Register or log in:

F&SF Forum » Other Topics

Analog goes retro

(10 posts)
  • Started 3 months ago by Chris DeVito
  • Latest reply from digdug

  1. Chris DeVito
    Member

    Analog's 90th anniversary issue, Jan.-Feb. 2020, has a "new" logo -- or, actually, an old one, as it's Analog's logo from the early-mid 1960s (starting with the December 1961 issue). Anyone know if that's a permanent change, or just a one-off?

    Posted 3 months ago #
  2. JohnWThiel
    Member

    Very avant garde, very far out. I think she'll sail.

    Does anyone know who the cover artist is?

    Posted 3 months ago #
  3. Steve R.
    Member

    According to Stanley Schmidt's guest editorial it will be an "anniversary" special event. Stanley's editorial goes into detail on what will be happening.

    The cover artist is identified as Tomislav Tikulin.

    Posted 3 months ago #
  4. Chris DeVito
    Member

    The March/April issue of Analog has an interesting editorial by Alec Nevala-Lee (available online at Analog's website). It also has a novelet by C.C. Finlay!

    Posted 1 month ago #
  5. Steve R.
    Member

    See Brass Tacks (Analog March/April 2020). My letter was printed!!

    Also read "Veiling the Earth" by Gregory Benford. Again - an engineering "solution" is being portrayed as the appropriate method of resolving global warming concerns while not considering the unintended consequences of engineering solutions or looking into non-engineering solutions.

    The "Pournelle Volume" by Alan Andrews, Sr. is an interesting read. The concern I had with that article, is the quantity of valuable minerals (as a percentage of total mass) in a typical asteroid is never discussed. This would appear to be a crucial question for determining if asteroid mining would even be feasible. Seems that Andrews would have looked into that. I believe that the percentage of valuable minerals in an asteroid could be estimated from meteorites so that the suitability of mining an asteroid could be projected.

    Posted 1 month ago #
  6. Mark Pontin
    Member

    Steve R. wrote: '"an engineering "solution" is being portrayed as the appropriate method of resolving global warming concerns"'

    There are two kinds of climate change denialists.

    The first kind claims that climate change isn't real or isn't caused by human release of hydrocarbons. Everyone is familiar with this kind of denialist.

    The second kind of climate change denialist wants to imagine that physics isn't real. They claim that if human societies right now desisted from their wicked ways via renewable energy solutions etcetera -- which in fact can't practically be implemented in the decade these same denialists assure us is all that we've got left -- then all the half-century of heat that's already locked in the oceans will magically disappear.

    Believe the science. Don't be the second kind of climate change denialist.

    I won't bore and overload anybody here by posting a long litany of statistics on how the Siberian permafrost is melting, how much more methane is being released, how the Arctic and Antarctica is already warming, how much heat is already in the oceans -- the true reservoir of global warming covering most of the Earth's surface -- and how much carbon is already in the atmosphere.

    The simple point is the physics indicates that anyone who believes that _anything besides an engineering solution- will work at this stage is a climate change denialist of the second kind

    Whether whatever engineering solutions we actually implement will work effectively and without massive deleterious side-effects is another question. But at this stage _only_ engineering solutions will work.

    Posted 1 month ago #
  7. Steve R.
    Member

    Each person in the world requires: space, food, water, power (electricity) and (mineral) resources to provide them with what they need to live.

    Each person in the world, because they require space, garbage dumps and mineral extraction (mining) are disruptive activities that lead to environmental degradation. The production and processing of these resources means greater emission of "greenhouse" gases. Of course, recycling is a beneficial activity that can minimize these types of adverse impacts.

    Each person in the world, to maintain their standard of living requires resources. A high standard of living is associated with the ability to "waste" (consume) these resources. Do we really need two cars and to have each hamburger individually wrapped in paper? Do we want to live in a society were we are only allowed one car, one TV, no single family homes, and only xxx calories of food per day (rationing). Will the Hollywood crowd modify their lifestyle to give-up conspicuous consumption? How many of our business and political leaders will give-up their corporate jets? To lower "greenhouse" gas generation, society will need to modify lifestyle behavior in such a manner that "greenhouse" gas generation is minimized.

