Daily archives: July 1st, 2010

To Your Health! The Upside of Recessions

July 1, 2010
EconomyJobsScience
0 Comment

"Na zdrowie!" the Poles say. "To your health!"

And health may be the good news of any global economic downturn.

From Science Magazine:

You’ve lost your job, your house, and your savings. But, hey, you still have your health, right? Actually, you probably do–and it may even be improving. Researchers have found that, historically, Americans were healthier during the Great Depression and other economic downturns than they were during periods of prosperity. And they say the trend may still hold true today.

For many, the Great Depression conjures up images of wan, rail-thin men waiting in bread lines. At its peak in 1932, unemployment hit 22.9% and U.S. gross domestic product (GDP), a standard measure of economic performance, had shrunk by 14%. Despite these hardships, the average American was healthier during this period than during the economic booms that preceded and followed it, according to social researcher José Tapia Granados and his co-author Ana Diez Roux, both of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

The pair studied historical life expectancy and mortality data, GDP growth and unemployment rates, focusing on the years 1920 through 1940.

What did they find?

Tapia Granados’s team found an inverse association between economic health and population health: Life expectancy fell during economic upturns and increased during recessions. Mortality, meanwhile, tended to rise during economic upturns and fall during recessions. Deaths related to flu and pneumonia, for example, fell from about 150 per 100,000 people in 1929 to roughly 100 per 100,000 people in 1930, the researchers report online today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Suicide was the only cause of death that increased during times of economic turmoil.

American Poles also quip, "Nie ma robi. Nie ma nic. Nie ma pienadze!, Son of a bitch!"

"I have no work. I have nothing. I have no money…"

"Son of a bitch!"

Na zdrowie!

Did Mammoth Extinction Begin Global Warming?

July 1, 2010
EnvironmentGlobal WarmingScience
0 Comment

Mammoth

News from Science Magazine of the imminent release of a new study:

The jury is still out on whether humans wiped out the mammoths. But researchers have found evidence that the disappearance of the woolly giants probably helped to change the climate. If the beasts were indeed hunted to extinction, that means human-driven climate change could have started long ago, the researchers say.

Like modern-day elephants, mammoths were nature’s tree pruners. Their diet included large amounts of leaves and branches from young trees, and they kept the temperate northern lands of North America, Europe, and Asia well trimmed and mostly free of forests. In particular, mammoths feasted in the grasslands that had sprung up in Beringia, the land bridge between Siberia and Alaska that now sits at the bottom of the Bering Sea. But then, starting around 15,000 years ago, mammoth populations in the region plummeted. At about the same time, a genus of birch trees called Betula, native to the northern grasslands, underwent a population explosion.

And the results suggest the expansion of Betula trees actually warmed the earth a bit:

The results, the researchers report in a paper to be published in an upcoming issue of Geophysical Research Letters, suggest that when the mammoths disappeared, the Betula trees expanded across Beringia, forming forests that replaced as much as one-quarter of the grassland. The trees’ leaves, which are darker than grasses, absorbed more solar radiation, and their trunks and branches, which jutted above the snowpack, continued the effect even in winter. The researchers calculated that the mammoths’ disappearance contributed at least 0.1?C to the average warming of the world around 15,000 years ago. Within Beringia, the warming due to the loss of the mammoths was probably closer to 0.2?C, the team concluded.

Fascinating.

University Panel Clears Climate Scientist of Altering Data

July 1, 2010
Anti-ScienceEconomyEnvironmentGlobal WarmingScience
0 Comment

From the NY Times:

An American scientist accused of manipulating research findings on climate science was cleared of that charge by his university on Thursday, the latest in a string of reports to find little substance in the allegations known as Climategate.

An investigative panel at Pennsylvania State University, weighing the question of whether the scientist, Michael E. Mann, had “seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting or reporting research or other scholarly activities,” declared that he had not.

Dr. Mann said he was gratified by the findings, the second report from Penn State to clear him. An earlier report had exonerated him of related charges that he suppressed or falsified data, destroyed e-mail and misused confidential information.

The new report did criticize him on a minor point, saying that he had occasionally forwarded to colleagues copies of unpublished manuscripts without the explicit permission of their authors.

The allegations arose after private e-mail messages between Dr. Mann and other scientists were purloined from a computer at the University of East Anglia, in Britain, and posted on the Internet. In one, a British researcher called a data-adjustment procedure Dr. Mann used a “trick.”

The e-mail messages led climate-change skeptics to accuse mainstream researchers, including Dr. Mann, of deliberately manipulating the findings of climate science in order to strengthen their case that human activity is causing the earth to warm up.

There is no doubt in the scientific community that global warming is real, it is happening, human beings are the cause, and we must do everything now to cease destruction of the environment before we make the planet uninhabitable for human beings and so many other forms of life. And science does not happen via email. Scientific studies are published in journals which most lay people in society – non-scientists- can neither read or comprehend.

Try reading a technical article from Science Magazine.

My point is not to affirm how little most of us know about real science – although that is pitifully true. The point is, no science happened in these emails with respect to the climate or anything else. Studies are published for the scientific community then critiqued by members of the scientific community.

I’m not defending Dr. Mann. But the far right must stop throwing mud at the scientific community because attention to climate change will require a rethinking of our economy, and much of that new economy will not include fossil fuels.