Pick-a-Pope

The Guardian has come up with the Pontifficator - a handy table of every Cardinal which lets me bring you my picks for the most unlikely outcomes:

Pope most likely to convert Jamaicans:

(Yes, OK, so he's Indian, but still it would be a bit like Samuel L Jackson making the cut.)

Pope most wanted by the International Association of Dentists:

(He's Cardinal Wako, from Khartoum.  Which makes me realise that I don't know enough geography. Someone also tried to kill him a couple of years ago, which makes my picking on his teeth very unfair.   Good luck, Cardinal Wako.)

Pope most likely to have had early career on a cruise ship:


 OK, so is stereotyping Filipinos a sin?

But seriously, Cardinal Tagle is apparently really in the running, and he's the smiliest, most photogenic candidate by far.  Who could stay mad at him while being condemned to Hell for going on the Pill after 6 kids and a serious case of prolapse when he has such a nice smile?

However, let's face it, his hair is only partially grey and he probably has 20 years of good health ahead of him yet.  That almost certainly puts him out of the running.


Instead, we'll probably end up with Pope who Looks Most Likely to Use the Mafia to Clean up the Curia:

(Actually, he's Spanish, but Martin Scorsese sprang to mind when I saw him.)

Anyway, soon we'll know...

Smart dogs

The genius of dogs: Brian Hare on friendliness, intelligence, and inference in dogs. - Slate Magazine

A good interview talking about the way in which dogs are smart. For example:

 Dogs are the only species that have been identified to date that learn words in the same way as human children—by using inferences. Show a child a red block and a green block, for example. If you then ask for "the chromium block, not the red block," most children will give you the green block, despite not knowing that "chromium" can refer to a shade of green. The child infers the name of the object. Dogs have been found to learn in the same way.

The second thing is that they make use of human gestures at a similar level of flexibility to young infants. Obviously older infants quickly outstrip what dogs can do, but the fact that there is any overlap at all is remarkable.

And this:

There are lots of flavors of intelligence. Researchers have looked at different animals and the contexts in which they are able to make inferences. Corvids, the family of birds that includes crows and ravens, make incredibly complicated inferences when it comes to using tools or outcompeting group members in hiding food, for example. What's special about dogs is that they have the ability to figure out what we want, to use humans as a tool in a way that other animals cannot.

The way that I would love for people to think about intelligence is to think of a tool box. If somebody asks you what's the smartest species or who's the smartest person, it's the equivalent of asking, what's the best tool, a hammer or a screwdriver? Well, what's the problem you're trying to solve? What is it that dogs need to solve to survive? They need to figure out how to use humans effectively.

Clive on climate

Nature v technology: climate 'belief' is politics, not science

I quite like this piece by Clive Hamilton, drawing similarities between how Einstein's theory of relativity was initially rejected by many on political ground, in the same way that much of the Right does with respect to climate change.

Yay, science fiction comedy

Douglas Adams is still the king of comic science fiction | Books | guardian.co.uk

The Guardian notes that Google is today celebrating the 61st birthday of the late Douglas Adams.

I am very keen on the genre of science fiction comedy, and have been enjoying watching a re-run of the entire set of Red Dwarf series on ABC2.  It's now nearing the end, though, I think.

If we are very lucky, I wonder if the ABC could follow this up with  a repeat of Hitchhiker's Guide?   It's been decades since I have seen it, and the movie did nothing for me.

11,000 years ago and now

Scientists Find an Abrupt Warm Jog After a Very Long Cooling - NYTimes.com

The Andy Revkin post on last week's science study seems to me to have given too much prevalence to the assessment of Robert Rhode, who suggested that the paper did not have fine enough time scale resolution to rule out past rapid temperature rises of similar magnitude to that of the 20th century that may have come and gone within the space of a few centuries.

