text:
Communicating the consensus on climate change
by Sam Illingworth, Public Library of Science
The PLOS Responding to Climate Change Collection, updated for ESA 100.
Consider a medical analogy… If you saw 100 doctors about a mole that had appeared on your chest, and only three of them told you that it was benign, the chances are that you would probably do something about it, no matter how much those three doctors told you not to worry and that it would soon go away.
Climate Change is happening, global warming is real, our planet is changing irrevocably, and it is almost entirely our fault. This is not an opinion or a provocation; this is scientific fact, agreed upon by approximately 97 % of climate scientists. If you don't believe me, then look at this study, or this one, or even this one.
But then there's this equally unavoidable fact. According to the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication, in 2014, only 44% of Americans said they thought global warming is both happening and human caused. Without the public accepting the seriousness of climate change and their own culpability in causing it, they are far less likely to want to accept climate change mitigation policies, such as the recent Obama Clean Power Plan.
So why is there such a big gap between what scientists say and what the rest of the population think? Two 2015 papers from the PLOS research collection "Responding to Climate Change," discuss this disconnect, and present some straightforward, yet effective solutions.
In "The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change as a Gateway Belief: Experimental Evidence", Dr van der Linden and his colleagues find that an increased public perception in the consensus of climate scientists acts as a gateway, leading to an increase in the belief that climate change is happening, that it is human-caused, and that it is a problem that needs to be addressed. These changes in belief were then found to lead to an increase in support for public action. In other words, the more that the general public believe that scientists agree that climate change is a real, human-caused problem, the more they believe in it, and the more that they are willing to accept policies that combat it.
The problem however, is that the general public still don't appear to believe that there is scientific consensus, with only 12% of Americans correctly estimating scientific agreement as 90 % or higher. Part of the reason for this public misunderstanding is the strategic spread of misinformation by the organised opponents of climate change. This very vocal minority works hard to give the impression that there is not a consensus, which can therefore ultimately have a very damming effect on the uptake of climate policy by the general populous. This spread of information, combined with a "false balance" in news coverage (in which journalists have traditionally followed a pattern of finding representatives on either side of the debate), gives the impression that there is far less scientific consensus than there is in reality. However, as the study concludes:
"Repeated exposure to simple messages that correctly state the actual scientific consensus on human-caused climate change is a strategy that is likely to help counter the concerted efforts to misinform the public."
In "Simple Messages Help Set the Record Straight about Scientific Agreement on Human-Caused Climate Change: The Results of Two Experiments," Dr Teresa Myers and colleagues discuss the effectiveness of different approaches to communicating the consensus of climate scientists. They conduct two large-scale studies in which they find that simple, clear messages can be used to improve the general public's perception of the scientific consensus.
One of the key findings of the study was that members of the general public were more likely to correctly estimate scientific agreement when presented with quantitative rather than qualitative statements, for example "97% of climate scientists have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening" was found to be more effective than "An overwhelming majority of climate scientists have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening", both in terms of what the participants estimated the scientific agreement to be, and their confidence in that estimation. The other major finding of the study was that these estimations were found to be higher if an "estimation and reveal" technique (in which the participants were first asked to guess what they thought the consensus was, before being shown a statement outlining the consensus, and then being asked to guess again) was used.
What works to change minds?
Whilst the findings of the study are encouraging, and offer practical advice to climate scientists wishing to communicate the consensus of their opinions (i.e. use numerical descriptions of scientific agreement, and try to incorporate the "estimation and reveal" method), it is still somewhat surprising that even the most effective messages still only led to a public perception of 89% scientific consensus, i.e. 8% lower than the true value of 97%. However, as the authors themselves note:
"It is unlikely that a single exposure to a scientific agreement message will result in complete belief updating; however, … simple clear messages, repeated often, by a variety of trusted sources is an effective framework for public communication."
Both of these studies also clearly demonstrate that these methods are effective independent of political ideologies. However, as they also demonstrate, the acceptance of any climate change mitigation policies can only be brought about by effectively communicating the true scientific consensus on climate change.
As climate scientists, one of the most important steps that we can take is in accurately portraying our unanimity on the subject, and making sure that it is heard above the sometimes deafening dim of the climate sceptics and their strategic spread of misinformation.
The scientific consensus as a gateway belief for climate change and GMOs
More information: Simple Messages Help Set the Record Straight about Scientific Agreement on Human-Caused Climate Change: The Results of Two Experiments. PLoS ONE 10(3): e0120985. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0120985
"Climate Change in the American Mind." environment.yale.edu/climate-c … -Mind-April-2014.pdf
Journal information: PLoS ONE
Provided by Public Library of Science
This story is republished courtesy of PLOS Blogs: blogs.plos.org.
Citation: Communicating the consensus on climate change (2015, August 10) retrieved 18 July 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2015-08-consensus-climate.html
Opinion: The politics and gender of climate change belief
Scientists' role in swaying public opinion studied
Public misperception about scientific agreement on global warming undermines climate policy support
How to engage the population with climate change? Frame it as a public health issue
The politics of climate change
HannesAlfven
Re: "Dr van der Linden and his colleagues find that an increased public perception in the consensus of climate scientists acts as a gateway, leading to an increase in the belief that climate change is happening, that it is human-caused, and that it is a problem that needs to be addressed."
There is an inherent irony in the papers on this subject: In order to get people to believe in manmade climate change, scientists must convince the public to stop trying to engage the subject on their own, and instead just place FAITH in scientific consensus.
This is science for the sake of belief, which contrasts with science as a tool for thinking. It's THINKING WHAT SCIENTISTS THINK rather than THINKING LIKE A SCIENTIST (in the manner of a scientist).
Joseph Novak, the creator of concept maps, positioned this philosophical debate as that between positivism and constructivism.
Also, on this ...
Re: "Consider a medical analogy… If you saw 100 doctors about a mole that had appeared on your chest, and only three of them told you that it was benign, the chances are that you would probably do something about it, no matter how much those three doctors told you not to worry and that it would soon go away."
You'd do something about it because there is little controversy over what a dangerous mole looks like.
That is not at all like the situation of climate change, nor any other scientific controversy where many billions of dollars are at stake, and this article actually exemplifies the problem of these advocacy pieces on physorg:
Physorg and the universities are extending a very long academic tradition of dismissing the legitimacy of scientific controversies. This will seem like a good idea up until somebody creates a proper interface to scientific controversies, and nobody will look to physorg as an expert on controversial subjects anymore.
gkam
It is difficult to debate an issue which has been politicized. The purveyors of Filthy Fuels have emotionally tied clean air and water to Communism or some other SCARY thing.
These folk are suckers for emotional manipulation, even getting scared when two draft-dodgers hiding in their Undisclosed Locations started screaming "WMD!", and "Bring 'em on!".
You cannot discuss things rationally with folk like that.
I would disagree that scientific controversies are inherently difficult to debate. The problem is that academia has not informed the public of both sides to the debate, and this has led to distrust. Fact of the matter is that academics are loathe to talk about the models themselves, because of all of the parameterizations (jargon for guessing), the intractability of modeling natural processes like clouds, the failure of the models to speak to anything at all other than CO2's potential effect, the failure of GCM's and CCM's to address the polar stratospheric winds, the failure to include any heating from solar plasma (which TSI does not capture, and which cannot be captured by 200 x 200 mile cells or 20-30 minute timesteps), the failure to accurately model the Hadley cells, etc.
When a person actually learns how the models work, the arguments that we can actually predict the future with these models becomes harder to believe. This is why these advocates talk about everything but.
Any scientist that would even suggest that consensus is reason or grounds for anything is a FRAUD!
We invented science so we wouldn't have to rely on opinion and consensus. The very fact that they are touting consensus, the antithesis of science, means that their theories are bogus and they have no clue but the gullible public should just do what ever they say, just because they say so. Apparently these scientists think they are Popes.
rodkeh, I would tend to agree with your statement. The public has been left with an impression that the consensus can be blindly trusted. But, of course every scientist already understands that EVERY theory in science, by definition, is initially pitted against scientific consensus.
And that approach quite nearly wiped out Western civilization as we know it, because in the lead-up to WWII, the overwhelming scientific consensus was that space-borne rockets were just completely absurd. That consensus was believed pretty much right up to the point that rockets started raining down on London.
That story, by itself, should be enough to remind people of the danger of what the IPCC is trying to do here with its overwhelming marketing efforts -- for this conversation is funded at the cost of others. And those who advocate for this risk do not know what those other risks they are trying so hard to ignore actually are.
rodkeh, please grow up. There is no such thing as Absolute Proof, . . until you are looking at consequences.
We have most of the professionals in their field telling us about this, and have data to back it up. On the other side, we have those who react because of political prejudice, the issue having been politicized by the purveyors of Filthy Fuels to save themselves and their profits.
shavera
it's important to distinguish between the ideal of science (accepting things based on observations), and the reality of science (multiple explanations may exist for any given observation; humans are not fundamentally rational beings)
Consensus is an important *tool* in *finding* the best scientific explanation for an observation. Consensus is not, itself, proof, but a means of finding enough observations that support one main "story" rather than requiring multiple "stories" for each separate observation or smaller group of observations.
shavera, you have no idea of what science is about! gkam, I hope you are one day able to overcome your reading disability.
Hannes, you are so right! No one it seems, ever learns from history. The consensus on just about everything, is eventually proved wrong, usually by scientific data and fact. The reason that consensus fails so often is because consensus is based on opinion, not fact!
Consensus is useless and meaningless, beyond being a piece of useless trivia.
In anything to do with science, consensus should be held with contempt. Anything else is unscientific.
denglish
What a sad, sad article.
This article has absolutely no meat. "It is because we say it is".
Science by populism, in a world of liberal media that feeds misinformation to the uneducated masses. If someone is going to go by the populist argument, they may already be lost.
This crap doesn't even warrant the time it takes to dredge up the data proving falsified theories and proof of earthly cycles.
Participating in this thread will be like wrestling with a pig. You get muddy, and the pig likes it.
enviro414
If Dr. Barry Marshall and Dr. Robin Warren said that your stomach ulcer was caused by bacteria (h. pylori) and could be cured with an antibiotic while the consensus of other doctors was that ulcers were caused by stress and spicy foods, who would you believe?
The two named doctors are Nobel Laureates because they are right.
Surprising things might be discovered if you have engineering science skill and don't start with an agenda.
Proof that CO2 has no effect on climate and identification of the two factors that do cause reported climate change (sunspot number is the only independent variable) are at http://agwunveile...spot.com (new update with 5-year running-average smoothing of measured average global temperature (AGT), results in a near-perfect explanation of AGT since before 1900; R^2 = 0.97+).
Eikka
If you saw 100 doctors about a mole that had appeared on your chest, and only three of them told you that it was benign, the chances are that you would probably do something about it
The problem is that none of those doctors actually offer you any treatment or perscription of medicine. They just offer you increasingly pessimistic predictions about how short your life will be.
So, alarmed by the doctors' prognosis, you go to the local witch doctor who is even more hysterical about the ailment and offers you leeches, mercury and self-flagellation, and when you question his methods he calls you a denier and a fool.
Re: "We have most of the professionals in their field telling us about this, and have data to back it up. On the other side, we have those who react because of political prejudice, the issue having been politicized by the purveyors of Filthy Fuels to save themselves and their profits."
That's what Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman calls a "believable narrative" -- the technical term being "associative coherence." Believable narratives are enormously powerful because they speak to our systems for subconscious pattern-matching -- the same system we all have, because it keeps us alive.
Kahneman specifically advises against using this system to engage complex subjects like scientific controversies.
See https://plus.goog...tWErjFBW
The reason being is that the real world is of course usually more complex than simple patterns.
jeffensley
One of the issues I've encountered in discussions regarding AGW here and on other sites, is that the two sides of the coin operate from the presumption that to acknowledge a point from the other is to lose the entire argument. I've had many rational people avoid discussing the numerous uncertainties surrounding modelling... everything from choosing values for unknowns to acknowledging the fact that there are an incredible number of variables for which we make NO attempt to account because we don't know they exist. They believe that to acknowledge this very rational point is to accept that we shouldn't take action as a society to curb our energy consumption. I believe nothing of the sort. I think it's crucial for the survival of the species that we learn to make do with less. We just don't need pseudo-scientsista suggesting that curbing CO2 emissions is going to somehow preserve/create "favorable" climate conditions. We don't have control of it and hopefully never will.
Re: "everything from choosing values for unknowns to acknowledging the fact that there are an incredible number of variables for which we make NO attempt to account because we don't know they exist."
But, I think you're under-stating the degree of parameterization here. If scientists were being honest with the sheer amount of guessing that is happening with the GCM's, they would admit that it is up around 80% of the surface and 90% of the atmosphere.
Re: "They believe that to acknowledge this very rational point is to accept that we shouldn't take action as a society to curb our energy consumption."
Well, yes, because there are excellent arguments that the Sun's energy input to the Earth is not fully captured by TSI -- which is what these GCM's assume. The solar physicists have complained from the beginning that there is likely also energy in the solar wind which is being dumped into the Earth's atmosphere THROUGH THE POLES.
Quote from Manic Sun: Weather Theories Confounded ...
"The solar physicists cared just as much as the official climatologists, about keeping the world safe for their grandchildren. They said it was rash to suppose that every possible variation in the Sun's output of light had been seen by the satellites in the course of a single solar cycle. The solar-terrestrial physicists, for their part, pleaded for consideration of other ways in which the Sun might affect the Earth via the solar wind -- auroras, that sort of thing. They were awfully vague, though, about how it could happen."
Note the confusion even with this author that the solar wind is a form of "light." It's a plasma -- a word which most AGW advocates have yet to actually learn, even though we've known since 1958 that it's the universe's preferred state for matter.
leetennant
I agree with everybody.
This is why you all got PhDs in climatology and have now spent 20 years in the field and so are qualifiied to put your google search of crap denier blogs over the experts who've actually devoted their lives to studying this stuff.
I can't wait to see the extensive counter evidence you've all published in peer-reviewed journals over an illustrious career of "working this stuff out for yourself". I assume you also don't go to doctors, dentists, hospitals, mechanics, or take commercial flights but get qualifications in all those things as well. And build the cars and planes too. What polymaths. And you still have time to write really really dumb comments on website articles too. I don't know how you all do it.
Bravo. Really.
Re: "This is why you all got PhDs in climatology and have now spent 20 years in the field and so are qualifiied to put your google search of crap denier blogs over the experts who've actually devoted their lives to studying this stuff."
Can you explain to me why anybody would even expect a climate scientist to take into account the heating that occurs from electrical currents over the solar wind into the poles, given that they have never been trained in electrodynamics or plasma physics?
This is why NASA is creating new climate models right now through Professor -- and plasma physicist -- Yue Deng with the University of Texas. They've already given her $1 million to take into account the electric currents which flow into the poles.
For more information, see press releases at:
http://www.uta.ed...rant.php
A very important UCLA announcement spills the beans on the failure of the TSI to take into account this solar wind energy input.
See http://newsroom.u...n-101025
UCLA atmospheric scientists have discovered a previously unknown basic mode of energy transfer from the solar wind to the Earth's magnetosphere. The research, federally funded by the National Science Foundation, could improve the safety and reliability of spacecraft that operate in the upper atmosphere.
"It's like something else is heating the atmosphere besides the sun. This discovery is like finding it got hotter when the sun went down," said Larry Lyons, UCLA professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences and a co-author of the research, which is in press in two companion papers in the Journal of Geophysical Research.
cont'd
cont'd ...
