Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 Next
Comments 61051 to 61100:
-
actually thoughtful at 07:10 AM on 20 March 2012Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name - Fred Singer
Rob, Thanks, I get the high level, but what I am asking is, is this a change in the general notion of +2-9C by century's end with BAU? Is this a revision of our understanding of the climate, or is it merely highlighting something that the models and climate scientists are well aware of, and it is therefore already baked into our general understanding of our climate? -
CBDunkerson at 06:56 AM on 20 March 2012It hasn't warmed since 1998
Phil wrote: "...here is a link to a report on the update to HadCRUT, which now has 2010 as the hottest year on record" Cue 'skeptic' cries of 'conspiracy and fraud!' in 3, 2, 1... -
Phil at 06:46 AM on 20 March 2012It hasn't warmed since 1998
I'm sure you'll do a blog entry on this in due course, but in the meantime here is a link to a report on the update to HadCRUT, which now has 2010 as the hottest year on record, rather than 1998, bringing it into line with NASA and NOAA -
It's not bad
mohyla103 - That's clearly what Tom Curtis meant, it certainly was my interpretation when I read his original post, and at this point I should think the issue is clarified. Both snowpacks and glaciers (as, essentially, snowpack compressed to ice, undergoing flow through internal deformation under their own weight) are reservoirs of winter precipitation, feeding freshwater supplies down hill. Perhaps we could move on, now??? -
funglestrumpet at 06:16 AM on 20 March 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #11
The Week in Review should include all posts (Monckton 2 and 3 did not appear on the daily posts announcements and neither did Lindzen's Junk Science. I don't think any post should appear on the 'Latest Posts' sidebar until they have been notified on the daily listing as having actually been posted.) The Week in Review should have the additional information of the number of comments each has attracted to date, which would give some idea of the interest it has generated. Perhaps a new feature could be a rolling hit parade of the posts that have attracted the most attention in the previous 12 months, in terms of comments, of course. That might give an indication of which topics press the most buttons in the eyes of those attracted to this site. Just a thought starter - admittedly not too deeply considered on my part - would be to have a each commenter's number of posts in the previous 12 months after their name. If on each comment, commenters had to rate out of 10 the factual quality of the post being commented on, it would enable a rating of commenters to be developed in terms of being deniers or genuine skeptics, or somewhere in between, also put after their name. That would be useful in pre-judging the value of the comment. Some people will automatically find fault with anything that doesn't support their pre-conceived ideas on climate change and quite frankly it is not worth even reading what they have to say in any depth, just a skim will often surfice. If I want stupidity, I have an over-supply of it in Today in Parliament on BBC Radio 4, especially Prime Minister's Questions (try it for size and then you will see why it is so difficult to get action from them). -
mohyla103 at 06:09 AM on 20 March 2012It's not bad
Tom Curtis @217 Correction: could this have been better phrased as "glaciers act as natural frozen reservoirs"? -
scaddenp at 06:09 AM on 20 March 2012New Research Lowers Past Estimates of Sea-Level Rise
I'll look forward to reading the paper, but frankly its nice to get some good news from the climate front for a change. -
mohyla103 at 05:52 AM on 20 March 2012It's not bad
Tom Curtis @215 It seems I can't convince you of my sincerity, but I hope you will give me the benefit of the doubt anyway and continue the discussion. A simple direct answer from you would be more helpful in avoiding misunderstanding. Nevertheless, I think I understand now that you originally meant (2), but I interpreted it as (1), as (2) is a simile and (1) is the literal description. (?) You had originally said in 178 that these natural dams can absorb large precipitation events. I thought this meant it helped the watershed absorb the precipitation (rain) by holding the water behind it, like a dam. I wasn't sure I understood this correctly at the time so I searched online about glaciers as natural dams and all I found were articles about glacial ice or moraine dams, glacial lakes and outburst floods. I invite you to try this search yourself, and hopefully you will understand that me interpreting "natural dams" literally was not "typically ridiculous" but a natural misunderstanding of the phrase. Since your intended meaning seems to be like (2) could this have been better phrased as "glaciers act as natural reservoirs" since you seem to be referring to precipitation held in the glacier itself, not blocked up behind it in a glacial lake? Or am I still way off? -
funglestrumpet at 05:20 AM on 20 March 2012New Research Lowers Past Estimates of Sea-Level Rise
Doc Snow @ 1 My! I wish I had 20/20 hindsight. It would be really useful to appear clever by being able to state the flipping obvious. But there again, appearances can be deceptive. -
Rob Painting at 05:14 AM on 20 March 2012Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name - Fred Singer
AT@ 59 - heat going into the deep ocean will not affect the surface for a very long time - most likely around a thousand years according to multiple studies. However, that overlooks the very obvious fact that the surface layers of the ocean are warming too, as one would logically expect. That heat in the surface layers will affect global surface temperatures - perhaps as soon as the next 3-5 years. See SkS posts: NASA scientists expect more rapid global warming in the very near future. -
Doc Snow at 05:04 AM on 20 March 2012The History of Climate Science - William Charles Wells
Done--and I'm reminded that there is no surviving image of Wells himself, either (though there is a drawing of one of his sisters.) -
Doc Snow at 04:57 AM on 20 March 2012The History of Climate Science - William Charles Wells
Thanks, Dave. I'll update the caption as you suggest. -
davesouza at 04:45 AM on 20 March 2012The History of Climate Science - William Charles Wells
Nice article, interesting and informative. I knew of his contribution on natural selection but didn't appreciate Wells had worked in these other areas. A quibble: you show a nice picture of the dome of Edinburgh University's Old College, but the foundation stone for that building was only laid in 1789, after Wells had left, and due to wartime delays building works continued until 1840. The dome itself was left out at that time as a cost saving, and was only built in 1887, as shown at Edinburgharchitecture. So rather an anachronism. Unfortunately the earlier university buildings were demolished and I don't know of any sources for pictures, but perhaps the caption could indicate that the picture shows the university after the time that Wells was there. Wikipedia has an image of the Old College before the dome was built, but not of the earlier buildings. -
actually thoughtful at 04:44 AM on 20 March 2012Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name - Fred Singer
Wild claims aside, an interesting question has been raised, specifically, is heat in the deep oceans a long-term issue, and not short term? Is this a notable deferral of global warming, or a minor side-note. We might benefit from a SkS post on this, or at least a cogent Tom Curtis reply (as if there such a thing as a non-cogent Tom Curtis reply...). While I suspect this is a non-issue from the big picture that the world is warming (now), and man is to blame, if it comes up here, we will certainly see it out in the wild soon. -
GaryB at 04:08 AM on 20 March 2012An Open Letter to the Future
Nicely written, although a bit beyond the reach of most people's conscience. It's nice to see a pro-science blog from the Canadian prairies - an oddball within the heart of Canadian conservatism and anti-science. -
Doc Snow at 03:56 AM on 20 March 2012The History of Climate Science - William Charles Wells
Thanks, Neven, soo. It is rather amazing to find how deep the roots go for some of this knowledge. And as for the "horrible wordplay"--all I can say is "GOL"--groan out loud! -
Doc Snow at 03:53 AM on 20 March 2012An Open Letter to the Future
Excellent. It is far too easy for humans to ignore what is real, but far off. I know, there are reasons for this. Sometimes it's even adaptive--as when we focus on what we can control, and ignore what we have no influence over. But the current situation demonstrates that this tendency can also be horribly dangerous. -
tmac57 at 03:27 AM on 20 March 2012An Open Letter to the Future
I walk my two dogs everyday in and around my neighborhood.As I walk I tend to look down a lot,and very often I find nails,screws,etc. (hundreds over the years)that can cause a flat tire.I pick them up despite the fact that I have a bad back,and sketchy knees.I do this,because I would want someone to do the same for me. I have had flat tires (usually caused by nails and screws) many times in my life,and it is always a pain in the neck.It can also put people in a life threatening situation,for example on a busy highway trying to change a tire,or sudden loss of control resulting in a serious or fatal accident.So with those thoughts in my mind,I cannot pass up those potential hazards.I pick them up. You could use a nail left on the road as a metaphor for the carbon footprints that we leave for future travelers on our planet.Let's not leave them something that might be the final nails in their coffins. -
Composer99 at 03:06 AM on 20 March 2012An Open Letter to the Future
I suspect the ancient Greeks didn't put a lot of thought into their descendents 3,000 years into their future (e.g. today). However, it must be noted that they and their fellow humans did not possess the means to radically alter the living conditions of their distant successors - whereas we do, and indeed we are doing just that (in addition to radically altering living conditions in our own lifetimes). -
soo doh nim at 03:00 AM on 20 March 2012The History of Climate Science - William Charles Wells
To quote Plato, "It is right to give every man his dew". Horrible wordplay aside, that was a most enjoyable read. -
Tom Curtis at 02:27 AM on 20 March 2012It's not bad
