Wry Heat

Judging by stories in the media, global warming causes everything bad and strange. For instance, global warming will cause one-third of the U.S. to be colonized by giant Burmese pythons (USA Today 2-21-08); climate change could lead to “killer cornflakes” (Sydney Morning Herald 5-13-08); global warming will shrink Scottish sheep (Arizona Daily Star, 7-03-9), and cause a 30% drop in worker productivity (NYT 7-11-09). You can see a long list, with story links, of similar media stories here: http://tinyurl.com/f4xnr

On the other hand, it seems that almost everything causes global warming. Rent-seeking researchers claim “Mammoth dung, prehistoric goo may speed warming,” Reuters (9-16-07). The Dallas News (12-03-07), reports that divorces cause global warming because then two households are needed. Does that mean the EPA will be regulating divorces?

More recently, we learned from major media that fat people cause global warming because they consume more food and it takes more fuel to transport them.

In spite of all these stories, there are still some potential causes of global warming that have, so far, escaped media attention.

I’ve noticed that football and basketball games consist of a bunch of big guys running around. That generates heat. Also, these guys are breathing hard, expelling lots of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. We need legislation to modify this behavior: no running allowed. In the spirit of global cooperation, we should also include soccer. Although soccer players tend to be smaller than football or basketball players, the riotous fans make up the difference in emissions. We can probably give baseball a pass for now, since emissions per unit time are within accepted EPA air quality guidelines.

Beer and other carbonated beverages release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere when the bottles or cans are opened, and my cause methane emissions later on. In order to protect the industry, we should not ban production; we should just ban opening the bottles and cans. We could also promote greater use of wine and whiskey as more eco-friendly substitutes.

One of the greatest sources of hot air in the nation is politicians. Many, especially those in Washington, D.C., are guilty of reasonless rhetoric and unrestrained blathering. We need to ration rhetoric and ban blathering. Take a lesson from Twitter and impose a maximum verbiage limit per communication and a monthly maximum as well. Perhaps we should limit Representatives to 2,000 words per month, and Senators to 3,000 words per month. Of course the details will have to be worked out to give equal and fair representation to small words versus big words.

The rest of the animal kingdom is not blameless either. Take termites, please. According to the journal Science (11-05-82), termites alone emit ten times more carbon dioxide than all the factories and automobiles in the world. I see here an opportunity for some of those green jobs: develop and install carbon capture devices on termites.

And then there are hummingbirds which, gram for gram, are the most profligate energy consumers after humans. We better keep an eye on them.

These are just a few things to consider if you are really serious about global warming. I have a wary eye on some others, such as the boisterous crowds at synchronized swimming events.

Notwithstanding all of the above, the real cause of global warming has finally been revealed. It was recently found that the rise in surface temperatures since 1880 correlates almost exactly with the increase of first class U.S. postal rates for the same time period, see graph: http://tinyurl.com/ctk24k

(Seriously, keep this in mind when you read of a study that “links” something to something else.)

Countering global warming is the well-known “Gore Effect.” It seems that whenever Al Gore goes someplace to speak about global warming, that area experiences unusually cold weather. See http://tinyurl.com/n375bg

There you have it folks. We don’t need expensive cap & trade schemes or carbon taxes, just a few modifications of behavior. And somebody better speak to the Post Office.

By 1787, just four years after the conclusion of the War for Independence, the American states and their fledgling union were in trouble. The British still menaced from their lair in Canada; Spain was encroaching on the southwest and threatened to prohibit use of the Mississippi River for trade. American states were blocked from lucrative markets in the British-controlled West Indies. Individual states set up their own tariffs and treaties. The union under the Articles of Confederation was failing because the federal government had no power to enforce its laws. But the chief problem was money. The only hard currency was foreign, and it was scarce.

Both the national government and individual states had outstanding IOUs for expenses accrued during the war. Individual states issued paper money which soon became devalued. Many people were thrown into debtors prison because they didn’t have the hard currency to pay taxes and other expenses. Things came to a head when Massachusetts imposed a harsh tax to pay its debts. People were hard pressed to pay these taxes. Bands of farmers under the leadership of Daniel Shays closed courts, prohibited sheriffs from collecting taxes, and, when the Massachusetts militia came after them, attacked the arsenal at Springfield. Shays’ insurgents lost that battle, but latter gained much through more lawful methods. The incident, however, had a profound effect on people and the nation. As a result, the Continental Congress called for a constitutional convention to convene in Philadelphia on May 14^th.

Fifty-five delegates from 12 of the 13 states met during that sultry summer of 1787. (Rhode Island refused to participate.) Most delegates were veterans of the revolution, members of state legislatures or the Continental Congress. Most were wealthy businessmen, lawyers, judges or politicians, who had considerable experience in writing laws and constitutions within their own states. Most were well educated in the classics at colleges or through self-study, but there were some scoundrels as well.

Small states were fearful they would not have adequate representation in a new government. Large states were resentful that under the Articles of Confederation, each state had just one vote, a situation which was unfair to the population of big states. Some wanted a very strong central government; while others fought passionately for states’ rights. Western interests were at odds with the eastern establishment; rural interests competed with the large population centers; and the North and South were divided over both business and slavery. Given these contrary views, it is remarkable that anything was accomplished in Philadelphia, and several times the convention almost failed. But the delegates had an overriding common concern, the absolute necessity “to form a more perfect union,” and James Madison of Virginia had a plan.

Madison was a “Nationalist”, a supporter of a strong central government, but not as strong as envisioned by Alexander Hamilton. Madison wound up mediating between Hamilton and the strong states rights position such as that held by Thomas Jefferson. Although many of Madison’s specific proposals for the new constitution were not adopted, he did provide the philosophical basis which eventually carried the convention. Madison believed that government should be instituted to protect property, property in the broad sense. He was concerned about government power. He wrote “You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself.” The government must be powerful enough to govern effectively, but not so powerful as to interfere with the legitimate liberties of the people. Madison envisioned a “national principle” wherein the government would act upon people directly rather than through the states. He promoted a “separation of powers” that would provide checks and balances within the government so that no one branch could, theoretically, gain too much power.

We all know how this story turns out, but how it got to the conclusion it did is a fascinating story. We owe James Madison for this knowledge because he is the only one who kept complete notes. Throughout that long summer, the delegates debated each point, came to conclusions, revisited and revised those conclusions, made and broke alliances and deals.

One of these deals makes an interesting sidelight. The original charters of many states had their territories running all the way to the Mississippi River. Many states ceded their western territories to the national government. But of vital interest was how these lands would be carved up into new states and how these states would be admitted to the union, because new states could upset the balance of power. As it happened, the Continental Congress was meeting in New York at the same time as the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. In New York, Congress was considering the Northwest Ordinance which would determine how states carved from the Northwest Territory would be admitted to the union. In Philadelphia, delegates were debating how black slaves would be counted for the purposes of taxation of their owners, and how they would be counted for purposes of a state’s representation in the new Congress. Three southern delegates disappeared from Philadelphia for several days. When they returned, it was reported that southern states agreed that new states carved out of the Northwest Territory would be admitted as “free” states. In Philadelphia, the delegates made a concession favorable to southern states on the questions mentioned.

Finally it was done. On September 17^th, the delegates read through the new Constitution one last time and 40 of the 55 delegates affixed their signatures. When ratified by nine states, it would become law of the land. Now all they had to do was sell it to the states.

And they forgot a bill of rights! Most delegates thought a bill of rights was unnecessary because state constitutions contained such safeguards. But it was this issue that almost sank the Constitution; citizens of the states considered a bill of rights of paramount importance.

To help sell the new constitution, two New York lawyers, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay (later the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court), and a Virginia scholar and politician, James Madison, wrote a series of essays which became known as the Federalist Papers. These essays endeavored to justify the decision at Philadelphia and provide a primer to those who would debate ratification in the several states.

Delaware became the first state to ratify the new Constitution on Dec. 7, 1787; New Hampshire became the ninth on June 21, 1788, followed soon by New York and Virginia. North Carolina and Rhode Island refused until a bill of rights was added during the first administration of George Washington.

Our Bill of Rights was modeled after the Virginia Declaration of Rights crafted by George Mason. James Madison led the new Congress in proposing 12 amendments, ten of which became our Bill of Rights, the other two were not adopted. At last, we had a contract with America.

Just after the convention in Philadelphia, Ben Franklin was asked by an observer whether we now had a republic or a monarchy. Franklin replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

Many people have old silver tea sets or silver commemorative bowls that tarnish over time. The usual method of restoring the shine is to buy silver polish and rub it on the object. That method is messy and sometimes hard work. There is a much easier way to clean silver using things you already have around the house.

The Procedure:

Place aluminum foil (shiny side up) in the bottom of a non-metallic container big enough to hold the piece to be cleaned. Add a few teaspoons of salt and baking soda, then fill with hot water – the hotter, the better. Make sure the salt and baking soda are dissolved.

Place the object to be cleaned in the container so that it touches the aluminum foil. Most tarnish will disappear in a few seconds. Leave the piece in the solution for one or two minutes for stubborn tarnish. No rubbing required.

Why it works (I think):

Tarnish on silver is principally silver sulfide or silver sulfate. The sulfur comes from the atmosphere and slowly combines with the silver. This method of removing tarnish relies on the fact that silver and aluminum have different standard electron potentials. When the two metals are in an electrolytic solution (salt water) and are connected electrically (touching), electrons can travel between the two. The silver will be reduced (gain electrons) to form pure silver (which plates out on the silver piece) and the aluminum will be oxidized (lose electrons). This causes the sulfur in the tarnish to transfer to the aluminum. In this situation salty water acts as the electrolyte that allows the electrons to flow and the baking soda forms a weak acid which also aids electron flow. The reaction is: silver sulfide + aluminum > silver + aluminum sulfide or 3Ag₂S + 2Al > 6Ag + Al₂S₃. (If the piece is very heavily tarnished the baking soda may take up some sulfur to form H₂S, rotten egg gas.)

If any chemists read this post and can offer a better explanation of why it works, please reply.

Also I would be interested in a similar method, if any, to clean copper.