitimate president might be still in the air and might rally democratic (oarty) voters. I think a fair amount of that was lost with 9/11. Also with no 9/11 and wars maybe the Dems opt for a different candidate than wooden Kerry who looked good at the time primary wise based on a war record for war time.

But in any case 2004 would likely be a caretaker argument. Assume Bush wins I suppose or a democratic alternative I think without an endless war events or the economic crash circa 2008 I don't see much change in the US house and senate that is they stay at or near the tipping point, with too many centrist in both parties to see really dramatic legislation.

2008 becomes the interesting point if no particular new tax cuts or spending made the grade for a second Bush term (or generic Dem president) then by 2007 the US would be close likely to almost no deficit. Assume the Euro crisis, and Japan still racking up debt, the dollar and US debt would look all that much better a deal. One wonders if the derivative alchemy might have lasted another while but if not I suspect a very different US reaction in circa 2008. With projections likely showing a return to surplus, no endless war or occupation I imagine both parties would have jumped on board fiscal action with both feet and enough candy for all to vote for it, less rancor and more of a sense of market stability.

Altogether from a purely self interested US prospective its hard not see the US better off no matter if Osama stayed in his compounds and tried again (and again) because his chances of getting so luck and getting a strait flush again were and always were vanishingly small. And sans that I think the US would stayed on post war cruise control but for maybe the rise of China with things looking better for the US...

[Aexodus]

WIP

[Flinn]

adding another one

While you may find it almost universally said that Zheng He Treasure Ship's were extremely large, some 450 ft by 180 ft or so, there are a number of problems with these very large dimensions.

1. First off, contemporary and near contemporary documents to Zheng He voyages do not give these excessively large dimension for the Treasure Ships, and the first evidence for these large dimensions come from a fantasy work of fiction, Luo Maodeng’s 羅懋登 novel about ZhengHe’s exploits, Sanbao taijian Xiyang ji 三寶太監西洋記, published in 1597, more than 150 years after Zheng He's voyages. The non fiction works that give these dimensions are even further removed from the time of Zheng He's voyages, a fact by itself which makes these dimensions suspect.

As Dr. Sally Church says in her "Zheng He: An Investigation into the Plausibility of 450-FT Treasure Ships", page 6:

If the novel was the source, whether directly or indirectly, we must examinewhat it says about Zheng He’s ships. It contains much that belongs to the realmof the fantastic, and many events are overblown and exaggerated. The charactersoften rely on magic or supernatural help, in both design and construction of theships. In chapter 15, when the emperor consults the elder Jin Bifeng 金碧峰 foradvice on carrying out the expeditions, the elder shows him various divine manuals that tell him the route they should follow, the countries they should visit, thepersonnel that will be needed to man the ships, and the types of ship that will berequired. http://contacthistory.com/wp-content...nta_serica.pdf

Such a work does not inspire confidence as to the reliability of what it reports.

2. Second, nautical engineer experts have challenged the engineering feasibility of these dimensions.

At a conference entitled “Venture Toward the Seas” held in Twinsies in a bit to in September2001,1 Xin Yuan’ou, shipbuilding engineer and professor of the history of science at Shanghai Jiaotong University, presented a paper entitled “Guanyu Zheng Hebaochuan chidu de jishu fenxi” 關於鄭和寶船尺度的技術分析 (A Technical Analysis of the Size of Zheng He’s Ships).2 In this paper he argued that ZhengHe’s ships could not have been as large as recorded in the official Ming history (Ming shi 明史). According to that work, the ships constructed for Zheng He’s maritime expeditions were 44 zhang 丈 long and 18 zhang wide, equivalent to 447 ft by 183 ft (138.4 m by 56 m).3 A ship this size would have been roughly 1.4 times the size of an American football field,4 and approximately the same size as the USS Minnesota (456 ft long by 78 ft 10 in wide), a steel battleship launched in 1905 and later used in the First World War.5 In arguing against this size, Xin was motivated in part by an immediate, practical concern... "Zheng He: An Investigation into the Plausibility of 450-Ft Treasure Ships" pg 2

3. The size of the ship yard basis where it is thought the Treasure Ships were built do not support these large dimensions given. While the docks were long enough, they were not wide enough.

