Best Lab Equipment

Here are some more information for Media Warmer:

Are climate change and global warming the same thing? Well no, not exactly.

The simplest explanation is that global warming is climate change in one direction. Specifically it is where net energy in the atmospheric system has increased sufficiently for a measurable warming. More energy in the system means that in many parts of the world it gets hotter.

One way that the Earth gets hotter is due to an increase in the atmosphere of gases that result in the greenhouse effect. The brief explanation of the greenhouse effect is that the wavelength of energy arriving on the Earth's surface through the atmosphere is shorter than that reflected back towards space - a simple law of physics. Some gases in the atmosphere let the shorter waves through but block the longer wavelengths, so the energy is bounced back down to Earth, trapped, effectively heating things up.

In the absence of the greenhouse effect mother Earth would be frigid and the planet's surface too cold for water to be liquid. The logic of this important phenomenon is that warming will happen when the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere increase.

And this is where the confusion comes because we have attributed the current warming trend to a specific cause - us.

But climate can also cool. This is because there can be a reduction in the net energy balance. During periods of lower atmospheric energy in the geological past, the surface if the Earth has been much cooler than the present. These periods were so cold that we called them ice ages, and there have been lots of them, some short, others long and intense.

So climate change means any change in climate conditions, warmer or colder. Global warming is a directional shift to a more energetic, hotter and more dynamic atmosphere. It is a phase of global warming that the scientific data suggest we are experiencing now.

This is the explanation of the physical phenomenon, the objective one used by the scientists.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), made up of scientists, defines the phenomenon as coming from any cause, human or natural. This carries the implication that the world might cool as readily as it might warm up - an understandable assumption given the scientific evidence and the definitions we are given by the scientists.

Politicians are less precise with their rhetoric. Their policy statements tend to confound the scientific explanation.

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the forum for the politicians, defines the phenomenon as attributed solely to human causes. The implication is that the world will warm and this warming is because of human actions.

However, during the first term of the George W Bush administration, politicians, commentators and, increasingly the media, dropped the term global warming in favor of climate change.

Why? Well that depends on how cynical you want to be. And how cynical depends on whether you think that the global climate change we are experiencing is due to human action or is just part of the normal scheme of events on a dynamic Earth.

The important thing is to realize that, be it objective fact, concept or fanciful idea, climate can get warmer and it can get colder. It can get wetter or drier; more stormy or calmer; more predictable or more uncertain. And all of these are aspects of climate change that usually do have many, often interacting causes.

The politicians and their spin-doctors were clever. They dropped global warming in favor of climate change when they realized that the consensus view of global warming held the anthropogenic label. Better for them to widen the discourse, otherwise they would be forced by public pressure to try to do something about the warming, actions that would be costly and difficult to agree on. They dropped global warming for the more general and, they thought, less contentious term climate change.

So instead they began to add an adjective and began talking of dangerous climate change or catastrophic climate change... and that is another story.

Interestingly we were not fooled. Currently there are over 3x more Google searches for global warming than there are for climate change. Most of us have understood that the current change in climate is a warming one.

J. Mark Dangerfield, PhD is a scientist, consultant and educator. If you would like more ideas that will sharpen your thinking and help you feel good about the world, grab a copy of his book 'Awkward news for Greenies and everyone else' at http://www.createspace.com/3379619

Nascar And The Critique It Faces

Nascar has faced a lot of criticism for a lot of things over the last few decades. We can attribute the criticism to the popularity of Nascar. Apart from the environmental impact of Nascar which has led to criticism, there are other technical reasons as well. One of the reasons is the oval shape of most Nascar racing circuits. Driving enthusiasts have severely criticized the difficulty of these race courses when compared to the extremely difficult twisting and turning race courses of Formula 1. They say that it involves going round and round for 500 miles and nothing else.

Some courses of the Formula 1 put up to 5 or 6 G's of stress on the body of the driver. This is totally absent in Nascar. But Nascar has denied these allegations and countered by saying that there are certain race series in which road courses are included. But again it is for a very small percentage of the race. Nascar has also brought to light the fact that even the Indy racing league uses mostly oval tracks.

The Grueling Season
The grueling racing season of Nascar is also a reason for its criticism. While a Formula 1 race has 22 cars in its beginning, a Nascar Nextel cup race has 43. Add the 36 point races for the entire series, and the session becomes extremely hectic. The drivers are left with just a few hours to practice. Some of the drivers have even quit the sport because of their inability to cope with such stress.

Drivers who have been reasonably successful in road racing circuits have been unable to duplicate that success record in Nascar. The prime reason is the difference in the entire structure of the two.

The Cars
The technology behind the cars is another reason that Nascarhas faced so much criticism. The cars are mostly fitted with accessories from the 1950s. The carburetors, cast iron engine blocks and most primarily the use of leaded fuel have triggered huge criticism against Nascar. The reluctance of Nascar to add safety devices has also aggravated the criticism against them. The use of this equipment places more emphasis on getting an undue advantage rather than focusing on the skill of the driver.

The Business
The last thing that has received flak from critics is the Nascar business structure. The majority of revenue generated by the entire Nascar racing goes towards the France family, as they control most of Nascar . Many say that the drivers do not have a voice in Nascar and it is like a dictatorship. The penalties and fines that Nascar levied on its drivers for using foul language in the media have also been a reason for criticism against it.

About the Author

This author is a HUGE fan of NASCAR licensed merchandise

What media contrived hoax do you think will be revealed next?

So we know that global warming is a hoax and the swine flu scare is a hoax and both were agendas that were pushed by the controlled media. What media-contrived hoax do you think will be next on the chopping block?

I think they'll have to acknowledge the glaring discrepancies regarding 9/11. Before you 'thumb me down' re-read what I said. Note I didn't say Bush did it, nor did I say the Joos did it. There are obvious contradictions and shortcomings in the Official 911 Commission report, many who wrote it have admitted it! I'd like to know who did it, I'd like to see them punished, and I'd like our federal policies to reflect reality rather than the flawed official conspiracy theory.

Antifreeze proteins can stop ice melting, Queen's professors find
( Queen's University ) The same antifreeze proteins that keep organisms from freezing in cold environments can also prevent ice from melting at warmer temperatures, according to a new Queen's University study.

Thanks for visiting!