Derek Sorensen

August 7, 2011

Arctic ice weirdness

Filed under: environment — Derek Sorensen @ 5:22 pm

It’s been interesting following the extent of sea ice in the arctic through the year. It seemed at one point as if it was going to break the record minimum set back in 2007, but then in mid July the rate of loss started slowing down, taking it well within the “normal” range. I understand this was due to changing wind patterns, so ice wasn’t being blown southwards as fast into warmer waters. And early in August even seemed to be increasing slightly. However, it appears to have suddenly taken a nose dive - it appears to have lost around a quarter of it’s area almost overnight. Here’s the graph for today (7th August 2011):
(more…)

Management thuggery

Filed under: science, environment, skepticism, blogging — Derek Sorensen @ 1:39 pm

A very interesting perspective about why support for “Anthropogenic Climate Change” has dwindled as far as it has.

I’m not a scientist, but …

Well worth a read.

August 5, 2011

Exaggeration

Filed under: environment, skepticism — Derek Sorensen @ 10:43 pm

According to this promotional video, 1.8 billion people will take part in the 2012 Earth Hour.


(more…)

That CO2 discussion, blow by blow

Filed under: environment, skepticism — Derek Sorensen @ 5:38 pm

There is currently a bit of a stir in the blogosphere regarding a podcast by Murry Salby where he challenges the IPCC claim that increases in CO2 are Anthropogenic (human caused). Although I blogged about it yesterday, the conversation now seems to have really got going, and I thought it might be useful to write up a point by point summary of the key scientific arguments being advanced.

Note: the current discussion is about the podcast, and not Salby’s paper which will be published in about six weeks time. That’s when the real discussion will begin; this is just the appetiser.

In the points below, “For” indicates those points which support the IPCC thesis: The increase in CO2 this century is driven mainly by Anthropogenic emissions. “Against” indicates those points which undermine it.
(more…)

August 4, 2011

CO2 in question

Filed under: science, environment, skepticism — Derek Sorensen @ 10:51 pm

I came across something a couple of days ago which gave me pause for thought. I made a passing reference to it in a recent blog comment, but this is my first proper attempt to outline my current understanding.

The current state of the science

The image below illustrates the carbon cycle.


(Image source: NASA)
(more…)

August 3, 2011

The Periodic Table

Filed under: humour, environment — Derek Sorensen @ 6:01 pm

Reach for your wallets, people; the next big scam has just been announced.

They’ve done Hydrogen (component of Methane), Oxygen (Ozone), Fluorine and Chlorine and the current focus for global moneygrabbers is Carbon. It appears Nitrogen might be next:

Royal Society: What would a global policy to regulate human use of fixed nitrogen look like?
(more…)

August 2, 2011

Steve Jones: “Earth isn’t flat”

Filed under: science, environment, skepticism, anti-scepticism — Derek Sorensen @ 9:37 pm

Steve Jones appears to be rather cross at the reception his report into the BBC’s science reporting received.

The first four paragraphs of his diatribe are about Flat Earth theory, and at least part of it appears to be a debunking, which rather baffles me - why bother? But paragraph 4 begins with this wonderful non-sequitur:

Flat Earthism goes back a long way and is alive today, for one English primary-school child in five believes in it.

Well, yes, Steve; and many five year olds believe in Father Christmas and the Tooth Fairy. That says nothing about the prevalence of adults who believe in those things. To a child, looking around him, the earth looks flat. They have to be taught that it is a sphere.
(more…)

August 1, 2011

The best (school) teacher I ever had

Filed under: Uncategorized — Derek Sorensen @ 10:58 pm

Ah, school. I have to admit I hated most of my time in school. I was a spotty, geeky, bespectacled youth, not given to sport and mortally afraid of girls, mainly because I liked them so much.

Over the years I attended a number of diffrerent schools, and was subjected to a variety of teaching methods by teachers of varying degreees of quality and - well, not to put too fine a point on it - likeability. And it seems to me, looking back, that the subjects I did the best in were the subjects where I liked the teacher. The teaching methods didn’t seem to matter; as long as the teacher was someone you liked and you wanted to please, you worked, and by working, you learned.

The best example of this, and for me the best teacher I had, was my grammar school Biology teacher, Mr Davidson. His declared approach to teaching was this: that he could only actually help some of the students in his class, and they were the in-betweeners.

Some kids were not academically inclined, and they were unlikely to do very well. Some were stupendously clever and would learn whatever he did. But the ones in the middle would usually do ok, but would do better if he got his job right. I don’t know whether he was right, but it made sense to me at the time and it still does.

Mr Davidson had a teaching method which was unique in my experience. In a one-hour Biology lesson, he would spend less than five minutes on the topic being taught; the rest of the lesson would be about completely unrelated things. In one lesson about bird nesting habits, for example, he drifted off into a discussion about how soldiers react when enemy soldiers surrender.

On one occasion we found the biology lab unlocked. This was highly unusual. Normally the lab would be locked, and we’d be expected to wait in the corridor outside until he arrived and let us in. Unsure what to do, we filed in anyway and took our seats at the benches. Suddenly Mr Davidson popped up from behind the bench at the front of the class, holding some kind of handgun, and pointed it at the class. Nobody dared move. He remained there for about half a minute before dropping back down behind the desk, to reappear seconds later with his jacket held up to his neck, and said “What colour tie am I wearing?” I don’t actually remember what the lesson was that day, so I think he probably got that one slightly wrong - although I recall that the discussion immediately following this was to do with selective attention.

The only bad thing about Mr Davidson, by today’s standards at least, was that he was a denier. He denied the classical paleontological ideas of the day about dinosaurs, and particularly that they were cold blooded. Despite thousands of scientific papers proving that dinosaurs were cold blooded, he went against the consensus. He believed in the theories proposed by a minority of scientists such as Bob Bakker (whose personal grooming he appeared to dislike) and Adrian Desmond who were saying that dinosaurs - at least some of them, the very big ones, were actually warm-blooded. Endothermic, just like you and me.

As we know today, Desmond and Bakker were right, and the consensus were wrong. I’m quite pleased about that. I liked Mr Davidson a lot, and I’d have hated to think he was both a denier AND wrong. And I guess being right means he wasn’t really a denier after all - just either very astute, or very lucky to have backed the right choice.

Powered by WordPress