La comunidad cientifica sin tomar en cuenta la futura confusion para elaborar las maquetas planetarias que por generaciones han sido requisito para pasar de anio en la primaria ni a las miscelaneas que proveen de bolas de unicel y cartulinas de papel cascaron ha decidido que Pluton no es merecedor del lujo de ser llamado planeta de nuestro sistema solar. No creo que a Pluton le importe. Lo que me resulta comico es la imagen de unos expertos en batas blancas debatiendo en Praga la definicion de planeta basada en la orbita, como diminutas hormigas que se reunen a discutir sobre la supuesta deidad del refrigerador across que esta en la cocina donde habitan.
En 1930 Pluton adquiere su estatus de planeta y ahora como burdo concurso de popularidad se proclama a Xena que tambien orbita alrededor del sol y se encuentra nomas atracito, como posible planeta. Tantos anios de luchar por ser aceptado como planeta para que vengan a dudar de ti, chingao. A mi me preocupan los maestros de primaria inflexibles que imbuidos de modernidad obliguen a sus alumnos a dejar la pequena bolita de unicel del anillo mas lejano fuera de la maqueta. Y que hay de todos nosotros que nos aprendimos los nombres de los planetas recitandolos, no es lo mismo respirar profundo y soltarnos Sol (hay maestras quisquillosas que insisten en empezar el conteo con el sol) Mercurio, Venus, Tierra... y terminarlo con un certero y definitivo... y pluton, imaginandotelo como un planeta mas bien chiquito que queda hasta la chingada y donde hace un buen de frio, que empezar; Mercurio, Venus... y Xena, no es lo mismo, suena a serie chafa de television.
Sin embargo, el buen Tom Gehrels de la Universidad de Arizona que ha de ser un viejito alivianado, propone una campana para mantener los 75 anios de popularidad de Pluton como el noveno en el gran mobil planetario.
Wednesday, 22 August 2007
Nota de Milenio
http://milenio.com/suplementos/noseolvida/nota.asp?id=541054
Política cero - Jairo Calixto Albarrán
Ya no nos queda ni Plutón
21-Agosto-07 (16:27)
El incierto destino de Plutón, cuya naturaleza espacial había sido puesta mucho más en duda que la calidad moral del IFE y la eficiencia del TEPJF, finalmente ha sido desentrañado. Por una extraña razón a los astrónomos más avezados les dio por poner en duda la consistencia científica del que había sido un venerable miembro del sistema solar con la misma empecinada necedad con la que muchos histéricos atisban el próximo arribo del armagedón el 16 de septiembre, sin saber que son la ocasión de lo mismo que culpáis. O sea, a estos acuciosos observadores del universo que, por si fuera poco, es ancho y desconocido, valiéndoles gorro la crispación exhibicionista y fetichista de nuestra crisis poselectoral, les importó más dedicar su tiempo libre a deliberar sobre si Plutón es o no un planeta con toda la barba, a descubrir qué pasará, qué misterio habrá si en México, de pronto, nos despertamos con la dicha inicua de tener dos presidentes, un camino.Esto después de que el López Obrador comentara a Le Monde que “el 17 de septiembre podría haber dos nuevos presidentes”. Por supuesto don Burrén Aguilar respondió, con la enorme gracia que le caracteriza, que el tabasqueño es “fantasioso” mientras invitaba a los convencionistas a la ceremonia del Grito. ¿No podría el vocero seguir el ejemplo de Luis Fernando Tena que, en un acto de autocrítca, declaró a La Afición que le daba pena que el América jugara tan mal?Como quiera que sea, es interesante que a quienes se dedican a escanearle las entrañas a la bóveda celeste no les haya atraído el estudio del posible rompimiento de una ley científica aparentemente intocable (dos objetos no pueden ocupar el mismo lugar al mismo tiempo) en el caso de que El Peje y Jelipillo ocupen y ejerzan la misma función presidencial al unísono, al ritmo de tú y yo somos uno mismo. ¡Uuuoooh, uuuooh!Eso sí, el poder de Jelipillo Calderón es tal que, además de conseguir que Fox lo declarara su dios huichol, y que un altísimo porcentaje de nuestros más distinguidos líderes de opinión —abducidos por su encanto sin igual— traigan su retratito en su cartera, ha logrado que la Unión Astronómica Internacional, luego de encontrar que Plutón comparte como el candidato panista su órbita de influencia con otros objetos (Espino y Diego, por ejemplo) degradara a Plutón de planeta a planeta enano… peloncito, gordito, de lentes.
Jairo Calixto Albarrán - 105
Política cero - Jairo Calixto Albarrán
Ya no nos queda ni Plutón
21-Agosto-07 (16:27)
El incierto destino de Plutón, cuya naturaleza espacial había sido puesta mucho más en duda que la calidad moral del IFE y la eficiencia del TEPJF, finalmente ha sido desentrañado. Por una extraña razón a los astrónomos más avezados les dio por poner en duda la consistencia científica del que había sido un venerable miembro del sistema solar con la misma empecinada necedad con la que muchos histéricos atisban el próximo arribo del armagedón el 16 de septiembre, sin saber que son la ocasión de lo mismo que culpáis. O sea, a estos acuciosos observadores del universo que, por si fuera poco, es ancho y desconocido, valiéndoles gorro la crispación exhibicionista y fetichista de nuestra crisis poselectoral, les importó más dedicar su tiempo libre a deliberar sobre si Plutón es o no un planeta con toda la barba, a descubrir qué pasará, qué misterio habrá si en México, de pronto, nos despertamos con la dicha inicua de tener dos presidentes, un camino.Esto después de que el López Obrador comentara a Le Monde que “el 17 de septiembre podría haber dos nuevos presidentes”. Por supuesto don Burrén Aguilar respondió, con la enorme gracia que le caracteriza, que el tabasqueño es “fantasioso” mientras invitaba a los convencionistas a la ceremonia del Grito. ¿No podría el vocero seguir el ejemplo de Luis Fernando Tena que, en un acto de autocrítca, declaró a La Afición que le daba pena que el América jugara tan mal?Como quiera que sea, es interesante que a quienes se dedican a escanearle las entrañas a la bóveda celeste no les haya atraído el estudio del posible rompimiento de una ley científica aparentemente intocable (dos objetos no pueden ocupar el mismo lugar al mismo tiempo) en el caso de que El Peje y Jelipillo ocupen y ejerzan la misma función presidencial al unísono, al ritmo de tú y yo somos uno mismo. ¡Uuuoooh, uuuooh!Eso sí, el poder de Jelipillo Calderón es tal que, además de conseguir que Fox lo declarara su dios huichol, y que un altísimo porcentaje de nuestros más distinguidos líderes de opinión —abducidos por su encanto sin igual— traigan su retratito en su cartera, ha logrado que la Unión Astronómica Internacional, luego de encontrar que Plutón comparte como el candidato panista su órbita de influencia con otros objetos (Espino y Diego, por ejemplo) degradara a Plutón de planeta a planeta enano… peloncito, gordito, de lentes.
