► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘Science’

Evolutionism, Environmentalism, and Cosmic Sympathy

by tqcincinnatus ( 14 Comments › )
Filed under Evolution, Science at August 29th, 2009 - 3:06 pm

For all you philosophy and the modern world nerds out there,

One way in which we see this return to paganism is the way in which the concept of cosmic sympathy has returned to the forefront of so much of our civilization’s intellectual currency. In the later Hellenistic era (to which the “Empire” portion of the history of Rome would belong), philosophy and theology were increasingly convergent — but this involved a theology that would not be generally recognized as such by Christians today for it was pantheistic and monistic, not monotheistic. In a nutshell, the entire order of existence, called the cosmos by the Greeks, was a well-ordered machine, completely self-contained, perfectly arranged, and indeed (to some thinkers) it was divinity that was supremely worthy of man’s devotion and worship. It was also understood to be in perfect sympatheia with itself, each part depending on every other part through underlying causal means that depended upon the compact wholeness of cosmic existence. Cosmic sympathy could allow a person to understand and influence the events around them.

It’s kinda long, but read the whole thing, if for no other reason than to tick selrahC off!

More Germans Turn Apostate from the Global Warming Cult

by tqcincinnatus ( 46 Comments › )
Filed under Science at August 28th, 2009 - 5:34 pm

At the rate this is going, Al Gore’s tithe check is going to start getting mighty small.  This time, the German Helmhotz Association of National Research Centres  has left the flock, issuing a short position statement about the correlation between solar activity and climate change – Small fluctuations in solar activity, large influence on the climate,

Sun spot frequency has an unexpectedly strong influence on cloud formation and precipitation

Our sun does not radiate evenly. The best known example of radiation fluctuations is the famous 11-year cycle of sun spots. Nobody denies its influence on the natural climate variability, but climate models have, to-date, not been able to satisfactorily reconstruct its impact on climate activity.

Researchers from the USA and from Germany have now, for the first time, successfully simulated, in detail, the complex interaction between solar radiation, atmosphere, and the ocean. As the scientific journal Science reports in its latest issue, Gerald Meehl of the US-National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and his team have been able to calculate how the extremely small variations in radiation brings about a comparatively significant change in the System “Atmosphere-Ocean”.

Katja Matthes of the GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences, and co-author of the study, states: „Taking into consideration the complete radiation spectrum of the sun, the radiation intensity within one sun spot cycle varies by just 0.1 per cent. Complex interplay mechanisms in the stratosphere and the troposphere, however, create measurable changes in the water temperature of the Pacific and in precipitation”.

Top Down – Bottom up

In order for such reinforcement to take place many small wheels have to interdigitate. The initial process runs from the top downwards: increased solar radiation leads to more ozone and higher temperatures in the stratosphere. “The ultraviolet radiation share varies much more strongly than the other shares in the spectrum, i.e. by five to eight per cent, and that forms more ozone” explains Katja Matthes. As a result, especially the tropical stratosphere becomes warmer, which in turn leads to changed atmospheric circulation. Thus, the interrelated typical precipitation patterns in the tropics are also displaced.

The second process takes place in the opposite way: the higher solar activity leads to more evaporation in the cloud free areas. With the trade winds the increased amounts of moisture are transported to the equator, where they lead to stronger precipitation, lower water temperatures in the East Pacific and reduced cloud formation, which in turn allows for increased evaporation. Katja Matthes: “It is this positive back coupling that strengthens the process”. With this it is possible to explain the respective measurements and observations on the Earth’s surface.

Professor Reinhard Huettl, Chairman of the Scientific Executive Board of the GFZ (Helmholtz Association of German Research Centres) adds: “The study is important for comprehending the natural climatic variability, which – on different time scales – is significantly influenced by the sun. In order to better understand the anthropogenically induced climate change and to make more reliable future climate scenarios, it is very important to understand the underlying natural climatic variability. This investigation shows again that we still have substantial research needs to understand the climate system”. Together with the Alfred Wegener-Institute for Polar and Marine Research and the Senckenberg Research Institute and Natural History Museum the GFZ is, therefore, organising a conference “Climate in the System Earth” scheduled for 2./3. November 2009 in Berlin.

What a novel idea….the sun has an impact on the earth’s climate???  It’s so crazy it can’t be true!

Besides, this report is easily dismissable.  The “Helmholtz Association” is probably just a creationist front group funded by Mark Sanford, Ron Paul, Sarah Palin, and Glenn Beck.

CDC Shoots Down Obama White House Scaremongering About Swine Flu

by tqcincinnatus ( 178 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Mexico, Science at August 27th, 2009 - 5:00 am

Obama’s Cloward-Piven strategy of manufacturing a crisis using the swine flu as an excuse to ram Obamacare down our throats suffered a blow yesterday when the CDC called into question the wild, little-boy-who-cried-wolf predictions being tossed around publicly by the President’s Council of Advisers on Science and Technology,

Up to 90,000 deaths from swine flu in the United States, mostly among children and young people?