This size contrasts sharply with the size of the gigantic treasure ships described in some of the Chinese sources, which were supposedly 44 by 18 zhang(丈). These dimensions work out to approximately 137 m (450 ft) long and 56 m (183 ft) wide. If theyhad been this size, Basin 6 would certainly have been long enough. In fact, three ships of this size could have fit along the 421 m length. However, the basin would not have been wide enough to accommodate even one of these ships. The width of the basin was only 41 m (134.48 ft), while the beam of the ships was supposedly 56 m (183.68 ft).
.
.
.
Allowing for an overhang of the bow and stern, as well as some space between the ships, the basin might then have been divided into 3 or 4 separate sections each 50–68 m (165–225 ft) long. This way of looking at the site would tally with the view that the largest ships were probably less than 75 m (250 ft) long.They may of course have been even smaller http://www.shipwreckasia.org/wp-cont...s/Chapter3.pdf

4. While we do not have contemporary documents giving the length and width of Zheng He's Treasure Ships, we do have other dimensions of the Treasure Ships from contemporary sources indicating much smaller ships.

There are only 2 brief and incomplete descriptions of treasure ships written before 1490; the Jin Hai stele inscription erected prior to 1420 commenting on the employment of 2000-liao and 1500-liao vessels, and Kong Jen’s ‘Records of Foreign Countries in the Western Ocean’ date to 1435.......the meaning of the word liao is the subject of an ongoing debate between Barker (2005; 1989), Sleeswyk (1996), Chalmers (2005) and most recently Church (2005b). Su (2005: 212) has estimated that a 2000-liao vessel would have the carrying capacity of approximately 140 tons and a displacement of about 300 tons. Although these dimensions represent a large vessel, it certainly would not have been extraordinary.
https://www.academia.edu/4632863/Chi...e_Ming_Dynasty

There was also a Ming Dynasty tomb of Hong Bao, who was an official in Zheng He's fleet, that references ship sizes of 5,000 liao. Based on Su's estimate for the 2,000 liao ship, this would work out to 750 tons displacement. While this is large, it is not exceptionally large for the time.

Dr. Sally Church suggest the liao might be 500 lbs, which would give a size of 1,250 tons. While that would indeed among the very largest ships of that time, it was would not have been [/FONT]unprecedented in size. The Grace Dieu built by Henry V around the same time was about 1400 tons, and unlike the Treasure Ships, we actually have found its remains. https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/...s/0/steps/8007. The Roman grain ship the Isis is given to be around 1200 tons, and later Spanish Manila Galleons could be 2000 lbs. The HMS Victory was around 2,142 tons burthen or 3500 tons displacement.

So, given all the evidence, I think we can discount the alleged size of Zheng He ships. The actual Treasure Ship size would have been much smaller than the 30,000 tons given in the following link https://www.thoughtco.com/zheng-hes-...e-ships-195235.

Also, the oft made comparison between Zheng He ships and that of Columbus ships are off based. Columbus largest ship, the Santa Maria, was not a particular large European ship for the time, Columbus wanted small ships since he was merely exploring the feasibility of a proposed route for future exploration, and a small ship can explore areas where large ships cannot go. The Venetian Senate felt compelled to limit the size of their galleys in 1440 to 200 tons.

the Senate complained that the galleys werebeing built with capacities as high as 500 or 600 milliaria (260 to 300 tons), resulting ina large, unwieldy vessel.230 A 1440 law capped the merchant galleys at 400 to 440milliaria (200 to 220 tons) below deck
http://oaktrust.library.tamu.edu/bit...pdf?sequence=2

Note, the advantage of the Venetian galley over cogs and Mediterranean round ships were in their greater manueverability, so making them too large defeated their very advantage. European cogs and round ships did not have such a limitation, and as the Grace Dieu showed, could be made much larger.

These ships carried primarilyluxury goods and traveled long distances. Great galleys could carry between 140-200tons below deck, plus have room for over 200 men, of whom at least 20 were archersemployed to protect the vessel.79 There were around 170 oarsmen who were alsoexpected to defend the vessel if attacked. In comparison to the Mediterranean roundships and the cogs from northern Europe, merchant galleys were more maneuverable andsafer................Between the more crewmembers to pay, the license of a regulated voyage, and time spent waiting in ports aftertrade was completed, and longer voyages overall, merchant galleys were more expensiveto operate than were round ships. http://oaktrust.library.tamu.edu/bit...pdf?sequence=2

5. A 11 m rudder post is often cited as evidence for the very large Zheng He ships. However, Chinese ships typically had very large rudders for the ship size compared to European ships. In a contemporary description of the 19th century Chinese Keying, of about 800 tons, it describes the rudder as having 24 feet (7 m) in the water when fully lowered, and the rudder would have to be extended further than this just to reach the deck that it was steered on. 11 m certainly would not represent a ship vastly greater than the Keying as Zheng He's Treasure Ships would have to be. If fact, adding in the extra length required to reach the deck the rudder was steered at, the Keying rudder might have been 11 m overall. The 800 tons of the Keying would agree with some estimates for the size of the 5,000 liao ship listed on Hon Bao's tomb.