Jairo Calixto Albarrán - 105
Nota de The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/aug/22/1
Charts retuned as web decides what's No 1
Music industry magazine to list Last.fm listeners' habits alongside traditional sales
Jemima Kiss and Esther Addley
The Guardian
Wednesday August 22 2007
It is the site, say aficionados, that discovered Arctic Monkeys long before their much discussed emergence on MySpace. It noted the popularity of Gnarls Barkley's Crazy, the bestselling single of 2006, weeks before it became the first ever number one based solely on download sales.
Now its influence on the music industry has been officially acknowledged. Music Week, the influential trade title, will this week publish a chart based on the internet listening habits of the social networking site Last.fm, the first time the magazine has included data from an online supplier.
The move is an indication of the increasing influence of online social networks on the charts, and an acknowledgement of the ability of a group of musical tastemakers to predict future stars.
Last.fm has become something of a cult among music obsessives since it was founded five years ago. Users download a desktop program that tracks every song played through their computer's music player. They can then build their own customised "radio stations" based on tracks they like, and link to similar artists recommended by others.
To music industry watchers, however, it's the data generated by the site's 20 million enthusiasts that is priceless. Last.fm's weekly charts, the site claims, are much more significant for the industry than reviews or even sales data, which cannot trace how often tracks are listened to once they have been bought. In addition, they say, they are less subject to huge marketing spends and targeted buying which critics say can distort the traditional charts.
"Our users are on street level and they pick up music as it happens," said Last.fm spokesman Christian Ward. Referring to the early popularity on the site of Gnarls Barkley, he said: "That's the kind of thing these charts reflect and that's priceless to the industry. It's beyond our control what happens in these charts, and artists can't be artificially 'bumped up' the chart."
Music Week's acting online editor Adam Benzine said Last.fm's data is important because the magazine needs to show "the most relevant, influential voices" in the industry.
The magazine's adoption of the online chart is the latest sign of an "old media" publisher or broadcaster embracing new-media techniques and data. In May, it was announced that Channel 4 radio is to broadcast a weekly show based on the listening habits of Last.fm users. The show will be based on Last.fm's international charts. In addition, the site wants to explore possible US partners for its chart data (despite its name, the site is not a traditional radio station - rather its domain name was registered in Micronesia).
In the same month, the site was bought by CBS Interactive for £140m, the largest European purchase to date of a web 2.0 site - one whose content is to a large extent generated by its users.
The website will supply three charts to Music Week, a spokesman said yesterday: the overall most listened-to artist, the most listened-to artist in Britain compared to elsewhere, and the "hype list" of artists whose popularity has risen most in the past month. While the magazine, for the moment, will publish the first of the three, it may be the third that will become of the most interest to chart watchers. This week's hype list includes Robyn with Kleerup, the Ghost Frequency, Newton Faulkner and Blaqk Audio.
Critics of the site, however, note that not all its charts are cutting edge: the consistent presence of the Beatles in the top artists listing, for instance, reflects the site's demographic rather than their imminent re-emergence as chart toppers.
HMV spokesman Gennaro Castaldo said that the data from Last.fm is useful, but only as one of several different measurements. "The days of the definitive music chart, the sole reference point, are over," he said. "The national charts are just one part of the picture and Last.fm comes under that canopy."
Looking for new music? Here's what Last.fm recommends
Like Lily Allen, Madonna and MIA?
Try Robyn.
Amy Winehouse and Regina Spektor?
Try Florence & the Machine.
Simian Mobile Disco and Klaxons?
Try Crystal Castles.
Rufus Wainwright and Tom Waits?
Try Julian Velard.
Kraftwerk and Prince?
Try Fujiya & Miyagi File
Charts retuned as web decides what's No 1
Music industry magazine to list Last.fm listeners' habits alongside traditional sales
Jemima Kiss and Esther Addley
The Guardian
Wednesday August 22 2007
It is the site, say aficionados, that discovered Arctic Monkeys long before their much discussed emergence on MySpace. It noted the popularity of Gnarls Barkley's Crazy, the bestselling single of 2006, weeks before it became the first ever number one based solely on download sales.
Now its influence on the music industry has been officially acknowledged. Music Week, the influential trade title, will this week publish a chart based on the internet listening habits of the social networking site Last.fm, the first time the magazine has included data from an online supplier.
The move is an indication of the increasing influence of online social networks on the charts, and an acknowledgement of the ability of a group of musical tastemakers to predict future stars.
Last.fm has become something of a cult among music obsessives since it was founded five years ago. Users download a desktop program that tracks every song played through their computer's music player. They can then build their own customised "radio stations" based on tracks they like, and link to similar artists recommended by others.
To music industry watchers, however, it's the data generated by the site's 20 million enthusiasts that is priceless. Last.fm's weekly charts, the site claims, are much more significant for the industry than reviews or even sales data, which cannot trace how often tracks are listened to once they have been bought. In addition, they say, they are less subject to huge marketing spends and targeted buying which critics say can distort the traditional charts.