The sun, in addition to emitting radiation, emits a stream of ionized particles called the solar wind that affects the Earth and other planets in the solar system. The solar wind, which carries the particles from the sun's magnetic field, known as the interplanetary magnetic field, takes about three or four days to reach the Earth. When the charged electrical particles approach the Earth, they carve out a highly magnetized region — the magnetosphere — which surrounds and protects the Earth.
Charged particles carry currents, which cause significant modifications in the Earth's magnetosphere.
The rate at which the solar wind transfers energy to the magnetosphere can vary widely, but what determines the rate of energy transfer is unclear.
"We thought it was known, but we came up with a major surprise,"
What the climate scientists do not understand is that there has been a debate over how to model cosmic plasmas for more than half a century now between The Astrophysical Journal and IEEE's Transactions on Plasma Science. Hannes Alfven was in 1970 given the Nobel for his creation of the cosmic plasma models (MHD), which are used by astrophysicists to this day. What is not taught to graduate students -- neither physicists nor climate scientists -- is that Alfven used the occasion of his Nobel acceptance speech to distance himself from the way in which the universe's most common state of matter (plasma) was being modeled.
Climate scientists accept the conclusions of astrophysicists without ever realizing that there was a debate on this subject. This controversial belief that energy cannot be electrically transferred over the solar wind is what has led climate scientists to believe that the TSI fully captures the Earth's energy input.
It does not.
For a full review of original source documents related to this debate, see
https://social-sc...0#claims
Science is NOT a religion that we should place faith in. It's just a tool for understanding nature. You can either choose to use that tool, or place faith in others who do. If you choose the former, then do not follow the lead of climate scientists:
Learn what a plasma is, and why it matters. And it will become clear where this climate debate is going.
Hannes again embarassed himself by his own posts:
If you read the URL that Hannes cited you will find that he completely misread the grant announcements as well as the following UCLA quote in that he thinks these are climate models when they are, actually, models of the upper atmosphere (ionosphere and magnetosphere) and are plasma interaction models. The goal of these models has nothing to do with climate and is to help us better understand energitic events like the Carrington event:
https://en.wikipe..._of_1859
How can someone confuse this with a climate model?
Professor Deng at http://nldr.libra...001.pdf:
"Joule heating has been consistently underestimated because it is frequently assumed in general circulation models (GCMs) that the electric field is relatively smooth both in space and time. Codrescu et al [1995] showed that the polar region electric field is variable and that the variability can significantly increase the amount of Joule heating ...
The averaged and smoothed CLIMATOLOGIES can only give poor spatial variability, since averaging massive amounts of data smears out extremes, which may, in fact, contribute significant amounts to the local, and possibly global, Joule heating."
Deng is not even the only group pursuing this line of investigation. There is also a group of researchers who study infrasound data from the CTBTO, which is the network of 300 sensors across the globe used to monitor nuclear explosions. They are significantly more ambitious than Deng ...
From https://www.ctbto...meteors/
Elisabeth Blanc, Research Director at France's Atomic Energy and Alternative Energies Commission, heads a European project to improve long-term weather forecasting models based on temperature and wind changes in the stratosphere, using some of the CTBTO's infrasound data.
"Two weeks after major stratospheric warming was detected at the end of 2012, the weather in Europe changed dramatically," says Blanc. "We think this was related to stratospheric warming.
"If our research confirms the effects of these kinds of changes, weather models could forecast ahead BY SEVERAL WEEKS OR EVEN A SEASON. That would be very important, but we are not there yet."
Is it that I am just ignorant? Or, do these researchers simply believe that this energy input can actually DO STUFF?
The issue boils down to this: What is the Polar Vortex?
Many climate scientists will try to answer that question without any mention of the Earth's larger electromagnetic plasma / solar wind environment. That is why when they see the VERTICAL sustained, polar thermospheric winds correlating with solar wind intensity, they nevertheless fail to connect the dots that the solar wind is being funneled into the poles because that is where the magnetic field directs it, and those charged particles will then drag with them the neutral particles.
From http://adsabs.har...11..651H
"Many atmospheric general circulation models (GCMs) and chemistry–climate models (CCMs) are not able to reproduce the observed polar stratospheric winds in simulations of the late 20th century ...
Clearly, if CCMs cannot duplicate the observed response of the polar stratosphere to late 20th century climate forcings, their ability to simulate the polar vortices in future may be poor."
Wow Hannes, I thought you might read one of your URLs before posting them. Once again the new paper shows:
It is important to understand Joule heating because it can significantly change the temperature structure, atmosphere composition, and electron density and hence influences satellite drag. It is thought that many coupled ionosphere-thermosphere models underestimate Joule heating because the spatial and temporal variability of the ionospheric electric field is not totally captured within global models. Using the Global Ionosphere Thermosphere Model (GITM), we explore the effect of the electric field temporal variability, model resolution, and vertical velocity differences between ion and neutral flows on Joule heating in a self-consistent thermosphere/ionosphere system.
This is the upper atmosphere. What part of Ionosphere and thermosphere do you not understand? This is NOT climate.
Piers Corbyn on the sudden stratospheric warming events:
"We've also done predictions of sudden warmings of the stratosphere, known in the trade as sudden stratospheric warmings (SSW's). And these were known about to astrophysicists years ago, in the 60's. And they noticed that the jet stream actually started waving more a week or so after these things. But they didn't tell the meteorologists, and the meteorologists wouldn't have been interested anyways. It's only recently that this has come to light, and we've made successful predictions of them ... When they wave around in the winter, you get big waves in the jet stream, and then you might get shunting out of cold air and snow."
That's from https://www.youtu...p;t=1007
More from Corbyn, same video ...
"So, the key question is: What causes weather extremes and climate change? And the answer to that is -- and all the standard meteorologists say -- yeesss, jet stream ... the position of the jet stream is fundamental. And I was at a meeting in the Royal Society recently where the other side said ... oh, we're doing this loads of fantastic work on CO2, but unfortunately, we've put lots of CO2 into the models, and the jet stream just does what it always did. It doesn't wave around wildly like it is now. And I stood up and said, well, I'm not surprised. We predicted that it would wave around wildly now because of solar activity. Then, they sort of look a bit bemused, and said ... well, well, we could consider some of your inputs into our models, perhaps. Perhaps, Mr. Corbyn. Then, I thought that's insane: You cannot put sensible stuff into a model of madness."
Re: "This is the upper atmosphere. What part of Ionosphere and thermosphere do you not understand? This is NOT climate."
We discovered when we sent the first rockets into space that space is a plasma. It's charged particles creating and carrying magnetic fields and electric currents. The atmosphere is a very thin sliver where plasma is NOT the dominant state of matter. This atmosphere is only half the thickness at the poles, because that is where the magnetic field frequently funnels these charged particles. That is why you see the aurora at the poles.
People who want us to believe that this larger plasma environment which our atmosphere is fully immersed within cannot ELECTRICALLY influence the climate within our atmosphere are really quite bonkers.
ALL OF SPACE IS PLASMA.
As far as you go, to the nearest rock. It stands to reason that all of that activity can indeed do stuff of importance to our climate.
I trust that NASA and Deng will figure it out.
JohnMoser
"If you saw 100 doctors about a mole that had appeared on your chest, and only three of them told you that it was benign, the chances are that you would probably do something about it, no matter how much those three doctors told you not to worry and that it would soon go away."
What if over half the doctors told you it was benign, until they were fired from their jobs, had their funding eliminated, and were subjected to interminable and outrageous personal attacks? What if the operation cost you your home and all hope of future employment? There is a legitimate analogy.
antigoracle
Want to communicate your consensus, then get your 97% to debate the other 3%.
Yes, I know it can never happen since the 97% is a lie.
Part of the problem with the conversation over climate change is that our platforms for communication do not reward the clarification or teaching of largely unknown concepts. Notice what happens, in practice, in even this thread:
I'm introducing a wide array of materials and a half-century debate between two well-respected journals which most people here have never heard of, and showing how they can be demonstrated to be pointing into a single direction, and yet people rate this activity at the lowest rating they can offer because it does not conform to their pre-existing worldview.
These online rating systems are part of the problem of this conversation, because they were never designed to reward intelligent discourse. They were never intended to actually facilitate the elicitation of wisdom from the crowd; what they do is they give disagreeable readers a place to vent, where their comments can be easily buried in the noise of the mob.
By the way, I'm listening, in the event that somebody wants to explain why energetic electrical events at the periphery of the Earth's climate system -- and especially at the poles, where the solar wind is directed by the Earth's magnetic field -- cannot have any effect of any importance upon the Earth's climate system.
Is there an actual physical basis for this assumption that we are being invited to accept? What actually happens to these electrical fluxes when they enter into the ionosphere? Please point to the data which has led to the acceptance of this assumption that these two adjacent systems definitively do not interact with one another.
There's no uncertainty in this rebuttal ...
... So, this should be a very easy question to answer.
Hannes: The upper atmosphere is at low pressure. Because of the low density, heat transfer or even convection are suppressed (bulk convection is replaced by ballistic motion of particles with relatively longer distances between collisions);
https://en.wikipe...nosphere
The low density means that it cannot interact strongly with the lower atmosphere (troposphere). No one is trying to say that it is not an important part of the atmosphere and that we need to understand it but it is a small part of the atmospheric mass and, therefor, cannot contain a significant part of the enthalpy of the atmosphere. Please explain to me why you think otherwise so we can discuss it.
Re: "The upper atmosphere is at low pressure. Because of the low density, heat transfer or even convection are suppressed (bulk convection is replaced by ballistic motion of particles with relatively longer distances between collisions)"
Please explain what a sudden stratospheric warming event is, and what you believe causes it.
Why do you care how it is heated?
What I am saying is that it does not matter how it is heated because the pressure is low enough that it does not carry much in the way of heat. It also cannot exchange either much heat or much mass because it is too tenuous. Are you saying you think it is dense enough to be important in mass or energy transport?
As for my understand of how - there are a number of components to the heating including changes in UV, solar wind, and Joule heating. A CME is one mechanism that can produce short-term changes in the temperature.
Re: "Are you saying you think it is dense enough to be important in mass or energy transport?"
I think Bob Johnson might be one of the few people who is asking the right questions on this topic. See timestamped video at https://youtu.be/...?t=2285, where he points out the following:
The jet streams are assumed to be the result of fluid motions driven by pressure changes in the atmosphere related to Hadley Cell circulation and modified by the Coriolis effect. However, it's not known why the jet stream jets are concentrated in such narrow bands. He asks: Are the jet streams primarily plasma effects whose locations are determined partly by their interactions with the ionospheric current systems above?
At https://youtu.be/...?t=2397, he asks: Do ionospheric changes cause the climate cycles by altering the Global Electric Circuit?
At https://youtu.be/...?t=2397, he asks: Can ionospheric current changes induce changes in ocean circulation? Can this be the cause of the 20-to-30-year Pacific Decadal Oscillation?
At https://youtu.be/...?t=2228: Are cyclones and tornados partly driven by electromagnetic forces acting on the charged water droplets?
At https://youtu.be/...?t=2228, he asks: Are winds partly driven by electromagnetic forces acting on the charged particles in the air?
What I believe that both Bob and Deng are thinking -- and which I'm trying to closely follow -- is that the SSW's are simply an indication of a large influx of charged particles into the poles, and that that increased charge density then essentially alters various parameters for the climate.
Hannes: As you can see from what you are saying is that this is at the point of conjecture (not a theory) and that it has not been investigated enough. That is fine, but from a fluid dynamics perspective it won't work. If there is a study that shows how it might work with the density differences, I would like to see that. However, there is no causal mathematical analysis that shows why the density difference is not important. If you have something that addresses that I would like to see it.
Hannes: Let me give you one more example. What is the temperature of the sun?
When I ask that question, it reflects on the energy reaching the earth.
It is one of the lower solar atmosphere layers (photosphere) that we get most of our energy from even though it is only at about 5800K. However, the Corona is at about 3,000,000K. The Corona does not contribute much to the solar flux because its density is so low that even the high temperature does not produce enough energy to change the effective temperature of the sun seen from Earth. This the same principle as the effect from the ionosphere. The ionosphere is too tenuous to contribute much energy or mass to the Troposphere.
See blue text at https://www.thund...apter-5/
Note: one must be cautious about the conversion between electron volts and thermal temperatures in plasma. Plasmas can become ordered so that charged particles follow paths that are aligned with the local direction of the accompanying magnetic field. Such current flows are termed field-aligned currents. Under this condition, charged particles are moving approximately parallel to one another, and, partly due to the low density of particles, collisions of the thermal variety can become very rare.
The high temperature alleged for the solar corona is based on spectroscopic observations of the light (electromagnetic radiation including frequencies outside visible light) which indicate how much ionization of atoms has occurred. The ionization energy in eV is inferred from the wavelengths of light emitted, and converted by the formula above to equivalent temperature. The thermal aspect of temperature which is caused by large numbers of random collisions is not necessarily present, however, even if there has been sufficient energy input to strip electrons away from their nuclei. The electrons can be fast (energetic) while their (thermal) collision rates are low.
I suspect that this little-acknowledged fact is causing a great amount of confusion throughout the planetary sciences.
Sorry, I forgot to add a link to some of this information:
http://www.space....ere.html
Hannes: Why do you think this is "little-acknowledged?"
What do you think this is saying?
Re: "What do you think this is saying?"
(1) That temperature is not a reliable measure of the energy present when electric currents over plasma are involved, but also (2) the inferred temperature of the corona is not the straightforward assessment it is advertised to be. Solar temperature inferences rely heavily upon the chosen solar model.
Similarly, when atmospheric scientists observe electric joule heating in the Earth's atmosphere, they should not simplistically assume that this temperature is a straightforward reflection of the energy that is being dumped into the atmosphere.
On the Sun, it's also worth mentioning that plasma-based models can invoke additional phenomena to explain such things (double layers, in-falling electron drift, etc).
Hannes: This will take a few rounds of editing to reply to. Please be patient while I try to go over this. Note that I have referred to density as bening low. Let me try to explain why.
Hannes said:
First, lets get "temperature" out of the way. What we measure as temperature is, actually, a measure of the motion of atoms or molecules (when I mention atoms or molecules please take both into consideration if I only use one for brevity). That is why it is always difficult to determine temperatures because they depend on an average motion.
You are absolutely right about a distribution of velocities of atoms and electrons being difficult to pin down. In plasmas that becomes even more difficult to define because you can have a "two fluid" temperature where electrons and atoms/molecules have different velocities (and velocity distributions). Cont
Let me go back to the idea that we are dealing with a very thin atmosphere at the heights you are talking about. Since the atoms are far apart, they do not collide as frequently as at lower altitudes. Because of that the velocities do not "thermalize" as rapidly and you can have temperature differences that are not being averaged. Because of that all of the measurements of temperatures become difficult to define.
However, that does not mean that energy is not balanced. For instance, when a particle from the solar wind deposits its energy in the upper atmosphere it might not be in a molecule that then reflects an average. Instead, it could go quite a way before colliding. Cont
Cont for Hannes: That molecule would then be at a velocity that might not reflect an average temperature at all. However, that does not mean that the kinetic energy is not accounted for.
It is that same property (low pressure) that prevents effective transfer of either kinetic energy or mass from the ionosphere to the Troposphere.
Can you give me any example where the transfer of energy into the ionosphere is not taken into account in a calculation of the energy transferred to the ionosphere by an atmospheric physicist?
The reason I ask that is because it seems you have been sold a bill of goods by someone who is trying to make their work look more important. If you can show me a few peer reviewed studies showing your assumption is correct I would appreciate it.
Back to my view (which is reflected in the link I gave you to an article on the ionosphere) that the ionosphere is at low pressure. Cont
Cont for Hannes: Because of the low pressure there are a number of things that just do not work. For instance, convection is very different at these pressures because the mean free path is too long for immediate thermalization. Likewise, there can be a multi-temperature fluid because of the long mean free path. The mechanism for transfer of momentum (as implied in your articles) becomes difficult.
The models you have pointed to of the upper atmosphere are not GCMs, in fact, they are models used to calculate drag on satellites not weather or climate.
The author of the youtube video does no calculations to show how momentum is transferred to the jet stream. Instead, he just conjectures that it can happen. Talk is cheap and calculations are expensive. If you can show how they calculate the changes in the jet stream due to solar interaction with the upper atmosphere I would appreciate it. Until then, that is just conjecture.
Also, @thermodynamics, before you let him get you too bogged down in irrelevancies - his point was that "scientists are ignoring this", which he proved by linking to NASA studies into it. Which contradicts his point completely.