Co-author Shukan gets to make a rebuttal in the comments thread that there is pretty good reason to not believe such changes happened, and he also makes the point in the video that, with the known effects of increased CO2, there is no reason to think the present rise is going to go down.  However, these responses are something you have to dig up in the thread, and (as others have claimed) Revkin's desire for balance sometimes ends up giving a false impression.

The Science article in question was pretty well summarised here.  The thing that surprised me was that warming periods over the past 11,000 years did match pretty well with orbital changes that would have increased sun in the north:

Marcott said that one of the natural factors affecting global temperatures over the past 11,300 years is gradual change in the distribution of solar insolation associated with Earth's position relative to the sun.

"During the warmest period of the Holocene, the Earth was positioned such that Northern Hemisphere summers warmed more," Marcott said. "As the Earth's orientation changed, Northern Hemisphere summers became cooler, and we should now be near the bottom of this long-term cooling trend -- but obviously, we are not."

 That's the biggest significance of the paper, it seems to me.

But I should note that Revkin's post on the matter does redeem itself by including this response by Richard Alley, which makes some very important points which climate change fake skeptics do not usually appreciate:

I think it is worth remembering a few things for how this fits into the bigger picture. Whether the past was naturally warmer or cooler than recently, and whether the changes were faster or slower than recently, are of great interest to climate scientists in learning how the climate system works, including the strength of feedbacks. But existence of a warmer climate in the past doesn’t mean that the current warming is natural, any more than the existence of natural fires rules out arson in some recent warehouse blaze. And, existence of a warmer climate in the past also doesn’t mean that we’ll like a warmer climate in the future. Nature has made places and times colder, and warmer, than most people like. Our high assessed confidence that the recent warming is mostly human-driven, and that the costs will become large if the warming becomes large, do not primarily rest on how much warmer or colder today is than some particular time in the past, or even on how fast the recent changes are relative to those in the past.

Furthermore, because the feedbacks in the climate system often respond similarly to warming with different causes (warmer air will tend to melt more snow and ice, and to pick up more greenhouse-gas water vapor from the vast ocean, whether the warmth came from rising CO2 or increasing solar output or alien ray guns or a giant hair dryer), data showing larger climate changes in the past in response to some estimated forcing actually increase the concerns about future warming. If, for example, scientists had somehow underestimated the climate change between Medieval times and the Little Ice Age, or other natural climate changes, without corresponding errors in the estimated size of the causes of the changes, that would suggest stronger amplifying feedbacks and larger future warming from rising greenhouse gases than originally estimated. Any increase in our estimate of the natural climate responses to past forcings points to a more variable future path with larger average changes.

A similar point was made about the Schmitter paper last year - the paper suggested a lower range for climate sensitivity, but another result was that it meant that relatively small temperature changes can have huge impact on large parts of the Earth.

Wetter and drier

Increase in the range between wet and dry season precipitation : Nature Geoscience 

The abstract I'll reproduce in full, because this topic is something that climate change "skeptics" just continually can't seem to get their head around :

Global temperatures have risen over the past few decades. The water vapour content of the atmosphere has increased as a result, strengthening the global hydrological cycle^{1, 2, 3, 4}. This, in turn, has led to wet regions getting wetter, and dry regions drier^{1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6}. Climate model simulations suggest that a similar intensification of existing patterns may also apply to the seasonal cycle of rainfall⁷. Here, we analyse regional and global trends in seasonal precipitation extremes over the past three decades, using a number of global and land-alone observational data sets. We show that globally the annual range of precipitation has increased, largely because wet seasons have become wetter. Although the magnitude of the shift is uncertain, largely owing to limitations inherent in the data sets used, the sign of the tendency is robust. On a regional scale, the tendency for wet seasons to get wetter occurs over climatologically rainier regions. Similarly, the tendency for dry season to get drier is seen in drier regions. Even if the total amount of annual rainfall does not change significantly, the enhancement in the seasonal precipitation cycle could have marked consequences for the frequency of droughts and floods.

A journalist explanation of the study adds some more detail:

...the gap between wet and dry seasons was widening at a rate of 1.47 millimeters per day per century. All three trends, they report, “are significant at the 99 percent confidence level.”

In the real world most of us experience, it’s hard to be sure that rainy spells are rainier, and dry seasons are drier: that is because, as the authors concede, global rainfall patterns are “spatially complex.”

But there is general agreement that such changes are taking place, with good physical reasons for doing so: a warmer world means more evaporation, and more precipitation. Furthermore, the authors say, simulations predict such a pattern and observations confirm it.
 

Tony Abbott and the friends of Dorothy*

So, Tony did a 60 Minutes bit last night which seems to have been a lot about his attitude towards gays and lesbians.    And his sister, who now lives with a woman after a lengthy heterosexual marriage, was there to lend support.

But doesn't she contradict Tony's attempted explanation of why he said 3 years ago that he felt "a bit threatened" by homosexuality?:

Supported by his lesbian sister, her partner, his wife Margie and his daughters, Mr Abbott said that when he claimed three years ago during a television interview that he felt ''a bit threatened'' by homosexuals, he had been trying to guard a family secret.

He had only just been told by his sister she was a lesbian.

 

''Now I couldn't talk about that then because it was deeply personal and deeply private,'' he said. ''But certainly they were very tough times for our family, hence my comment, because the cohesion of our family was threatened at that time. But I'm pleased to say we're all in a better space now than we were then.''

Interviewed at a family barbecue at his Sydney home, Mr Abbott's sister, Christine Forster, said he was ''completely unfazed'' when she told him she was in a lesbian relationship after 19 years of being married to a man. Her partner, Virginia Edwards, said Mr Abbott and his family had been ''fantastic''.

I think Tony is just clumsily trying to be all things to all people again. 

I don't really see much wrong with a man indicating that he's not always sure how to react to gay men or women, particularly when you're talking about certain versions of how homosexuality is expressed these days.     I mean, I suspect no one thinks having dinner with Stephen Fry would be awkward in any way, but lunch with this woman might be somewhat different.   I think this is all Abbott meant when he, clumsily,  referred to "being threatened".  He had, after all, long been friends with Christopher Pearson when he made that statement.



*  Well, it seems an appropriate title in light of my previous post

Oz-ing about

Let's start with a photo.  Do you know who this is?:

If you're like me, you would not have recognized him as Sam Raimi, a director with a bit of a cultish following for his (very successful) work, but who seems to keep his personal profile so low I had no idea what he looked like.

And here's another photo:

It's L Frank Baum.  I can't remember seeing him before, either.  The Wikipedia entry about him is pretty interesting.  As a young man, he got into breeding fancy poultry, which apparently was "a national craze at the time."  (TV not having been invented yet, I suppose.)  He wrote a book about it:  The Book of the Hamburgs: A Brief Treatise upon the Mating, Rearing, and Management of the Different Varieties of Hamburgs.  Hamburg chickens, that is. Here's a photo, because I haven't seen one of them before either:

Sort of the dalmatian of the chicken world.  But I digress.

All of this is by way of background to talking about yesterday's viewing of Oz The Great and Powerful.  But there's more backgrounding to be done yet.


I was pretty young when I was given an abridged picture book version of The Wizard of Oz, and I thought it a peculiar story, but I liked the imagery of a glowing emerald city.  I don't think I saw the movie until my  older teenage years, and remember being pleasantly surprised at the humour and charm of the portrayal of the Lion, Tin Man and Scarecrow.

It also struck me that the story could easily be read as being very humanistic, and anti-religion, if not anti-theism.  The feared Wizard, who can be taken as a stand in for the fearful God of the Old Testament in particular, turns out to be a "humbug", and each of  the characters already has the worthy attribute which he seeks; they just need to be given the confidence that it is indeed within them.  

This aspect of the book and movie still, it seems to me, gets little attention.  Sure, Googling the topic now brings up some (usually fundamentalist Christian) sites which attack the story on these grounds; but not many, really.  (OK, if you really want to, you can see here a rather rotund American evangelical preacher ripping into it as a "God hating" movie.)

In any event, what were the religious views of Frank Baum?   Wikipedia says that he and his wife (who was prominent in the women's suffrage movement) were into Theosophy, 8 years before the book was published.  It summarises his views:

The Baums believed in God, but felt that religious decisions should be made by mature minds and not religious authorities. As a result, they sent their older sons to "Ethical Culture Sunday School" in Chicago, which taught morality, not religion.

Well, it would seem that he would be against the old school Christianity that emphasises fear of God, in that case. I suppose you could say it is a fairy tale that Pelagius would have enjoyed, much more so than St Augustine.

And so, we can finally come to the question - did I like the new movie? 

But before we get there - is it based on anything Baum wrote?  No, it's not.  I was aware from Martin Gardener, who was an Oz fan, that Baum had written many sequels to the original Wizard book, and I was guessing that maybe one of those books were a prequel. But no, this does not appear to be the case at all.

Nor is the movie story in any way related to the successful stage musical Wicked.  I knew nothing of that show until my kids' school choir last year did a version of "For Good", which I thought was very pleasing.  But then I found the song as it appears in the stage show, and it seems rather awful in its orginal form.  Compare, if you want to, an American high school version:

 

with the cheesy sounding stage version:



I think that's a valuable lesson in how many voices arranged well can improve a song a lot.

Anyway, the story is an elaboration on the Wizard's explanation as to how he arrived in Oz in Chapter 15 of the original book, but there was very little information there to go on.   I think that making it about a selfish loser who redeems himself in another world was basically a good idea that fits thematically with the original story.

But - and I think I'm really ready now - did I like the movie overall?

Yes I did.

The biggest surprise is the unusual decision to make the adult theme of romantic/sexual jealousy a key part of the story.   Well, as I have said, the original Oz story is a bit more serious than is normally credited, too.   But I just did not expect that the deeply flawed man who is destined to become the Wizard would be shown to be bad by way of being a chronic womaniser, even though it appears he once had a true love to whom he has been incapable of being faithful.

I am not at all sure how kids will take this, but it seems to me that it really pitches the movie more towards a teen and adult audience.  (My 10 year daughter said "he liked one woman, then another, and another.  I just don't get it."  She enjoyed the movie anyway.)   It is similar, I suppose, to the way the Tim Burton version of Alice in Wonderland started with a bit of a mini Pride and Prejudice theme. (I saw that movie on TV recently, and thought it was pretty bad.)

The movie is visually impressive; unlike many reviewers, I don't criticise James Franco for being annoyingly self absorbed when he is playing a character who is meant to be self absorbed; it made me realise again what a funny character voice Zach Braff has; and it has a pleasing sort of, I don't know, depth? to it.  It is my guess that its best features are a result of Raimi's sensibilities.  Even though I am no fan of the superhero genre, generally speaking, he did do a very good job with the Spiderman franchise.  It's funny how a man who started with zombies handles romantic themes well, isn't it?  

It's not perfect, and don't get me wrong, I still consider the whole world of Oz to be rather peculiar; but I was pleased to have seen it.

More Spielberg praise

Have I noted here before that Steven Spielberg seems to have no enemies in Hollywood?  I'm sure I have.

This article helps to explain why:  he is (apparently) very generous in terms of offering advice to other directors if they ask for it.  It also means his influence is much more pervasive than you might think:

Spielberg, 66, is considered the most influential director of our time. And then there are the more than 175 films that he, in one form or another, has been ultimately responsible for, mostly through his production company, Amblin, and his studio, DreamWorks.

But less recognised is the feedback that Spielberg has provided as a sounding board for other filmmakers. Being the recipient of such creative input is as close to receiving a benediction as one can hope for in Hollywood.

''His love of movies and desire to collaborate extends far beyond those projects that he is required to work on,'' says Abrams, who has been hailed as a Spielberg protege. ''But he is so frequently cornered by people and asked to give notes. I feel guilty about being one of them.''

Unfortunately, his advice to Abrams does not extend to "For God's sake, stop filling the screen with giant faces as if you are still directing for television", which still stands as my permanent criticism of Abrams.   (I just don't see that he is all that talented.)  

Still, any endorsement of Spielberg by anyone is good enough for me.

In other human/mouse cell mix news...

BBC News - Researchers grow teeth from gum cells

In the latest study they took human epithelial cells from the gums of human patients, grew more of them in the lab and mixed them with mesenchyme cells from mice.

The mesenchyme cells were cultured to be "inducing" - they instruct the epithelial cells to start growing into a tooth.

Transplanting the cell combination into mice, researchers were able to grow hybrid human/mouse teeth that had viable roots, they reported in the Journal of Dental Research.

Not that it seems anyone will be at risk of getting a mouse tooth by accident:

Study leader Prof Paul Sharpe said mesenchyme cells could be found in the pulp of wisdom teeth, among other sources, but the difficulty had been in getting hold of enough of them.

"This advance here is we have identified a cell population you could envisage using in the clinic. We are now working to try and identify a simple way of getting mesenchyme."

He added: "The next major challenge is to identify a way to culture adult human mesenchymal cells to be tooth-inducing, as at the moment we can only make embryonic mesenchymal cells do this."

 And here's another question:  how will lab grown teeth know what sort of tooth to turn into?  It would be a bit embarrassing having a molar grow where an incisor should be.

Pinky and the Brain on the way

Using human brain cells to make mice smarter

This article starts:

Glial cells – a family of cells found in the human central nervous system and, until recently, considered mere "housekeepers" – now appear to be essential to the unique complexity of the human brain. Scientists reached this conclusion after demonstrating that when transplanted into mice, these human cells could influence communication within the brain, allowing the animals to learn more rapidly.

Dear Scientists:  we are not entirely convinced that making mice smarter via human brain cells is a good idea.

Yours kindly,

The Public.

Not convinced

The mining tax court challenge explained

I am no constitutional lawyer, but I have to say - these arguments being run by the mining companies sound really weak to me.

I would bet money on them failing, but there will be some much richer Senior Counsel running around.  The most delicious outcome would be if the companies lost the right to deduct the State royalties but still have to pay the Commonwealth the tax.

Faster than light or instantaneous?

Chinese Physicists Measure Speed of "Spooky Action At a Distance" | MIT Technology Review

I always thought that quantum entanglement was supposed to work instantaneously.  But the fact that they were trying to measure it suggests it must be thought possible that it isn't.  Anyway, the latest result:

They say the results are clear but do not measure the speed of spooky action directly. Instead, the results place a lower bound on how fast it must be. The answer is that it is at least four orders of  magnitude faster than light, and may still turn out to be instantaneous, as quantum mechanics predicts.

And in other light speed news, I see that this paper suggest the speed limit is a result of the quantum vacuum itself:

 We show that the vacuum permeability and permittivity may originate from the magnetization and the polarization of continuously appearing and disappearing fermion pairs. We then show that if we simply model the propagation of the photon in vacuum as a series of transient captures within these ephemeral pairs, we can derive a finite photon velocity. Requiring that this velocity is equal to the speed of light constrains our model of vacuum. Within this approach, the propagation of a photon is a statistical process at scales much larger than the Planck scale. Therefore we expect its time of flight to fluctuate. We propose an experimental test of this prediction.

I have no idea if this (if shown to be true) has any implications for faster than light travel or transfer of information, but it sounds like the sort of idea that might...

Resign first - then call your boss a hopeless liar

Officer breaks ranks to condemn ADF's 'neglect' of abuse victims - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

The Fairfax and News Ltd press doesn't seem to be paying much attention to this story, but it was remarkable last night to watch a serving Lieutenant Colonel (who is gay) complaining bitterly about the Army: 

Lt Col Morgan says there are no positives in the way the ADF handles abuse cases.

"They say one thing in public and do another thing in private," he said.

"What I have experienced in my personal case is complete inaction, and not just inaction but attempts to shut me down and keep me quiet.

"I don't have anything positive to say about Defence's handling of abuse and its mental health consequences."

 And:  

"I'm not really sure why not, but I suspect that our senior leadership just doesn't care.
"My personal experience tells me that the Army's abuse management strategies that I've seen - delay, deter and deceive - are still in force now."

This was followed by the Chief of Defence General David Hurley saying (to paraphrase) "no, of course he won't lose his job - we've been very understanding of his issues and personal problems etc etc".

But one of the ironies is that the Lieutenant Colonel is a psychologist himself - "the man responsible for the mental health of Australia's deployed soldiers," apparently. Is the General suggesting the Lt Col may not have the clearest assessment of his own case?  

I don't get this.  How does someone who goes on national TV to, basically, call his boss a hopeless and incompetent liar, and who encourages all other abuse victims in Defence to contact him if they are also unhappy, think that he can go back to work and have a normal working relationship?

If this was the private sector, surely to God you would be talking to the employee and saying "look, there is no way we can normalise things - mutual trust is gone.  Take some money and criticise us from outside the organisation if you want, but don't think we can work with you again."

I know from experience that Defence, and the Army in particular, can make made some very weird management decisions; it is amazing how people who are good at certain specialised things can be hopeless at exercising common sense in how to handle staff.   And it may well be that the Army didn't do the right thing by the Lt Col (or do it fast enough.)

But I think both sides are acting weird if they think everyone can now just continue as if last night didn't happen.

Peak demand has peaked

Some analysis here of electricity consumption in Australia during the pretty hot summer we just finished shows that "peak demand" was less than in previous years.  The suggestion is that it's the large amount of rooftop solar that is making a difference, although it may also be increased insulation in houses, or other matters.  Installed solar is bigger in total than I would have guessed:

Since the last hot summer in 2010, our electricity system has seen a lot of changes. For one thing, almost 2 gigawatts of distributed generation has been added in the form of domestic solar PV. To put that in context, 2 gigawatts represents a touch under 10% of average summer demand, though of course solar PV only produces at near maximum levels for a few hours in the middle of a sunny summer day. However, when solar PV is producing it takes away from the demand for electricity that otherwise would be dispatched across the poles and wires via our National Electricity Market – or NEM.

So, its encouraging that, despite the widespread installation of air conditioners which are typically turned on in the later part of the afternoon, peak demand is coming down a bit.  

No nano thanks

Fresh concern over nano-particles hidden in sunscreen - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

I haven't followed closely the issue of nano particles in sunscreen, but this article has a few surprises.  Such as this:

In 2008 it was revealed that nano-particles of anatase titanium dioxide, found in some sunscreens, were leading to serious problems with Bluescope steel Colorbond roofing.

Anatase titanium dioxide was found to be one of the main factors which caused the premature weathering of the coating on the pre-painted steel roof sheets after they had been handled by workers with sunscreen on their hands.

It has also been shown to cause deterioration of other surface coatings and paints on cars and other consumer products.

But it's safe to put on skin?:

Dermatologist Dr Robert Salmon also queried its safety as a sunscreen ingredient.
"I was quite concerned when I heard these reports," he said.

"Because when it was explained to me what the mechanisms were that were blowing away this paint coating that had a 10-year guarantee, but that was being partially destroyed within 10 weeks, I noted that they were exactly the same mechanisms by which these nano-particles could also cause mutations in DNA if they got somewhere down near live cells."

 But they do test it some way, do they?:

Chris Winder, a professor of toxicology at the Australian Catholic University, says further studies are critical.

"This is a major policy problem - we can't just say, 'well, the big-sized particles are OK, so the small ones are as well'," he said.

"This needs work. From a regulatory perspective, we shouldn't accept both normal-sized particles and nano-particles as having the same health clearances.

"I think the nano-particles may have some toxicity that we're yet to find, so I think we should be prudent and at least warn people that cosmetic products contain nano-particles."

 This does not sound too encouraging...

Gaming in Arabia

No tents, no camels

Here's an interesting article (by Mary Beard's son, as it happens) regarding the sort of computer games that are being made by Arabs for Arabs.   Some of them sound rather depressing:

 For his first Afkar game, Kasmiya did not shy away from controversy. Under Ash (2001) tells the story of the first Palestinian intifada. It is considered the first distinctively Arab computer game. Others quickly followed—Hezbollah even tried its hand at creating an anti-Israeli videogame called Special Force in 2003. Kasmiya followed Under Ash with Under Siege (2005), which is based on events of the Second intifada. Players must sometimes attempt to get out of protests alive or, in other levels, fight Israeli soldiers—but never civilians, Kasmiya stresses.

“Some people call them propaganda games, some call them docu-games, depending on their perspective,” says Kasmiya. It is clear which camp he falls into: he tells me the series was based on UN records of events and so reflects reality. Victory is impossible—whichever male or female character you choose, you always die in the end. “You may not get the glory but you do get the knowledge,” he concludes. “I hope my games will make people think rather than just press the action key on the computer.”

More on arctic ice loss being felt down south...

Arctic ice loss amplified Superstorm Sandy violence

Cornell and Rutgers researchers report in the March issue of Oceanography that the severe loss of summertime Arctic sea ice—attributed to greenhouse warming—appears to enhance Northern Hemisphere jet stream meandering, intensify Arctic air mass invasions toward middle latitudes, and increase the frequency of atmospheric blocking events like the one that steered Hurricane Sandy west into the densely populated New York City area. 

 The article, "Superstorm Sandy: A Series of Unfortunate Events?" was authored by Charles H. Greene, Cornell professor of earth and atmospheric sciences and director of Cornell's Ocean Resources and Ecosystems program; Jennifer A. Francis of Rutgers University's Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences; and Bruce C. Monger, Cornell senior research associate, earth and atmospheric sciences. 

The researchers assert that the record-breaking sea ice loss from summer 2012, combined with the unusual atmospheric phenomena observed in late October, appear to be linked to global warming.

A strong atmospheric, high-pressure blocking pattern over Greenland and the northwest Atlantic prevented Hurricane Sandy from steering northeast and out to sea like most October hurricanes and tropical storms from the Caribbean. In fact, Sandy traveled up the Atlantic coast and turned left "toward the most populated area along the eastern seaboard" and converged with an extratropical cyclone; this, in turn, fed the weakening Hurricane Sandy and transformed it into a monster tempest.

An interesting mystery

Mysterious light blamed for circle of fire - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Here's the report in full:

Tasmanian police and firefighters are unable to explain the source of a beam of light which reportedly fell from the sky and formed a circle of fire in a Hobart suburb.

Early Saturday morning police and fire crews received calls from concerned residents in Carnegie Street at Claremont, who reported seeing a bright light igniting a fire in a nearby paddock.

Tasmania Fire Service officer Scott Vinen says the blaze was quickly put out, leaving an obvious burnt patch.

He says the bizarre incident has everyone baffled.

"Once we put the fire out, we kind of walked through the fire and tried to find something," he said.
"We thought a flare or something may have landed there, but we couldn't find any cause."

The Fire Service says it will not investigate further.

 I can't see it mentioned in the Hobart Mercury.  What a pity:  I would like to directly hear interviews with witnesses.

Colebatch is back

Past was a blast so now it's back to the future

My favourite economics journalist of late is back, making reassuring sounds about the economy.

Hope he's right...