"Our users are on street level and they pick up music as it happens," said Last.fm spokesman Christian Ward. Referring to the early popularity on the site of Gnarls Barkley, he said: "That's the kind of thing these charts reflect and that's priceless to the industry. It's beyond our control what happens in these charts, and artists can't be artificially 'bumped up' the chart."
Music Week's acting online editor Adam Benzine said Last.fm's data is important because the magazine needs to show "the most relevant, influential voices" in the industry.
The magazine's adoption of the online chart is the latest sign of an "old media" publisher or broadcaster embracing new-media techniques and data. In May, it was announced that Channel 4 radio is to broadcast a weekly show based on the listening habits of Last.fm users. The show will be based on Last.fm's international charts. In addition, the site wants to explore possible US partners for its chart data (despite its name, the site is not a traditional radio station - rather its domain name was registered in Micronesia).
In the same month, the site was bought by CBS Interactive for £140m, the largest European purchase to date of a web 2.0 site - one whose content is to a large extent generated by its users.
The website will supply three charts to Music Week, a spokesman said yesterday: the overall most listened-to artist, the most listened-to artist in Britain compared to elsewhere, and the "hype list" of artists whose popularity has risen most in the past month. While the magazine, for the moment, will publish the first of the three, it may be the third that will become of the most interest to chart watchers. This week's hype list includes Robyn with Kleerup, the Ghost Frequency, Newton Faulkner and Blaqk Audio.
Critics of the site, however, note that not all its charts are cutting edge: the consistent presence of the Beatles in the top artists listing, for instance, reflects the site's demographic rather than their imminent re-emergence as chart toppers.
HMV spokesman Gennaro Castaldo said that the data from Last.fm is useful, but only as one of several different measurements. "The days of the definitive music chart, the sole reference point, are over," he said. "The national charts are just one part of the picture and Last.fm comes under that canopy."
Looking for new music? Here's what Last.fm recommends
Like Lily Allen, Madonna and MIA?
Try Robyn.
Amy Winehouse and Regina Spektor?
Try Florence & the Machine.
Simian Mobile Disco and Klaxons?
Try Crystal Castles.
Rufus Wainwright and Tom Waits?
Try Julian Velard.
Kraftwerk and Prince?
Try Fujiya & Miyagi File
Tuesday, 21 August 2007
Dave Egger's Short Short Story
You know how to spell Elijah
Dave Eggers
Saturday June 5, 2004 The Guardian
http://books.guardian.co.uk/shortshortstories/story/0,,1230654,00.html
You are at the airport, airless, sitting in a black faux-leather chair near your departure gate. There is a girl, about 12, sitting in a similar chair, across the wide, immaculate aisle, and she wants to know how to spell Elijah. She is working on a crossword in Teen magazine, and is squinting at it, chewing her inner mouth. She is flanked by her parents, and soon appeals to them for help. Her father is burly and bearded, her mother tall and thin. Her mother, who reminds you of a praying mantis, answers her daughter's question this way: "It's easy, Dakota: E-L-I-S-H-A." And though you have your own things to do, your own Boating Week to read and your bagel to eat, you can no longer concentrate on anything but this young girl's crossword puzzle, quickly being polluted by the advice of these people she calls her parents. (And the young girl is working not in pencil - fool! - but in pen.) You are burning to tell her the truth about the young actor's name-spelling, but fear you would embarrass or undermine her mother, which you don't want to do. Besides, you think, the girl's father will surely correct the mother; isn't that the beauty of the two-parent system? Indeed it is, for here he is now, leaning over, inspecting the crossword. And now he is putting on his glasses even, and finally he says, "No, Sharon. I'm pretty sure it's A-L-I-G-A." Fucking christ! You let out a quick, desperate cough. These people cannot be serious. This poor girl, stuck for ever in a dim, ill-spelling world, nowhere to turn. She'll never know the spelling of Elijah, or Enrique, or even Justin or JC. Should you intervene? Isn't it your duty? Don't those who know the truth have a responsibility to stop the dissemination of untruths? You must step in. You can do so good-naturedly. You can do so without upsetting the family unit, the sanctity thereof. But you're 18ft away, making it impossible without implying that you were paying far more attention to the girl's crossword than would seem casual or proper. They'll assume you have an unhealthy interest in Teen magazine and its cover boys. And really now, what were you doing, listening in to her spelling request? Isn't your own life complicated enough? Is your own existence so free of mistakes that you need to seek them out in strangers, inserting yourself into the life of a 12-year-old with a crush on a hobbit-playing actor? No wonder you're on your way to a spa in Palm Desert. You damn well need the rest.
Dave Eggers
Saturday June 5, 2004 The Guardian
http://books.guardian.co.uk/shortshortstories/story/0,,1230654,00.html
You are at the airport, airless, sitting in a black faux-leather chair near your departure gate. There is a girl, about 12, sitting in a similar chair, across the wide, immaculate aisle, and she wants to know how to spell Elijah. She is working on a crossword in Teen magazine, and is squinting at it, chewing her inner mouth. She is flanked by her parents, and soon appeals to them for help. Her father is burly and bearded, her mother tall and thin. Her mother, who reminds you of a praying mantis, answers her daughter's question this way: "It's easy, Dakota: E-L-I-S-H-A." And though you have your own things to do, your own Boating Week to read and your bagel to eat, you can no longer concentrate on anything but this young girl's crossword puzzle, quickly being polluted by the advice of these people she calls her parents. (And the young girl is working not in pencil - fool! - but in pen.) You are burning to tell her the truth about the young actor's name-spelling, but fear you would embarrass or undermine her mother, which you don't want to do. Besides, you think, the girl's father will surely correct the mother; isn't that the beauty of the two-parent system? Indeed it is, for here he is now, leaning over, inspecting the crossword. And now he is putting on his glasses even, and finally he says, "No, Sharon. I'm pretty sure it's A-L-I-G-A." Fucking christ! You let out a quick, desperate cough. These people cannot be serious. This poor girl, stuck for ever in a dim, ill-spelling world, nowhere to turn. She'll never know the spelling of Elijah, or Enrique, or even Justin or JC. Should you intervene? Isn't it your duty? Don't those who know the truth have a responsibility to stop the dissemination of untruths? You must step in. You can do so good-naturedly. You can do so without upsetting the family unit, the sanctity thereof. But you're 18ft away, making it impossible without implying that you were paying far more attention to the girl's crossword than would seem casual or proper. They'll assume you have an unhealthy interest in Teen magazine and its cover boys. And really now, what were you doing, listening in to her spelling request? Isn't your own life complicated enough? Is your own existence so free of mistakes that you need to seek them out in strangers, inserting yourself into the life of a 12-year-old with a crush on a hobbit-playing actor? No wonder you're on your way to a spa in Palm Desert. You damn well need the rest.
