Tax Dollars At Work : Swiss Scientists Discover That It Is Colder In The Mountains

http://news.oneindia.in/2010/11/10/mountainsmay-offer-species-refuge-habitats-duringcli.html?

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

46 Responses to Tax Dollars At Work : Swiss Scientists Discover That It Is Colder In The Mountains

  1. omnologos says:

    With the right kind of company, in Switzerland like everywhere else it might actually get pretty HOT in the mountains too

  2. ChrisD says:

    The instant I saw this page title, I knew it would be wrong.

    That it’s “colder in the mountains” is not exactly what they reported, is it? What’s the purpose of mischaracterizing research this way?

    It’s also apparent that you didn’t look beyond the newspaper article because, if you had, you would have known that there’s something in the study’s conclusions that you really could have used effectively. But you can’t do that now, since you’ve already announced that the scientists and their study are stupid.

    • I’m hoping you aren’t as dumb as you pretend to be

    • Mike Davis says:

      ChrisD:
      There was no purpose to do that study to see that plants existed where it was thought they would. Or to find a variety of temperature regions and plants to go with the temperature regions.
      The news paper is wrong because during changing climate conditions mountains are the worst place to be because they are where warm moist air and cold dry air collide and produce extreme weather.
      I looked beyond the article. Natural weather patterns govern my life patterns now that I am retired and live on a tree farm in the mountains. While not in an Alpine region I did study different regions before deciding where I would retire. That includes “Micro” climate issues that affect daily comfort.

    • Paul H says:

      I am glad my taxpayer £’s were not wasted so that I could find out that :-

      “This means that rugged alpine terrain offers refuge habitats for both small plants and animals that prefer cool life conditions.”

      Nice work if you can get it.

    • ChrisD says:

      All of you completely missed the implications of this, didn’t you?

      It is, however, heartening that none of you, including the blog owner, even attempted to defend the page title.

      • There has been an infestation of flies in my office the last few days. They buzz around my head and annoy me.

      • Mike Davis says:

        The fly problem was observed here as well. Since 2006 this is the most we have observed trying to find refuge from the cooler weather by coming in the house. The annual invasion of Imitation Lady Bugs is less this year than past years so that is a plus.
        ChrisD:
        They offer classes in reading comprehension you could take or does it require a firm statement such as: Steven I agree that it was a waste of money to do research proving it is colder in mountains than at lower elevations. Mountains will provide refuge for cold loving species is a “FACE PALM” type of claim.
        Or a “AND YOUR POINT IS?” claim. The page title is obvious and supported by the news release and the paper itself.

      • ChrisD says:

        Mike, your response is positive proof that you don’t understand what the study demonstrated, which is not that “it is colder in mountains than at lower elevations.” Either you need those reading comprehension classes you mentioned or you should stop assuming that the page titles here are accurate, since they almost never are.

  3. Geezer1 says:

    It is a great day when one can get in a tizzy over headline captions. The thing that ought to concern us the most is the fact that these researchers found their results surprising. You would have to be brain dead not to have known this before the research. It is called observation.

    • ChrisD says:

      The thing that ought to concern us the most is the fact that these researchers found their results surprising.

      What were the results, Geezer?

      • I was shocked to find out that alpine plants live in the mountains. What were the chances of that?

        Inversely proportional to the probability that you will ever make a useful comment about anything.

      • ChrisD says:

        I was asking Geezer, but from your answer it’s apparent that you still don’t know what the interesting results were, or why they’re good for Team So-Called Skeptic.

  4. Martin C says:

    I have ALWAYS understood that the title of these posts often have a bit of ‘tongue in cheek’ to them, from inferences of the article. I think most, but not all, of the readers here ( . . . subtle enough hint. . . ? ) understand that.

  5. NoMoreGore says:

    The money quote is the last one…about mountains needing special protection. It’s an anti mining story. Don’t hurt the poor boulders!

  6. Robb says:

    Main conclusions: “The data presented here thus indicate a great risk of overestimating alpine habitat losses in isotherm-based model scenarios”

    • ChrisD says:

      Bingo. And they all missed that, every one of them.

    • Paul H says:

      I could have told anyone that + I am not a scientist.

      • peterhodges says:

        Robb says:
        November 10, 2010 at 6:38 pm

        Main conclusions: “The data presented here thus indicate a great risk of overestimating alpine habitat losses in isotherm-based model scenarios”

        well that would make us all look like idiots. but i did not see that in the article. did you find it in the original paper?

      • ChrisD says:

        Of course it’s in the original paper. That’s what I’ve been trying all day to get anyone here to look at. That’s what makes this entire post wrong. It’s why you can’t just assume that what’s in a newspaper article is the whole story.

      • peterhodges says:

        well then you can’t blame people for talking what is in newspaper article, in a post about a newspaper article.

        where did you find the original paper?

      • ChrisD says:

        An obvious conclusion based on obvious data.

        And yet you appeared not to come to this obvious conclusion, based on the page title and your comments.

      • ChrisD says:

        you can’t blame people for talking what is in newspaper article, in a post about a newspaper article.

        I don’t. But I also don’t think it’s amiss to point out that neither this post nor the newspaper article really provide the whole story.

        where did you find the original paper?

        Here.

    • glacierman says:

      “Main conclusions: “The data presented here thus indicate a great risk of overestimating alpine habitat losses in isotherm-based model scenarios”

      To which ChrisD says “And yet you appeared not to come to this obvious conclusion, based on the page title and your comments.”

      Maybe no one here commented because no one believes that the IPCC models are worth spit. Also, anyone with a grip on reality already knows plants can adopt to changes in temp greater than that predicted by the models. We have looked at mountains before, and observed micro climates. So Steve’s tone of poking a little fun at this was justified; the paper provided nothing new or scientifically interesting. But someone did get paid to play with some cool infrared equipment, so good for them.

      I guess your big revelation that you tried all day to use as bait wasn’t such good bait at all.

      • ChrisD says:

        Oh, please. Nobody here had a clue that this was the final conclusion of the paper. If Steve had, it would have been the headline, not the made-up one that he actually used.

        I suggest you read what peterhodges, who seems to be one of the few honest people here, had to say about it:

        well that would make us all look like idiots. but i did not see that in the article.

      • glacierman says:

        OK ChrisD, you mean what peterhodges said here:

        “i agree with steve…the study discovered the obvious.

        we call them “microclimates”. lots of different elevations and aspects in mountainous terraines.”

        Uh, that’s what I said. How did you come to the conclusion he had the opposite opinion?

        To use what you think is a big interesting conclusion of this article to prove some point would mean accepting the premise that AGW was going to dramatically change temperatures, beyond that which is seen near mountains where temps very greatly over short distances. I don’t buy this so why would I use their conclusions to try to make a point that common sense has been making since man has been observing nature?

  7. peterhodges says:

    i agree with steve…the study discovered the obvious.

    we call them “microclimates”. lots of different elevations and aspects in mountainous terrain. i have pine trees in my back yard and sage brush in the front yard. nice meadow down the street. a few aspens in between…

    while the study may have some value in quantifying various microclimates why does someone as usual have to force it into an AGW context…oh ya,

    thats’ where their fricken money comes from

  8. Geezer1 says:

    ChrisD. Just got back. If you think those results are interesting and important you are very misled. You must live in a vacuum, as I said before, it is observation. Not a big deal.You need to get over your self felt importance.

    • ChrisD says:

      Fortunately, Geezer, someone else bothered to look at the actual paper and discovered for himself what was quite interesting in it that wasn’t mentioned in the newspaper article.

      • Mike Davis says:

        ChrisD:
        If you think that claims models have little to no value because the tend to overestimate problems is some how interesting or a revelation! WOW! That is what we have been trying to tell you. The minor fact it was left out of a press release is standard practice and you do that sort of thing all the time when you Cherry Pick iut of context quotes that support your agenda.

      • ChrisD says:

        No, that is not what I think. You do seem to be having a difficult time grasping the central point here. Never mind.

  9. Lazarus says:

    “The central point is that the study was a waste of time.”

    Are you saying that this peer reviewed research that checked the validity of a scientific model, and found it lacking, was a waste of time?

    Why?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *