conversations.from: human
conversations.value: a title for a book about Berkeley, Physics, California with the genre: Education & Teaching, Schools & Teaching
conversations.from: assistant
conversations.value: A title for this book could be 'Physics for Future Presidents'
conversations.from: human
conversations.value: Give me the first four paragraphs for this book.
conversations.from: assistant
conversations.value: Physics for Future Presidents
  Why didn't Germany develop a nuclear weapon during World War II? Some experts believe that the Germans failed to find some of the solutions described in the primer, incorrectly thought the critical mass was huge, and for that reason prematurely gave up their attempt to make such a bomb.35
  A series of other countries have now developed and tested nuclear weapons, including the United Kingdom (which was privy to our nuclear secrets during World War II), Russia, France, China, India, Pakistan, and recently North Korea. A secret nuclear facility in Syria became publicly known when Israel attacked it in September 2007. In 1973, Israel was accused of having conducted a secret nuclear test explosion, and I served on a White House committee to study the intelligence data. Our group concluded that the evidence for the purported test was not valid. Even so, most experts believe that Israel has constructed such a bomb; they note that all three Manhattan Project bombs exploded the first time they were used, so tests aren't absolutely necessary if care is taken in the design. Iran has been developing centrifuge enrichment facilities that could be used to purify uranium-235 for a weapon.
  The easiest bomb to build would indeed be a uranium-235 gun-style design. If the uranium could be purified, no complex implosion method would be necessary. Indeed, Saddam Hussein was developing a uranium bomb prior to his invasion of Kuwait. After that war, the United Nations discovered that he had built a series of calutrons to enrich uranium. The best estimate is that he had achieved about a 35% enrichment. The remaining steps to bomb-grade U-235 are easy, and he soon would have had a bomb. However, the United Nations destroyed the Iraqi calutrons, as shown in Figure 11.2.
  Many people are confused when they see the calutron photo because they thought that Iraq was not developing nuclear weapons. Such people are confusing two time frames. Back in 1990, Iraq certainly was attempting to develop nuclear weapons. This fact led many analysts to conclude, incorrectly, that it was doing so again in 2002, just before the United States invaded for the second time.
conversations.from: human
conversations.value: Give me three more paragraphs.
conversations.from: assistant
conversations.value: Of course, the ice age was not caused by the advancing glaciers; rather, the advance of the glaciers was a symptom of the cooling. Cause and effect are frequently confused, and future presidents need to keep them straight.
  Some people think that global warming is not caused by human activity, but that the Earth is simply still recovering from whatever natural phenomenon caused the Little Ice Age. The IPCC can't rule out that possibility but gives it only a 10% chance of being true.5 If the rise is natural, then we are lucky; if past records are an indication of the limits to the natural variability, then the rise in temperature is unlikely to continue much further. In its latest study, however, the IPCC found that it is 90% likely that humans are responsible for at least some of the observed global warming of the last 50 years. Even though it will be expensive to act, a 90% chance is something that a president can't ignore.
  Take another look at the thermometer data in Figure 19.1, but this time concentrate on the most recent 50 years, the rightmost part of the plot—the part that shows (according to the IPCC) very likely human-caused warming. Notice that the warmest year on record was 1998.6 It may seem odd that, with all the global warming taking place, the warmest year was actually in the last century, not this one. But that is not a proper concern. The temperature change is not smooth but bumpy, with peaks and dips that depart from the average. We don't know what causes such fluctuations. The source may be natural variability in cloud cover. If you flip a coin 100 times, you don't always get 50 heads and 50 tails. Likewise, if the climate is changing, some years will still be warmer and some cooler than the trend. Figure 19.1 shows that the natural variations fluctuate typically 0.2°F to 0.4°F away from the curve that represents the average.
conversations.from: human
conversations.value: Delete the last sentence.
conversations.from: assistant
conversations.value: Of course, the ice age was not caused by the advancing glaciers; rather, the advance of the glaciers was a symptom of the cooling. Cause and effect are frequently confused, and future presidents need to keep them straight.
  Some people think that global warming is not caused by human activity, but that the Earth is simply still recovering from whatever natural phenomenon caused the Little Ice Age. The IPCC can't rule out that possibility but gives it only a 10% chance of being true.5 If the rise is natural, then we are lucky; if past records are an indication of the limits to the natural variability, then the rise in temperature is unlikely to continue much further. In its latest study, however, the IPCC found that it is 90% likely that humans are responsible for at least some of the observed global warming of the last 50 years. Even though it will be expensive to act, a 90% chance is something that a president can't ignore.