La Expectativa
Anoche mientras los vientos del huracan Dean se empezaban a sentir en Felipe Carrillo Puerto, Quintana Roo, debio sentirse una espera como un escalofrio prolongado. Sabiendo que se acercaba Godzilla despues de pisotear Jamaica y en el Caribe. Mientras dibujaban equis y cruces con cinta adhesiva sobre los cristales de las ventanas a forma de iconografia religiosa que pueda proteger. Entre tanto la familia guardaba la ropa en bolsas negras de basura y elegia con desapego forzado lo mas valioso para ser rescatado. Cuando ya tarde reforzaban el techo de lamina con clavos. Despues de que te los vecinos te han rechazado dentro de su casa de material porque son ya muchos y la choza que habitas se empieza a tambalear. Corriendo por los pasillos del super empujando para hacerse de latas con comida y botellas de agua. Porque muchos no piensan dejar sus hogares por un albergue. No; sabiendo que hay otros monstruos, a la puerta, listos para saquear sus pertenencias.
Un hilito de frio por la espalda.
Un hilito de frio por la espalda.
Hurricanes
http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article2881385.ece
The Big Question: Are there more hurricanes, and are they the result of global warming?
By Michael Mccarthy, Environment Editor
Published: 21 August 2007
Why are we asking this now?
Because hurricanes like the one which has careered across the Caribbean and was last night striking Mexico are only formed when the surface temperature of the ocean exceeds a specific point, which is 26C.
As the oceans warm globally with climate change, much larger areas of water will exceed the threshold, and more energy will be available to power a given storm. On the face of it, therefore, the connection might seem a reasonable, even a natural one.
So is it happening already?
Some scientists have put forward fairly dramatic evidence that it may be, and this has been seized on by the environmental community as another piece of the global warming jigsaw, to impress on governments the need to act to cut back on the carbon emissions causing the climate to heat up. But other scientists resolutely dispute the proposition, and say it cannot be proved.
What is the dramatic evidence?
It came in two peer-reviewed scientific papers published within a short time of each other in the summer of 2005. They kicked off the whole hurricane-global warming argument. In fact, they caused a sensation. The first, in the journal Nature, was by Kerry Emanuel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, one of the world's leading hurricane researchers. Dr Emmanuel devised a new way of measuring hurricane intensity which he called the power dissipation index, and he said he could detect an increase in this which could be related to increases in sea surface temperatures over recent decades.
The second paper was by Greg Holland of the National Centre for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, and Peter Webster of the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta (published in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society). Holland and Webster said they had discovered a rise in the number of Atlantic hurricanes that tracked the increase in sea surface temperature related to climate change over the last century, and taking the conventional measure of hurricane strength, the Saffir-Simpson scale, they said that the number of storms that were reaching the top categories of 4 and 5 had doubled in recent decades.
And these papers caused a sensation?
They sure did. A worldwide one.
Not least because they were published in 2005, in the middle of the worst season of Atlantic hurricanes on record, which culminated in the disaster of Hurricane Katrina which hammered New Orleans so terribly in August. The 2005 season included a record 26 named storms, of which 13 grew big enough to be classified as hurricanes (so many that for the first time since 1953, when scientists started give tropical Atlantic storms names, letters of the Greek alphabet had to be used, as meteorologists had run through the original list of 21 alphabetically-ordered names. The final 2005 tropical storm was christened Epsilon.) For the environmental community the two papers were yet another devastating indictment of the lack of action on climate change, especially by the US government of George W Bush.
So is the connection proved?
Not at all. It is hotly disputed. The difficulty lies in how we use and interpret the database of records of previous storms. Before the late-Sixties and early-Seventies, there was no global satellite coverage and measurement of tropical cyclones (which is the generic term for circular tropical storms - they're hurricanes in the Atlantic, typhoons in the west Pacific and cyclones in the Indian Ocean). So the strength of some early recorded storms may have been misinterpreted - they may actually have been much stronger than we think, and thus a general increase in intensity may be an illusion. Some storms may well have not been observed at all.
Furthermore, an increase may be part of a natural cycle, rather than being caused by human activities. The leading proponent of the no-link theory, Christopher Landsea, a senior American hurricane researcher and forecaster based at the National Hurricane Centre in Miami, has published research contending that the historical hurricane database simply cannot support the claims made by Emanuel, and by Holland and Webster, in their respective papers.
Has the argument become politicised?
'Fraid so. For example, the Bush administration put forward Landsea to assert that there was no connection between Hurricane Katrina and climate change, and he is often attacked by environmentalists. But he is a serious and respected scientist and he is by no means alone in his concern that the record does not show an increase in hurricane power and strength.
One of Britain's leading experts on tropical cyclones, Julian Heming of the UK Met Office, says: "I am of the view that this issue of the historical database is a significant one, and I think we need to be cautious about deriving too many definitive conclusion from the historical records."
Is there no consensus?
Well, there is much more of a consensus between scientists about what is likely to happen in future, than about what has happened in the past or what is happening now. The supercomputer models used for climate change prediction tend to show an increase in future hurricane wind speed and rainfall if the climate continues to warm (though not in hurricane frequency). This is not generally disputed. However, it is a smaller increase than that which the two papers from 2005 claim to have detected already.
Where is the argument now?
We can give you chapter and verse on that. Last November, the World Meteorological Organisation held an International Workshop on Tropical Cyclones in Costa Rica, and at its conclusion, it issued a one-page document entitled "Summary Statement on Tropical Cyclones and Climate Change". Its first paragraph states: "Though there is evidence both for and against the existence of a detectable anthropogenic signal [signs of a human cause such as man-made global warming] in the tropical cyclone climate record to date, no firm conclusion can be made on this point."
So the jury's out?
Not quite. The fourth assessment report of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, published in February this year, gives a table showing recent climatic trends. It suggests that intense tropical cyclone activity has probably increased in some regions since 1970, and under the heading "Likelihood of a human contribution to observed trend" it observes succinctly: "More likely than not."
So is climate change to blame?
Yes...
* The historical database shows a definite increase in frequency and intensity (one view)
* Supercomputer climate models unanimously predict that climate change will make hurricanes worse
* Warmer oceans contain more energy for storms
No...
* The historical database cannot be trusted to prove an increase in frequency and intensity (the other view)
* Any increase may be part of a natural cycle
* Even in a warming world, various climatic mechanisms may act to reduce increases
The Big Question: Are there more hurricanes, and are they the result of global warming?
By Michael Mccarthy, Environment Editor
Published: 21 August 2007
Why are we asking this now?
Because hurricanes like the one which has careered across the Caribbean and was last night striking Mexico are only formed when the surface temperature of the ocean exceeds a specific point, which is 26C.
As the oceans warm globally with climate change, much larger areas of water will exceed the threshold, and more energy will be available to power a given storm. On the face of it, therefore, the connection might seem a reasonable, even a natural one.
So is it happening already?
Some scientists have put forward fairly dramatic evidence that it may be, and this has been seized on by the environmental community as another piece of the global warming jigsaw, to impress on governments the need to act to cut back on the carbon emissions causing the climate to heat up. But other scientists resolutely dispute the proposition, and say it cannot be proved.
What is the dramatic evidence?
It came in two peer-reviewed scientific papers published within a short time of each other in the summer of 2005. They kicked off the whole hurricane-global warming argument. In fact, they caused a sensation. The first, in the journal Nature, was by Kerry Emanuel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, one of the world's leading hurricane researchers. Dr Emmanuel devised a new way of measuring hurricane intensity which he called the power dissipation index, and he said he could detect an increase in this which could be related to increases in sea surface temperatures over recent decades.
The second paper was by Greg Holland of the National Centre for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, and Peter Webster of the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta (published in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society). Holland and Webster said they had discovered a rise in the number of Atlantic hurricanes that tracked the increase in sea surface temperature related to climate change over the last century, and taking the conventional measure of hurricane strength, the Saffir-Simpson scale, they said that the number of storms that were reaching the top categories of 4 and 5 had doubled in recent decades.
And these papers caused a sensation?
They sure did. A worldwide one.
Not least because they were published in 2005, in the middle of the worst season of Atlantic hurricanes on record, which culminated in the disaster of Hurricane Katrina which hammered New Orleans so terribly in August. The 2005 season included a record 26 named storms, of which 13 grew big enough to be classified as hurricanes (so many that for the first time since 1953, when scientists started give tropical Atlantic storms names, letters of the Greek alphabet had to be used, as meteorologists had run through the original list of 21 alphabetically-ordered names. The final 2005 tropical storm was christened Epsilon.) For the environmental community the two papers were yet another devastating indictment of the lack of action on climate change, especially by the US government of George W Bush.
So is the connection proved?
Not at all. It is hotly disputed. The difficulty lies in how we use and interpret the database of records of previous storms. Before the late-Sixties and early-Seventies, there was no global satellite coverage and measurement of tropical cyclones (which is the generic term for circular tropical storms - they're hurricanes in the Atlantic, typhoons in the west Pacific and cyclones in the Indian Ocean). So the strength of some early recorded storms may have been misinterpreted - they may actually have been much stronger than we think, and thus a general increase in intensity may be an illusion. Some storms may well have not been observed at all.
Furthermore, an increase may be part of a natural cycle, rather than being caused by human activities. The leading proponent of the no-link theory, Christopher Landsea, a senior American hurricane researcher and forecaster based at the National Hurricane Centre in Miami, has published research contending that the historical hurricane database simply cannot support the claims made by Emanuel, and by Holland and Webster, in their respective papers.
Has the argument become politicised?
'Fraid so. For example, the Bush administration put forward Landsea to assert that there was no connection between Hurricane Katrina and climate change, and he is often attacked by environmentalists. But he is a serious and respected scientist and he is by no means alone in his concern that the record does not show an increase in hurricane power and strength.
One of Britain's leading experts on tropical cyclones, Julian Heming of the UK Met Office, says: "I am of the view that this issue of the historical database is a significant one, and I think we need to be cautious about deriving too many definitive conclusion from the historical records."
Is there no consensus?
Well, there is much more of a consensus between scientists about what is likely to happen in future, than about what has happened in the past or what is happening now. The supercomputer models used for climate change prediction tend to show an increase in future hurricane wind speed and rainfall if the climate continues to warm (though not in hurricane frequency). This is not generally disputed. However, it is a smaller increase than that which the two papers from 2005 claim to have detected already.
Where is the argument now?
We can give you chapter and verse on that. Last November, the World Meteorological Organisation held an International Workshop on Tropical Cyclones in Costa Rica, and at its conclusion, it issued a one-page document entitled "Summary Statement on Tropical Cyclones and Climate Change". Its first paragraph states: "Though there is evidence both for and against the existence of a detectable anthropogenic signal [signs of a human cause such as man-made global warming] in the tropical cyclone climate record to date, no firm conclusion can be made on this point."
So the jury's out?
Not quite. The fourth assessment report of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, published in February this year, gives a table showing recent climatic trends. It suggests that intense tropical cyclone activity has probably increased in some regions since 1970, and under the heading "Likelihood of a human contribution to observed trend" it observes succinctly: "More likely than not."
So is climate change to blame?
Yes...
* The historical database shows a definite increase in frequency and intensity (one view)
* Supercomputer climate models unanimously predict that climate change will make hurricanes worse
* Warmer oceans contain more energy for storms
No...
* The historical database cannot be trusted to prove an increase in frequency and intensity (the other view)
* Any increase may be part of a natural cycle
* Even in a warming world, various climatic mechanisms may act to reduce increases
Monday, 20 August 2007
Y Te Crees En Lo Cierto
Nada más molesto que mientras esperas el camión , mientras comes tu sandwich, mientras hojeas el periódico y quieres ser dejado en paz algún individuo llegue a querer imponer sus ideas. Como si fueras un indefenso mequetrefe incapaz de pensar y portaras un letrero pidiendo ayuda. Los temas pueden ser de lo más variados, partiendo de la religión, política, futbol, calentamiento global o lo que sea. ¿Acaso fui yo el que se acerco a tí a que me iluminaras y me vendieras uno de esos libritos olorosos para adoctrinarme? No, verdad. Pero lo que yo piense no te importa ni las opiniones que te pueda debatir, por más brillantes que sean. Ni siquiera escuchas. Piensas que tus ideales son los únicos verdaderos y al expresarlos y proyectarlos buscas confirmar tu ego y tu valía. Buscas ser políticamente correcto con quien no coincida contigo al usar expresiones como respeto tu opinion pero…, lo que dices es interesante pero…
que solamente son formas de ser condecendiente porque en el fondo sigues queriendo creer y convencer.
Las ideologías lejos de ayudar han enredado todo en un hilado a punto de asfixiarnos, pero no me creas, yo no busco convencerte de nada. De hecho, sinceramente, no me importa lo que tu pienses, con tal de que no vengas a querer hacer fanfarrias de tu avanzado conocimiento o iluminación. En una peda puede ser insufrible el necio que se empeñe en forzar un tema entre un grupo de parroquianos que lo único que desean es intoxicarse en paz. Habrá quien considere necesario defenderse en cada ocasión de los metiches-ideológicos-parasitosos, delimitar su postura desde el flanco verdadero y digno de su valiosísimo punto de vista y lo que se logra es provocar, hacer arder la llama, que más da lo que pienses tú o lo que piense yo, son únicamente ideas, utopías.
que solamente son formas de ser condecendiente porque en el fondo sigues queriendo creer y convencer.
Las ideologías lejos de ayudar han enredado todo en un hilado a punto de asfixiarnos, pero no me creas, yo no busco convencerte de nada. De hecho, sinceramente, no me importa lo que tu pienses, con tal de que no vengas a querer hacer fanfarrias de tu avanzado conocimiento o iluminación. En una peda puede ser insufrible el necio que se empeñe en forzar un tema entre un grupo de parroquianos que lo único que desean es intoxicarse en paz. Habrá quien considere necesario defenderse en cada ocasión de los metiches-ideológicos-parasitosos, delimitar su postura desde el flanco verdadero y digno de su valiosísimo punto de vista y lo que se logra es provocar, hacer arder la llama, que más da lo que pienses tú o lo que piense yo, son únicamente ideas, utopías.
Sunday, 19 August 2007
Sobre Groucho Marx
De la jornada virtual del domingo 19 de agosto del 2007
“Jamás pertenecería a un club que admitiese de socio a alguien como yo”, decía Groucho el hombre que convirtió a Marx en un apellido chistoso
El cómico fue elegido uno de los 50 actores más influyentes de la historia
DPA
Los Angeles, agosto 18. “Perdonen que no me levante”, fue lo que quiso que pusieran en su tumba. No le hicieron caso, pero para Groucho Marx una frase genial, irónica, sarcástica, nunca estaba de más. Eso y muchas otras líneas de humor inteligente engrandecieron su leyenda. Mañana se cumplen 30 años de su muerte.
Su inmenso talento lo convirtió casi en un personaje de dibujos animados, por su falso bigote y sus enormes cejas, su caminar desgarbado y sus gestos exagerados, imagen característica de la meca del cine junto a las faldas de Marilyn Monroe o el bombín de Charles Chaplin.
Pero detrás de la aparición circense se escondía un genio del humor, un pensador que llegaba mucho mas allá con sus sarcasmos, un talento único como el de Picasso, según dijo Woody Allen de él en alguna ocasión.
Sus célebres frases, que marcaron más de una docena de películas con sus hermanos, siguen siendo citas habituales, y de ser un cómico que rayaba en lo ridículo, se convirtió en un fenómeno de culto para muchos fans de la gran pantalla.
Pese a eso, su muerte, un 19 de agosto de 1977, recibió mucha menos atención de la esperada, ya que tres días antes Elvis Presley había sido la causa de una conmoción nacional por su fallecimiento sorpresivo a los 42 años.
Quedaron pocas lágrimas para Groucho, que sin embargo fue elegido dentro de la lista de los 50 actores más influyentes de la historia por el Instituto Americano de Cine.
Hijo de inmigrantes alemanes judíos, Julios Henry Marx nació en Nueva Cork en 1890, en una familia de cinco hermanos que años más tarde se harían famosos por sus actuaciones cómicas.
Curiosamente Groucho, el tercero de los hermanos, era el introvertido y callado de la familia, el niño que no recibió la atención de los mayores (Harpo y Chico) ni de los dos pequeños, Zeppo y Gummo, por lo que logró desarrollar con los años una personalidad cortante para lograr atención.
