"Other experts in genetics were not immediately available to comment on Hobolth’s report." is how this article ends. I think that's just silly. How hard did this reporter try to find someone. Are experts in genetics so busy that they can't find time for a phone call? This article says we continued to mate with chips after we split off from them and 400,000 years later, they were chimps and we were people.
MSNBC.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chimp-human split just 4 million years ago?
Study refutes 5-7 million range; species took just 400,000 years to separate
By Maggie Fox
Reuters
Updated: 5:36 p.m. MT Feb 23, 2007
WASHINGTON - A new study, certain to be controversial, maintains that chimpanzees and humans split from a common ancestor just 4 million years ago — a much shorter time than current estimates of 5 million to 7 million years ago.
The researchers compared the DNA of chimpanzees, humans and our next-closest ancestor, the gorilla, as well as orangutans.
They used a well-known type of calculation that had not been previously applied to genetics to come up with their own “molecular clock” estimate of when humans became uniquely human.
“Assuming orangutan divergence 18 million years ago, speciation time of human and chimpanzee is consistently around 4 million years ago,” they wrote in their study, published in the Public Library of Science journal PLoS Genetics.
“Primate evolution is a central topic in biology, and much information can be obtained from DNA sequence data,” Dr. Asger Hobolth of North Carolina State University said in a statement.
The theory of a molecular clock is based on the premise that all DNA mutates at a certain rate. It is not always a steady rate, but it evens out over the millennia and can be used to track evolution.
Experts agree that humans split off from a common ancestor with chimpanzees several million years ago and that gorillas and orangutans split off much earlier. But it is difficult to date precisely when, although most recent studies have put the date at about 5 million to 7 million years ago.
Hobolth and colleagues from the University of Aarhus in Denmark and the University of Oxford in Britain looked at four regions of the human, chimpanzee and gorilla genomes.
They used a statistical technique called the hidden Markov model, developed in the 1960s and originally applied to speech recognition.
What they found directly contradicts some other recent research. They found evidence that it took only 400,000 years for humans to become a separate species from the common chimp-human ancestor.
Just in May, David Reich of the Broad Institute at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard Medical School’s Department of Genetics found evidence that the split probably took 4 million years to occur, although his team put the final divergence at just 5.4 million years ago.
Reich’s study of chimpanzee and human DNA suggested that the early ancestors of humans and the ancestors of chimpanzees may have interbred for a long time before they separated.
Experts have long known that humans and chimpanzees share much DNA, and are in fact 96 percent identical on the genetic level.
And one year ago, Soojin Yi and colleagues at the Georgia Institute of Technology said they found genetic evidence that chimpanzees may be more closely related to humans than to gorillas and orangutans.
Their look at the molecular clock showed humans evolved one unique trait just a million years ago — our longer life span and our long childhood, which means humans reach sexual maturity very late in life compared to other animals.
Other experts in genetics were not immediately available to comment on Hobolth’s report.
Copyright 2007 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17302266/
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Friday, February 16, 2007
Ancient Use of Chili Peppers Makes me Angry
Well, okay, maybe not angry. Right about now you are asking what could possibly make me indignant about ancient peppers. I love peppers, eat them all the time, and have an especially developed tolerance to them which comes from eating salsa all my life. So, really, I have nothing against the chili. As I was reading this story the following line struck me, as similar lines have in the past, "The discovery, reported Friday in the journal Science, suggests early New World agriculture was more sophisticated than once thought."
I have a theory, everything in the ancient world was more sophisticated than we think. People back then, had the same capacity for learning as we do. We aren't, I repeat, we aren't smarter than they were. We are simply more educated. Because we drive cars and they didn't, somehow causes people to equate primitive with stupid. The same spark of inspiration that caused DiVinci to create his inventions would cause a Peruvian to plant peppers. I think certain people want to think we are better, smarter, more moral now than then, but we aren't. We can't build ourselves up by putting others down, even our ancestors. I think we do ourselves, and by that I mean humans, a disservice by underestimating those who came before us. We come from that stock, we are that people and the connectivity runs deep. If DiVinci, to use him again, had access to a computer, he would have learned how to use it and developed ever more complex designs on it. If Galileo had access to the Hubble Space Telescope, his ability to study and observe would have no doubt yielded results today as remarkable as the ones he made in his day.
So, TV commercials aside, lay off the cave man.
Chili Peppers Have Ancient History
Lauran Neergaard, Associated Press
type size: [A] [A] [A]
Feb. 15, 2007 — Who says food fads can't last? Thousands of years before the advent of Tex-Mex, ancient Americans were spicing up stew with red hot chili peppers.
New fossil evidence shows prehistoric people from southern Peru up to the Bahamas were cultivating varieties of chilies millennia before Columbus' arrival brought the spice to world cuisine.
The earliest traces so far are from southwestern Ecuador, where families fired up meals with homegrown peppers about 6,100 years ago.
The discovery, reported Friday in the journal Science, suggests early New World agriculture was more sophisticated than once thought.
"Some people who have described ancient food ways as being simple will probably have to rethink their ideas because of this work," said lead researcher Linda Perry of the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History.
"It tells us a lot about what was going on around the prehistoric hearth," adds co-author Deborah Pearsall, an anthropology professor at the University of Missouri-Columbia, who found evidence of chili-laced stew in pots in an ancient Ecuadorean village.
Archaeologists trace food origins not just from curiosity about the ancients' everyday lives. How a crop spreads sheds light on prehistoric travel and trade. In the Middle East, figs were domesticated 11,400 years ago. Wheat wasn't far behind. In the New World, corn was being cultivated around 9,000 years ago.
How do you trace a pepper, which leaves no husk or other easily fossilized evidence? A dozen researchers at seven sites around Latin America kept finding microscopic starch grains on grindstones and cooking vessels and in trash heaps. Finally Perry identified these microfossils as residue from domesticated, not wild, chili species that in some spots even predated the invention of pottery.
"We now have a marker, in starch granules, that allows us to look back in time and demonstrate the widespread use of domesticated chili peppers throughout the Americas at much earlier times than previously documented," said botanist W. Hardy Eshbaugh of Miami University in Ohio, a pepper expert not involved in the research.
The microfossils suggest vitamin C-rich chilies were usually mixed with corn and a few other foods, not just used as a spice.
Now the hunt is on for the first site of homegrown chilies. It can't be Ecuador, too far from where wild chilies flourish in Bolivia and Brazil.
"Whether this is migration of people or early trade is one of the fascinating questions," said Pearsall, who calls these early farmers pretty sophisticated. "They were not at the edge of starvation. ... People were growing all kinds of things and not just focusing on staples."
I have a theory, everything in the ancient world was more sophisticated than we think. People back then, had the same capacity for learning as we do. We aren't, I repeat, we aren't smarter than they were. We are simply more educated. Because we drive cars and they didn't, somehow causes people to equate primitive with stupid. The same spark of inspiration that caused DiVinci to create his inventions would cause a Peruvian to plant peppers. I think certain people want to think we are better, smarter, more moral now than then, but we aren't. We can't build ourselves up by putting others down, even our ancestors. I think we do ourselves, and by that I mean humans, a disservice by underestimating those who came before us. We come from that stock, we are that people and the connectivity runs deep. If DiVinci, to use him again, had access to a computer, he would have learned how to use it and developed ever more complex designs on it. If Galileo had access to the Hubble Space Telescope, his ability to study and observe would have no doubt yielded results today as remarkable as the ones he made in his day.
So, TV commercials aside, lay off the cave man.
Chili Peppers Have Ancient History
Lauran Neergaard, Associated Press
type size: [A] [A] [A]
Feb. 15, 2007 — Who says food fads can't last? Thousands of years before the advent of Tex-Mex, ancient Americans were spicing up stew with red hot chili peppers.
New fossil evidence shows prehistoric people from southern Peru up to the Bahamas were cultivating varieties of chilies millennia before Columbus' arrival brought the spice to world cuisine.
The earliest traces so far are from southwestern Ecuador, where families fired up meals with homegrown peppers about 6,100 years ago.
The discovery, reported Friday in the journal Science, suggests early New World agriculture was more sophisticated than once thought.
"Some people who have described ancient food ways as being simple will probably have to rethink their ideas because of this work," said lead researcher Linda Perry of the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History.
"It tells us a lot about what was going on around the prehistoric hearth," adds co-author Deborah Pearsall, an anthropology professor at the University of Missouri-Columbia, who found evidence of chili-laced stew in pots in an ancient Ecuadorean village.
Archaeologists trace food origins not just from curiosity about the ancients' everyday lives. How a crop spreads sheds light on prehistoric travel and trade. In the Middle East, figs were domesticated 11,400 years ago. Wheat wasn't far behind. In the New World, corn was being cultivated around 9,000 years ago.
How do you trace a pepper, which leaves no husk or other easily fossilized evidence? A dozen researchers at seven sites around Latin America kept finding microscopic starch grains on grindstones and cooking vessels and in trash heaps. Finally Perry identified these microfossils as residue from domesticated, not wild, chili species that in some spots even predated the invention of pottery.
"We now have a marker, in starch granules, that allows us to look back in time and demonstrate the widespread use of domesticated chili peppers throughout the Americas at much earlier times than previously documented," said botanist W. Hardy Eshbaugh of Miami University in Ohio, a pepper expert not involved in the research.
The microfossils suggest vitamin C-rich chilies were usually mixed with corn and a few other foods, not just used as a spice.
Now the hunt is on for the first site of homegrown chilies. It can't be Ecuador, too far from where wild chilies flourish in Bolivia and Brazil.
"Whether this is migration of people or early trade is one of the fascinating questions," said Pearsall, who calls these early farmers pretty sophisticated. "They were not at the edge of starvation. ... People were growing all kinds of things and not just focusing on staples."
It's Here Somewhere, It's Just Very Small
The following is from a recent news story.
"David Bromwich, professor of atmospheric sciences in the Department of Geography, and researcher with the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University, reported on this work at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science at San Francisco.
"It's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now,""
First off, could that be a longer, more pretentious title? They have to set it up as this guy knows what he's talking about, you should listen to him, if not the world will come to an end. Then he issues a statement seldom heard by global warming-ites. What does he mean, hard to see? Fantastic. The entire story is about how the temperatures don't actually match the predictions. What I love about the story though, even more than the fact that the actual data doesn't match the gloom and doom models, is that the way he seems to stammer through out the entire article in some weak way saying things like,
"The best we can say right now is that the climate models are somewhat inconsistent with the evidence that we have for the last 50 years from continental Antarctica . "
and
"We're looking for a small signal that represents the impact of human activity and it is hard to find it at the moment," he said.
It's as if he is saying, well, it's so tiny, we are trying so hard, please, don't get mad at us because the actual temperatures aren't showing the global warming predicted, it isn't our fault, we're really trying so hard to find the evidence but he land, the land is soooo big.
That's really what this story represents though, is bad science. They have a desired result, man made global warming, and they are looking to find evidence of that. True science doesn't work that way, and real scientists allow the evidence to take them where it may.
Public release date: 15-Feb-2007
[ Print Article E-mail Article Close Window ]
Contact: David Bromwich
Bromwich.1@osu.edu
614-292-6692
Ohio State University
Antarctic temperatures disagree with climate model predictions
COLUMBUS , Ohio – A new report on climate over the world's southernmost continent shows that temperatures during the late 20th century did not climb as had been predicted by many global climate models.
This comes soon after the latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that strongly supports the conclusion that the Earth's climate as a whole is warming, largely due to human activity.
It also follows a similar finding from last summer by the same research group that showed no increase in precipitation over Antarctica in the last 50 years. Most models predict that both precipitation and temperature will increase over Antarctica with a warming of the planet.
David Bromwich, professor of professor of atmospheric sciences in the Department of Geography, and researcher with the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University, reported on this work at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science at San Francisco.
"It's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now," he said. "Part of the reason is that there is a lot of variability there. It's very hard in these polar latitudes to demonstrate a global warming signal. This is in marked contrast to the northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula that is one of the most rapidly warming parts of the Earth."
Bromwich says that the problem rises from several complications. The continent is vast, as large as the United States and Mexico combined. Only a small amount of detailed data is available – there are perhaps only 100 weather stations on that continent compared to the thousands spread across the U.S. and Europe . And the records that we have only date back a half-century.
"The best we can say right now is that the climate models are somewhat inconsistent with the evidence that we have for the last 50 years from continental Antarctica .
"We're looking for a small signal that represents the impact of human activity and it is hard to find it at the moment," he said.
Last year, Bromwich's research group reported in the journal Science that Antarctic snowfall hadn't increased in the last 50 years. "What we see now is that the temperature regime is broadly similar to what we saw before with snowfall. In the last decade or so, both have gone down," he said.
In addition to the new temperature records and earlier precipitation records, Bromwich's team also looked at the behavior of the circumpolar westerlies, the broad system of winds that surround the Antarctic continent.
"The westerlies have intensified over the last four decades of so, increasing in strength by as much as perhaps 10 to 20 percent," he said. "This is a huge amount of ocean north of Antarctica and we're only now understanding just how important the winds are for things like mixing in the Southern Ocean." The ocean mixing both dissipates heat and absorbs carbon dioxide, one of the key greenhouse gases linked to global warming.
Some researchers are suggesting that the strengthening of the westerlies may be playing a role in the collapse of ice shelves along the Antarctic Peninsula.
"The peninsula is the most northern point of Antarctica and it sticks out into the westerlies," Bromwich says. "If there is an increase in the westerly winds, it will have a warming impact on that part of the continent, thus helping to break up the ice shelves, he said.
"Farther south, the impact would be modest, or even non-existent."
Bromwich said that the increase in the ozone hole above the central Antarctic continent may also be affecting temperatures on the mainland. "If you have less ozone, there's less absorption of the ultraviolet light and the stratosphere doesn't warm as much."
That would mean that winter-like conditions would remain later in the spring than normal, lowering temperatures.
"In some sense, we might have competing effects going on in Antarctica where there is low-level CO2 warming but that may be swamped by the effects of ozone depletion," he said. "The year 2006 was the all-time maximum for ozone depletion over the Antarctic."
Bromwich said the disagreement between climate model predictions and the snowfall and temperature records doesn't necessarily mean that the models are wrong.
"It isn't surprising that these models are not doing as well in these remote parts of the world. These are global models and shouldn't be expected to be equally exact for all locations," he said.
###
Contact: David Bromwich (614) 292-6692; Bromwich.1@osu.edu
"David Bromwich, professor of atmospheric sciences in the Department of Geography, and researcher with the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University, reported on this work at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science at San Francisco.
"It's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now,""
First off, could that be a longer, more pretentious title? They have to set it up as this guy knows what he's talking about, you should listen to him, if not the world will come to an end. Then he issues a statement seldom heard by global warming-ites. What does he mean, hard to see? Fantastic. The entire story is about how the temperatures don't actually match the predictions. What I love about the story though, even more than the fact that the actual data doesn't match the gloom and doom models, is that the way he seems to stammer through out the entire article in some weak way saying things like,
"The best we can say right now is that the climate models are somewhat inconsistent with the evidence that we have for the last 50 years from continental Antarctica . "
and
"We're looking for a small signal that represents the impact of human activity and it is hard to find it at the moment," he said.
It's as if he is saying, well, it's so tiny, we are trying so hard, please, don't get mad at us because the actual temperatures aren't showing the global warming predicted, it isn't our fault, we're really trying so hard to find the evidence but he land, the land is soooo big.
That's really what this story represents though, is bad science. They have a desired result, man made global warming, and they are looking to find evidence of that. True science doesn't work that way, and real scientists allow the evidence to take them where it may.
Public release date: 15-Feb-2007
[ Print Article E-mail Article Close Window ]
Contact: David Bromwich
Bromwich.1@osu.edu
614-292-6692
Ohio State University
Antarctic temperatures disagree with climate model predictions
COLUMBUS , Ohio – A new report on climate over the world's southernmost continent shows that temperatures during the late 20th century did not climb as had been predicted by many global climate models.