Sphaerica @212, I think the map is suspect in sustaining your point. The distribution of rice, wheat and corn production are clearly heavily influenced by demand side economic factors. Further, they clearly take a nation wide average so that Australia's vast deserts result in low or medium productivity despite Australia having some of the richest and most extensive wheat growing regions in the world. Transferring this to Canada, it means the current limited arability of the Canadian Arctic is averaged with the southern wheat growing areas of Canada, and are not indicative of grain productivity in those southern areas. Having said that, your more general point is well taken. With a six month growing season, it is difficult to imagine corn prospering within the Arctic circle, not matter what the temperature. Never-the-less, a there is substantial room for a northward shift in Canadian agricultural production before the Arctic Circle is reached. The projected 2050 wheat production areas below are well south of the Arctic Circle:
On the other hand, a similar northward migration of wheat production between 2050 and 2100 would bring the northern regions of production within the Arctic Circle and a possible hard limit on northerly extent on production. As you say, the situation is complicated, but clearly the notion that a northerly migration of agriculture under business as usual will compensate for loss of productivity in tropical and temperate lands is not sustainable (either intellectual, or into the future). The situation is worse in the Southern Hemisphere with a definite hard limit on production in the form of the southern coast lines of the continents.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 02:26 AM on 20 March 2012Rachel Maddow Debunks Climategate Myths Using Skeptical Science
West129... Just to reinforce Sphaerica's comments. I think you're misreading that passage of the IPCC TAR. First, it's probably a good idea to move on past the TAR and read from AR4. And bear in mind even that report came out in 2007 and was based on science that was current in 2005. They are starting up work on AR5 now. Second, what they are saying they can't do is predict exactly what parts of the planet are going to be affected in what ways. This is what's important for individual countries in how they will each respectively deal with mitigation efforts. The overarching science is settled. There is a greenhouse effect. Adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere will warm the planet. We are the cause of most of the current warming. Things are going to get warmer if we continue to add GHG's to the atmosphere. There are also uncertainties but they are pretty well constrained. Climate sensitivity is likely somewhere between 2C - 4C. The difference being, we have some time to bring out GHG levels down or we have very little time to bring our GHG levels down. As Dr Stephen Schneider said, "'Good for you' and 'end of the world' are the two lowest probability outcomes." There is a legitimate discussion to be had about how long we have to get the problem under control. Whether this is real or not is not a legitimate discussion. -
michael sweet at 02:13 AM on 20 March 2012Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name - Fred Singer
Eric: You are shifting the goal posts from your previous wild claim. The paper you have cited is the equilibrium time for the abyss. Most of the energy does not go into the abyss. You claimed: "considering the entirety of the oceans, the equilibrium time you are talking about is 1000's of years, simply not worth caring about. The oceans are sinking heat that won't come back (i.e. water is being warmed from 35 to 35.1 or something along those lines). If that water comes back to the surface it will cool the atmosphere" This is simply untrue. The great majority of the heat in the ocean is currently interacting with the atmosphere and melting ice. About 80-90% of the ocean warming occurs in 40 years. It will be 800-1000 years (not "thousands") until equilibrium, but the surface ocean is currently warmer. The warmer ocean affects current weather: have you noticed the unseasonal tornadoes this year in the USA? We need to care now about the heat in the ocean now. Your claims recently have been wild and unsupported. For example here when you suggested poor countries could shift to manufacturing when their agriculture was destroyed by drought. What will they eat? Please start citing scientific studies when you make a claim. You will then reduce the number of wild claims. -
Bernard J. at 02:04 AM on 20 March 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #11
Still curious if a debunking of Plimer's latest book is still on the cards? -
Tom Curtis at 01:26 AM on 20 March 2012It's not bad
Mohyla @214, how can it be a sincere question when the question has already been answered? -
mohyla103 at 01:03 AM on 20 March 2012It's not bad
Tom Curtis @ 207 "Mohyla has mistaken a simile for a literal description. As the "mistake" involves a typically ridiculous interpretation, there was IMO no basis for it." You said that glaciers act as "natural dams", so I thought you meant: natural - it's a glacier, not man-made, therefore it's natural dam - something that holds back liquid water in a river system Please explain how my interpretation was "typically ridiculous"? It seems like quite a reasonable, if incorrect, interpretation to me. "Therefore I presumed the "mistake" to be a debating technique and discussion with Mohyla to necessarily to be fruitless in that once people start to intentionally misunderstand you, they are not interested in sincere discussion." I most certainly did not "intentionally" misunderstand you and to suggest I did is rude and debasing. Thank a lot for simply ignoring my mistake and assuming I was just out to cause trouble for the sake of trouble, instead of trying to further clarify your meaning first. It seems you have overestimated my intelligence here. I will ask once more, this time to the correct person. Please understand this is a sincere question: Did you mean: 1) that glaciers act as true barriers that hold liquid water back behind them, and prevent/control its release downstream? or 2) that glaciers act somewhat like a dam in that they hold precipitation (in the form of snow and ice) at a higher altitude? or 3) something else? -