Comenzó con vodeviles durante dos décadas hasta que Broadway le abrió las puertas a él y a sus cuatro hermanos en I’ll Say She Is, en 1924. De ahí saltaron al éxito de Cocoanuts y su posterior paso por estudios de cine como la Paramount Pictures y la Metro Goldwyn Meyer que los hicieron verdaderamente famosos en Hollywood.
Groucho lideraba las cintas con personajes de nombres estrambóticos, suplantando a médicos, doctores o directores de hotel, a los que siempre acompañaban Harpo y Chico con su endiablada habilidad para tocar el arpa y el piano, respectivamente.
Títulos como Una noche en la ópera, Un día en la carreras o Sopa de ganso están en los registros de mejores comedias de la historia, con escenas como la aglomeración en el camarote de los hermanos o la persecución en un tren en el lejano oeste al grito de “¡Más madera, es la guerra!”
Y después está el recuerdo de sus frases míticas como: “partiendo de la nada hemos alcanzado las más altas cotas de miseria” o “jamás pertenecería a un club que admitiese de socio a alguien como yo”, que lo encumbraron como gran humorista.
Pese a su éxito en la gran pantalla, Groucho logró más reconocimiento y fama que nunca con su programa de televisión Apueste su vida, pues una gran parte del publico estadunidense desconocía sus películas y su trabajo en el teatro.
Además de todo lo anterior, de Groucho dicen que tenía buenos amigos, que conoció a Charles Chaplin de sus días teatrales, que tenía insomnio y que cuando le daba, llamaba por teléfono a gente para insultarlos. Y mantuvo correspondencia constante con escritores de la talla de T.S. Eliot y Carl Sandburg.
Un personaje admirable, que a pesar de que sus padres apostaron por la escuela de medicina, al escasear los recursos en casa tuvo que acudir al canto. Aunque fue en realidad la improvisación lo que le llevó al estrellato. Habilidad que desarrollo de su amor por los libros.
Dicha pasión inspiró su mítica frase: “Me parece que la televisión es muy educativa. Cada vez que alguien la enciende, yo me voy a otra habitación a leer un buen libro”.
Nunca quiso ser un cómico grotesco usando chistes sexuales y se mantuvo siempre cerca de sus hermanos. Sobrevivió a tres de ellos. Incluyendo al menor, Gummo, que falleció cuatro meses antes que Groucho.
Tuvo tres hijos y estuvo casado tres veces, aunque para una mayoría su única mujer fue la incorruptible Margaret Dumont, su compañera de reparto en infinidad de títulos, la viuda millonaria con la que siempre se explayaba, cigarro en mano y avasallándola con frases fugaces y devastadoras.
Groucho era siempre así.
“Jamás pertenecería a un club que admitiese de socio a alguien como yo”, decía Groucho el hombre que convirtió a Marx en un apellido chistoso
El cómico fue elegido uno de los 50 actores más influyentes de la historia
DPA
Los Angeles, agosto 18. “Perdonen que no me levante”, fue lo que quiso que pusieran en su tumba. No le hicieron caso, pero para Groucho Marx una frase genial, irónica, sarcástica, nunca estaba de más. Eso y muchas otras líneas de humor inteligente engrandecieron su leyenda. Mañana se cumplen 30 años de su muerte.
Su inmenso talento lo convirtió casi en un personaje de dibujos animados, por su falso bigote y sus enormes cejas, su caminar desgarbado y sus gestos exagerados, imagen característica de la meca del cine junto a las faldas de Marilyn Monroe o el bombín de Charles Chaplin.
Pero detrás de la aparición circense se escondía un genio del humor, un pensador que llegaba mucho mas allá con sus sarcasmos, un talento único como el de Picasso, según dijo Woody Allen de él en alguna ocasión.
Sus célebres frases, que marcaron más de una docena de películas con sus hermanos, siguen siendo citas habituales, y de ser un cómico que rayaba en lo ridículo, se convirtió en un fenómeno de culto para muchos fans de la gran pantalla.
Pese a eso, su muerte, un 19 de agosto de 1977, recibió mucha menos atención de la esperada, ya que tres días antes Elvis Presley había sido la causa de una conmoción nacional por su fallecimiento sorpresivo a los 42 años.
Quedaron pocas lágrimas para Groucho, que sin embargo fue elegido dentro de la lista de los 50 actores más influyentes de la historia por el Instituto Americano de Cine.
Hijo de inmigrantes alemanes judíos, Julios Henry Marx nació en Nueva Cork en 1890, en una familia de cinco hermanos que años más tarde se harían famosos por sus actuaciones cómicas.
Curiosamente Groucho, el tercero de los hermanos, era el introvertido y callado de la familia, el niño que no recibió la atención de los mayores (Harpo y Chico) ni de los dos pequeños, Zeppo y Gummo, por lo que logró desarrollar con los años una personalidad cortante para lograr atención.
Comenzó con vodeviles durante dos décadas hasta que Broadway le abrió las puertas a él y a sus cuatro hermanos en I’ll Say She Is, en 1924. De ahí saltaron al éxito de Cocoanuts y su posterior paso por estudios de cine como la Paramount Pictures y la Metro Goldwyn Meyer que los hicieron verdaderamente famosos en Hollywood.
Groucho lideraba las cintas con personajes de nombres estrambóticos, suplantando a médicos, doctores o directores de hotel, a los que siempre acompañaban Harpo y Chico con su endiablada habilidad para tocar el arpa y el piano, respectivamente.
Títulos como Una noche en la ópera, Un día en la carreras o Sopa de ganso están en los registros de mejores comedias de la historia, con escenas como la aglomeración en el camarote de los hermanos o la persecución en un tren en el lejano oeste al grito de “¡Más madera, es la guerra!”
Y después está el recuerdo de sus frases míticas como: “partiendo de la nada hemos alcanzado las más altas cotas de miseria” o “jamás pertenecería a un club que admitiese de socio a alguien como yo”, que lo encumbraron como gran humorista.