Up to 1.8 million people hospitalized, with 50 percent to 100 percent of intensive-care beds in some cities filled with swine-flu patients?

Up to half the population infected by winter?

On Monday, a White House advisory panel issued a report with these estimates, calling them “a plausible scenario” for a second wave of infections by the new H1N1 flu. The grim numbers by the President’s Council of Advisers on Science and Technology received considerable play in the news media, including front-page coverage in The Seattle Times.

On Tuesday, however, officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the agency with the most expertise on influenza pandemics, suggested that the projections should be regarded with caution.

We don’t necessarily see this as a likely scenario,” said Dr. Anne Schuchat, director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.

A CDC press officer, speaking carefully to avoid a feud with the White House press office, said, “Look, if the virus keeps behaving the way it is now, I don’t think anyone here expects anything like 90,000 deaths.”

This shouldn’t come as any surprise since Dr. Margaret Chan, the Director-General of WHO, said this just last month at a conference in Cancun, Mexico,

We are still seeing a largely reassuring clinical picture. The overwhelming majority of patients experience mild symptoms and make a full recovery within a week, often in the absence of any form of medical treatment. Research published last week confirms that this pattern, in which most patients experience mild influenza-like illness, has also been seen in Mexico.

Now obviously, we should still be concerned about possible directions that the swine flu might take, since there’s so much about it we don’t know.  A studied response and a good deal of caution are in order.  Yet, if the experts on influenza epidemiology say that the problem’s not likely to be as big as we’re being told, then I think we should probably believe them.  And what we DO know about H1N1 so far doesn’t justify the fearmongering emanating from Obama’s administration.  It certainly doesn’t justify the cynical use of fear about the swine flu to push for the rapid passage of some form of Obamacare – which wouldn’t deal with swine flu epidemiology anywise. 

When is the Obama administration going to stop using fear and ignorance as tools to advance its agenda?

Temperature and Carbon Dioxide – Feedback or Equilibrium?

by tqcincinnatus ( 130 Comments › )
Filed under Science at August 25th, 2009 - 7:22 pm

Great by a guest climatologist over at Watts Up With That discussing the relationship between temperature and CO2 concentration in the atmosphere based upon some historical data obtained from ice cores.   Read the whole thing to get the nitty gritty of the science.  His conclusions are below, post

The last 5,000 years are trivial compared to the 420,000 years of the Vostok record; of even less significance are the last 1,200 years. However, climate science has put great emphasis on the features of this interval, even though they fit within the noise-envelope. The “medieval warm period” spanned 800 CE to 1,200 CE; Vostok shows it wasn’t really warm, but wasn’t really cold either. The “little ice age” followed (although average T was barely lower), and ended after the low of -1.84 °C around 1,770 CE. By the early 1800s, T was higher than it is at present, and it has fluctuated within levels typical of the last 11,000 years since then. It is remarkable that climate hysteria should be based on noise-level changes in T over the last 200 years, which is an eye-blink in the Vostok record. It seems to be the superstition of our time.
 
In summary, the Vostok record indicates that CO2 is in lagged equilibrium with T and that, for the range of T in Vostok, the dependency of CO2 on T is essentially linear. Unnaturally high CO2 for the last 5,000 years has had no apparent effect on T. This empirical evidence supports a conclusion that there cannot be any significant feedback between CO2 and T. Such feedback would cause predicted T and CO2 to show fundamental disagreement with the lag, spectrum and amplitudes evident in the Vostok record.
 
It is impossible to say how enduring the feedback fallacy will be. However, any such model proposed in the future can be regarded as qualitative if it does not specify lag, characteristic amplitude and period, and as speculative if it cannot be compared to the Vostok record. Accordingly, any such model can be ignored.
 
If we may depart for a moment from objectivity, any such model should be ignored if its proponents declare that it shows polar bears are in peril, and you can save them by painting your roof white and burning nuts and corn in your car.
Again, read the whole thing to get it all in context.  Essentially, what he is saying is that the relationship between temperature and CO2 level in the atmosphere is not based upon a direct feedback correspondence.  In other words, temperature is not responding to atmospheric CO2 concentration.  Instead, the empirical evidence from the Vostok cores seems to suggest that as temperature changes, CO2 levels follow as a lagging indicator seeking to restablish an equilibrium between the two variables.   Our present rise in CO2 levels follows a well-established pattern of CO2 response to previous temperature increases.  Thus, the AGW fanatics have it backwards.  Instead of increased CO2 contributing to temperature increase, it seems as if it may be the other way around.