This comes soon after the latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that strongly supports the conclusion that the Earth's climate as a whole is warming, largely due to human activity.
It also follows a similar finding from last summer by the same research group that showed no increase in precipitation over Antarctica in the last 50 years. Most models predict that both precipitation and temperature will increase over Antarctica with a warming of the planet.
David Bromwich, professor of professor of atmospheric sciences in the Department of Geography, and researcher with the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University, reported on this work at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science at San Francisco.
"It's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now," he said. "Part of the reason is that there is a lot of variability there. It's very hard in these polar latitudes to demonstrate a global warming signal. This is in marked contrast to the northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula that is one of the most rapidly warming parts of the Earth."
Bromwich says that the problem rises from several complications. The continent is vast, as large as the United States and Mexico combined. Only a small amount of detailed data is available – there are perhaps only 100 weather stations on that continent compared to the thousands spread across the U.S. and Europe . And the records that we have only date back a half-century.
"The best we can say right now is that the climate models are somewhat inconsistent with the evidence that we have for the last 50 years from continental Antarctica .
"We're looking for a small signal that represents the impact of human activity and it is hard to find it at the moment," he said.
Last year, Bromwich's research group reported in the journal Science that Antarctic snowfall hadn't increased in the last 50 years. "What we see now is that the temperature regime is broadly similar to what we saw before with snowfall. In the last decade or so, both have gone down," he said.
In addition to the new temperature records and earlier precipitation records, Bromwich's team also looked at the behavior of the circumpolar westerlies, the broad system of winds that surround the Antarctic continent.
"The westerlies have intensified over the last four decades of so, increasing in strength by as much as perhaps 10 to 20 percent," he said. "This is a huge amount of ocean north of Antarctica and we're only now understanding just how important the winds are for things like mixing in the Southern Ocean." The ocean mixing both dissipates heat and absorbs carbon dioxide, one of the key greenhouse gases linked to global warming.
Some researchers are suggesting that the strengthening of the westerlies may be playing a role in the collapse of ice shelves along the Antarctic Peninsula.
"The peninsula is the most northern point of Antarctica and it sticks out into the westerlies," Bromwich says. "If there is an increase in the westerly winds, it will have a warming impact on that part of the continent, thus helping to break up the ice shelves, he said.
"Farther south, the impact would be modest, or even non-existent."
Bromwich said that the increase in the ozone hole above the central Antarctic continent may also be affecting temperatures on the mainland. "If you have less ozone, there's less absorption of the ultraviolet light and the stratosphere doesn't warm as much."
That would mean that winter-like conditions would remain later in the spring than normal, lowering temperatures.
"In some sense, we might have competing effects going on in Antarctica where there is low-level CO2 warming but that may be swamped by the effects of ozone depletion," he said. "The year 2006 was the all-time maximum for ozone depletion over the Antarctic."
Bromwich said the disagreement between climate model predictions and the snowfall and temperature records doesn't necessarily mean that the models are wrong.
"It isn't surprising that these models are not doing as well in these remote parts of the world. These are global models and shouldn't be expected to be equally exact for all locations," he said.
###
Contact: David Bromwich (614) 292-6692; Bromwich.1@osu.edu
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
A Dilicious Indignation
Okay, sometimes a story comes along that is so perfect I can hardly stand it. There is a story on DRUDGE, just a short one, that reads, "HOUSE HEARING ON 'WARMING OF THE PLANET' CANCELED AFTER ICE STORM". How perfectly dilicious is that? When I started this blog it was just as a place to write about the things that make me indignant, that was supposed to be a wide variety of things. It turns out most of what makes me indignant is the hypocracy of scientists so called who, with baited breath, explain how the world is coming to an end and we, the common folk with common sense, just somehow know this isn't the case. So I get mad at them for lying, and I get mad at the leftist sheep who follow them from one pasture to the next. I was going to ask your forgiveness for placing my focus on just one thing for so many entries, but, this is my blog and I don't have to say I'm sorry. Really, I'm not, the idea here is to explore what makes me upset and what gets my dander up. So, if one things seems to more than others, then, that's the point accomplished. Isn't it?
HOUSE HEARING ON 'WARMING OF THE PLANET' CANCELED AFTER ICE STORM
HEARING NOTICE
Tue Feb 13 2007 19:31:25 ET
The Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality hearing scheduled for Wednesday, February 14, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. in room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building has been postponed due to inclement weather. The hearing is entitled “Climate Change: Are Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Human Activities Contributing to a Warming of the Planet?”
The hearing will be rescheduled to a date and time to be announced later.
DC WEATHER REPORT:
Wednesday: Freezing rain in the morning. Total ice accumulation between one half to three quarters of an inch. Brisk with highs in the mid 30s. North winds 10 to 15 mph...increasing to northwest 20 to 25 mph in the afternoon. Chance of precipitation near 100 percent.
Wednesday Night: Partly cloudy. Lows around 18. Northwest winds around 20 mph.
HOUSE HEARING ON 'WARMING OF THE PLANET' CANCELED AFTER ICE STORM
HEARING NOTICE
Tue Feb 13 2007 19:31:25 ET
The Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality hearing scheduled for Wednesday, February 14, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. in room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building has been postponed due to inclement weather. The hearing is entitled “Climate Change: Are Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Human Activities Contributing to a Warming of the Planet?”
The hearing will be rescheduled to a date and time to be announced later.
DC WEATHER REPORT:
Wednesday: Freezing rain in the morning. Total ice accumulation between one half to three quarters of an inch. Brisk with highs in the mid 30s. North winds 10 to 15 mph...increasing to northwest 20 to 25 mph in the afternoon. Chance of precipitation near 100 percent.
Wednesday Night: Partly cloudy. Lows around 18. Northwest winds around 20 mph.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
If I Had a Hammer
This article is how chimps did not learn to use tools from watching humans. That seems like a simple enough idea, very clear and easy to comprehend. The story also says that chimps have used tools for a very long time independant of humans. It explains that they passed the genes for tool use on to humans. I don't remember where I heard it, but I thought tool use happened only becuase our hands were free once we learned to walk upright. Chimps were still knuckle draggers last time I checked.
MSNBC.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chimps may have used stone hammers
Chimps, humans likely inherited tool-use behaviors from common ancestor
By Heather Whipps
Special to LiveScience
LiveScience
Updated: 9:29 a.m. MT Feb 13, 2007
Chimpanzees learned to make and use stone tools on their own, rather than copying humans, new evidence suggests.
And this means that chimps and humans likely inherited some of their sophisticated stone tool-use behaviors from a common ancestor, a report on the evidence claims.
The handheld hammers were found at a chimpanzee settlement in the Ivory Coast and date back 4,300 years. Chimpanzees have been observed using similar tools for the past few centuries, but scientists assumed the intelligent apes were simply copying local people cutting open fruit nearby.
"The thinking until now was that if modern day chimpanzees use hammers, it was only because they're imitating neighboring farmers," said Julio Mercader, archaeologist at the University of Calgary and co-author of the study. "But what we've found predates farming in the area."
Since the ancient chimpanzees likely didn't learn the behavior from their contemporary man, humans and chimps may have "inherited" the ability from a common ancestor, researchers speculate.
Though there were no chimpanzee remains at the settlement, testing by archaeologists revealed the tool-laden camp was most likely used by the Great Ape. The stones were much bigger than anything a human could use comfortably and bore the residue of nuts that modern chimpanzees like to snack on.
"This is the only case of any prehistoric, non-human Great Ape tool use ever discovered," Mercader told LiveScience.
Chimpanzees alive in the wild today are often seen using hammer tools to crack nuts, much like what our ancient ancestors did a few million years ago. The technology is transmitted socially—or taught, rather than instinctive from birth—and can take up to seven years for a young chimp to master, many scientists have found.
"What makes our find different is that we can demonstrate a prehistoric context for this, and that opens many doors," Mercader said. "Social transmission was the only way for this to happen."
It suggests that there is a "culture" link between chimps today and their ancient ancestors, one that could go back even further than a few thousand years, he said. Since human stone tool use was learned the same way, it's possible that both lines were taught by a single source, perhaps even millions of years ago.
The transition from millions of years ago to the chimpanzees that lived at the ancient settlement would not have been smooth, said Mercader. Other apes in nearby areas may not have used the nut-smashing technique at all, he said, and the find asks many questions about why and how this particular group in the Ivory Coast was able to grasp the concept.
It does dispel the notion, however, that humans were the only forest-dwellers with any brains.
"We used to think that culture and, above anything else, technology was the exclusive domain of humans," Mercader said, "but this is not the case."
© 2007 LiveScience.com. All rights reserved.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17121018/
MSNBC.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chimps may have used stone hammers
Chimps, humans likely inherited tool-use behaviors from common ancestor
By Heather Whipps
Special to LiveScience
LiveScience
Updated: 9:29 a.m. MT Feb 13, 2007
Chimpanzees learned to make and use stone tools on their own, rather than copying humans, new evidence suggests.
And this means that chimps and humans likely inherited some of their sophisticated stone tool-use behaviors from a common ancestor, a report on the evidence claims.
The handheld hammers were found at a chimpanzee settlement in the Ivory Coast and date back 4,300 years. Chimpanzees have been observed using similar tools for the past few centuries, but scientists assumed the intelligent apes were simply copying local people cutting open fruit nearby.
"The thinking until now was that if modern day chimpanzees use hammers, it was only because they're imitating neighboring farmers," said Julio Mercader, archaeologist at the University of Calgary and co-author of the study. "But what we've found predates farming in the area."
Since the ancient chimpanzees likely didn't learn the behavior from their contemporary man, humans and chimps may have "inherited" the ability from a common ancestor, researchers speculate.
Though there were no chimpanzee remains at the settlement, testing by archaeologists revealed the tool-laden camp was most likely used by the Great Ape. The stones were much bigger than anything a human could use comfortably and bore the residue of nuts that modern chimpanzees like to snack on.
"This is the only case of any prehistoric, non-human Great Ape tool use ever discovered," Mercader told LiveScience.
Chimpanzees alive in the wild today are often seen using hammer tools to crack nuts, much like what our ancient ancestors did a few million years ago. The technology is transmitted socially—or taught, rather than instinctive from birth—and can take up to seven years for a young chimp to master, many scientists have found.
"What makes our find different is that we can demonstrate a prehistoric context for this, and that opens many doors," Mercader said. "Social transmission was the only way for this to happen."
It suggests that there is a "culture" link between chimps today and their ancient ancestors, one that could go back even further than a few thousand years, he said. Since human stone tool use was learned the same way, it's possible that both lines were taught by a single source, perhaps even millions of years ago.
The transition from millions of years ago to the chimpanzees that lived at the ancient settlement would not have been smooth, said Mercader. Other apes in nearby areas may not have used the nut-smashing technique at all, he said, and the find asks many questions about why and how this particular group in the Ivory Coast was able to grasp the concept.
It does dispel the notion, however, that humans were the only forest-dwellers with any brains.
"We used to think that culture and, above anything else, technology was the exclusive domain of humans," Mercader said, "but this is not the case."
© 2007 LiveScience.com. All rights reserved.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17121018/
Experts question theory on global warming
The fact is, one does not have to be an expert to know that global warming isn't really man made. This is a great article as it shows just how sparce the research is and how little it takes for the activists to use it as proof. These scientists aren't real, pure scientists, they are the faithful at the alter of evironmentalism and they worship blindly and requently.
Experts question theory on global warmingAnil AnandNew Delhi, February 11, 2007AdvertisementBelieve it or not. There are only about a dozen scientists working on 9,575 glaciers in India under the aegis of the Geological Society of India. Is the available data enough to believe that the glaciers are retreating due to global warming?Some experts have questioned the alarmists theory on global warming leading to shrinkage of Himalayan glaciers. VK Raina, a leading glaciologist and former ADG of GSI is one among them.He feels that the research on Indian glaciers is negligible. Nothing but the remote sensing data forms the basis of these alarmists observations and not on the spot research.Raina told the Hindustan Times that out of 9,575 glaciers in India, till date, research has been conducted only on about 50. Nearly 200 years data has shown that nothing abnormal has occurred in any of these glaciers.It is simple. The issue of glacial retreat is being sensationalised by a few individuals, the septuagenarian Raina claimed. Throwing a gauntlet to the alarmist, he said the issue should be debated threadbare before drawing a conclusion.However, Dr RK Pachouri, Chairman, Inter-Governmental Panel of Climatic Change said it’s recently released fourth assessment report has recorded increased glacier retreat since the 1980s.This he said was due to the fact that the carbon dioxide radioactive forcing has increased by 20 per cent particularly after 1995. And also that 11 of the last 12 years were among the warmest 12 years recorded so far.Surprisingly, Raina, who has been associated with the research and data collection in over 25 glaciers in India and abroad, debunked the theory that Gangotri glacier is retreating alarmingly.Maintaining that the glaciers are undergoing natural changes, witnessed periodically, he said recent studies in the Gangotri and Zanskar areas (Drung- Drung, Kagriz glaciers) have not shown any evidence of major retreat."Claims of global warming causing glacial melt in the Himalayas are based on wrong assumptions," Raina, a trained mountaineer and skiing expert said. He rued that not much is being done by the Government to create a bank of trained geologists for an in-depth study of glaciers.The agencies such as the GSI are not getting fresh talent simply because of the measly salaries offered by the Government.Consider this. During one of his visits to Antarctic, to his utter dismay, Raina discovered that the cook of a Japanese team was getting a bigger pay packet than him.If he is to be believed, currently only about a dozen scientists are working on Indian glaciers. More alarming is the fact that some of them are above 50. How can one talk about the state of glaciers when not much research is being done on the ground, he wondered.In fact, it is difficult to ascertain the exact state of Himalayan glaciers as these are very dusty as compared to the ones in Alaska and the Alps. The present presumptions are based on the cosmatic study of the glacier surfaces.Nobody knows what is happening beneath the glaciers. What ever is being flaunted about the under surface activity of the glaciers, is merely presumptions, he claimed.His views were echoed by Dr RK Ganjoo, Director, Regional Centre for Field Operations and Research on Himalayan Glaciology, who is supervising study of glaciers in Ladakh region including one in the Siachen area. He also maintained that nothing abnormal has been found in any of the Himalyan glaciers studied so far by him.Still, he wondered on the Himalayan glaciers being compared with those in Alaska or Europe to lend credence to the melt theory. Indian glaciers are at 3,500-4,000 meter above the sea level whereas those in the Alps are at much lower levels. Certainly, the conditions under which the glaciers in Alaska are retreating, are not prevailing in the Indian sub-continent, he explained.Another leading geologist MN Koul of Jammu University, who is actively engaged in studying glacier dynamics in J&K and Himachal holds similar views. Referring to his research on Kol glacier ( Paddar, J&K) and Naradu (HP), he said both the glaciers have not changed much in the past two decades.Email Anil Anand: aanand@hindustantimes.com
Experts question theory on global warmingAnil AnandNew Delhi, February 11, 2007AdvertisementBelieve it or not. There are only about a dozen scientists working on 9,575 glaciers in India under the aegis of the Geological Society of India. Is the available data enough to believe that the glaciers are retreating due to global warming?Some experts have questioned the alarmists theory on global warming leading to shrinkage of Himalayan glaciers. VK Raina, a leading glaciologist and former ADG of GSI is one among them.He feels that the research on Indian glaciers is negligible. Nothing but the remote sensing data forms the basis of these alarmists observations and not on the spot research.Raina told the Hindustan Times that out of 9,575 glaciers in India, till date, research has been conducted only on about 50. Nearly 200 years data has shown that nothing abnormal has occurred in any of these glaciers.It is simple. The issue of glacial retreat is being sensationalised by a few individuals, the septuagenarian Raina claimed. Throwing a gauntlet to the alarmist, he said the issue should be debated threadbare before drawing a conclusion.However, Dr RK Pachouri, Chairman, Inter-Governmental Panel of Climatic Change said it’s recently released fourth assessment report has recorded increased glacier retreat since the 1980s.This he said was due to the fact that the carbon dioxide radioactive forcing has increased by 20 per cent particularly after 1995. And also that 11 of the last 12 years were among the warmest 12 years recorded so far.Surprisingly, Raina, who has been associated with the research and data collection in over 25 glaciers in India and abroad, debunked the theory that Gangotri glacier is retreating alarmingly.Maintaining that the glaciers are undergoing natural changes, witnessed periodically, he said recent studies in the Gangotri and Zanskar areas (Drung- Drung, Kagriz glaciers) have not shown any evidence of major retreat."Claims of global warming causing glacial melt in the Himalayas are based on wrong assumptions," Raina, a trained mountaineer and skiing expert said. He rued that not much is being done by the Government to create a bank of trained geologists for an in-depth study of glaciers.The agencies such as the GSI are not getting fresh talent simply because of the measly salaries offered by the Government.Consider this. During one of his visits to Antarctic, to his utter dismay, Raina discovered that the cook of a Japanese team was getting a bigger pay packet than him.If he is to be believed, currently only about a dozen scientists are working on Indian glaciers. More alarming is the fact that some of them are above 50. How can one talk about the state of glaciers when not much research is being done on the ground, he wondered.In fact, it is difficult to ascertain the exact state of Himalayan glaciers as these are very dusty as compared to the ones in Alaska and the Alps. The present presumptions are based on the cosmatic study of the glacier surfaces.Nobody knows what is happening beneath the glaciers. What ever is being flaunted about the under surface activity of the glaciers, is merely presumptions, he claimed.His views were echoed by Dr RK Ganjoo, Director, Regional Centre for Field Operations and Research on Himalayan Glaciology, who is supervising study of glaciers in Ladakh region including one in the Siachen area. He also maintained that nothing abnormal has been found in any of the Himalyan glaciers studied so far by him.Still, he wondered on the Himalayan glaciers being compared with those in Alaska or Europe to lend credence to the melt theory. Indian glaciers are at 3,500-4,000 meter above the sea level whereas those in the Alps are at much lower levels. Certainly, the conditions under which the glaciers in Alaska are retreating, are not prevailing in the Indian sub-continent, he explained.Another leading geologist MN Koul of Jammu University, who is actively engaged in studying glacier dynamics in J&K and Himachal holds similar views. Referring to his research on Kol glacier ( Paddar, J&K) and Naradu (HP), he said both the glaciers have not changed much in the past two decades.Email Anil Anand: aanand@hindustantimes.com
Mean Scientists at Global Warming High School
Okay, so it isn't really a high school, but these so called scientists sure seem to act like they are in high school. Say one thing against their precious theory of global warming and you can't sit at the cafeteria table with them anymore and they won't go to prom with you!
The Washington Timeswww.washingtontimes.com--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Global-warming skeptics cite being 'treated like a pariah'By Eric PfeifferTHE WASHINGTON TIMESPublished February 12, 2007--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Scientists skeptical of climate-change theories say they are increasingly coming under attack -- treatment that may make other analysts less likely to present contrarian views about global warming. "In general, if you do not agree with the consensus that we are headed toward disaster, you are treated like a pariah," said William O'Keefe, chief executive officer of the Marshall Institute, which assesses scientific issues that shape public policy. "It's ironic that a field based on challenging unproven theories attacks skeptics in a very unhealthy way." Two climatologists in Democrat-leaning states, David Legates in Delaware and George Taylor in Oregon, have come under fire for expressing skepticism about the origins of climate change. Oregon Gov. Theodore R. Kulongoski is publicly seeking to strip Mr. Taylor, widely known as the state's climatologist, of his position because of his stance. "There has been a broad, concerted effort to intimidate and silence them," said Myron Ebell, director of energy and global-warming policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. "It's the typical politics of the hard left at work. I think these are real threats." CEI, which previously listed Mr. Legates as an "adjunct scholar," has published multiple reports questioning the science behind global-warming theories and has been criticized for accepting donations from companies such as Exxon Mobil Corp. Mr. O'Keefe said his organization doesn't deny the existence of global warming but questions the methods used by individuals and groups advocating for new government restrictions to combat the phenomenon. "We have never said that global warming isn't real," Mr. O'Keefe said. "No self-respecting think tank would accept money to support preconceived notions. We make sure what we are saying is both scientifically and analytically defensible." In an interview with local NBC affiliate KGW-TV, Mr. Kulongoski, a Democrat, said he hopes to take away Mr. Taylor's job title because his views do not mesh with the political opinions of most lawmakers in Oregon, including the governor. "He is Oregon State University's climatologist. He is not the state of Oregon's climatologist," Mr. Kulongoski said. "I just think there has to be somebody that says, 'This is the state position on this.' " Mr. Taylor was appointed to the position in 1991, when Oregon's legislature created a state climate office at the college. Mr. Kulongoski wants to change the position to a governor-appointed one. State Sen. Brad Avakian, a Democrat, is sponsoring a bill supporting such a move. Copyright © 2007 News World Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.
The Washington Timeswww.washingtontimes.com--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Global-warming skeptics cite being 'treated like a pariah'By Eric PfeifferTHE WASHINGTON TIMESPublished February 12, 2007--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Scientists skeptical of climate-change theories say they are increasingly coming under attack -- treatment that may make other analysts less likely to present contrarian views about global warming. "In general, if you do not agree with the consensus that we are headed toward disaster, you are treated like a pariah," said William O'Keefe, chief executive officer of the Marshall Institute, which assesses scientific issues that shape public policy. "It's ironic that a field based on challenging unproven theories attacks skeptics in a very unhealthy way." Two climatologists in Democrat-leaning states, David Legates in Delaware and George Taylor in Oregon, have come under fire for expressing skepticism about the origins of climate change. Oregon Gov. Theodore R. Kulongoski is publicly seeking to strip Mr. Taylor, widely known as the state's climatologist, of his position because of his stance. "There has been a broad, concerted effort to intimidate and silence them," said Myron Ebell, director of energy and global-warming policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. "It's the typical politics of the hard left at work. I think these are real threats." CEI, which previously listed Mr. Legates as an "adjunct scholar," has published multiple reports questioning the science behind global-warming theories and has been criticized for accepting donations from companies such as Exxon Mobil Corp. Mr. O'Keefe said his organization doesn't deny the existence of global warming but questions the methods used by individuals and groups advocating for new government restrictions to combat the phenomenon. "We have never said that global warming isn't real," Mr. O'Keefe said. "No self-respecting think tank would accept money to support preconceived notions. We make sure what we are saying is both scientifically and analytically defensible." In an interview with local NBC affiliate KGW-TV, Mr. Kulongoski, a Democrat, said he hopes to take away Mr. Taylor's job title because his views do not mesh with the political opinions of most lawmakers in Oregon, including the governor. "He is Oregon State University's climatologist. He is not the state of Oregon's climatologist," Mr. Kulongoski said. "I just think there has to be somebody that says, 'This is the state position on this.' " Mr. Taylor was appointed to the position in 1991, when Oregon's legislature created a state climate office at the college. Mr. Kulongoski wants to change the position to a governor-appointed one. State Sen. Brad Avakian, a Democrat, is sponsoring a bill supporting such a move. Copyright © 2007 News World Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.
Wrong on Climate Change, Say it Isn't So
Read on to fine out just what, "In a box of air in the basement, they were able to show that electrons set free by cosmic rays coming through the ceiling stitched together droplets of sulphuric acid and water. These are the building blocks for cloud condensation. But journal after journal declined to publish their report; the discovery finally appeared in the Proceedings of the Royal Society late last year." REALLY means.
An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate changeNigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, says the orthodoxy must be challengedWhen politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works. We were treated to another dose of it recently when the experts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued the Summary for Policymakers that puts the political spin on an unfinished scientific dossier on climate change due for publication in a few months’ time. They declared that most of the rise in temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to man-made greenhouse gases. The small print explains “very likely” as meaning that the experts who made the judgment felt 90% sure about it. Older readers may recall a press conference at Harwell in 1958 when Sir John Cockcroft, Britain’s top nuclear physicist, said he was 90% certain that his lads had achieved controlled nuclear fusion. It turned out that he was wrong. More positively, a 10% uncertainty in any theory is a wide open breach for any latterday Galileo or Einstein to storm through with a better idea. That is how science really works. Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis, which redefined the subject as the study of the effect of greenhouse gases. As a result, the rebellious spirits essential for innovative and trustworthy science are greeted with impediments to their research careers. And while the media usually find mavericks at least entertaining, in this case they often imagine that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil companies. As a result, some key discoveries in climate research go almost unreported. Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winter’s billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages. The early arrival of migrant birds in spring provides colourful evidence for a recent warming of the northern lands. But did anyone tell you that in east Antarctica the Adélie penguins and Cape petrels are turning up at their spring nesting sites around nine days later than they did 50 years ago? While sea-ice has diminished in the Arctic since 1978, it has grown by 8% in the Southern Ocean. Background‘Blame cosmic rays for warming up the planet’ No excuse for soft climate change laws Jeremy Clarkson: Cornered by the green lynch mob Related Internet LinksNew Scientist on Climate ChangeSo one awkward question you can ask, when you’re forking out those extra taxes for climate change, is “Why is east Antarctica getting colder?” It makes no sense at all if carbon dioxide is driving global warming. While you’re at it, you might inquire whether Gordon Brown will give you a refund if it’s confirmed that global warming has stopped. The best measurements of global air temperatures come from American weather satellites, and they show wobbles but no overall change since 1999. That levelling off is just what is expected by the chief rival hypothesis, which says that the sun drives climate changes more emphatically than greenhouse gases do. After becoming much more active during the 20th century, the sun now stands at a high but roughly level state of activity. Solar physicists warn of possible global cooling, should the sun revert to the lazier mood it was in during the Little Ice Age 300 years ago. Climate history and related archeology give solid support to the solar hypothesis. The 20th-century episode, or Modern Warming, was just the latest in a long string of similar events produced by a hyperactive sun, of which the last was the Medieval Warming. The Chinese population doubled then, while in Europe the Vikings and cathedral-builders prospered. Fascinating relics of earlier episodes come from the Swiss Alps, with the rediscovery in 2003 of a long-forgotten pass used intermittently whenever the world was warm. What does the Intergovernmental Panel do with such emphatic evidence for an alternation of warm and cold periods, linked to solar activity and going on long before human industry was a possible factor? Less than nothing. The 2007 Summary for Policymakers boasts of cutting in half a very small contribution by the sun to climate change conceded in a 2001 report. Disdain for the sun goes with a failure by the self-appointed greenhouse experts to keep up with inconvenient discoveries about how the solar variations control the climate. The sun’s brightness may change too little to account for the big swings in the climate. But more than 10 years have passed since Henrik Svensmark in Copenhagen first pointed out a much more powerful mechanism. He saw from compilations of weather satellite data that cloudiness varies according to how many atomic particles are coming in from exploded stars. More cosmic rays, more clouds. The sun’s magnetic field bats away many of the cosmic rays, and its intensification during the 20th century meant fewer cosmic rays, fewer clouds, and a warmer world. On the other hand the Little Ice Age was chilly because the lazy sun let in more cosmic rays, leaving the world cloudier and gloomier. The only trouble with Svensmark’s idea — apart from its being politically incorrect — was that meteorologists denied that cosmic rays could be involved in cloud formation. After long delays in scraping together the funds for an experiment, Svensmark and his small team at the Danish National Space Center hit the jackpot in the summer of 2005. In a box of air in the basement, they were able to show that electrons set free by cosmic rays coming through the ceiling stitched together droplets of sulphuric acid and water. These are the building blocks for cloud condensation. But journal after journal declined to publish their report; the discovery finally appeared in the Proceedings of the Royal Society late last year. Thanks to having written The Manic Sun, a book about Svensmark’s initial discovery published in 1997, I have been privileged to be on the inside track for reporting his struggles and successes since then. The outcome is a second book, The Chilling Stars, co-authored by the two of us and published next week by Icon books. We are not exaggerating, we believe, when we subtitle it “A new theory of climate change”. Where does all that leave the impact of greenhouse gases? Their effects are likely to be a good deal less than advertised, but nobody can really say until the implications of the new theory of climate change are more fully worked out. The reappraisal starts with Antarctica, where those contradictory temperature trends are directly predicted by Svensmark’s scenario, because the snow there is whiter than the cloud-tops. Meanwhile humility in face of Nature’s marvels seems more appropriate than arrogant assertions that we can forecast and even control a climate ruled by the sun and the stars.
An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate changeNigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, says the orthodoxy must be challengedWhen politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works. We were treated to another dose of it recently when the experts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued the Summary for Policymakers that puts the political spin on an unfinished scientific dossier on climate change due for publication in a few months’ time. They declared that most of the rise in temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to man-made greenhouse gases. The small print explains “very likely” as meaning that the experts who made the judgment felt 90% sure about it. Older readers may recall a press conference at Harwell in 1958 when Sir John Cockcroft, Britain’s top nuclear physicist, said he was 90% certain that his lads had achieved controlled nuclear fusion. It turned out that he was wrong. More positively, a 10% uncertainty in any theory is a wide open breach for any latterday Galileo or Einstein to storm through with a better idea. That is how science really works. Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis, which redefined the subject as the study of the effect of greenhouse gases. As a result, the rebellious spirits essential for innovative and trustworthy science are greeted with impediments to their research careers. And while the media usually find mavericks at least entertaining, in this case they often imagine that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil companies. As a result, some key discoveries in climate research go almost unreported. Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winter’s billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages. The early arrival of migrant birds in spring provides colourful evidence for a recent warming of the northern lands. But did anyone tell you that in east Antarctica the Adélie penguins and Cape petrels are turning up at their spring nesting sites around nine days later than they did 50 years ago? While sea-ice has diminished in the Arctic since 1978, it has grown by 8% in the Southern Ocean. Background‘Blame cosmic rays for warming up the planet’ No excuse for soft climate change laws Jeremy Clarkson: Cornered by the green lynch mob Related Internet LinksNew Scientist on Climate ChangeSo one awkward question you can ask, when you’re forking out those extra taxes for climate change, is “Why is east Antarctica getting colder?” It makes no sense at all if carbon dioxide is driving global warming. While you’re at it, you might inquire whether Gordon Brown will give you a refund if it’s confirmed that global warming has stopped. The best measurements of global air temperatures come from American weather satellites, and they show wobbles but no overall change since 1999. That levelling off is just what is expected by the chief rival hypothesis, which says that the sun drives climate changes more emphatically than greenhouse gases do. After becoming much more active during the 20th century, the sun now stands at a high but roughly level state of activity. Solar physicists warn of possible global cooling, should the sun revert to the lazier mood it was in during the Little Ice Age 300 years ago. Climate history and related archeology give solid support to the solar hypothesis. The 20th-century episode, or Modern Warming, was just the latest in a long string of similar events produced by a hyperactive sun, of which the last was the Medieval Warming. The Chinese population doubled then, while in Europe the Vikings and cathedral-builders prospered. Fascinating relics of earlier episodes come from the Swiss Alps, with the rediscovery in 2003 of a long-forgotten pass used intermittently whenever the world was warm. What does the Intergovernmental Panel do with such emphatic evidence for an alternation of warm and cold periods, linked to solar activity and going on long before human industry was a possible factor? Less than nothing. The 2007 Summary for Policymakers boasts of cutting in half a very small contribution by the sun to climate change conceded in a 2001 report. Disdain for the sun goes with a failure by the self-appointed greenhouse experts to keep up with inconvenient discoveries about how the solar variations control the climate. The sun’s brightness may change too little to account for the big swings in the climate. But more than 10 years have passed since Henrik Svensmark in Copenhagen first pointed out a much more powerful mechanism. He saw from compilations of weather satellite data that cloudiness varies according to how many atomic particles are coming in from exploded stars. More cosmic rays, more clouds. The sun’s magnetic field bats away many of the cosmic rays, and its intensification during the 20th century meant fewer cosmic rays, fewer clouds, and a warmer world. On the other hand the Little Ice Age was chilly because the lazy sun let in more cosmic rays, leaving the world cloudier and gloomier. The only trouble with Svensmark’s idea — apart from its being politically incorrect — was that meteorologists denied that cosmic rays could be involved in cloud formation. After long delays in scraping together the funds for an experiment, Svensmark and his small team at the Danish National Space Center hit the jackpot in the summer of 2005. In a box of air in the basement, they were able to show that electrons set free by cosmic rays coming through the ceiling stitched together droplets of sulphuric acid and water. These are the building blocks for cloud condensation. But journal after journal declined to publish their report; the discovery finally appeared in the Proceedings of the Royal Society late last year. Thanks to having written The Manic Sun, a book about Svensmark’s initial discovery published in 1997, I have been privileged to be on the inside track for reporting his struggles and successes since then. The outcome is a second book, The Chilling Stars, co-authored by the two of us and published next week by Icon books. We are not exaggerating, we believe, when we subtitle it “A new theory of climate change”. Where does all that leave the impact of greenhouse gases? Their effects are likely to be a good deal less than advertised, but nobody can really say until the implications of the new theory of climate change are more fully worked out. The reappraisal starts with Antarctica, where those contradictory temperature trends are directly predicted by Svensmark’s scenario, because the snow there is whiter than the cloud-tops. Meanwhile humility in face of Nature’s marvels seems more appropriate than arrogant assertions that we can forecast and even control a climate ruled by the sun and the stars.
Cosmic Rays Proven to Cause Global Warming
This ARTICLE has a nice graphic to go with it so I am linking to it. The idea here is simple, the Sun, that great big ball of fire that warms our planet and sustains life here, is hotter and that makes the planet hotter too...duh.
Czech Mate
It's about time an EU leader came out and said what we've all been thinking, global warming is a myth created by the left. It is really that easy. He made some great comments to reporters and when they tried to press him he held his own.
The following is from the Drudge Report.President of Czech Republic Calls Man-Made Global Warming a 'Myth' - Questions Gore's SanityMon Feb 12 2007 09:10:09 ETCzech president Vaclav Klaus has criticized the UN panel on global warming, claiming that it was a political authority without any scientific basis.In an interview with "Hospodárské noviny", a Czech economics daily, Klaus answered a few questions:Q: IPCC has released its report and you say that the global warming is a false myth. How did you get this idea, Mr President?•A: It's not my idea. Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment. Also, it's an undignified slapstick that people don't wait for the full report in May 2007 but instead respond, in such a serious way, to the summary for policymakers where all the "but's" are scratched, removed, and replaced by oversimplified theses.• This is clearly such an incredible failure of so many people, from journalists to politicians. If the European Commission is instantly going to buy such a trick, we have another very good reason to think that the countries themselves, not the Commission, should be deciding about similar issues.•Q: How do you explain that there is no other comparably senior statesman in Europe who would advocate this viewpoint? No one else has such strong opinions...•A: My opinions about this issue simply are strong. Other top-level politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles their voice.• Q: But you're not a climate scientist. Do you have a sufficient knowledge and enough information?•A: Environmentalism as a metaphysical ideology and as a worldview has absolutely nothing to do with natural sciences or with the climate. Sadly, it has nothing to do with social sciences either. Still, it is becoming fashionable and this fact scares me. The second part of the sentence should be: we also have lots of reports, studies, and books of climatologists whose conclusions are diametrally opposite.• Indeed, I never measure the thickness of ice in Antarctica. I really don't know how to do it and don't plan to learn it. However, as a scientifically oriented person, I know how to read science reports about these questions, for example about ice in Antarctica. I don't have to be a climate scientist myself to read them. And inside the papers I have read, the conclusions we may see in the media simply don't appear. But let me promise you something: this topic troubles me which is why I started to write an article about it last Christmas. The article expanded and became a book. In a couple of months, it will be published. One chapter out of seven will organize my opinions about the climate change.• Environmentalism and green ideology is something very different from climate science. Various findings and screams of scientists are abused by this ideology.•Q: How do you explain that conservative media are skeptical while the left-wing media view the global warming as a done deal?•A: It is not quite exactly divided to the left-wingers and right-wingers. Nevertheless it's obvious that environmentalism is a new incarnation of modern leftism.•Q: If you look at all these things, even if you were right ...•A: ...I am right...•Q: Isn't there enough empirical evidence and facts we can see with our eyes that imply that Man is demolishing the planet and himself?•A: It's such a nonsense that I have probably not heard a bigger nonsense yet.•Q: Don't you believe that we're ruining our planet?•A: I will pretend that I haven't heard you. Perhaps only Mr Al Gore may be saying something along these lines: a sane person can't. I don't see any ruining of the planet, I have never seen it, and I don't think that a reasonable and serious person could say such a thing. Look: you represent the economic media so I expect a certain economical erudition from you. My book will answer these questions. For example, we know that there exists a huge correlation between the care we give to the environment on one side and the wealth and technological prowess on the other side. It's clear that the poorer the society is, the more brutally it behaves with respect to Nature, and vice versa.• It's also true that there exist social systems that are damaging Nature - by eliminating private ownership and similar things - much more than the freer societies. These tendencies become important in the long run. They unambiguously imply that today, on February 8th, 2007, Nature is protected uncomparably more than on February 8th ten years ago or fifty years ago or one hundred years ago.• That's why I ask: how can you pronounce the sentence you said? Perhaps if you're unconscious? Or did you mean it as a provocation only? And maybe I am just too naive and I allowed you to provoke me to give you all these answers, am I not? It is more likely that you actually believe what you say.[English translation from Harvard Professor Lubos Motl]Developing...
The following is from the Drudge Report.President of Czech Republic Calls Man-Made Global Warming a 'Myth' - Questions Gore's SanityMon Feb 12 2007 09:10:09 ETCzech president Vaclav Klaus has criticized the UN panel on global warming, claiming that it was a political authority without any scientific basis.In an interview with "Hospodárské noviny", a Czech economics daily, Klaus answered a few questions:Q: IPCC has released its report and you say that the global warming is a false myth. How did you get this idea, Mr President?•A: It's not my idea. Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment. Also, it's an undignified slapstick that people don't wait for the full report in May 2007 but instead respond, in such a serious way, to the summary for policymakers where all the "but's" are scratched, removed, and replaced by oversimplified theses.• This is clearly such an incredible failure of so many people, from journalists to politicians. If the European Commission is instantly going to buy such a trick, we have another very good reason to think that the countries themselves, not the Commission, should be deciding about similar issues.•Q: How do you explain that there is no other comparably senior statesman in Europe who would advocate this viewpoint? No one else has such strong opinions...•A: My opinions about this issue simply are strong. Other top-level politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles their voice.• Q: But you're not a climate scientist. Do you have a sufficient knowledge and enough information?•A: Environmentalism as a metaphysical ideology and as a worldview has absolutely nothing to do with natural sciences or with the climate. Sadly, it has nothing to do with social sciences either. Still, it is becoming fashionable and this fact scares me. The second part of the sentence should be: we also have lots of reports, studies, and books of climatologists whose conclusions are diametrally opposite.• Indeed, I never measure the thickness of ice in Antarctica. I really don't know how to do it and don't plan to learn it. However, as a scientifically oriented person, I know how to read science reports about these questions, for example about ice in Antarctica. I don't have to be a climate scientist myself to read them. And inside the papers I have read, the conclusions we may see in the media simply don't appear. But let me promise you something: this topic troubles me which is why I started to write an article about it last Christmas. The article expanded and became a book. In a couple of months, it will be published. One chapter out of seven will organize my opinions about the climate change.• Environmentalism and green ideology is something very different from climate science. Various findings and screams of scientists are abused by this ideology.•Q: How do you explain that conservative media are skeptical while the left-wing media view the global warming as a done deal?•A: It is not quite exactly divided to the left-wingers and right-wingers. Nevertheless it's obvious that environmentalism is a new incarnation of modern leftism.•Q: If you look at all these things, even if you were right ...•A: ...I am right...•Q: Isn't there enough empirical evidence and facts we can see with our eyes that imply that Man is demolishing the planet and himself?•A: It's such a nonsense that I have probably not heard a bigger nonsense yet.•Q: Don't you believe that we're ruining our planet?•A: I will pretend that I haven't heard you. Perhaps only Mr Al Gore may be saying something along these lines: a sane person can't. I don't see any ruining of the planet, I have never seen it, and I don't think that a reasonable and serious person could say such a thing. Look: you represent the economic media so I expect a certain economical erudition from you. My book will answer these questions. For example, we know that there exists a huge correlation between the care we give to the environment on one side and the wealth and technological prowess on the other side. It's clear that the poorer the society is, the more brutally it behaves with respect to Nature, and vice versa.• It's also true that there exist social systems that are damaging Nature - by eliminating private ownership and similar things - much more than the freer societies. These tendencies become important in the long run. They unambiguously imply that today, on February 8th, 2007, Nature is protected uncomparably more than on February 8th ten years ago or fifty years ago or one hundred years ago.• That's why I ask: how can you pronounce the sentence you said? Perhaps if you're unconscious? Or did you mean it as a provocation only? And maybe I am just too naive and I allowed you to provoke me to give you all these answers, am I not? It is more likely that you actually believe what you say.[English translation from Harvard Professor Lubos Motl]Developing...
Monday, February 12, 2007
Glacier melting can be variable
Huh...weather changes. "Howat says such variability during such a short time underlines the problem in assuming glacial melting and sea level rise will necessarily occur at a steady upward trajectory." Now, that's a brilliant man.
BOULDER, Colo., Feb. 13 (UPI) -- A U.S. study suggests two of Greenland's largest glaciers are melting at variable rates and not at an increasing trend.
The study, led by Ian Howat, a researcher with the University of Colorado's National Snow and Ice Data Center and the University of Washington's Applied Physics Laboratory, shows the glaciers shrank dramatically and dumped twice as much ice into the sea during a period of less than a year between 2004 and 2005.
But then, fewer than two years later, they returned to near their previous rates of discharge.
Howat says such variability during such a short time underlines the problem in assuming glacial melting and sea level rise will necessarily occur at a steady upward trajectory.
"Our main point is that the behavior of these glaciers can change a lot from year to year, so we can't assume to know the future behavior from short records of recent changes," he said. "Future warming may lead to rapid pulses of retreat and increased discharge rather than a long, steady drawdown."
The research is online in the journal Science Express.
BOULDER, Colo., Feb. 13 (UPI) -- A U.S. study suggests two of Greenland's largest glaciers are melting at variable rates and not at an increasing trend.
The study, led by Ian Howat, a researcher with the University of Colorado's National Snow and Ice Data Center and the University of Washington's Applied Physics Laboratory, shows the glaciers shrank dramatically and dumped twice as much ice into the sea during a period of less than a year between 2004 and 2005.
But then, fewer than two years later, they returned to near their previous rates of discharge.
Howat says such variability during such a short time underlines the problem in assuming glacial melting and sea level rise will necessarily occur at a steady upward trajectory.
"Our main point is that the behavior of these glaciers can change a lot from year to year, so we can't assume to know the future behavior from short records of recent changes," he said. "Future warming may lead to rapid pulses of retreat and increased discharge rather than a long, steady drawdown."
The research is online in the journal Science Express.
Thursday, February 8, 2007
The Evolution of Bright and Smiling Eyes
I came across the following in an article on MSNBC.com, "According to one idea, called the cooperative eye hypothesis, the distinctive features that help highlight our eyes evolved partly to help us follow each others' gazes when communicating or when cooperating with one another on tasks requiring close contact." from THIS STORY.
What happened is, those born with eyes like ours lived, while those with eyes like an ape didn't. Eventually everyone born had eyes like ours because they were so successful.
Here's the thing I think I get most grumpy about when it comes to evolution, the way they phrase it. The above says, "evolved partly to help us". No, that's not how evolution works. That implies there was some effort on the part of eyes. It should read, "evolved which helped us." That something in evolution is helpful, according to the theory, is an accident. Things don't evolve with a purpose, the purpose is only discovered later, by accident, and then only if it fits with the environment in which it pops up.
If I were born with gills in the middle of the desert, big deal. Do they help me at all? If I were born with the ability to climb rocks really well but I can already fly, does that help me at all? Of course not. Also, I don't look at the rocks, think I need to mutate so I can climb them really well. Then claws pop out and I say wow, thanks, that was helpful! If evolution takes millions of years to happen then when it does happen it is by accident, and all the while during those millions of years the climate is also changing what's to say the rocks I want to climb are even going to be there. For evolution to work things must remain the same in an ever changing world so that changes can occur at all.
Things must also evolve together, like bees and flowers, or like male and female. There's a tough one. How did flowers polinate before bees and what if bees hadn't come along? How did we reproduce before male and female and what would have happened if men had evolved this great new member and women didn't? With other mutations, like eyes, everyone got them. But with sex organs, not so. The idea is so plain as to make evolution sound rediculous. I've long held this belief, long understood there were major problems with the theory as currently proposed. If I were an academic I would be ridiculed and no one would have lunch with me. How sad.
What happened is, those born with eyes like ours lived, while those with eyes like an ape didn't. Eventually everyone born had eyes like ours because they were so successful.
Here's the thing I think I get most grumpy about when it comes to evolution, the way they phrase it. The above says, "evolved partly to help us". No, that's not how evolution works. That implies there was some effort on the part of eyes. It should read, "evolved which helped us." That something in evolution is helpful, according to the theory, is an accident. Things don't evolve with a purpose, the purpose is only discovered later, by accident, and then only if it fits with the environment in which it pops up.
If I were born with gills in the middle of the desert, big deal. Do they help me at all? If I were born with the ability to climb rocks really well but I can already fly, does that help me at all? Of course not. Also, I don't look at the rocks, think I need to mutate so I can climb them really well. Then claws pop out and I say wow, thanks, that was helpful! If evolution takes millions of years to happen then when it does happen it is by accident, and all the while during those millions of years the climate is also changing what's to say the rocks I want to climb are even going to be there. For evolution to work things must remain the same in an ever changing world so that changes can occur at all.
Things must also evolve together, like bees and flowers, or like male and female. There's a tough one. How did flowers polinate before bees and what if bees hadn't come along? How did we reproduce before male and female and what would have happened if men had evolved this great new member and women didn't? With other mutations, like eyes, everyone got them. But with sex organs, not so. The idea is so plain as to make evolution sound rediculous. I've long held this belief, long understood there were major problems with the theory as currently proposed. If I were an academic I would be ridiculed and no one would have lunch with me. How sad.
Call me a Global Warming Non-believer
THIS STORY on global warming got me to thinking, again, on how I feel on the subject. I have said it before and will say it again, when I was in high school the big fear was the next ice age. We went from that, to this. Hogwash! For any Christian who believes in global warming they haven't read their scriptures or they are having a crisis of faith. Only God has the power to destroy the earth, not us.
For scientists they are ignoring data and not being good researchers. There's a boatload of information to refute global warming. I can find it, why can't they? The reason is clear, they don't want to because that would reduce grant money and like the previous story I talked about, they would be shunned in the lab and the classroom.
This isn't science folks, not by a long shot. If you are planning on changing the way you live because of global warming, fine, you can do that. However, don't force me to, don't make cars that run poorly, gas too much to buy, carpool lanes that are an afront to all taxpaying commuters, or gripe and moan that the world is coming to an end. Trust me, when the world is really coming to an end...you'll know it.
For scientists they are ignoring data and not being good researchers. There's a boatload of information to refute global warming. I can find it, why can't they? The reason is clear, they don't want to because that would reduce grant money and like the previous story I talked about, they would be shunned in the lab and the classroom.
This isn't science folks, not by a long shot. If you are planning on changing the way you live because of global warming, fine, you can do that. However, don't force me to, don't make cars that run poorly, gas too much to buy, carpool lanes that are an afront to all taxpaying commuters, or gripe and moan that the world is coming to an end. Trust me, when the world is really coming to an end...you'll know it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)