Pese a su éxito en la gran pantalla, Groucho logró más reconocimiento y fama que nunca con su programa de televisión Apueste su vida, pues una gran parte del publico estadunidense desconocía sus películas y su trabajo en el teatro.
Además de todo lo anterior, de Groucho dicen que tenía buenos amigos, que conoció a Charles Chaplin de sus días teatrales, que tenía insomnio y que cuando le daba, llamaba por teléfono a gente para insultarlos. Y mantuvo correspondencia constante con escritores de la talla de T.S. Eliot y Carl Sandburg.
Un personaje admirable, que a pesar de que sus padres apostaron por la escuela de medicina, al escasear los recursos en casa tuvo que acudir al canto. Aunque fue en realidad la improvisación lo que le llevó al estrellato. Habilidad que desarrollo de su amor por los libros.
Dicha pasión inspiró su mítica frase: “Me parece que la televisión es muy educativa. Cada vez que alguien la enciende, yo me voy a otra habitación a leer un buen libro”.
Nunca quiso ser un cómico grotesco usando chistes sexuales y se mantuvo siempre cerca de sus hermanos. Sobrevivió a tres de ellos. Incluyendo al menor, Gummo, que falleció cuatro meses antes que Groucho.
Tuvo tres hijos y estuvo casado tres veces, aunque para una mayoría su única mujer fue la incorruptible Margaret Dumont, su compañera de reparto en infinidad de títulos, la viuda millonaria con la que siempre se explayaba, cigarro en mano y avasallándola con frases fugaces y devastadoras.
Groucho era siempre así.
Richard Ashcroft
The Verve
Space And Time
There ain't no space and timeTo keep our love aliveWe have existence and it's all we shareThere ain't no real truthThere ain't no real liesKeep on pushin' 'cause I know it's thereOh, can you just tell meIt's all right (It's all right)Let me sleep tonightOh, can you comfort meTonight (It's all right)Make it all seem fineI just can't make it aloneOh, no, noI just can't make it aloneOh, no, noThere'll be no lullabiesThere'll be no tears criedWe feel numb 'cause we don't seeThat if we really careAnd we really lovedThink of all the joy we'd feelOh, can you just tell meIt's all right (It's all right)Let me sleep tonightOh, can you comfort meTonight (It's all right)Make it all seem fineI just can't make it aloneOh, no, noI just can't make it aloneOh, no, noI just can't make it aloneOh, no, noI just can't make it aloneOh, no, noAin't got no lullaby, no, noAin't got no lullaby, oh, noThere is no space and timeOh lordThere is no space and timeOh lordWe have existence and it's all we shareWe have existence and it's all we shareWe have existence and it's all we shareWe have existence and it's all we shareWe have existence and it's all we shareKeep on pushing 'cause I know it's thereKeep on pushing 'cause I know it's thereKeep on pushing 'cause I know it's thereKeep on pushing 'cause I know it's there
The Verve
Space And Time
There ain't no space and timeTo keep our love aliveWe have existence and it's all we shareThere ain't no real truthThere ain't no real liesKeep on pushin' 'cause I know it's thereOh, can you just tell meIt's all right (It's all right)Let me sleep tonightOh, can you comfort meTonight (It's all right)Make it all seem fineI just can't make it aloneOh, no, noI just can't make it aloneOh, no, noThere'll be no lullabiesThere'll be no tears criedWe feel numb 'cause we don't seeThat if we really careAnd we really lovedThink of all the joy we'd feelOh, can you just tell meIt's all right (It's all right)Let me sleep tonightOh, can you comfort meTonight (It's all right)Make it all seem fineI just can't make it aloneOh, no, noI just can't make it aloneOh, no, noI just can't make it aloneOh, no, noI just can't make it aloneOh, no, noAin't got no lullaby, no, noAin't got no lullaby, oh, noThere is no space and timeOh lordThere is no space and timeOh lordWe have existence and it's all we shareWe have existence and it's all we shareWe have existence and it's all we shareWe have existence and it's all we shareWe have existence and it's all we shareKeep on pushing 'cause I know it's thereKeep on pushing 'cause I know it's thereKeep on pushing 'cause I know it's thereKeep on pushing 'cause I know it's there
Friday, 17 August 2007
Dicen de Paul Auster
-Me cuenta David Ruiz
que alguien le dijo
que alguna vez
Paul Auster estaba escribiendo
un cuento sensacional,
se sentía tan satisfecho,
un genio,
en eso,
salio al jardín
y se encontró con su hija
que lo llevó de la mano
para enseñarle
la enorme cagada
que se había hecho apenas
en el jardín.-
Sabias palabras.
Tú como yo, también cagas.
Y con las manos en las rodillas
con el culo al aire
de aguilita
o en la tierra
también te desprendes
un poco de tí mismo
devuelves al origen
tus pretenciones de alto vuelo
y tu ego,
tus deseos y tus miedos.
Y aunque no lo quieras
existe tu foto tomada
por las cctv cámaras
o por algún pinche ocioso
y un día de verano
cuando más seguro te sientas
sera transmitida
a nivel planetario
en los sueños del mundo
para que todos la reconozcan;
tu cagada.
que alguien le dijo
que alguna vez
Paul Auster estaba escribiendo
un cuento sensacional,
se sentía tan satisfecho,
un genio,
en eso,
salio al jardín
y se encontró con su hija
que lo llevó de la mano
para enseñarle
la enorme cagada
que se había hecho apenas
en el jardín.-
Sabias palabras.
Tú como yo, también cagas.
Y con las manos en las rodillas
con el culo al aire
de aguilita
o en la tierra
también te desprendes
un poco de tí mismo
devuelves al origen
tus pretenciones de alto vuelo
y tu ego,
tus deseos y tus miedos.
Y aunque no lo quieras
existe tu foto tomada
por las cctv cámaras
o por algún pinche ocioso
y un día de verano
cuando más seguro te sientas
sera transmitida
a nivel planetario
en los sueños del mundo
para que todos la reconozcan;
tu cagada.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)