 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
69.86.136.68
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/03/science/03climate.html?hp
Follow Ups:
An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate changeNigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, says the orthodoxy must be challenged
[Excerpt]
Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis, which redefined the subject as the study of the effect of greenhouse gases. As a result, the rebellious spirits essential for innovative and trustworthy science are greeted with impediments to their research careers. And while the media usually find mavericks at least entertaining, in this case they often imagine that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil companies. As a result, some key discoveries in climate research go almost unreported.
Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winter’s billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages. The early arrival of migrant birds in spring provides colourful evidence for a recent warming of the northern lands. But did anyone tell you that in east Antarctica the Adélie penguins and Cape petrels are turning up at their spring nesting sites around nine days later than they did 50 years ago? While sea-ice has diminished in the Arctic since 1978, it has grown by 8% in the Southern Ocean.
__________________________________________________________
Alright, believe a movie, if you prefer. After all, A Convenient Untruth won that most prestigious of awards.
clark
I bet you thought you could hide your love forever, but no, here, away from the usual theatre of Water Closet... sorry... Water Cooler, you have printed an article supporting the theory of climate change.
Boy will that cause a major re-think around the world... on how we think of you...
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/05/business/05oil1.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
.
- http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2007/03/05/grounded_resources/ (Open in New Window)
There are many things that could be said about the article, but it makes one important point. Calder says that the sun has become increasingly active over the 20th century, but the activity has levelled off, and that this corresponds with a levelling off of global warming noted since 1999.He also points to a paper by Henrik Svensmark, published in the proceedings of the Royal Society, demonstrating the role of cosmic rays in the formation of rain clouds. Calder’s summary of the issue is:
[Svensmark] saw from compilations of weather satellite data that cloudiness varies according to how many atomic particles are coming in from exploded stars. More cosmic rays, more clouds. The sun’s magnetic field bats away many of the cosmic rays, and its intensification during the 20th century meant fewer cosmic rays, fewer clouds, and a warmer world.
The problem with Calder’s thesis does not lie in Svensmark’s work, but in the fact that he has selected perfectly good science to bolster a claim that is not supported by the evidence.The Climax station in Colorado has been measuring cosmic rays reaching the earth since 1953 (before the rapid warming of the last three decades or so). I have created a graph from the Climax Station data, and included it here. Click on the thumbnail to see the full sized version.
Notice that whilst there is a (well known) ten year cycle to these data, there is emphatically not any trend here. It is not the case that the sun’s magnetic field has been intensifying (until 1999) and thus batting away more cosmic rays. These data show that, whilst Svensmark’s thesis is excellent science, and furthers our understanding of cloud formation, it says absolutely nothing about the climate change we have been experiencing over recent decades.
Nigel Calder does us a disservice, by confusing the data in this way. (Indeed, the levelling off since 1999 he mentions is also wrong I think. I will see if I can get hold of some data).
Realscience.org I think, I will psot the link if anyone wants it. OR USE THE GOOGLE!!!
Flat earthers, we call them. Except he is a paid hitman.
On a recent trip to Finland I was watching the BBC news. During a smart and enlightened broadcast (that was nothing like the Murdoch regulated hogwash we are spoon-fed in the US), there was a story on a new high speed commuter train that could get from London to Paris in about 2 hours.The reason for this innovation (according to the BBC) is because of Europe's growing concern about aircraft emissions and the effect they have on the environment - in the context of global warming. On the same newscast I saw a piece about educating euro grade schoolers on how to conserve energy - in the context of global warming.
For me - that BBC broadcast was a such a breath of fresh air(pun intended) because this isn't about trendy politics (or an academy award) - this is good & common sense being applied. It's that simple.
BBC World TV is now my preferred news provider.
Not to even listen to the cjs of the world who think it "liberal' propaganda... well he would wouldn't he?... but there are few news sources as thorough as the Beeb in my opinion.
I also like to use their website for a quick catch-up first thing in the morning.
2006: "In June this year Rupert Murdoch invited Al Gore to a meeting of News Corp board members to discuss climate change... The London Sun embarking on a campaign entitled "Go Green with the Sun" is powerful and timely and I look forward to The Australian and other Murdoch publications following suit in Australia."
f
have to divert to personal attacks. But the truth is..It's nice to see the conservative media taking the message of conservation and energy efficiency seriously. Hopefully they will hold their own leaders and readers to the same high standards.
The Tennessee Tax Dept. does not consider the "Tennessee Center for Policy Research," which roughly no one had heard of before this, a legitimate group. It's run by a long-time right-wing attack hack, and its only registered address is a P.O. box. Why is everyone in the media taking what it says about Gore's electricity use at face value?
Gore's electricity company has no record of being contacted about his bills.
The "average" home electricity use quoted by TCPR is a national average that includes apartments and mobile homes. In Gore's climatic zone, the East South Central (Dept. of Energy PDF), the average is much higher, thanks to hot, humid summers and cold winters. Within that zone, Gore's usage is three (not 20) times average, and his per-square-foot usage is squarely average. (More here.)
The Gores are not an average family. He's an ex-VP with special security arrangements, and has live-in security staff. He and his wife both work on their many business and charitable undertakings out of their house, so they have space for offices and office staff. All that would be tough to cram in an average size house.
Gore buys the maximum allowable green electricity from the program offered by his utility.
Most of the electricity in TN comes from hydro and nuclear, and so doesn't generate all that much CO2 anyway.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
