atomic_fungus (atomic_fungus) wrote,

#327: Gee, why didn't we hear about this in the news?

Russel Seitz prints a mention of a retraction by Physics Today saying that the Gulf Stream may not, after all, be slowing down.

The last two sentences form the salient quote, I think:

"Bryden's paper as submitted for publication to Nature included a question mark at the end of the title, suggesting only a possibility that the circulation might be slowing down. On the editor's insistence, the question mark was removed, and the title was changed into a positive statement that caused a considerable stir." [emphasis mine]

But of course there is no bias in the media, right?

Reading Seitz' article, it looks like the data which demonstrates Gulf Stream slowing is of a lesser magnitude than the uncertainty of that data. In other words, there is no way to tell if the Gulf Stream is slower now than it was in 1957.

"It is a mystery how such an error was missed by Levi and by the editors and reviewers of the original paper." Is it? It's no mystery if you realize that the people involved wanted the Gulf Stream to be slowing down, because "slower Gulf Stream=global warming=man-made=apocalypse". It's the media template for global warming.

  • #7691: Hana Yori Dango

    This evening, I decided I was going to make another omnibus disk, of the later Kansas albums, the four three Styx albums I own, and…

  • #7690: That took everything,

    Doing the alternator in the wife's car did for my day, though. I had originally intended to work on a motorcycle or motorized bicycle tonight, after…


    At work in the middle of a teleconference, I get a call from Mrs. Fungus: her car stopped working. Tore out of there at 11 hoping that I could get…

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.