I discovered just a little while ago that access to individual posts on this blog was unavailable and commenting was not available. This was because of something I did with some files on the server earlier today — not a web host issue. I knew that I should have checked after I was done, but didn’t.
It’s all back to normal now. It was only a 30 second fix, because it’s something that happened before and I knew where to look.
A couple of days ago, a park visitor from Spain was injured by a Yellowstone National Park bison (aka American buffalo).
“At approximately 11:25 a.m., the woman and her husband were using a pay phone in the Canyon lodging area with their backs to the road. According to witnesses, two bull bison walked down the road, passing within 20 feet of the couple. One of the bison left the road, walked up behind the woman and butted her into the air. The couple, who were facing away from the road, did not see the bison.”
The woman was taken to the Lake Clinic where she was treated for minor injuries and released.
This quite an unusual event. Bison are not usually aggressive unless someone has encroached upon their space. We have seen numerous instances where people have gotten way too close to these critters and nothing happened. Park regulations require that a minimum distance of 25 yard must be maintained from bison.
Bison are very, very common in the Canyon area.
We still hope to make it to Yellowstone this year. However, we may not have as much time available as we had originally thought.
Climate change legislation — The Waxman/Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act pass by a very slim margin today in the US House of Representatives. I actually watched some of the debate on CSPAN. I’ve got just a few comments.
They didn’t even have a properly collated official copy of the bill in the room during the debate. Three hundred pages were revised overnight and one of the House staff was in the process of inserting pages into the correct place in the “official copy” during the closing minutes of the floor debate.
The debate on the floor was limited to 3 hours for a bill that may be one of the largest tax bills in the history of the country.
While virtually every American would end up with higher energy costs as a result of the bill, as I understand it, it’s requirements would have negligible impact on global warming, if anthropogenic (human caused) global warming (AGW) were a proven fact rather than an unproven hypothesis.
The premise of the bill is predicated on the assumption that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is a proven scientific fact. The earth has been warming up until the last ten years. Global carbon dioxide levels have been rising, at least in part due to human activities, even during the last ten years as global temperature anomalies have been stable or dropping. While it would seem obvious to blame rising temperatures on carbon dioxide produced by man, there is no proof that continued rising CO2 will result in a continued rise in global temperatures. The predictions of rising temperatures are the product of computer climate models that assume that anthropogenic global warming is a proven scientific fact rather than an unproven hypothesis.
Our Representative, voted against it. I think I voted against him in 2008. He’s got my vote in 2010.
Climate change — I read material on climate change almost every day.
I am absolutely appalled at the gloom and doom, the-sky-is-falling alarmism that is in the media on a daily basis.
I’m not sure at what point I stopped simply accepting anthropogenic (human caused) global warming. I can say that for well over a year I’ve been reading a lot of climate change related material and have a much better understanding of the topic than I once had. My first blog post on climate was It’s not a hypothesis… It’s not a theory… it’s a CONSENSUS! last year.
Below is some of what I’ve come to believe and understand related to the Earth’s climate.
- Anthropogenic global warming is an unproven hypothesis.
- Even though anthropogenic global warming is an unproven hypothesis, it is likely that some warming has resulted from carbon dioxide released to the atmosphere by humans.
- There is no proof that continued rise in CO2 will result in continued rise in global temperatures.
- Carbon dioxide acts as a greenhouse gas by absorbing infrared radiation in three narrow bands of frequencies, (2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µM)), meaning that most of the heat producing infrared radiation frequencies escapes absorption by CO2. The main peak, 15 µM, is absorbed completely within about 10 meters of the ground meaning that there is no more to absorb. Doubling the human contribution of CO2 would reduce this distance. Reducing the distance for absorption would not result in an increase in temperature.
- The science of climate change is not settled. Science is never settled. There is always more to learn, more to add.
- Consensus on climate change is not science. It’s politics. Science isn’t done by consensus, as I understand it.
- For a scientist to be a skeptic on climate change is not a bad thing. Scepticism and questioning are important aspects of science.
- The Earth appears to have been cooling overall for most of this young century — 2000 to 2009.
- The reports of the danger to polar bears are premature. They are also recycled over and over again.
- The prediction of an Arctic free of ice is premature. AMSRE-A Sea Ice Extent has 6 1/2 years of history. The sea arctic sea ice extent currently is higher than any of the other years at this point in the annual cycle. AMSRE-A (Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer – Earth Observing System).
- Antarctic sea ice extent is getting larger.
- A recent survey found Arctic ice to be thicker than expected. (radiobremen)
- The heat content of the world’s ocean is dropping — Q = mc∆T. (The Global Warming Hypothesis and Ocean Heat)