mohyla103 at 00:30 AM on 20 March 2012It's not bad
Bernard J. @ 205 You're right, of course, that question should have been directed at Tom Curtis. I didn't notice a third person had entered the glaciers as natural dams discussion. Sorry to you and Tom Curtis for the mixup. I am all for clearing up misunderstandings, which is precisely why I asked the question. It wasn't until I read your post saying glaciers "do not impound water" that I realized there must be some misunderstanding because that is exactly what a literal dam does. My misunderstanding was not intentional. "...much of your scepticism appears to originate from a confusion over the actual science, and/or about what people mean when they report it." I'm not sure what other cases you're referring to? I will refer you to post 199 and the discussion with JMurphy leading up to it, where I showed that in fact my reading of the original sources was correct and it was Barnett who was confused and/or did not report data accurately in his paper. Clearing up misunderstandings is a good thing, be they my own or ones in published papers. -
Neven at 23:57 PM on 19 March 2012The History of Climate Science - William Charles Wells
Thanks for a thoroughly enjoyable read, Doc. It's these looks into history that make me realize how long human knowledge on weather and climate has been accumulating. -
Bob Lacatena at 23:47 PM on 19 March 2012It's not bad
211, Tom, While Manny's (and your) argument concerning sunlight versus temperature (i.e. multiple limiting factors on growth) is applicable to the case of plant life in general, we are talking specifically about crops that are useful for agriculture, and that produce a reasonable yield. Both yield and crop type are dependent on length of growing season among other factors. If you reference this map you can see that productivity for all northern latitudes is severely hampered (note that the coloration for Alaska is certainly wrong... it's been colored as a part of the USA, I'm sure, and not relative to its own actual crop yields). In particular, you will note that corn is never grown at northern latitudes. It must generally be planted in May and is not ready to harvest until October. When you add the problems with soil (much of the soil in northern latitudes having been scraped clean by glacial action, with no chance for later plant growth to replenish the soil), chances of achieving "good" crop productivity in northern latitudes due to climate change do not look promising. In my own direct experience, some years back I had a tremendous tomato garden on the south side of the house, despite being too far north to really expect to get good tomatoes. Being right against the foundation and chimney, the ground got very warm, and it was the one part of my property (ringed by trees) that got good sunlight through the growing season. The only drawback was that as the sun moved further south in August (just as the fruit should be reaching maturity), it would begin to dip below the tree line and shorten the length of the day. After about five years, my tomatoes wouldn't ripen. The trees at the south side of my property had continued to grow taller and to encroach over my lawn, with the end result that they cut off the sunlight too soon. I had lush, wonderful plants covered with fruit that never came close to maturity.Moderator Response: [JH] Fried green tomatoes? (: -
Doc Snow at 22:30 PM on 19 March 2012The History of Climate Science - William Charles Wells
You are most welcome, Steve. And I know just what you mean! Though I think it's folks like G & T (who claim to have "falsified" AGW without actually reading any scientific literature on the topic) who are seriously a couple of centuries behind Wells. -
Eric (skeptic) at 22:12 PM on 19 March 2012Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name - Fred Singer
michael sweet, my claim was not wild or unsupported, but it was extreme, and it turns out, inapplicable. This paper https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/reprints/archer.2004.deep_T.pdf mentions a 2000 year time constant for warming (1000 years for cooling) in a simulation. But it also points out that methane clathrate releases make that time constant moot due to positive feedback. -
michael sweet at 21:04 PM on 19 March 2012Climate Deniers Are Giving Us Skeptics a Bad Name - Fred Singer
OWL: The reference (from Eric) that I challenged claimed that the heat going into the ocean would be gone for "thousands of years". It does not mention the thermocline or claim only heat going into the deep ocean will disappear. You are changing the goal posts. Please read the original comment and stay on topic. Eric is making wild unsupported claims. My statement is still correct: the majority of the heat going into the ocean will come back in 40-50 years, or less. This weekend I went diving and the ocean was 3C above normal. That raises the temperature where I live today. -
Neven at 19:52 PM on 19 March 2012Declining Arctic sea-ice and record U.S. and European snowfalls: are they linked?