Deniers like this try to get you to disprove minute irrelevancies to bog you down so it looks like the science has complexities that aren't being dealt with properly. You're better off not engaging
Lee: Thank you. Good advice.
Re: "Also, @thermodynamics, before you let him get you too bogged down in irrelevancies - his point was that "scientists are ignoring this", which he proved by linking to NASA studies into it. Which contradicts his point completely."
Okay, you've lost my point in the act of your 'summary'. My point is clearly more detailed than this:
(1) Climate scientists do not take into account either electrodynamics or plasma physics in their GCM's.
(2) Neither physicists nor climate scientist graduate students are taught the longstanding debate over cosmic plasmas, or that one has even happened.
(3) We should not simply assume that space 'weather' is not coupled to Earth weather and climate, & we should look for ways in which they electrically interact.
Re: "Deniers like this ..."
... & people who ask such questions should NEVER be compared to holocaust deniers. Science has its own terminology for questioning assumptions, & faith in consensus not 'thinking like a scientist'.
I'll take a look at the technical comments here and get back to you.
Re: "The general public cannot take a position in this debate, since it is not scientifically trained."
Please note that taking this stance alters the very function of science in society from a tool for thinking to a system for belief which will be prone to manipulation. With this view, the public is then forced to place FAITH in science -- the very act which scientists claim is the problem with religion.
We look to the university system to teach the public science. If the universities refuse to teach the public what they need to know in order to evaluate scientific controversies, then that is not a commentary on the public's INABILITY to UNDERSTAND. That is a function of the university's refusal to teach the subject such that the public can evaluate the debate.
Just because a subject is complex does not mean that the public should avoid engaging that complexity. What it means is that we should build systems which facilitate that engagement.
What academics do not apparently understand is that they are taking enormous risk with their DECISION to refuse to teach the controversy, because that refusal will not stop outsiders from creating those very systems.
Yes, it's complicated. Yes, it requires access to expert and specialist opinions. But, a proper survey of a controversy also involves running claims between theorists and their critics. It also requires simply informing graduate students of the existence of a debate, and even teaching them the most critical questions and concepts involved in that debate.
Where we see academia refusing to do these things, the public should actually be very concerned. There is simply too much on the line with some of these debates.
Faith in science is what led to the public's blind acceptance of the scientific consensus that rocketry was just nonsense in the leadup to WWII. That faith led to an existential threat for London, and more broadly, the world.
Eddy Courant
LOL, call me! The moment. The second. The very minute. Any alarmist starts riding a bicycle. Starts chopping wood. Starts walking the walk.
There are two debates that are connected. Debate 1 is the scientific debate on GW. Most scientist agree that GW has a human cause. The general public cannot take a position in this debate, since it is not scientifically trained. Debate 2 is the political debate: should we do anything. This debate should focus on risk and science should estimate the risk of an event. Risk times damage is the budget at stake. Debate 2 is in the end determined by this budget, NOT by scientific certainty.
Oh, the rant of the ignoramus.
So, the general public should just have faith that AGW "science" would do the right thing. Like:
- biodiesel from food crops that emits more CO2 than it saves, is more toxic to the environment and leaves the poorest to starve.
The use of pejoratives not withstanding, this is false.
In the AR4 report, the IPCC says very clearly that there are many complexities that are not understood, hence they are not being dealt with properly.
On an almost daily basis, there are new revelations that show the complexities are not fully understood, thus preceding efforts did not deal with them properly.
Making policy decisions that affect major economies, and encouraging morally corrupt science and group-think is not justified by the dearth of evidence that climate change is largely (if at all) anthropogenically influenced.
End of debate, get cracking.
Have you been sufficiently convinced to the point that you will give up 50% of your petroleum usage?
Google California Senate Bill 350.
Re: "In the AR4 report, the IPCC says very clearly that there are many complexities that are not understood, hence they are not being dealt with properly."
Exactly. In fact, for those that are not fluent in how this all works, the IPCC's scientific assessments contain a barrage of scientific caveats. These scientific assessments are usually NOT read by the public, science journalists nor policymakers.
They instead read the Summary for Policymakers. The SPM, in turn, tends to not be read by scientists, and two leading climate economists who by no stretch of the imagination can be called "denialists" have emphatically critiqued the manner in which these SPM reports are created.
Those critiques are here:
http://richardtol...ain.html
http://www.robert...roken-2/
Vietvet
"Another caveat is that none of the problems I describe in this letter apply to either the Technical Summary nor the underlying Chapter 13. Indeed, because of the problems with Section SPM.5.2 on international cooperation in the SPM, it is important that interested parties refer instead to the Technical Summary, or better yet, the original Chapter 13."
@Hannes
Stavina isn't critical of the science, rather he is critical of the process of writing the Summery for Policy Makers.
Sorry to jump in Vet, but that is exactly the point.
As a policy maker, one needs to know that there are huge caveats to the predictions being made. This should influence a competent policy maker, which given the crippling economic mandates, and lack of world-wide consensus amongst governmental leaders, it doesn't.
"According to Tol "the impact of climate change is relatively small".[5] He was also among the US Senate Republican Party's "list of scientists disputing man-made global warming claims", which stated that Tol "dismissed the idea that mankind must act now to prevent catastrophic global warming""
https://en.wikipe...hard_Tol
Tol is a frigging economist, not a scientist.
Keep going Vet. The next few lines are crucial to my beliefs:
...the economic costs of climate policy should be kept in proportion to its benefits.
Here's a sumamry for Policy makers from another viewpoint:
http://www.nipccr...kers.pdf
WOT (WEB of Trust) gives your link a dangerously unsafe warning.
Did he just use the NIPCC??
Climate Change Reconsidered
A Bunch of Geologists We Paid Using Fossil Fuel Money
Totally hilarious. Note that Soon (!) is listed as an author as is:
Roy Spencer (a METEOROLOGIST who actually claims it's *cooling*),
Idso and Idso who haven't published peer-reviewed research on the subject since the early 1980s,
William Kininmonth,a RETIRED meteorologist who's never published,
and Fred Singer (at least an atmospheric physicist) who has never researched or published on the topic and, among other things, was paid by the tobacco companies to come out against second-hand smoke causing lung cancer.
In fact, the report is a perfect example of what 21st century denial looks like - an entire book of climate science by people who aren't climate scientists and who were paid for their opinions.
Don't even get me started on Carter whose opinion on climate mysteriously coincided with the $1600/mth paid to him by Heartland
Re: "In fact, the report is a perfect example of what 21st century denial looks like - an entire book of climate science by people who aren't climate scientists and who were paid for their opinions."
Fortunately, the public does not think much of these sorts of appeals any longer, as the scientific conclusions of the climate researchers that you apparently hold in such high regard does not actually reflect the uncertainties observable by even non-specialists within the data set.
Increasingly, what it means to be a climate scientist is defined by an ability to find a technical reason why CO2 MIGHT still be the cause of the warming which MIGHT still be happening.
The discipline with which the "right" scientists ask the "right" questions is not a feature when it comes to using ad hoc models to forecast doom; it's a bug.
In fact, the report is a perfect example of what 21st century denial looks like
Please pull a passage from what I linked and show where the logic fails.
I'm on the side of the consilience of evidence, dude. I don't have to prove anything. That entire document is bought-and-paid-for denial by people who aren't climate scientists. You want to prove the entire body of science built up over the last 200 yrs by actual climate scientists is wrong? You need to produce a body of conclusive evidence, reproducible and confirmed by peer review. You haven't. The end. See ya!
You were unable to point out any logical fallacies in the NIPCC paper I presented.
I'm on the side of the consilience of evidence, dude.
CMIP5 Model falsified:
http://www.drroys...2013.png
No Global warming for the past 18 years. 7 months:
https://wattsupwi...0023.jpg
For anyone that may be interested in more detail re: lack of consensus in the AGW debate, the rest of NIPCC inputs can be found here:
http://www.co2sci...ndex.php
Still waiting for the decadal analysis of air temps ...
*crickets*
Meanwhile, you've just sent through two blogs and the aforementioned hilariously expensive piece of crap we were talking about before.
Not going to continue to argue with someone so determined to remain ignorant of reality that they trawl the internet desperately looking for anything - however ridiculous - to reenforce their prejudices.
Meanwhile the permafrost is melting. I guess that's just cause it's bored or something.
Sorry that should have read "thawing". The permafrost is "thawing". To be completely accurate.
Have you tried googling it? I just did, and there's a ton of stuff that you should be able to make a point with.
Not going to continue to argue with someone so determined
I'm sorry that the consilience of evidence didn't go your way.
Ah yes, permafrost now! So, tell us more about the permafrost that's been thawing for 7,000 years.
Jeez leetennant, I gotta say, I feel bad for ya. You just don't seem to get any breaks!
Countering a widely-held view that thawing permafrost accelerates atmospheric warming, a study published this week in the scientific journal Nature suggests arctic thermokarst lakes are 'net climate coolers' when observed over longer, millennial, time scales.
"It is true that they do warm climate by strong methane emissions when they first form, but on a longer-term scale, they switch to become climate coolers because they ultimately soak up more carbon from the atmosphere than they ever release."
"So mosses and other plants flourish in these lakes, leading to carbon uptake rates that are among the highest in the world, even compared to carbon-rich peatlands."
So for humans, it seems like a big deal, but in the millennia time frame, once again nothing to see here.
The study also revealed another major factor of this process: Researchers found that when the lakes drain, previously thawed organic-rich lake sediments refreeze. The new permafrost formation then stores a large amount of carbon processed in and under thermokarst lakes, as well as the peat that formed after lake drainage. Researchers note that the new carbon storage is not forever, since future warming will likely start rethawing some of the permafrost and release some of the carbon in it via microbial decomposition.
As roughly 30 percent of global permafrost carbon is concentrated within 7 percent of the permafrost region in Alaska, Canada, and Siberia, this study's findings also renew scientific interest in how carbon uptake by thermokarst lakes offsets greenhouse gas emissions. Through its data collection, the study expanded the circumpolar peat carbon pool estimate for permafrost regions by more than 50 percent.
viko_mx
The truth can not be determined by consensus.
Gigantic jets observed connecting extreme hurricane to ionosphere, from spaceweather.com ...
Think of them as sprites on steroids: Gigantic jets are lightning-like discharges that spring from the tops of thunderstorms, reaching all the way from the thunderhead to the ionosphere more than 50 miles overhead. They're enormous and powerful.
"Gigantic jets are much more rare than sprites," says Oscar van der Velde, a member of the Lightning Research Group at the Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya. "While sprites were discovered in 1989 and have since been photographed by the thousands, it was not until 2001-2002 that gigantic jets were first recorded from Puerto Rico and Taiwan." Only a few dozen gigantic jets have ever been seen, mostly over open ocean.
Gigantic jets, and their cousins the sprites, reach all the way up to the edge of space alongside meteors, noctilucent clouds, and some auroras. This means they are a true space weather phenomenon.
Video of sparks coming out of the top of a hurricane at https://vimeo.com/136192846 ...
So, if it turns out that thermodynamics does not permit such a connection, then what is the mistake in logic that led to the belief that such electrical connections between terrestrial weather events and space weather do not occur?
After all, plasmas exist in various modes of illumination, and if you are seeing the jets in this instance, that clearly suggests that for lesser hurricanes, the connection is still there, but simply not visible.
Oh great, another Water Prophet. Forget everything we know about climate science - I've developed a pet theory based on very little but my own imagination and will now twist every thing I ever read to support it. This should be fun.
Re: "Oh great, another Water Prophet. Forget everything we know about climate science - I've developed a pet theory based on very little but my own imagination and will now twist every thing I ever read to support it. This should be fun."
This is what I would expect of somebody who has not taken the time to observe the significant changes to our conception of space which has occurred since we sent the first rockets there. Do not forget that ALL of our climate and space theories originated in the years BEFORE we came to realize that space is fundamentally a plasma. To simply assume that this massive shift in our perception of the universe's dominant state of matter would have no consequences for our textbook theories is a very problematic worldview. It should never be considered a pet theory to seek out explanations in such momentous discoveries.
Forget everything we know about climate science
We probably should. Its been falsified.
Space is not physical but geometric consept. Vacuum of space is physical object which have structure and certain phisical propertais that control energetic interactions of constituent particles of matter. Whether is plasma or something else is not very clear yet, but we have clear directions in the research. More interesting property of it is that allow reprogramming of the matter particles behavior in certain zones of this phisical medium. We have local physycal laws which can be changed and global physical laws which are unchangeаble.
Re: "Whether is plasma or something else is not very clear yet, but we have clear directions in the research."
This is not for you to decide, and you should not let yourself be confused by by the failure of modern science journalism to mention that space is today accepted to be a plasma ...
References at http://www.plasma...5_plasma
"Today it is recognized that 99.999% of all observable matter in the universe is in the plasma state..."[4]
"It is estimated that as much as 99.9% of the universe is comprised of plasma."[5]
"..the plasma state is the most abundant state of matter. It is thought that more than 99.9% of matter in the universe is in plasma"[6]
"plasmas are abundant in the universe. More than 99% of all known matter is in the plasma state"[7]
"It is an interesting fact that most of the material in the visible universe, as much as 99% according to some estimates, is in the plasma state"[8]
"Probably more than 99 percent of visible matter in the universe exist in the plasma state."[9]
"The plasma environment Plasmas, often called the fourth state of matter, are the most common form of matter in the universe. More than 99% of all matter"[10]
"It is estimated that more than 99 percent of matter in the universe exists as plasma; examples include stars, nebulae, and interstellar particles"[11]
"It is sometimes said that more than 99 percent of the material in the universe is in the form of plasma"[12]
"about 99% of matter in the universe is plasma"[13]
"99.9 percent of the Universe is made up of plasma," says Dr. Dennis Gallagher, a plasma physicist at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center" [14]
"How was it determined that 99% of the Universe is in a plasma state? Most of the gas in interstellar space is ionized (astronomers can tell by the wavelengths of light the gas absorbs and emits), and all of the gas in stars in ionized, that's where the 99% comes from. The 99% ignores any dark matter which might be out there."[15]
"It has often been said that 99% of the matter in the universe is in the plasma state.[16]
"And yet these radio-frequency links must survive the complexities of the plasma which comprises well over 99.9 percent of the universe".[17]
"This fourth state of matter probably comprises more than 99.9 per cent of the matter in our Universe."[18]
Plasmas are observed in the laboratory to transfer energies in filaments; an empirical approach would involve checking to see if the cosmic plasmas do the same, and the implications for our weather and climate models is enormous.
Delusional deniers on this site must be some of the trolls who work for the misinforming polluters. Since the capacity for self delusion requires some level of psychosis, the delusional will NEVER recognize their delusional state. Part of their delusion is that they have interest in scientific subjects, and that they actually have some scientific knowledge. Nothing could be further from the truth. Psychotic delusionists only motivation is to vigorously defend and bolster their delusion, since without it they dissolve into an obvious psychotic state. I have engaged in the dismantling of delusion in the past - religious belief. I have been amazed at how a functioning human being can go completely unhinged, and begin to display overtly obvious signs of psychosis when their delusion is destroyed. The defence of personal delusion is truly a life or death struggle for the delusional.
Delusional ... delusion ... psychosis, the delusional ... delusional... Part of their delusion .... Psychotic delusionists .. delusion, ... psychotic ...delusion ... unhinged,... psychosis ...delusion ... delusion ... delusional.
Nurse...NURSE!!
IT'S OUT AGAIN!!
Alfven
The observable problem with the climate change debate is that these sites, and many participants actually, focus foremost upon the conclusions of the commenters. If their conclusions are aligned with their own (typically mainstream) worldview, then they rate this content as high.
By contrast, comments which do not agree with the 'mainstream' view, but nevertheless seek to stimulate people to think critically about the subject, are rated low.
The site supports this behavior by giving people a very ambiguous metric to gauge each other's remarks -- stars.
What is a star?
It's completely meaningless, and this is actually the point. If there were real metrics here which actually reflected upon specific aspects of the QUALITY of discourse, then that would risk elevating the act of questioning scientific authority.
Academia and sites like this plainly fear an intelligent public who can question their theories.
Rating system works on the principle sheep (the man who does not waste time in thinking) in the flock (the majority). Rating system science has no place in the true objective science because it relies on facts but they do not depend on majority opinion. This gives me reason to doubt about the the scientific focus of the site.
Delusional deniers on this site must be some of the trolls who work for the misinforming polluters.
*This* is what we are supposed to join up to in order to be part of the consensus.
I can't believe this roach of a thread is still going. "You are wrong because you are not one of us!" This is a shockingly immature world-view when a topic as important as climate change is at hand.
I have been amazed at how a functioning human being can go completely unhinged
Oh, sweet irony.


text:
Follow us on Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Instagram
About IFN
Published articles in English
Published articles in Swedish
Popular science and Book reviews
Globalization, Transparency and Economic Growth: The Vulnerability of Chinese Firms to Macroeconomic Shocks
Reprint No. 2010:1
Author(s): Lars OxelheimYear: 2010 Title: Journal of Asian Economics Volume (No.): 21 (1) Pages: 66–75
Online article (restrictions may apply)
The process of globalization encompasses economic and financial integration. The abolition of capital controls and the dismantling of barriers of different kinds will expose previously sheltered companies to shocks originating in the global economic arena. Policymakers in already globalized countries have learned that market participants should be
prepared in due time to meet the new exposure to fluctuating rates of exchange, interest and inflation. China has recently adopted a version of the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) in an effort to improve the quality of information available for risk management and for pricing of risk. This paper analyzes the gains in transparency from the implementation of IFRS in Europe as of January 2005 and reports no improvements in regard to the macroeconomic impact on firms. Based on this experience, improvements for Chinese adoption are suggested. The paper presents a framework for how to understand and measure the impact of different scenarios on corporate performance. It also elaborates on how to communicate themacroeconomic effects to external stakeholders of the firm in a way that should foster further economic growth in China.
Oxelheim, Lars (2010), "Globalization, Transparency and Economic Growth: The Vulnerability of Chinese Firms to Macroeconomic Shocks". Journal of Asian Economics 21(1), 66–75.
Lars Oxelheim
Mob: +46 70 861 9361
lars.oxelheim@ifn.se
Interdisciplinary European Studies
The European Union and the Return of the Nation State
This book explores the complex and ever-changing relationship between the European Union and its member states. The recent surge in tension in this relationship has been prompted by the actions of some member state governments as they question fundamental EU values and principles and refuse to implement common decisions seemingly on the basis of narrowly defined national interests.
Seminars organized by IFN
To present ongoing research informal brown-bag seminars are held on Mondays at 11:30 am. This is an opportunity for IFN researchers to test ideas and results.
Academically oriented seminars are most of the time held on Wednesdays at 10 am. At these events researchers from IFN and other institutions present their research.
In addition, IFN organizes seminars open to the public. Topics for these are derived from the IFN research.
Research Institute of Industrial Economics, Grevgatan 34 - 2 fl, Box 55665, SE-102 15 Stockholm, Sweden | Phone: +46-(0)8-665 45 00 | info@ifn.se

