Science Updates

[AiA in Atlanta]

Interesting, I always thought that most of the dinos died as a result of the impact not thousands of years later.

The results show the impact was just 32,000 years before dinosaurs died out. Other studies suggested the Chicxulub impact was 300,000 years before the mass extinction.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/technology/sci ... z2KL8Xl2NL

Never really thought about it but it makes sense that it would take thousands of years for all the dinosaurs to die.

[Super Nova]

Now the push is to show that gayness is so natural we should be all into it.

Attenborough documentaries 'ignore gay animals'
Sir David Attenborough's documentaries are not a true reflection of nature because they fail to acknowledge animals' "gay" behaviour, an academic has claimed.

Dr Brett Mills of the University of East Anglia accused the veteran broadcaster of espousing the idea that all animals are heterosexual despite a wealth of evidence they engage in a variety of sexual activity.

Shots of male chimpanzees cuddling, for example, are described to the viewer as no more than male bonding but could in fact be driven by sexual motives, he said.

Similarly, a scene in which a male Buff-Breasted Sandpiper stalks towards another with his rear in the air may not be meant to intimidate a rival, as described by Sir David, but as a prelude to "homosexual mounting".

Dr Mills said his paper, published in the European Journal of Cultural Studies, is aimed at highlighting aspects of animal behaviour such as homosexuality and same-sex parenting which are often ignored or explained away.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvan ... imals.html

[IQS.RLOW]

This is what happens to society when leftists aren't beaten or outright killed for their stupid ideology. They think that they actually have a point and try to poison working society.

[Rorschach]

... SN

I read that crap the other day... honestly SN it ain't science it is opinion.

I could think of hundreds of alternate motives for the actions given as examples.
He might as well get a job for Disney anthropomorphising animals in future cartoons.

[Rorschach]

Do forests drive wind and bring rain? Is there a major man-made climate driver the models miss?

What if winds were mainly driven by changes in water vapor, and those changes occurred commonly in air over forests? Forests would be the pumps that draw in moist air from over the oceans. Rather than assuming that forests grow where the rain falls, it would be more a case of rain falling where forests grow. When water vapor condenses it reduces the air pressure, which pulls in more dense air from over the ocean.

A new paper is causing a major stir. The paper is so controversial that many reviewers and editors said it should not be published. After two years of deliberations, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics decided it was too important not to discuss.

The physics is apparently quite convincing, the question is not whether it happens, but how strong the effect is. Climate models assume it is a small or non-existent factor. Graham Lloyd has done a good job describing both the paper and the reaction to it in The Australian.

Sheil says the key finding is that atmospheric pressure changes from moisture condensation are orders of magnitude greater than previously recognised. The paper concludes

“condensation and evaporation merit attention as major, if previously overlooked, factors in driving atmospheric dynamics”.

“Climate scientists generally believe that they already understand the main principles determining how the world’s climate works,” says Sheil. “However, if our hypothesis is true then the way winds are driven and the way rain falls has been misunderstood. What our theory suggests is that forests are the heart of the earth, driving atmospheric pressure, pumping wind and moving rain.”

Judith Curry has been following this idea for some time.

Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology, an author of the standard textbook Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans, is encouraging. “The process they describe is physically correct,” she said. “The main question is its relative magnitude compared with other processes.” She thinks it could explain why climate models do not get monsoons and hurricanes right.

If this is a strong driver, it means Australia is not covered in arid land because rainfall is low. If the trees were planted the rain would fall:

“I would have said Australia is a desert because of the global climate cycles, but if you do the calculations, a forest across the surface of Australia would produce forces strong enough to water it and you wouldn’t need to irrigate.”

Sheil said. Hmmm... the Liberals might be onto something.

Even New Scientist admits this paper could be a big one.

The implications are huge. “In standard theories, if we lose forests the rainfall in the continental interiors generally declines by 10 to 30 per cent. In our theory, it is likely to decline by 90 per cent or more,” says Sheil.
[New Scientist, Fred Pearce]

[boxy]

The idea that forests attract rain has been around for a while.

[Super Nova]

I read that crap the other day... honestly SN it ain't science it is opinion.

I could think of hundreds of alternate motives for the actions given as examples.
He might as well get a job for Disney anthropomorphising animals in future cartoons.

So you think the gay debate over nature vs nurture is not for science.

Humans are animals. If animals do it... it could be natural.

Hidding the fact that animals do homosectual things is just like Climate Scientists hinding the truth over their models limiting the debate to be just what they want us to think rather than being transparent taking into account all the facts.

[Rorschach]

You make a lot of wrong assumptions about me SN.

IMO the article and the opinions were crap. This person has obvious personal biases, like other gays that make absurd claims about various other people... "did you know ???????? was gay?"

Oh and I am aware most of us are animals except for the vegetables with heads up their bums.

No one is hiding anything... ever heard of Bonobos?
Also I'm not sure homosexuality is the correct term to use.

[Super Nova]

Would you prefer the term, "same sex humping" or "same sex love" or "same sex partnering" when it is animals doing it rather than humans.

[Rorschach]

Dogs hump people's legs would you call that homosexuality?

"Same sex" is certainly more accurate.

Homosexual? No.
Do animals see sex in the same way as humans? Now there's an indeterminate for you.