John, thanks for another great article. I've linked to it in a short overview I wrote concerning the WACC phenomenon. -
Tom Curtis at 19:41 PM on 19 March 2012It's not bad
Doug H @210, it struck me the same way. That does not, however, it did not hit the target. -
Doug Hutcheson at 19:11 PM on 19 March 2012It's not bad
Tom Curtis @ 209, thanks for the extra info - I am always confronted with just how little I know about anything! I must admit, I had never given a thought to the low entropy/high entropy energy source argument, so I have learned something new today - thank you. On the other hand, I was responding to Manny's dismissal of this:"the amount of sunlight reaching the ground in summer will not change because it is governed by the tilt of the earth."
by saying thisYour argument is simply wrong.
which seemed like a drive-by pot-shot. -
Tom Curtis at 18:33 PM on 19 March 2012It's not bad
Doug H @202, I believe Manny has raised a legitimate point. The issue is that more than one factor can limit the growth of plants. With regard to energy, plants have two important sources of energy. Like all "cold blooded" creatures, the energy which drives the brownian motion within their cells, and hence powers the chemical operations of life comes from the environment, and is a simple consequence of the local surface temperature. As the temperature rises, the brownian motion becomes more vigorous so that chemical reactions (and hence growth) proceeds faster. Of coure, the characteristic of energy from the environment as heat is that it has a high entropy. Life cannot proceed without some reactions that result in a lower entropy than their surrounds, so all life also requires access to a low entropy energy source to drive these reactions. For plants, that is the energy from sunlight which they convert to low entropy sugars or starches. This does mean that at higher latitudes, available sunlight becomes a restriction of plant growth no matter what the temperature, because without sunlight there is no low entropy energy to drive the low entropy reactions that life needs. What Manny has pointed out is that, given that there is extensive forestation in western Europe at the same latitudes as the Canadian sub-arctic, it is the high entropy energy from the environment (warmth) which is the primary limiting factor at those latitudes. The assumption it was lack of the low entropy sunlight that restricted growth was not warranted. Indeed, given that plants do not just lie flat to the surface, but deploy their leaves to gain maximum sunlight, it is not clear that the geometric argument about sunlight carries any weight. Given that in a past era, there were forest at the South Pole, I would suggest that lack of direct sunlight is only ever a seasonal limitation of the growth of plants. -
Tom Curtis at 18:19 PM on 19 March 2012It's not bad
DSL @203, interesting about Plasmodium vivax. That it was not Plasmodium falciparum is made clear by the death rate of just 3% of those hospitalized with an infection in 1823. In contrast, Plasmodium falciparum that it creates a selective advantage for the sickle cell anemia gene which, though fatal if received from both parents, grants resistance to malaria if received from just one. The result is the strong correlation between Plasmodium falciparum and frequency of the gene for sickle cell anemia in the population (see maps below).
Of course, the concern with global warming is not the spread of vivax but of falciparum.
