Webs’ Random Ideas

Apparently so, click here to read.

Maddeningly enough, though, that’s not where it ends. Under partly cloudy conditions a phenomenon sometimes called the “broken-cloud effect” can come into play, resulting in higher UV levels than a clear sky would produce, and so a greater risk of sunburn — or worse. A survey conducted at six U.S. sites in 1994 found that cumulus clouds could raise surface UV-B measurements by 25 percent, and in 2004 Australian researchers reported that the specific UV-B frequencies associated with DNA damage were up to 40 percent stronger under somewhat cloudy skies.

Why does this happen? Scientists aren’t positive, but there seem to be two key mechanisms here: (1) UV rays bouncing off the sides of dense clouds, and (2) rays getting redirected as they pass through wispier clouds. Conceivably (as an American Scientist article suggested last year), a combination of thin refracting clouds up high and puffy reflecting clouds down low could result in a major UV boost at ground level. Throw in an aggravating factor or two — say, a blanket of snow to knock the rays around some more — and you’re on the bullet train to sunburn city.

I heard this a couple times from multiple people and now I have a little more evidence to back it up.

Found via ***Dave…

Hillary’s strong stance on global warming issues has lead to her putting out some new plans if she were president…

Clinton is calling for an improvement in the fleet-wide fuel economy standard to the tune of 55 miles per gallon by the year 2030.

[...]

Though questions of plausibility linger, Clinton has outlined several specific measures to achieve the high benchmarks, including the issuing of $20 billion of “Green Vehicle Bonds” for U.S. automakers to use in retooling their plants with technology that would output more efficient vehicles. Clinton would also grant a $10,000 consumer tax credit as a purchase incentive for plug-in hybrids. She would also allocate $2 billion for investment in battery research and add 100,000 plug-in hybrids to the federal fleet by 2015.

I wish I could say I think this will be enough, but I just can’t. While I like what Clinton is doing and I will never knock it, it just sucks that what she proposes is the best yet, and it really just falls short of what we need to be doing. More and more scientists are ever growing worried, and it still seems people just don’t care. It seems people would rather worry about short term costs than long term sustainability for some odd reason.

What I hope will happen, is that the next presidential candidate will come in from a platform of what they are going to do, but drastically step up the measures once in office.

Orac has an interesting article about a debate happening at the University of Connecticut between homeopathy and well… science and reason I guess. Homeopathy is the ridiculous notion and I will let you read about it here.

So is there anything to debate, no. I think those creating this debate want to use it as an opportunity to show the nonsense of the topic. But there is a problem with this and Orac points it out beautifully…

The fact is, pseudoscientists, pseudohistorians, and cranks desperately want to debate accepted experts in the field in which they apply their crankery. The reason is simple. While, knowingly or (more commonly, unknowingly) they crap on science and the scientific method, at the same time they desperately crave its validation and acceptance.
[...]
This is because getting a scientist to agree to a debate allows them to portray their pseudoscience as being on equal footing with accepted science, or at least in the same ballpark. Thus, simply being seen on the same stage on an equal footing with a respected scientist, is a victory for the pseudoscientist. Regardless of what actually happens in the debate, it is a virtual certainty that the crank and the supporters of crankery will trumpet it as a “victory” or, at the very minimum, as a “validation” that science is beginning to take them seriously.

The bold section above pretty much sums it up. There are plenty of studies done showing the flaws in the topic, all this debate is going to do is give the cranks a leg to stand on by allowing them to say, “See we are debating science…” Having a debate on issues that are not scientifically accepted or discussed in scientific literature is misrepresenting information in that area or field.

Or to explain it how a medical scientist did in Richard Dawkins’ “Enemies of Reasons” series, (when referring to homeopathy) (keep in mind this is poorly paraphrased) “It’s really terrible, and for us disheartening, that we can spend 10 years presenting research on a drug or a procedure to get it introduced. And to have those working in homeopathy say what we are doing is bunk and have no problem getting in their ideas.” Basically it’s a slap in the face for those that do real science to see the progress of homeopathic ideas.

And I just heard about it today from my coworker.

So here is an article on Bush and Climate Change:

“By setting this goal, we acknowledge there is a problem,” President Bush told representatives of 17 nations attending the Major Economies Meeting on Energy Security and Climate Change held in Washington, D.C., this week. “We must lead the world to produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions, and we must do it in a way that does not undermine economic growth or prevent nations from delivering greater prosperity for their people.” The nations represented at the conference emit more than 80 percent of the globe’s greenhouse gases

Right… so you recognize there is a problem, and to solve this problem you don’t create any plan and push off the responsibility to the next president. Wonderful! Oh, and don’t forget the claim that we “must not undermine economic growth.” It’s a ridiculous claim to make since the outcome of not doing anything is disastrous.

Basically as the article states, Bush squandered a great opportunity to actually put forth measures that would have an impact on Climate Change. So below I offer the promo video of Blogging Action Day and a link to DOFs post on this

http://www.decrepitoldfool.com/index.php/weblog/blog_action_day07/

Sometimes pictures say more than words…

Found via TreeHugger

Well I have started a new experiment with my class. I am using Facebook as a way to manage assignments, network with students, and learn a little more about who my students are. It’s all a project I decided to take on after talking to my coworker Pete. WebCT has a classroom management system that when used effectively can make teaching life a lot easier. So what is it about Facebook that would interest Pete or myself?

Well for one, it’s a little controversial right now with the pictures and content being posted. I will say that Facebook is a lot more calm than other social networking sites, and they also have a strict policy against nudity. But more so, Facebook is a site that millions of college students already use day in and day out. So why not take advantage of this.

First off, if you are going to get students to use another social system, like WebCT, you better be damn sure it is well implemented. Otherwise there is no incentive to add it to the list. Students don’t want to manage 2 or more social systems. So rather than fight this, the idea is to find a way to integrate it into the class.

More ahead (more…)

Ted Talk: 10 ways the World could end.

Wait… How the hell is that a positive note? To every problem there is a solution. We just need to get off our asses and implement the solutions.

go check it out for youself.
Another reason to buy from the local Farmer’s Market and organic products. Something I will now continually do with good reason.

Found via Angry Toxicologist…

Because all they do is instill doubt and hopelessness in people about Global Warming and what can be done. And shame on him for doing so. Friedman is intelligent, he travels places he talks about, has been around the world, understands a lot about foreign policy, and people listen to him. Especially since his is a columnist at NYTimes.

James shares my sentiments on this issue and pretty much shows why Friedman is an ass.

Found via Mike the Mad Biologist…