Close by these is the most astonishing part of the vessel, theenormous RUDDER, not hung with pintles and gudgeons,the vessel having no stern post, but suspended to two windlasses by three large ropes made of cane and hemp: oneround a Windlass on the next deck, and two round a windlass on the upper deck of all, so that it can be raised orlowered according to the depth of the water in which thevessel sails. When the rudder is lowered to its full extentfor going to sea, it draws about twenty-four feet, beingtwelve feet more than the draught of the vessel ..http://library.umac.mo/ebooks/b35929352.pdf

So, in summary, while Zheng He's ships were large for the time, they do not seem to be exceptionally so.

[Abdülmecid I]

When I first starting working with Tel Aviv University, I was told that they were particularity interested in working with more people who had a background in anthropology. Some comments in the quoted article suggest to me Universität München may want to do the same. Particularly this:

Surprisingly, however, these only included the male lineages. The female descendants apparently left the farms where they reached adulthood. The mothers of the sons, on the other hand, were all women who had moved in from afar.

There is nothing surprising about it. This is the social structure of more than 70% of cultures in the modern ethnographic record. It was even more prevalent in prehistory, and appears to have been the social structure of all pre-human hominins and our closest relatives, such as Neanderthals. It is likewise the social structure of chimpanzees. Bonobos deviate from this, but then they do tend to be be deviants in general.

Social inequality exists in all human societies, including hunter-gatherers. It is not an invention of Bronze Age or even the Neolithic. However, the degree of disparity and the degree to which it may be observable in the archaeological record correlates with certain social and technological developments. In a hunter-gatherer society, there is simply a limit to how much wealth and prestige one can acquire. People lived in small semi-nomadic groups (roaming within a territory), so one couldn't own more than could be carried, and there simply wasn't much to be owned that others couldn't just make for themselves. With herding and agriculture it became possible to acquire significantly more relative wealth, but this wasn't nearly so pronounced until the advent of occupational specialization enabled by food surpluses, because then you had a class of artisans engaged the production of material goods.

Though to be fair, my critique may only be applicable to whoever wrote the press release. I assume Philipp Stockhammer knows what's up, and while not at all surprising to me, the research is quite interesting.

@Efail

On topic question: what is your view on the IPCC reports and findings?

By the way, it is an interesting topic. I wonder what experience people here had with the IPCC reports. A lot of people have an opinion on those reports without any clues about how the IPCC works and without any reading of those reports.

Comprehensive assessment reports are always divided in 4 parts with three working groups. The first group works on the scientific synthesis. The second on the consequences of climate change. The third on the possible solutions and the different scenarios. Contrary to the common believes, the working groups are not centralized authorities controlling the synthesis to serve a political agenda. The experts authors doing the synthesis are actually still working in their respective institutions and are not paid by the IPCC for this. There is an agreement with the universities and other scientific institutions, they are accepting that some of their experts are taking time to review and write the synthesis on their work time.

A list of the authors and review editors can be found here for the AR5 report: https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/ar5/ar5_...rs_updated.pdf
Note: It does not include the contributing authors and the expert reviewers.

In the end, the Assessment Reports always look like this:

AR4 Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis
AR4 Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability
AR4 Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change
AR4 Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report


AR5 Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis
AR5 Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability
AR5 Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change
AR5 Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report


Each reports are very long and not suited to be read entirely in an one-shot process. However, they are splitted in different chapters, far more accessible. For example, the AR4 report The Physical Science Basis is splitted between these chapters:

1. Historical Overview of Climate Change Science
2. Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and Radiative Forcing
3. Observations: Atmospheric Surface and Climate Change
4. Observations: Changes in Snow, Ice and Frozen Ground
5. Observations: Ocean Climate Change and Sea Level
6. Palaeoclimate
7. Coupling Between Changes in the Climate System and Biogeochemistry
8. Climate Models and their Evaluation
9. Understanding and Attributing Climate Change
10. Global Climate Projections
11. Regional Climate Projections

To those assessment reports, there are special reports on very specific topics:
2019. The Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate
2019. Climate Change and Land
2018. Global Warming of 1.5°C
2012. Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation
2011. Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation
2005. Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate System
2005. Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage