New
#281
This is also very interesting.
Sun Blamed for Warming of Earth and Other Worlds | LiveScience
This is also very interesting.
Sun Blamed for Warming of Earth and Other Worlds | LiveScience
It attacks a paper about the evolution of trends in consensus amongst climate scientists. At one point they say "most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming", which I thought was interesting. The paper in question says:
"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."
So they are saying that 97.1% of 33.6% (in other words, 32.6%) of nearly 12000 abstracts are prepared to blame humans for it. We can set these 3893 against the 84 rejecting human involvement, 7931 abstracts expressing no particular view, and 36 don't knows. Apparently some of the "supporters" don't like that label, but even if they are switched to the "anti" side, there is still a strong scientific consensus in support of an anthropogenic component to climate change.
Maybe all 3893 abstracts are wrong: it's possible. But not very likely, without invoking vague conspiracy theories and arguments from personal incredulity.
This is the argument from personal incredulity ("I'm just not convinced") coupled with dogmatic assertion ("There is nothing humankind can do about it"). Has the entire Intergovernmental Panel failed to spot what you consider pretty obvious? They say "It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century." You say we've got nothing to do with it. Well, maybe all of the IPCC scientists are wrong. It's possible.
They say in this article: "While evidence suggests fluctuations in solar activity can affect climate on Earth, and that it has done so in the past, the majority of climate scientists and astrophysicists agree that the sun is not to blame for the current and historically sudden uptick in global temperatures on Earth, which seems to be mostly a mess created by our own species."
Seems reasonable.
SourceJupiter's Great Red Spot — the most powerful storm in the solar system — is at its smallest observed size yet, and scientists aren't sure why.
Recent Hubble Space Telescope images of the storm show that it is now 10,250 miles (16,496 kilometers) across, which is less than half the size of the storm in the late 1800s. At one point, scientists theorized that three Earths could fit inside the Great Red Spot, but today, only the width of one Earth could fit within the raging tempest. You can watch a Great Red Spot video for more views of the diminishing storm.
Hubble astronomers, including Simon, will take part in a webcast about Jupiter's shrinking Great Red Spot on May 22 at 4 p.m. EDT
Finally the weather cooperated and I saw the ISS on this pass:
I may have seen another satellite too. When ISS was nearly at about 80° elevation another object traveling at 90° to ISS appeared and disappeared. Total time visible was 3 seconds or so. No clouds at all so it was obscured.
A reminder: A New Meteor Shower in May? - NASA Science
Full write up can be found here Post #256: The Enlightening Science Thread
I have it marked on the calendar Steve, thanks for the reminder.
2AM-4AM ET, maybe all night.