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Hundreds of Companies Beg Trump Not to Commit Economic Suicide
Could Supreme Court TV Make America Smarter?
The very sight of Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) makes me drowsy so the notion that he is spearheading a drive to bring live television coverage to the public workings of the United States Supreme Court is downright laughable. But yet there he is, calling out the Justices for their media tours, introducing "Sense of the Senate" resolutions, all in the name of trying to shed light on an institution that has successfully sought for over two centuries to avoid it.
What's new about his latest effort is that he finally has some great ammunition to fire at the recalcitrant and slightly haughty Justices. Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia both went on television recently to hawk their books. Can they really claim that the same cameras before which they preened now shouldn't be allowed to view them working their day jobs? The same goes for Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and Justice John Paul Stevens, both of whom appeared on Primetime which, last time I checked, gleefully avoids any talk of the doctrine of laches or the Clean Air Act.
Of course, the Supreme Court's oral arguments ought to be televised. The law, even the technical explanation of it, doesn't just belong to the Justices. It belongs to all of the rest of us as well. And a clear majority of Americans have declared that they would like to see how the Justices handle their chores from behind the bench. The most recent Justice to leave the Court, David Souter, famously said that television cameras would come into the gorgeous old room over his dead body. Is anyone on the current Court willing to take his place and bar the doors? I hope not.The argument that such telecasts would diminish the solemnity of the proceedings is absurd. A real Court TV would be no more responsible for the Justices turning into robed versions of Nancy Grace any more than C-Span is responsible for the risible state of affairs in Congress. Besides, have you actually sat through a Supreme Court oral argument? They occur at 10 a.m. and, by the time they are done, close to 99 percent of the people in the room are plotting their lunch menus. The argument last Wednesday on prosecutor immunity, for example, read like a Trazadone commercial. Must See TV this isn't.
Unless the Supreme Court changes its schedule and starts to do prime-time oral arguments, unless the Justices decide they want you to text *900 to vote for the litigant you would like to see win the case, unless the lawyers and parties before the Court decide they want to compete with one another in a Survivor-Supreme Court series, there is no legitimate reason to believe that the law, or the oral and visual dispensation of it, will be ruined by the transmission of live images from inside that august building. In fact, I think you can much more easily make the other argument.
It's time for the rest of America to know what journalists and lawyers and law professors and prosecutors and defense attorneys and law students know; the Supreme Court's oral arguments typically are brilliantly intellectual, politically comforting, and legally awe-inspiring. It's not Law and Order. It's Beethoven's Ninth. It's not cable news chatter. It's PBS. The Supreme Court's daily work is the smartest, most literate, most profound public debate American officials ever have. And often it's the most important. The White House and the Congress didn't decide who the President was in 2000. The Justices did. The White House and the Congress didn't give you the right to a lawyer—the Justices did.
Which is why it's time they gave themselves and the rest of us more credit. The slightly-delayed release of the audio recordings of oral arguments—ordained a few years ago—has not brought about a wave of popularity for the use of out-of-context quotes from ponderous Justices weighing in on Petroleum Marketing Practices Act. Do these brilliant men and women sitting on the High Court really think that they will become YouTube sensations by asking a particularly pointed question? And has Justice Thomas, who never speaks during oral argument, thereby waived his right to complain about the fact that his stony silence will be filmed?
Sen. Specter makes me sleepy. But he deserves to be recognized for all time as the guy who finally opened up the Supreme Court to live television coverage. The man may be a bit past his prime. But his is an idea whose time has come. I support Sen. Specter's bid to open up the Court to television not because I think society will drag the Court down into the gutter but because I think the talent of the Justices will drag society up towards some measure of wisdom.


As promised, here are some of the fashion & party photos from the Fashion Faux Paws. What a night! 302 was packed and the fashion was astounding. Such talent – and local talent at that!! Congratulations to the designers and the organizers, and thanks again to all who donated to and/or attended the event!


The US public education system is heading in the wrong direction according to parents of conservative values. Unfortunately, for a great number parents in this predicament home school has offered an alternative solution. For families in Texas, Great Homeschool can provide the answer to many questions you may have. At our conferences you can get the best Top Homeschooling Programs and many other subjects of interest to For individuals in Texas. After you have participated in one of our conferences you'll realize why so many people referred to Great Homeschool Convention is the best information source for families searching for homeschooling and Westworth Village.
In recent years, homeschooling went through numerous advances. Parents now have a lot more options compared to what they did before. If you're thinking of this approach for your youngster, you need to have a look at the way forward for home-schooling.
There Are Many Models From Which To Choose – There are several methods to home-schooling your kids. There are many schooling styles to go by, including School-At-Home, Unschooling, Charlotte Mason, and Electic Education methods. Parents will look at different schooling plans to look for one which is an effective fit for child.
Mothers and Fathers Have Lots of Resources – If you are teaching your son or daughter, you don't have to do it all all on your own. There are numerous resources available to homeschooling parents. You will find website classes that you can enroll your child for. There are actually digital teaching aids that will help you clarify complicated notions to your kid. These resources may help parents handle the stresses of educating.
Laws Are Being Modified – The laws about homeschooling haven't stayed fixed. Several districts have changed home schooling rules or passed new rules in place. It's sensible find out about the rules in your neighborhood before starting to homeschool your child.
Homeschooling is a superb prospect for many mothers and fathers. Spend some time to discover more about homeschooling and discover what lies ahead.
Home-schooling your child might be very rewarding. But, there a path to adopt to make sure that they are getting all that they should from home-schooling in Westworth Village. Therefore how can you help your children to thrive?
Find out about Curriculums – Above all, make time to enquire about the syllabus and ensure that you select one that works for you and your child with regards to payments along with the curriculum.
Stick with a Routine – Whether your kids are looking up to you as their teacher or sending in their work into a "satellite teacher", it is important that they use a a structure. Get them to be aware that they need to wake up early in the morning, have the same morning routine on week days, and be done with the work that is organized for the entire day before they can be considered finished.
Be on Hand – Your son or daughter may require assistance with their subjects, or perhaps need you to make sure that they may be finishing their work and understanding the material. Be in attendance and involved in your child's academics.
Provide Them With a Social Interaction – Youngsters will want interaction with their friends just to be healthy and happy. Organize outtings along with other groups, bring them away from home, and permit them to have friends in their age group. Once you learn of other Westworth Village home schooling kids, arrange to allow them to learn in study groups together with your kids at a shared location, like a park. Those who want additional details on homeschooling in Westworth Village and how www.GreatHomeschoolConvention.Com can impact you child's homeschooling experience, please, visit our home schooling blog!


Grown in the coastal forests in the Eastern States, Blackbutt is one of the most common species of timber commercially available in Australia.
Blackbutt has an even colour, an even grain, and even texture, ranging from a golden yellow to pale brown colour.
It is utilised for decking and structural projects and is also used to produce plywood.
Blackbutt is a very dense hardwood giving it a natural strength and durability as well as resistance to termites.
Fire retarding properties meet Australian Standards, allowing it in bush-fire prone areas without any treatment.
Blackbutt's grain is straight, which works well for decking and is often complemented nicely by stain and oil.
How much will blackbutt decking cost for your project? Get 3 free quotes now!
Decking Perth scored: 4.9/5 by 9 clients on Google.


Whether you want to clean the dirty wheels of your car or water your flower beds, the Gardena Garden Spray comes in handy. In addition to cleaning, it is also possible to provide sprinkling for sprinkling. You control the water jet continuously from a full jet to fine spray mist. The spray sleeve is secured and protected against frost. Thanks to these properties, you are assured of quality and durability with this garden sprayer.


The next time you watch Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho, pay close attention to the film's iconic shower scene. Note the quick cut-aways, extreme close-ups, and sharp shooting angles. These stylistic decisions amount to a decidedly un-Hitchcockian aesthetic. That might be because Hitchcock didn't direct it. Rumor in Hollywood is that the murder scene was actually the work of Saul Bass. The famed graphic designer, who is revered for his corporate identity work for the likes of AT&T and United Airlines, is held in equally high esteem by cinephiles for his seminal contributions as a director, storyboard artist, and designer of title sequences—and, just maybe, one of the best-known scenes in movie history.
What Bass's credits share in common is their ability to convey theme, setting, and mood. Today, you, like most people, probably expect an opening sequence to tell you something about the film or television show you are about to watch. You can thank Bass for that. Referring to his work on the Man With the Golden Arm, Bass recalled, "the arm in its jagged form expressed the jarring disjointed existence of the drug addict." His illustration of a black, zig-zagging forearm became a seminal example of how to express an idea, or emotion, in visual form, and much of his later work followed this same principle. You can see it in the colorful playfulness of Ocean's 11, in the harsh, geometric opening for Psycho, and the restrained lettering in Martin Scorsese's Goodfellas. "Where his sequences often succeed the most is in symbolizing pure emotions," Saladino says in the video.
Bass once said that the audience's involvement in the film should begin at the very first frame. He believed title sequences were responsible for setting the mental and emotional tone for the story that was about to be told. As Saladino rightly points out, Bass knew how to leverage simplicity—primary colors, basic shapes, playful animations—to create what was ultimately perceived as complex emotions. Less wasn't more, necessarily. But in Bass's hands, it was always just right.


text:
Kazia Enters Clinical Collaboration With Dana-farber Cancer Institute For Primary CNS Lymphoma
Kazia Therapeutics Limited
Sep 22, 2020, 10:00 ET
SYDNEY, Sept. 22, 2020 /PRNewswire/ -- Kazia Therapeutics Limited (ASX: KZA;NASDAQ: KZIA), an Australian oncology-focused biotechnology company, is pleased to announce that it has entered into a collaboration with Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI) in the United States, to investigate the use of Kazia's investigational new drug, paxalisib (formerly GDC-0084), in primary central nervous system (CNS) lymphoma, a potential new indication for the drug.
Lymphoma is a cancer of white blood cells. It occurs in the lymphatic system and can spread almost anywhere in the body; primary CNS lymphoma (PCNSL) occurs exclusively in the brain and central nervous system
The PI3K inhibitor class is well validated in lymphoma outside the brain; three of the four FDA-approved PI3K inhibitors are treatments for forms of lymphoma, but they are assumed ineffective for PCNSL since they cannot cross the blood-brain barrier
DFCI will initiate an open-label phase II clinical trial of paxalisib in PCNSL
The study is expected to recruit up to 25 patients, taking up to 2 years to complete
Kazia will provide support including study drug and a financial grant
This study will be the sixth ongoing clinical trial of paxalisib in brain cancer
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI) is a world-leading cancer treatment and research centre, based in Boston, Massachusetts. It is a principal teaching affiliate of Harvard Medical School and has been designated a Comprehensive Cancer Center by the US National Cancer Institute. DFCI participates in as many as 600 clinical trials at any given time and has been an important contributor to the development of many important new cancer therapies.
Kazia CEO, Dr James Garner, commented, "this is an exciting new opportunity for the paxalisib program. We are delighted to support the team at Dana-Farber to explore the potential for paxalisib to benefit patients with PCNSL. Dana-Farber is one of the world's leading centres of excellence in this disease, so we are immensely fortunate to be working with them. We are pleased also to see a new and important target added to the broader paxalisib clinical program, and we look forward to seeing the project commence."
Kazia's financial support to the study will use a portion of the funds contributed by shareholders in the Share Purchase Plan (SPP) conducted in May 2020.
Primary CNS Lymphoma
Lymphoma is a haematological malignancy (blood cancer) that originates from lymphocytes, a type of white blood cell involved in the immune system. PCNSL is a specific form of the disease that originates in the brain and central nervous system.
Three of the four PI3K inhibitors approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are treatments for various forms of lymphoma, provide a strong validation for PI3K as a target in this disease. Paxalisib is the only PI3K inhibitor in mainstream development with the ability to penetrate the blood-brain barrier, and as such has a unique rationale for development in PCNSL.
PCNSL accounts for approximately 4% of brain tumours, and the incidence is increasing with time. Patients are typically in their 60s or older, and the disease is slightly more common in men.[1] The mainstays of treatment comprise chemotherapy and radiotherapy, but recurrence is common and only approximately 30% of patients remain alive five years after diagnosis.[2] Many of the drugs used to treat lymphoma elsewhere in the body are ineffective in PCNSL due to their inability to cross the blood-brain barrier.
Dana Farber Cancer Institute will launch a single-arm phase II clinical trial in patients with relapsed or refractory PCNSL, who are resistant to existing treatments. The primary endpoint will be to assess efficacy via overall response rate (ORR), which measures the ability of paxalisib to shrink tumours. Safety and other efficacy endpoints will also be captured. The study will also examine tissue and cerebrospinal fluid samples to identify potential predictors of response.
The principal investigator for the study is Dr Lakshmi Nayak, Director of the CNS Lymphoma Center at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. Dr Nayak is an Assistant Professor of Neurology at Harvard Medical School and a board-certified neuro-oncologist. Her research interests focus on metastatic brain cancer, glioblastoma, and PCNSL, and she is extensively published in the field of brain cancer. She has been an investigator for multiple clinical trials of experimental drugs in this disease area.
Commencement of recruitment to the study is expected in early CY2021, but is subject to receiving necessary approvals from FDA and from institutional review boards. The study will be listed on clinicaltrials.gov closer to the commencement of recruitment.
The CNS Lymphoma Center (CNSLC) at Dana-Farber / Brigham and Women's Cancer Center is the first centre of its kind in the world dedicated to providing comprehensive care and research for patients with primary or secondary CNS lymphoma. With the most advanced treatment options available — including surgery, chemotherapy, stem cell transplant, radiation therapy, immunotherapy, and targeted therapies, and with extensive clinical trial options - CNSLC is uniquely qualified to treat patients with CNS lymphoma and advance the outcome of patients with these tumors.
Other clinicians at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute are currently involved in clinical trials of paxalisib in other forms of brain cancer. Dr Jose Pablo Leone is the principal investigator on a phase II clinical trial of paxalisib in combination with Herceptin (trastuzumab) for breast cancer brain metastases (breast cancer that has spread to the brain). Professor Patrick Wen has been centrally involved in the ongoing phase II study of paxalisib in glioblastoma, and plays a leadership role in the international GBM AGILE study.
Paxalisib Clinical Program
The initiation of this trial in PCNSL brings the number of ongoing clinical studies of paxalisib in brain cancer to six.
Kazia Therapeutics
St Jude Children's Research Hospital
Breast Cancer Brain Metastases
(with trastuzumab)
Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology
(with radiotherapy)
Recruitment to this study is expected to commence in 1H CY2021.
Kazia completed recruitment to a phase II clinical trial of paxalisib in newly-diagnosed glioblastoma in February 2020, and interim clinical data was presented at the AACR Virtual Annual Meeting II in June 2020. Overall survival was calculated at 17.7 months, which compares favourably to an historical figure of 12.7 for temozolomide, the existing FDA-approved standard of care. Kazia expects to present further data from this study in 2H CY2020, and to conclude the study in early CY2021.
[1] J Rubenstein et al. (2008) Leuk Lymphoma 49(0 1):43-51
[2] MS Shiels et al. (2016) Br J Haematol. 174(3):417-424
SOURCE Kazia Therapeutics Limited
Kazia to Collaborate with Pacific Pediatric Neuro-Oncology...