    People in the third world, currently have a low carbon footprint and a low standard of living. For them to have the same standard of living that we do in the US means that their carbon footprint will need to increase. I think everybody would like to see people in the third world have the same standard of living that we do here in the US. That will mean the generation of greater "greenhouse" gases.

    More people in the world, requires that more space be devoted to urban development and less space to farmland and open space (forests). That means less natural absorption of "greenhouse" gases. World population is projected to peak in 2100.

    At this stage, engineering solutions may be the quick fix. That is short sighted. Eventually, engineering solutions will not meet demand. A quick example, newly constructed roads at first have little traffic. After a while some become massive traffic jams. Not to also mention that engineering "solutions" occasionally have spectacular failures. Consequently, it is imperative that population management become part of the equation to solving global warming.

    Posted 1 month ago #
  8. Mark Pontin
    Member

    @ Steve R. -

    Not to be deliberately adversarial on a site where there's no call for it or ad hominem arguments.

    But you do notice that at no point in your recital of bromides do you actually address the physics of the fact that there's already too much heat in the planetary system of the Earth?

    NASA’s Langley Research Center has shown that a sharp rise in global average temperatures since 2013 has coincided with a decline in cloud cover over the oceans. The reason? The clearer skies have resulted from stricter pollution controls in China and North America.

    That's where we're already at. Right now greenhouse gas release is providing cloud cover that's reducing overall planetary warming by 2-3 degrees, but a tipping point is approaching where that warming will sharply reduce cloud cover over the oceans. The latest news is sobering --
    https://e360.yale.edu/features/why-clouds-are-the-key-to-new-troubling-projections-on-warming

    Today, for instance, there's already lessened hydrocarbon release from the drawdown in industrial activity in China because of the coronavirus --
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-02/china-oil-demand-is-said-to-have-plunged-20-on-virus-lockdown

    Ironically, that will translate into less cloud cover and faster warming. This year.

    So in this context lamentations about the size of the planetary human population, for instance, are irrelevant. Firstly, there's a drawdown in human population coming everywhere except Africa as development arrives; that's why why they reckon population will stabilize by 2100. Secondly, what are you going to do before 2100 -- murder a half or a third or nine-tenths of the existing human population according to some personally-derived formula of what the right-sized cull to achieve a 'sustainable' world is?

    Sure, as you say, "population management should become part of the equation to solving global warming" and people everywhere can't have the ridiculously material living standards that Americans do. But so what? That's all utterly irrelevant -- word salad -- when it comes to solving the real-world physics problems that are hitting us now and will increasingly hit us in the next 2-3 decades. Not in 2100.

    Posted 3 weeks ago #
  9. JohnWThiel
    Member

    Why get all up tight about it? Keep calm, work on solving the problem, no shouting and alarming of the public, that is ideal.

    Posted 3 weeks ago #
  10. digdug
    Member

    Comments on the Jan-Feb issue.

    Well, I like the look of the cover. I think it looks sharp and helps the magazine stand out at the news stand.

    Each issue this year will contain one reprint. Each from a different decade. This issue's reprint is from the 90's and its a really good story. Oltion and Castro intersperse wild headlines with story text that helps us get to know 'The Astronaut From Wyoming'.

    Along with that I count 3 more excellent stories.

    Harry Turtledove has fun with a riff on Moby Dick where the main character has a tail. Very well done.

    Sean McMullen has a near perfect story that postulates an invention from the past has been hidden for years. Now that it has been discovered ripples will be felt all through the literary world.

    Jay Werkheiser shows us an episode of first contact from both sides and neither the humans nor the aliens are quite sure what happened. Engrossing.

    There are many many more good stories included.

    Overall an excellent issue.

    Posted 2 weeks ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.