  Take another look at the thermometer data in Figure 19.1, but this time concentrate on the most recent 50 years, the rightmost part of the plot—the part that shows (according to the IPCC) very likely human-caused warming. Notice that the warmest year on record was 1998.6 It may seem odd that, with all the global warming taking place, the warmest year was actually in the last century, not this one. But that is not a proper concern. The temperature change is not smooth but bumpy, with peaks and dips that depart from the average. We don't know what causes such fluctuations. The source may be natural variability in cloud cover. If you flip a coin 100 times, you don't always get 50 heads and 50 tails. Likewise, if the climate is changing, some years will still be warmer and some cooler than the trend. Figure 19.1 shows that the natural variations fluctuate typically 0.2°F to 0.
conversations.from: human
conversations.value: Give me the last four paragraphs.
conversations.from: assistant
conversations.value: Ultimately, the real issue is the developing world. Freezing carbon dioxide emissions in the United States—even cutting back below 1990 levels—delays the effects of carbon dioxide by only a few years. The booming economies of China and India will quickly fill in for the United States. If you address global warming only with feel-good measures (such as encouraging the use of expensive solar power in the United States), then you are avoiding the real issue and not fulfilling your responsibility as president.
  What can you do? If I were president (fortunately there is no chance of that happening), I would fund strong programs in energy efficiency and conservation. I would raise the miles-per-gallon of autos substantially by increasing the government CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) requirements. I would support efforts at clean coal, particularly efforts at sequestering carbon dioxide. I would encourage the development of nuclear power, particularly fission plants (because I think fusion is too far in the future to really help). I would work to convince the public that nuclear waste storage is a solved problem, and make sure that Yucca Mountain is readily approved. I would see that China and India are given substantial carbon credits for building IGCC coal power stations and nuclear plants. I would encourage technical developments in solar and wind technologies. I would cancel subsidies on corn ethanol and put all the biofuel emphasis on switchgrass, miscanthus, and other more efficient crops. I would encourage developments in efficient lighting, particularly fluorescent lights and light-emitting diodes. Insulation is better than heating; cool roofs (not necessarily white) save more energy than air conditioners and are often a better alternative to rooftop solar cells. I would keep in mind that my emphasis must be on technologies that the developing world can afford.
  The really good news is that we are currently wasting vast amounts of energy. That is even truer in the developing world. Conservation is the greatest investment. After all, the cheapest way to remove carbon from the atmosphere is never to put it there. Sequester it in its current form; keep coal, oil, and gas underground.
  You have the toughest possible job ahead of you. The buck will stop with you. You've taken the first step in learning some physics. Keep it up. Learn more. Best of luck.
conversations.from: human
conversations.value: Swap the first and the last sentence.
conversations.from: assistant
conversations.value: Best of luck. Freezing carbon dioxide emissions in the United States—even cutting back below 1990 levels—delays the effects of carbon dioxide by only a few years. The booming economies of China and India will quickly fill in for the United States. If you address global warming only with feel-good measures (such as encouraging the use of expensive solar power in the United States), then you are avoiding the real issue and not fulfilling your responsibility as president.
  What can you do? If I were president (fortunately there is no chance of that happening), I would fund strong programs in energy efficiency and conservation. I would raise the miles-per-gallon of autos substantially by increasing the government CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) requirements. I would support efforts at clean coal, particularly efforts at sequestering carbon dioxide. I would encourage the development of nuclear power, particularly fission plants (because I think fusion is too far in the future to really help). I would work to convince the public that nuclear waste storage is a solved problem, and make sure that Yucca Mountain is readily approved. I would see that China and India are given substantial carbon credits for building IGCC coal power stations and nuclear plants. I would encourage technical developments in solar and wind technologies. I would cancel subsidies on corn ethanol and put all the biofuel emphasis on switchgrass, miscanthus, and other more efficient crops. I would encourage developments in efficient lighting, particularly fluorescent lights and light-emitting diodes. Insulation is better than heating; cool roofs (not necessarily white) save more energy than air conditioners and are often a better alternative to rooftop solar cells. I would keep in mind that my emphasis must be on technologies that the developing world can afford.
  The really good news is that we are currently wasting vast amounts of energy. That is even truer in the developing world. Conservation is the greatest investment. After all, the cheapest way to remove carbon from the atmosphere is never to put it there. Sequester it in its current form; keep coal, oil, and gas underground.
  You have the toughest possible job ahead of you. The buck will stop with you. You've taken the first step in learning some physics. Keep it up. Learn more.Ultimately, the real issue is the developing world.