text:
2021-08-01 onwards August 1, 2021 onwards
Rock City Gardens 1400 Patten Road, Lookout Mountain
- August 1, 2021 @ 7:00 pm
November 19, 2021 @ 5:00 pm - January 2, 2022 @ 9:00 pm
Rock City's Enchanted Garden of Lights
March 12, 2022 @ 8:30 am - March 20, 2022 @ 5:00 pm Recurring
Rock City's Shamrock City
April 16, 2022 @ 8:30 am - April 24, 2022 @ 5:00 pm Recurring
Rock City's EarthDayz
April 23, 2022 @ 8:30 am - May 1, 2022 @ 5:00 pm Recurring
Rock City's Southern Blooms Festival
May 14, 2022 @ 8:30 am - 5:00 pm Recurring
May 27, 2022 @ 8:30 am - May 30, 2022 @ 5:00 pm Recurring
May 29, 2022 @ 8:30 am - June 1, 2022 @ 5:00 pm Recurring
June 3, 2022 @ 8:30 am - June 6, 2022 @ 5:00 pm Recurring
June 10, 2022 @ 8:30 am - June 13, 2022 @ 5:00 pm Recurring
July 1, 2022 @ 8:30 am - July 4, 2022 @ 5:00 pm Recurring
July 8, 2022 @ 8:30 am - July 11, 2022 @ 5:00 pm Recurring
July 10, 2022 @ 8:30 am - July 13, 2022 @ 5:00 pm Recurring
July 29, 2022 @ 8:30 am - August 1, 2022 @ 5:00 pm Recurring
August 5, 2022 @ 8:30 am - August 8, 2022 @ 5:00 pm Recurring
August 7, 2022 @ 8:30 am - August 10, 2022 @ 5:00 pm Recurring
August 12, 2022 @ 8:30 am - August 15, 2022 @ 5:00 pm Recurring
September 2, 2022 @ 8:30 am - September 5, 2022 @ 5:00 pm Recurring
October 8, 2022 @ 8:30 am - November 6, 2022 @ 5:00 pm Recurring
October 15, 2022 @ 8:30 am - November 13, 2022 @ 5:00 pm Recurring
Heritage Park Road Heritage Park Road, Rome
Downtown Rome 2 Government Plaza, Rome


text:
Q: How can I store the object `id` in a migration file? I'm using Ruby on Rails 3.0.7 and MySQL 5.1. I'd like to force to store the object id in a migration file. For example I have this:
User.create!(
  :name => 'Test name'
)

but I would like to do something like this:
User.create!(
  :id   => '12345', # Force to store the object data with id '12345'
  :name => 'Test name'
)

Note: the above code will not force the id value in the database.
Is it possible? If so, how?

A: You can't mass assign the restricted fields like id. But you can individually set them:
user = User.new(:name => 'Test name')
user.id = 12345
user.save!

OR
User.create!(:name => 'Test name') do |user|
  user.id = 12345
end

A: You can indeed mass-assign protected fields.  Here's how to do it.  In your model define the following:
def attributes_protected_by_default
  default = [ self.class.inheritance_column ]
end

What you are doing here is overriding the base method:
# The primary key and inheritance column can never be set by mass-assignment for security reasons.
def self.attributes_protected_by_default
  default = [ primary_key, inheritance_column ]
  default << 'id' unless primary_key.eql? 'id'
  default
end

...to include only the inheritance_column excluding the id, or primary_key column.  At this point you can now mass-assign the ID for that model.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Institute for Quantum Computing
Institute for Quantum Computing Home
Facilities and labs
Newsletters and reports
Quantum startups
Join the quantum journey
Celebrating 20 Years of Quantum at IQC
Transformative Quantum Technologies
Awards to faculty
Awards to RAPs
Awards to PDFs
Awards to students
What is quantum mechanics?
Quantum applications today
Quantum Information Science and Technology
What is a qubit?
Quantum Sensors
Quantum Simulation
Quantum Communication
The future is quantum
Outreach and workshops
High school summer program
Undergraduate summer school
Around Waterloo
Grad student and postdoc workshops
Quantum Innovators
Quantum Key Distribution Summer School
Fees & accommodations
Teacher workshop
QUANTUM: The Pop-Up Exhibition
Request for event sponsorship
Apply to visit
Alum and friends
Alum profiles
IQC David Johnston Award for Scientific Outreach
Up to three awards valued at $2,500 each will be given annually to current graduate students at the Institute for Quantum Computing (IQC) at University of Waterloo who have shown an outstanding commitment to scientific outreach and community engagement.
The award recognizes students who are dedicated to promoting public awareness of quantum information research, general science and IQC in industry or the scientific and local communities. It celebrates students who have engaged the community to provide educational experiences that embody a culture of continuous learning and promote interest in scientific research.
This award was created to celebrate David Johnston's vital contributions to the Institute for Quantum Computing (IQC) at the University of Waterloo, his passion for leadership and his enthusiasm for continuous learning, innovation and achievement. David Johnston was President from 1999 to 2010.
Apply online for the IQC David Johnston Award for Scientific Outreach. Applications close on Wednesday, March 1, 2023. Please contact John Donohue for more information.
Eligibility & Selection
The following criteria will be considered for successful candidate selection:
Full-time current graduate students at the Institute for Quantum Computing (IQC) at University of Waterloo
Selection to be based on an illustrated outstanding commitment to scientific outreach and community engagement through volunteerism
Selection will recognize students who are dedicated to promoting public awareness of quantum information research, general science and IQC in industry or the scientific and local communities
Selection will celebrate students who have engaged the community to provide educational experiences that embody a culture of continuous learning and promote interest in scientific research
This Award is intended to be in addition to any Research or Teaching Assistantship support from the department or a supervising Faculty Member
This Award can be held simultaneously with other graduate awards (subject to the requirements of other scholarships/awards)
The award will be administered in accordance with University of Waterloo policies and practices (and the external scholarship programs as applicable) as amended from time to time.
Location 1 - Mike Ophelia Lazaridis QNC
Location 2 - RAC 1 and RAC 2
For internal users
Quatrium


c++ - Where to look up GCC's implementation of implementation-defined behavior?
As the C++ standard is very vague on many things, I want to look up the concrete implementations from different compilers. At the moment, I want to know how GCC allocates and aligns bit fields.
In the case of the MS Visual C++ compiler, it is very easy: There is a nice page in the user manual about bit fields which explains all open allocation/alignment questions, and there are even figures and examples.
I just want the same information for GCC, but it seems to be way more complicated. There is a page in the GCC manual which just states "Determined by ABI." Then we have some information about ABI policy and guidelines which contains a link to a document named Itanium C++ ABI on Github. Now, in this document, we can found the following: "the bitfield is allocated as required by the underlying C psABI". And that's the point were I'm stuck. I can find no helpful sites when searching for C psABI.
Can anyone please point me to the site where GCC's implementation of bit fields is described? It can't be that complicated, can't it? Why is GCC's documentation so often so much more complicated then Microsoft's? Am I using the wrong resources?
That is the difference between GCC (which runs on many, many different machines and operating systems, each with their own convention on how to do some things, the platform's ABI) and MS C, which runs on one platform only (essentially). But that is not all, there are other areas where the standard doesn't dictate what to do, in order to give the compiler writer leeway. If the platform doen't mandate anything either, the compiler writer can choose at will. And the selection might even change seemingly at random from one version of the compiler to the next on the same platform. The compiler should document its choices, but for a beast like GCC covering so many platforms it can be a daunting task to find that.
As for GCC's documentation being more complicated than Microsoft's, I've not found that. Neither are particularly complete, often leaving some of the most important issues, like threading, unspecified.
Rails Routes - How to make them case insensitive?
c# - How to override xml element name for collection elements using XmlAttributeOverrides?


Our new platform for videos on-demand and live-streams of baseball and softball has launched! From now on, you will find all your favorite video content on baseballsoftball.tv!
As a first great event the USSSA European Pro Softball Series, presented by WBSC, featuring USSSA Pride of the National Pro Fastpitch League will face the national teams of Italy, Czech Republic and The Netherlands. Starting on April 24, USSSA Pride will face Italy for a two game series, before heading to Prague to face the Czech national team on Friday and Saturday. As a tour finale, the European Champion, the Netherlands, will face the US Pro Team in Moergestel, Hoofddorp and Harlem for three final games, starting on Monday, April 30.
The first baseball competition will be broadcasted in June, featuring the European Cups and national team events alike. As a first big highlight, the new video platform will cover the Super 6 tournament in September from Hoofddorp.
After ESF and CEB have reached a deal with Sportradar during the Joint Congress in Paris, the WBSC Europe Media Group has finalized the setup of the newly launched video platform, Baseball Softball TV. As the first joint project, the OverTheTop Platform will bring together baseball and softball fans alike.
This new initiative will help enhance the popularity and visibility of both softball and baseball across Europe with both live and on-demand broadcasts and video content available for fans.
This is a unique chance to position our sport on a strong, joint platform. We see a lot of potential in this project for the growth of our game and are very happy to have Sportradar as a partner on our side.


text:
Arsonist sets fire to Swedish mosque, injuring five: Police
Smoke rises from the interior of a destroyed cellar mosque as firefighters search the remains of the building after an arson attack on Dec 25, 2014 in Eskilstuna, central Sweden. -- PHOTO: AFP
Dec 26, 2014, 1:35 am SGT
http://str.sg/DNF
STOCKHOLM (REUTERS) - An arsonist set fire to a mosque in the Swedish town of Eskilstuna on Thursday, injuring five people, police said, an incident which comes amid an intense debate over immigration.
The immigration debate has pitted the far right, which wants to cut the number of asylum seekers allowed into Sweden by 90 per cent, against mainstream parties intent on preserving the Nordic country's liberal policy.
Between 15 and 20 people were in the mosque, located in the ground floor of a building in a mainly residential area, when the fire erupted.
Local media footage showed smoke and flames billowing from the windows.
"A witness saw somebody throw an object through the window of the building, which serves as a mosque, after which a violent fire began," police spokesman Lars Franzell said.
The five injured people were taken to hospital for treatment of injuries ranging from smoke inhalation to lacerations.
No suspect has been apprehended yet, Franzell added.
Emergency services in Eskilstuna, central Sweden, were called to the scene of the fire shortly after 1200 GMT (8pm Singapore time), and police are treating it as arson.


(CLOSED) 20% Off Decor + Kitchen at McGee & Co.!
Now until Monday, you can get 20% off decor accessories at McGee & Co., and we're so excited about it! Accessories are needed in almost every nook and cranny, and they're the easiest way to quickly change the mood in your spaces. We've rounded up our tips, tricks, and inspiration posts for all things accessory in honor of the sale.