Nasa Debunks Global Warming

[Tyrones own]

 

[/quote]

Where did I say that some count and some don't?

Is every single study on global warming/Arctic ice mentioned in the media? Besides, a month or two ago, the NY Times Science supplement did a series on the subject, some of it dealing with the Arctic. I'm pretty sure NASA research was mentioned then, including attributing much of the loss of the ice to it being shifted out of the basin by currents.
[/quote]

As deiseach would say,  Did they get a mention? I honestly don't know but it might be an idea for you to find out

[J70]

 

Where did I say that some count and some don't?

Is every single study on global warming/Arctic ice mentioned in the media? Besides, a month or two ago, the NY Times Science supplement did a series on the subject, some of it dealing with the Arctic. I'm pretty sure NASA research was mentioned then, including attributing much of the loss of the ice to it being shifted out of the basin by currents.

As deiseach would say,  Did they get a mention? I honestly don't know but it might be an idea for you to find out

nytimes.com is the place to look.

Its actually from October 2nd.

... Complicating the picture, the striking Arctic change was as much a result of ice moving as melting, many say. A new study, led by Son Nghiem at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and appearing this week in Geophysical Research Letters, used satellites and buoys to show that winds since 2000 had pushed huge amounts of thick old ice out of the Arctic basin past Greenland. The thin floes that formed on the resulting open water melted quicker or could be shuffled together by winds and similarly expelled, the authors said.

The pace of change has far exceeded what had been estimated by almost all the simulations used to envision how the Arctic will respond to rising concentrations of greenhouse gases linked to global warming. But that disconnect can cut two ways. Are the models overly conservative? Or are they missing natural influences that can cause wide swings in ice and temperature, thereby dwarfing the slow background warming?

... Arctic experts say things are not that simple. More than a dozen experts said in interviews that the extreme summer ice retreat had revealed at least as much about what remains unknown in the Arctic as what is clear. Still, many of those scientists said they were becoming convinced that the system is heading toward a new, more watery state, and that human-caused global warming is playing a significant role.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/02/science/earth/02arct.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[J70]

I don't suppose your media-conspiracy-alleging blogger saw this article?

[Tyrones own]

 
Must have missed it J70 the same way the major outlets seem to have missed this one,
Works both ways i suppose. I do know his though, Gores rhetoric gets a damn site more air time
than my media-conspiracy-alleging blogger sites do as you put it!

[J70]

Must have missed it J70 the same way the major outlets seem to have missed this one,
Works both ways i suppose. I do know his though, Gores rhetoric gets a damn site more air time
than my media-conspiracy-alleging blogger sites do as you put it!

Well he does this year because he had a major film out on the subject and so was in the news quite a bit. Throw in the speculation regarding a possible presidential run several months before the start of the primaries, and there you have it.

[Tyrones own]

  I hear you, doesn't make any of it right though
  He's trying to get a leg up anyway he can, he'll need it!

[blast05]

J70 - if you don't mind me asking, what do you work at ?
You seem to more up to date about evolutionary biology than i ever was even when it was 1 of my 4 final year subjects.

[J70]

J70 - if you don't mind me asking, what do you work at ?
You seem to more up to date about evolutionary biology than i ever was even when it was 1 of my 4 final year subjects.

PM'ed you.

[Star Spangler]

Global Warming won't be an issue in a few years time.  This is because the impending oil crisis is going to emerge as a much more immediate threat to the survival of the human species.  And we're still doing little or nothing about reducing our dependence on it.

[Billys Boots]

vile, repugnant Ann Coulter

Yes, we are familiar, she 'appears' on Matt Cooper on Today FM now and again.

[J70]

vile, repugnant Ann Coulter

Yes, we are familiar, she 'appears' on Matt Cooper on Today FM now and again.

What kind of reception does she get? She is about the most divisive political "pundit" (using that word very loosely!) in the US, although I think she is progressively losing more and more credibility, even among conservatives, with each obnoxious outburst.

[J70]

Must have missed it J70 the same way the major outlets seem to have missed this one,
Works both ways i suppose. I do know his though, Gores rhetoric gets a damn site more air time
than my media-conspiracy-alleging blogger sites do as you put it!

Just another thought Tyrone's Own. I'd give it a bit of time to see what kind of reception this piece of work gets among the scientists. If it passes the credibility test among Morison's peers, and the media still doesn't report it, I'd say you'll have a very legitimate complaint. However, the media hyping or ignoring a particular scientific finding doesn't mean much in the long run in terms of where science goes. And for every study that is ignored, you get another, like the MMR-autism situation or "toxic black mold" or high-voltage power lines, which is hyped up beyond all reason, pointlessly scaring the shit out of everyone. Most journalists (and bloggers, especially the political kind!) don't know their ass from their elbow when it comes to science, so I wouldn't pay much mind to what they say. The science will go where the data leads, so Morison's and other alternative hypotheses will be upheld or discarded depending on the data, not on whether Katie Couric or the NY Times reports a particular study.

[deiseach]

Most journalists (and bloggers, especially the political kind!) don't know their ass from their elbow when it comes to science, so I wouldn't pay much mind to what they say.

Ben Goldacre does a stand-up job of sorting the wheat from the chaff over at Bad Science

[muppet]

Tyrone's Own wrote:

isn't it common knowledge that a plane puts more pollutants in to the atmosphere
on take off than 100 Suvs would in a year!

According to this the absolute best SUV burns 10 litres per 100km. If you assume an average family car does 10,000 miles (16,000km) a year then the best SUV will burn on average 1,600 litres a year. The specific gravity of Petrol is roughly .75 meaning the best SUV burns (1,600 X .75)= 1,200kg of fuel a year.

A Boeing 737 is a type of plane. If you dig deep here you will find the amount of fuel in kilos that a 737 burns. Put simply 1,200 kilos of fuel will not only manage a takeoff but would probably get you (and nearly 200 others) from Dublin to Birmingham. Not quite what you said though is it?   

[Tyrones own]

Tyrone's Own wrote:

isn't it common knowledge that a plane puts more pollutants in to the atmosphere
on take off than 100 Suvs would in a year!

According to this the absolute best SUV burns 10 litres per 100km. If you assume an average family car does 10,000 miles (16,000km) a year then the best SUV will burn on average 1,600 litres a year. The specific gravity of Petrol is roughly .75 meaning the best SUV burns (1,600 X .75)= 1,200kg of fuel a year.

A Boeing 737 is a type of plane. If you dig deep here you will find the amount of fuel in kilos that a 737 burns. Put simply 1,200 kilos of fuel will not only manage a takeoff but would probably get you (and nearly 200 others) from Dublin to Birmingham. Not quite what you said though is it?   

Interesting reading there alright muppet however you kept your research relatively simple in terms of
measuring and comparing only what each of them burn, I think you'll agree that my post was
specific to pollutants values and not at all a measure of what each of them burn, secondly comparing Petrol
to Type A Jet fuel is in and of it's self like comparing apples to oranges, thirdly, It's my belief that aircraft engine
manufacturers are not held to the same strict guidelines and laws that car manufacturers are in terms of fuel burning efficiency
and the recirculation of harmful particles through various components such as Catalytic converters, EGR valves and the list goes on........
I will of course stand corrected