-
Tom Curtis at 18:02 PM on 19 March 2012It's not bad
Bernard J @205, Mohyla has mistaken a simile for a literal description. As the "mistake" involves a typically ridiculous interpretation, there was IMO no basis for it. Therefore I presumed the "mistake" to be a debating technique and discussion with Mohyla to necessarily to be fruitless in that once people start to intentionally misunderstand you, they are not interested in sincere discussion. -
owl905 at 17:49 PM on 19 March 2012Breaking News...The Earth is Warming... Still. A LOT
@chriskoz 33 You disagreed,and then commented about unrelated matters. The 0-700 metre layer isn't the issue on the table. Similarly, the response about 'other impacts' is off-topic about the heat returning. The issue of ivory tower and OHC is not my misunderstanding at all. The misunderstanding appears to be yours - thinking that geological age problems, and/or deep ocean heat that will partially return over the next millennium, is a concern that needs focus and will get any concerted action now. -
RonManley at 17:43 PM on 19 March 2012New Research Lowers Past Estimates of Sea-Level Rise
One useful rule of thumb relating to ice is: if all the glaciers melt sea levels will rise by 0.7 m, if Greenland melts by 7 m, if Antarctica melts by 70 m. Different sources give slighlty different figures but it's accurate enough to put things in perspective. -
owl905 at 17:35 PM on 19 March 2012Rachel Maddow Debunks Climategate Myths Using Skeptical Science
@Sceptical - Inhoffe didn't personally question the science. He used his political power to ridicule it, slander it, and disrupt it. He's one of the ringleaders that has steered the USA towards the intelligence desert. Here's the bottom line on his judgment - "Global warming is the greatest hoax of all time." There's no 'question' in that - only judgment of the biggest pair variety. -
scaddenp at 17:29 PM on 19 March 2012It's not bad
I think Manny is confused as to why you have latitudal variation in climate. It is not due to differences insolation but to the many local influences on climate. For northern Europe, the warm Gulf Steam is the major factor. -
Bernard J. at 17:22 PM on 19 March 2012It's not bad
Mohyla103:Bernard J.: "Glaciers do not impound water, they hold it as frozen mass." Did you mean that glaciers can be actual dams that hold liquid water back behind them, or that glaciers act like a dam in that they hold precipitation (snow, not rain) at a higher altitude? If it is the latter, then I misunderstood the phrase "natural dam" in your original statement.
Although I know what his answer is, you'd best direct the question at Tom Curtis, as he was the one who originally used the phrase. For someone who said:It's this attitude of alarming the public with misleading claims that make me skeptical of AGW reporting accuracy in general.
it's important to ensure that you are not transferring your own misunderstandings on to those who are in fact reporting accurately. This would seem to apply more broadly to your commentary here, as much of your scepticism appears to originate from a confusion over the actual science, and/or about what people mean when they report it. -
adelady at 17:11 PM on 19 March 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #11
I'm with OPatrick here. The "Week in Review" and "Coming Soon" should be the last 2 items. Always easy to find regardless of the length of the other items. Having 2 SkS Highlights looks a bit odd. Perhaps the second one should be "Spotlights" :) Just like last week.Moderator Response: [JH] My bad. Will edit. -
OPatrick at 16:59 PM on 19 March 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #11
I'd move the issue of the week up above the break. There must be many regular visitors who don't check the digest, having already digested. -
DSL at 16:05 PM on 19 March 2012It's not bad
And, Manny, I agree with Doug. What you're trying to say with the comparison between Canada and Europe is as clear as mud. -
Sceptical Wombat at 16:04 PM on 19 March 2012Rachel Maddow Debunks Climategate Myths Using Skeptical Science
J Murphy @23 I don't have a problem with Inhofe questioning the science because it implied the need for expensive action. If my child told me he needed an IPad for school and I thought it was some kind of exercise book I would probably say "fine." If he then told me it was actually a computer and would cost aroud $600 I might start asking questions. I do have a problem with the fact that Inhofe is very selective about who he asks and only listens to the answers that fit his world view. -
DSL at 15:59 PM on 19 March 2012It's not bad
Manny, Charles C. Mann has a quite readable chapter devoted to the spread of malaria post-1492 in his recent book 1493. The story is a little more complicated than you indicate. There is a range of malaria-carrying mosquitoes. There is also a range of human responses, based on genetics. The Canadian malaria mentioned was probably vivax rather than the falciparum mentioned in Epstein. -
bill at 15:58 PM on 19 March 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #11
Cartoonist link also ropey! Truly, when The Lorax is spruiking SUV's (and more than 70 other consumer products) we have reached a world where satire is redundant. Thneeds must when the Devil drives?Moderator Response: [JH] Link fixed. -
What's Happening To Tuvalu Sea Level?
Manny - I would suggest looking at Coral atolls and rising sea levels: That sinking feeling, where atoll formation is discussed. Basically, corals only grow up to the low tide point, but early Holocene sea levels were (effectively) higher in equatorial seas due to isostatic adjustment (glacial rebound) - giving them the chance to grow a couple of meters over current sea levels. When local sea levels dropped to the point where high tide didn't cover the coral, they accumulated sand and debris as loose top consolidate - and we get atolls.
Prev 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 Next
