Big science

June 17, 2009

Stumbled across this today: the International Space Station has now become large enough that you can see it during the day (h/t spaceweather.com). You can check out when it is over your neck of the woods here.. Remember to wave.

Advertisements

Answer man

June 15, 2009

Some recent commenters have suggested that I put up or shut up on this global warming shit. “Give a solution instead of being part of the problem” they say (damn that was hard not to put “problem” in quotes). Maybe you bitches have a point so here we go. Problem: Global Warming. Solution: Warming tax. If temperatures rise as predicted by what the UN climate models and their “consensus” of scientists say are correct then the tax on carbon emissions goes up dramatically. If the temperatures fall, the tax goes down. Surprisingly, this is not my idea but that of economist Ross McKitrick. He points out:

The IPCC predicts a warming rate in the tropical troposphere of about double that at the surface, implying about 0.2C to 1.2C per decade in the tropical troposphere under greenhouse-forcing scenarios. That implies the tax will climb by $4 to $24 per tonne per decade, a much more aggressive schedule of emission fee increases than most current proposals. At the upper end of warming forecasts, the tax could reach $200 per tonne of CO2 by 2100, forcing major carbon-emission reductions and a global shift to non-carbon energy sources.

Global-warming activists would like this. But so would skeptics, because they believe the models are exaggerating the warming forecasts.

Under the T3 tax, the regulator gets to call everyone’s bluff at once, without gambling in advance on who is right. If the tax goes up, it ought to have. If it doesn’t go up, it shouldn’t have. Either way we get a sensible outcome.

That makes sense. Wow. Look at me. Promoting a solution.

Deal or no deal

May 5, 2009

Here is an interesting question I’ve read in comment sections on other blogs:

How much will temperatures decrease (or slow the rate of increase) if the US enacts cap and trade (global warming fighting) legislation?

The only answer I have found so far is from The Heritage Foundation:

Analysis by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) shows that a 60 percent reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050 will reduce CO2 concentrations by only 25 ppm in 2095. This reduction would affect world temperatures by 0.1 to 0.2 degrees C.

Anyone have another source that tells me how much less warming there will be if the current “cap and trade” legislation is enacted? If I’m paying for it, I’d like to know what I’m buying.

ehrlich

“Catastrophic forecasts are essentially always wrong”

Thank you Dr. Lindzen. (a great listen if your attention span is longer than three minutes). So true. I’m old enough to remember The Population Bomb. It was required reading in one of my science courses in college. Same scare tactics. Same faulty science.

Scare me once, shame on you. Scare me twice, shame on me.

Size queen

March 9, 2009

space-kitteh

This shit is big:

close-up-cat.jpgclose-up-cat.jpg

Suck it, cat haters:

Cats may claw your furniture, ignore your calls and smudge your walls with paw prints, but researchers at the University of Minnesota have found they also might reduce your risk of dying from a heart attack.

Comparing 4,435 adults in the United States, researchers found that people who didn’t own a cat had a 40 percent higher risk of dying from heart disease. The study results were disclosed Thursday at the International Stroke Conference in New Orleans.

Woo hoo! With three cats, I’m covered bitches. 

kathy-griffin.jpg

Red haired people are soon to go the way of the dinosaurs.  At least according to this article:

Genetic scientists warn that redheads are a dying breed; soon they will become extinct in the next 100 years.

Because of smaller percentage of redheads present in the population, it has reduced the chances considerably for the redheads to get redhead partner, so their offspring may or may not be a redhead. The redhead can produce a baby from a single redhead parent; the chances become high when both the parents are redhead however.

Some experts warn redheads could be gone as early 2060, but others say the gene can be dormant in the reproductive system for generations before returning.

The article is a bit misleading mentioning National Geographic magazine in its title. Here is what NG says (sorry, no link):

But while redheads may decline, the potential for red isn’t going away.

Only about 4 percent of people possess the gene, so fewer show the the red trait. Still it’s hiding in the genome, rearing up from its frigid origins, in far flung places like Jamaica, a tip of the hat from a fiery Scottish forebear

This reminds of the big blonde scare of 2002 (no, there wasn’t a shortage of peroxide).

WTF, for a little ginger bashing see here:

And to show that this blond is fair and balanced: