| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17747
Location: Berkeley, California
|
 Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2014 1:33 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Read this with your oatmeal, from the Los Angeles Times. You know, what of those outfits that has editors and requires fact checking:\
| Quote: |
This year is on track to be the hottest year in California since record-keeping began roughly 119 years ago, scientists announced Wednesday.
Prolonged drought and increasing temperatures over the last four decades have resulted in the warmer conditions currently plaguing California, said Paul Iniguez, science and operation officer for the National Weather Service in Hanford.
"Everything is kind of working together," he said.
Warmest year on record?
A graph shows the possibility of 2014 becoming the warmest year on record in California. (National Weather Service)
There is an 88% chance that 2014 will beat the warmest year currently on record -- an average 59.7 degrees set in 1934.
Although the most recent heat wave that smothered Southern California certainly looms large in the minds of the public, it's the cumulative effect of consistently warm temperatures statewide that has driven the projection.
"We have baked in the fact that we are going to be above average," Iniguez said.
Scientists also used past and present average temperature data to run 1 million statistical simulations, he said.
l
Last week, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported that the first eight months of 2014 were the warmest on the record in California. The average temperature was 62.6 degrees. |
Do you think that Fox covered this? Apparently not. Find coverage and prove me wrong! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
nw30
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 6485
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2014 1:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You know the old saying "all politics is local"?
I don't think you can apply that to global warming, unless Cali. is global.
But yes, it's been a hot dry one this year............ in Cali. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17747
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2014 1:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| And, as I said, no coverage of this as news on Fox's web site. It is how you guys brainwash yourself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nw30
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 6485
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17747
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2014 4:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
NW--you're just silly. Not merely California.
| Quote: | Global Highlights
The combined average temperature across global land and ocean surfaces for August 2014 was record high for the month, at 0.75°C (1.35°F) above the 20th century average of 15.6°C (60.1°F), topping the previous record set in 1998.
The global land surface temperature was 0.99°C (1.78°F) above the 20th century average of 13.8°C (56.9°F), the second highest on record for August, behind 1998.
For the ocean, the August global sea surface temperature was 0.65°C (1.17°F) above the 20th century average of 16.4°C (61.4°F). This record high departure from average not only beats the previous August record set in 2005 by 0.08°C (0.14°F), but also beats the previous all-time record set just two months ago in June 2014 by 0.03°C (0.05°F).
The combined average global land and ocean surface temperature for the June–August period was also record high for this period, at 0.71°C (1.28°F) above the 20th century average of 16.4°C (61.5°F), beating the previous record set in 1998.
The June–August worldwide land surface temperature was 0.91°C (1.64°F) above the 20th century average, the fifth highest on record for this period. The global ocean surface temperature for the same period was 0.63°C (1.13°F) above the 20th century average, the highest on record for June–August. This beats the previous record set in 2009 by 0.04°C (0.07°F).
The combined average global land and ocean surface temperature for January–August (year-to-date) was 0.68°C (1.22°F) above the 20th century average of 14.0°C (57.3°F), the third highest for this eight-month period on record. |
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nw30
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 6485
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2014 5:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Man it's getting hot in here, where's my Baja fog? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20935
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2014 8:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stevenbard wrote: | | The only problem with your strategy GT is HEART DISEASE! You might want to eat a bowl of oatmeal like I do every morning, |
I assume that was tongue in cheek. There's a lot of evidence that grains raise our blood glucose too much and no evidence that eggs (or bacon) promote cardiovascular disease. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GURGLETROUSERS
Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Posts: 2643
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 20, 2014 2:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
I should hope not! (Eggs and bacon.)
I live on egg (free range ,naturally  ) sandwiches when biking, and a lorra frying pan concoctions for supper. And there's nowt wrong with me - as they say - except I'm forgetting how to smell (err spell).
But good grief, with all this confusion over global warming/cooling, either seperately or both at once, (depending on which side of the pond we live), and the evr present danger of being upbraided by a gaggle of very angry polar bears, I've just got too much on my mind!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pueno
Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2807
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 20, 2014 6:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mr. Fick-shun wrote: | | ...and no evidence that eggs (or bacon) promote cardiovascular disease. |
A minor bit of chaff for you, Mikey, though I admit that it's 14 months old and so probably obsolete when compared to your obviously advanced and highly specialized medical knowledge and achievements.
______________________
Relation of eggs with incident cardiovascular disease and diabetes: Friends or foes?
Egg consumption and risk of cardiovascular diseases and diabetes: A meta-analysis
Source: Atherosclerosis, Volume 229, Issue 2, August 2013, Pages 524-530
Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the leading cause of death and is associated with high costs in the US and other developed nations [1]. In addition, type 2 diabetes (DM) – a major risk factor for CVD – is a worldwide health concern [2], [3], [4] and [5], partly due to steady increase in life expectancy and a rise in the prevalence of overweight/obesity. It is estimated that 350 million people will suffer from DM by 2030 [6]. With a lifetime risk between 27% and 53% at birth [7], DM prevalence has increased by almost 3-fold [8] in the past 50 years. Diabetic subjects have a two- to six-fold higher risk of CVD than non-diabetic subjects [9], [10], [11], [12] and [13]. Despite concerted effort to reduce cardiovascular risk factors in patients with DM, about two-thirds of patients with DM will die from CVD [14]. Such alarming statistics call for effective prevention measures to reduce the burden of both DM and CVD. To this end, dietary factors may play an important role in an effort to curb DM or CVD epidemic.
Specifically, eggs might have a unique role among dietary factors for following reasons. They are available worldwide at relatively low costs, two critical elements needed to achieve a large and sustainable impact. Eggs are also a source of important nutrients including fat-soluble vitamins, folate, minerals, protein (∼6 g per medium egg), mono- and polyunsaturated fatty acids, and choline [15]. On the other hand, a medium-size egg contains about 200 mg of dietary cholesterol [15]. Currently, the American Heart Association and the 2010 US dietary guidelines for Americans recommend that daily intake of dietary cholesterol be kept below 300 mg (http://www.cnpp.usda.gov.libproxy.umassd.edu/DGAs2010-PolicyDocument.htm). The rationale for such recommendation is guided by the identification of plasma cholesterol as a traditional risk factor for CVD in the earliest paper of the Framingham Heart Study [16]. However, how strong is the evidence linking dietary cholesterol with CVD?
While previous data have demonstrated a positive and inverse association of LDL- cholesterol with CVD [17], [18] and [19], the evidence on plasma cholesterol-raising effect of dietary cholesterol has been limited. This is partly due to heterogeneity in human response to dietary cholesterol (hypo- vs. hyper-responders) [20]. Inconsistent data have also been reported on the effects of egg consumption on other risk factors for CVD including blood pressure [21] and [22], inflammation [23], and endothelial function [24]. Lastly, limited and inconsistent data have been published on the association of egg consumption with hard endpoints [25], [26], [27] and [28]. Specifically, it is not fully known whether egg consumption confers a higher risk of CVD or DM in the general population.
In the current issue of this journal, Li et al. ([29]) addressed this gap by reporting findings of a systematic meta-analysis focused on the relation of eggs with incident CVD and DM. A literature search from 1930 through 2012 yielded 14 relevant papers on egg consumption. Pooled odds ratio showed a 19% higher risk of CVD when comparing the highest to the lowest category of egg consumption (95% CI: 2%–38%) and such elevated risk of CVD associated with egg consumption was pronounced in people with DM (83% higher risk: 95% CI = 42%–137%). In addition, frequent egg consumption was associated with a 68% higher risk of DM in the pooled analysis compared to infrequent consumption of eggs (95% CI: 41%–100%). In a dose-response analysis, intake of additional 4 eggs per week was associated with a 6% higher risk of CVD and 29% higher risk of DM. No evidence for publication bias was noted by the authors. Those findings suggest that consumption of eggs might confer a modest increased risk for both CVD and DM. Dietary cholesterol can heighten inflammation and raise LDL cholesterol, thereby offering possible biologic pathways by which findings from current meta-analysis could be causal. However, how confident are we with the conclusion of the current meta-analysis?
To address the latter question, one needs to carefully consider potential sources of biases and how the authors addressed them in the current meta-analysis. First, all studies included in the current meta-analysis used an observational design (prospective cohorts and cross-sectional studies). Given inherent limitations of observational designs, we cannot exclude unmeasured or residual confounding as partial or complete explanation of the reported results. Second, egg consumption was mostly self-reported, another potential source of bias. For example, under-reporting of egg consumption among people with DM could have led to an underestimation of the actual relative risk. Third, the authors were not able to differentiate between egg consumption with and without egg yolks (major source of dietary cholesterol). Furthermore, it is unclear whether mixed dishes containing eggs were considered in most studies analyzed. These limitations underscore the need of a well-designed randomized trial to further elucidate the role of egg consumption on incident CVD and DM. In light of above limitations, it would be premature to alter current recommendations based on the level of evidence available on eggs and CVD/DM. What is still missing in the literature and what should be the focus of future studies?
It is critical to differentiate the effects of whole eggs vs. eggs without yolks. To this end, randomized control trials would be necessary to examine physiologic effects of eggs with vs. eggs without yolk. Second, since only about 15%–25% of the population is sensitive to dietary cholesterol (hyper-responders), it will be important to stratify intervention with eggs by hypo- vs. hyper-responder status. Third, assessment technique of egg consumption in large epidemiologic studies could be improved to minimize self-report bias. Currently used food questionnaires seldom collect detailed information on eggs: for example, eggs contained in mixed dishes are seldom captured and information on a) whether people consume eggs with or without yolk or b) method of preparation (boiled vs. fried or raw) is rarely sought. Some varieties of eggs are enriched with omega-3 fatty acids, which may confound the effects of eggs on outcomes. Future studies should account for such type of enrichment with omega-3 fatty acids. Lastly, eggs are seldom consumed in isolation, but rather with other foods in a context of dietary patterns. Frequency of egg consumption might be a surrogate of a specific dietary pattern and observed results could reflect overall dietary patterns rather than the effects of eggs. For example, it is quite common to eat omelet with bacon, rich in saturated fatty acids.
In conclusion, given a rising prevalence of DM and a high burden of CVD, it is critical to improve prediction and risk stratification of both conditions. Identification of novel risk factors that will help improve prevention of DM and CVD are also important. For clinicians, a focus on a global risk assessment for DM and CVD remains the top priority while for the general public, common sense and moderation should prevail when it comes to amounts and frequency of egg consumption.
. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20935
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 20, 2014 9:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| nw30 implied someone wrote: |
'But what about Sandy !?!', and responded with
"Yeah, what about it." |
Once again (and yet more evidence that these guys don't even read or investigate contrary data or opinions, because I've posted this before), senior hurricane forecaster for Accuweather and Weatherbell Analytics Joe Bastardi stated flatly that Sandy had nothing to do with global cooling or warming. In short, "Blaming Sandy on Global Warming or ‘Climate Change’ is shockingly ignorant or shockingly deceptive".
At length, see http://patriotpost.us/opinion/15298 .
Preemptively, dismissing him or his analyses simply because he appears on Fox News is about as stupid and dishonest as it gets, considering the overwhelming number and proportion of far lefties and radicals who get their full say on Fox if they address the issues and questions succinctly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|
Search
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Register
