Articles Tagged "How About That!"
Sorted by: Date Posted
Monday, December 17th 2012, 7:21 AM EST
I just came across this story from the BBC, boy oh boy, is Jonathan Amos in for a shock one day when he learns about the story of "man made" climate change....maybe he will replace the word Piltdown Man with another Man?
Piltdown Man: A hoaxer still pursued by Jonathan Amos BBC News
It was a shocker, no doubt about it. The Piltdown Man scandal is arguably the greatest scientific fraud ever perpetrated in the UK.
When the fake remains of our earliest ancestor were unmasked for what they really were, shame was heaped on the research establishment. But exactly 100 years to the week that this extraordinary hoax was presented to the world, the Piltdown Man "fossils" are back in the lab and the subject of serious study.
The intention is not to try to re-authenticate them; rather, the purpose is to try to identify once and for all who was responsible for the deception.
The majority view is that it was Charles Dawson, a solicitor, antiquarian and amateur palaeontologist from the southern English county of Sussex.
Tuesday, December 4th 2012, 8:29 AM EST
The following extract comes The Guardian article Lord Deben: Thatcherite turned green warrior defends Climate Act by Fiona Harvey....Some Tory MPs have taken to booing and jeering every time the Climate Change Act is mentioned in the Commons. A growing section of the party would like the Committee on Climate Change to be scrapped and the act repealed.
Their hero is climate sceptic Peter Lilley, a former cabinet colleague of Deben's under John Major, and recently appointed to the select committee on energy and climate change, where he will play a key role in recommending changes to legislation. Lilley's appointment is seen as a bridgehead for his fellow rightwingers to attack the act and all green policies. Their campaign got a further boost when Osborne's father-in-law was recorded saying the chancellor was opposing the "absurd" climate targets. Another rightwing Tory, the junior energy minister John Hayes, has prompted a series of rows with the secretary of state, the Lib Dem Ed Davey, over wind energy....click source for full report from Fiona Harvey
to see all articles regarding "Repeal The Act" at this site
Sunday, October 28th 2012, 8:59 AM EDT
Two days ago I picked up on what Graeme Archer at The Telegraph had to say about The L'Aquila earthquake trial, in as much, Graeme's essay stated that "The L'Aquila earthquake trial reminds us that scientific evidence shouldn't determine public policy".
Now the BBC have also joined in with a similar point of view with Charlotte Pritchard - "Should scientists stop giving advice?" All I can stress on these two essays is how far removed would it be for when the day comes, that the Met Office and other Institutions admit their failure to correctly correlate CO2 to Global Warming and also face crimminal action.
Just like scientists have at the L'Aquila earthquake trial, the Met Office and other Institutions have tried to achieve an impossible task as a result of Government Policy, rather then science....maybe that day is not far away!
L'Aquila ruling: Should scientists stop giving advice? by Charlotte Pritchard, BBC News
This week six scientists and one government official were sentenced to six years in prison for manslaughter, for making "falsely reassuring" comments before the 2009 L'Aquila earthquake. But was this fair?
Friday, October 26th 2012, 1:23 PM EDT
I had to pinch myself over this story from Graeme Archer at The Telegraph.....The L'Aquila earthquake trial reminds us that scientific evidence shouldn't determine public policy!..Graeme have you not thought of another area this may apply?
The L'Aquila earthquake trial reminds us that scientific evidence shouldn't determine public policy! by Graeme Archer - The Telegraph
People find it hard to understand the nature of risk: discuss. A pertinent assertion, in the week that scientists have been found guilty in an Italian court for understating the likelihood of the L’Aquila earthquake. Moreover, the assertion is true, as can easily be demonstrated. Stand behind someone in the queue at WH Smiths while they purchase a lottery ticket, and watch the care with which they select “their” (irrelevant) numbers. Or travel across the Atlantic on a plane, sat beside me.
The former is less physically demanding, as I’m less likely to claw at your arm in terror during the purchase of a lottery ticket than I am while the plane bounces around in turbulence. There’s no point telling me that there’s a very low probability of falling from the sky in a ball of flame, that such disasters happen only rarely. I don’t care about “long-run” arguments: I care about this flight. If the probability of any event is non-zero – if there’s a finite chance that it will occur – then it will happen, at some point; and nothing in the construction of a long-run probability (in its English sense, or its precise mathematical expression) has anything useful to say about any particular instance of any particular flight.
Thursday, October 11th 2012, 10:39 AM EDT
AS THE world's elite global warming experts begin poring over the drafts of the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report this week, one leading scientist doesn't believe the process should be happening at all.
''I think it will be less successful than the last assessment, and I think it will be blander - I'm disappointed in what I've seen so far,'' said Kevin Trenberth, the head of the climate analysis section at the US National Centre for Atmospheric Research.
Professor Trenberth's misgivings are not based on doubts about the strength of the science underpinning human-induced climate change, but on frustration with the bureaucratic nature of the IPCC.
Dozens of Australian scientists are among hundreds of international experts who started reviewing the IPCC's fifth summary report this week, with the final version to be published next September. The previous report, released in 2007, declared global warming ''unequivocal'' and said it was ''very likely'' to be being driven by human emissions of greenhouse gases.
Wednesday, October 10th 2012, 4:39 AM EDT
The authors write that "the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) has devised an innovative experimental design to assess the predictability and prediction skill on decadal time scales of state-of-the-art climate models, in support of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 5th Assessment Report," citing Taylor et al. (2012). To date, however, they say that decadal predictions from different CMIP5 models "have not been evaluated and compared using the same evaluation matrix," a problem which they resolve for seven of the models with their new study.
What was done
Kim et al. assessed the CMIP5 decadal hindcast-forecast simulations of seven state-of-the-art ocean-atmosphere coupled models for situations where "each decadal prediction consists of simulations over a 10-year period each of which are initialized every five years from climate states of 1960/1961 to 2005/2006."
What was learned
In regard to problems they uncovered with the models via this methodology, the three US researchers report that "most of the models overestimate trends," whereby they "predict less warming or even cooling in the earlier decades compared to observations and too much warming in recent decades." They also state that "low prediction skill is found over the equatorial and North Pacific Ocean," and that "the predictive skill for the Pacific Decadal Oscillation index is relatively low for the entire period."
Tuesday, October 9th 2012, 9:03 AM EDT
Al Gore teaching science to a gullible audience. (Image from film: An Inconvenient Truth)
Today website Die kalte Sonne tells us there’s a new paper appearing in the Geophysical Research Letters on the relationship of CO2 and temperature.
Let’s recall how Al Gore in his Oscar-winning An Inconvenient Truth proudly stood before the CO2-temperature curve of the last several hundred thousand years and fooled his gullible audience into thinking that CO2 drove global temperature in the past, and not vice versa.
Too bad Gore didn’t take a closer look at the curves. If he had, he would have noticed that temperature rose first with CO2 following, and so CO2 could not possibly have been the main driver. What really happened is that a warming Earth warmed the oceans, which in turn released CO2 into the atmosphere.
That’s the real inconvenient truth.
Click source to read FULL report from P.Gosselin
Wednesday, October 3rd 2012, 10:17 AM EDT
Great article to show how warm and cool currents move around...the report also gives the MWP and LIA a mention, so I guess these were real periods and not just made up by "skeptics" and "deniers", and yes the effect they had were GLOBAL after all....three cheers for the Clams...
Modern climatologists have access to a wide array of technological tools, but an international team looking to study climate events from the past thousand years has decided to utilize something a little more old school.
Researchers led by Alan Wanamaker from Iowa State University have been collecting clam shells from the waters of the North Atlantic because the mollusks act as tiny recorders, storing information about their environment in the growth bans that runs along their shells. As these clams can live in the cold North Atlantic waters for up to 500 years, their shells can tell researchers a lot about the climate during their lifetime.
“In the broadest sense, we’re trying to add to our understanding of oceans over the last several thousand years,” Wanamaker said. “We have a terrestrial record – we can get an excellent chronology from tree rings and there is a climate signal there. But that’s missing 70 percent of the planet.”
Source Link: redorbit.com
Wednesday, October 3rd 2012, 8:10 AM EDT
I came across this Royal Society of Chemistry competition recently (from June 2012), and it took me by complete surprise, in as much, I have supported the theory of CO2 increase due to the Oceans warming. But it never has occurred to me that in doing so there may be more ice as a result of less CO2 in the Ocean. Time will tell if I am correct on this, but as of today, and at the end of Summer in the Arctic, the warmer currents may have released more CO2 (inc. water vapour) from the ocean and in doing so, bring MORE ICE NOT LESS (and even MORE SNOW)...more to follow.....meanwhile take a look at this from the RSC.
RSC offers £1000 for explanation of an unsolved legendary phenomenon - rsc.org
Why does hot water freeze faster than cold water?
It seems a simple enough question - yet it has baffled the best brains for at least 2,300 years.
•Aristotle agonized over it fruitlessly in the fourth century BC
•Roger Bacon in the 13th century used it to advocate the scientific method in his book Opus Majus
•Another Bacon, Francis, wrote in his 1620 Novum Organum, that "slightly tepid water freezes more easily than that which is utterly cold" but could not explain why
•Descartes was defeated by it in the 17th century AD
•Even perplexed 20th and 21st century scientists and intellectuals have swarmed over it without result
19 articles foundshowing page 2 of 2« previous 1 2 next »