jueves, 18 de enero de 2018

HOW DO CLIMATE AND WEATHER DIFFER ?

Mr Trump thinks  this question of extreme weather and climate change is a hoax  Is it ? isn t he mixing up two different things ? can he be so ignorant ?


NASA - What's the Difference Between Weather and Climate?

Temperature Map
Latest three month average temperature and precipitation anomalies for the United States.
Credits: NOAA
The difference between weather and climate is a measure of time. Weather is what conditions of the atmosphere are over a short period of time, and climate is how the atmosphere "behaves" over relatively long periods of time.

When we talk about climate change, we talk about changes in long-term averages of daily weather. Today, children always hear stories from their parents and grandparents about how snow was always piled up to their waists as they trudged off to school. Children today in most areas of the country haven't experienced those kinds of dreadful snow-packed winters, except for the Northeastern U.S. in January 2005. The change in recent winter snows indicate that the climate has changed since their parents were young.

If summers seem hotter lately, then the recent climate may have changed. In various parts of the world, some people have even noticed that springtime comes earlier now than it did 30 years ago. An earlier springtime is indicative of a possible change in the climate.

In addition to long-term climate change, there are shorter term climate variations. This so-called climate variability can be represented by periodic or intermittent changes related to El Niño, La Niña, volcanic eruptions, or other changes in the Earth system.

What Weather Means 
Weather is basically the way the atmosphere is behaving, mainly with respect to its effects upon life and human activities. The difference between weather and climate is that weather consists of the short-term (minutes to months) changes in the atmosphere. Most people think of weather in terms of temperature, humidity, precipitation, cloudiness, brightness, visibility, wind, and atmospheric pressure, as in high and low pressure.

In most places, weather can change from minute-to-minute, hour-to-hour, day-to-day, and season-to-season. Climate, however, is the average of weather over time and space. An easy way to remember the difference is that climate is what you expect, like a very hot summer, and weather is what you get, like a hot day with pop-up thunderstorms.

Things That Make Up Our Weather
There are really a lot of components to weather. Weather includes sunshine, rain, cloud cover, winds, hail, snow, sleet, freezing rain, flooding, blizzards, ice storms, thunderstorms, steady rains from a cold front or warm front, excessive heat, heat waves and more.

In order to help people be prepared to face all of these, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Weather Service (NWS), the lead forecasting outlet for the nation's weather, has over 25 different types of warnings, statements or watches that they issue. Some of the reports NWS issues are: Flash Flood Watches and Warnings, Severe Thunderstorm Watches and Warnings, Blizzard Warnings, Snow Advisories, Winter Storm Watches and Warnings, Dense Fog Advisory, Fire Weather Watch, Tornado Watches and Warnings, Hurricane Watches and Warnings. They also provide Special Weather Statements and Short and Long Term Forecasts.

NWS also issues a lot of notices concerning marine weather for boaters and others who dwell or are staying near shorelines. They include: Coastal Flood Watches and Warnings, Flood Watches and Warnings, High Wind Warnings, Wind Advisories, Gale Warnings, High Surf Advisories, Heavy Freezing Spray Warnings, Small Craft Advisories, Marine Weather Statements, Freezing Fog Advisories, Coastal Flood Watches, Flood Statements, Coastal Flood Statement.

Who is the National Weather Service?
According to their mission statement, "The National Weather Service provides weather, hydrologic, and climate forecasts and warnings for the United States, its territories, adjacent waters and ocean areas, for the protection of life and property and the enhancement of the national economy. NWS data and products form a national information database and infrastructure which can be used by other governmental agencies, the private sector, the public, and the global community."

To do their job, the NWS uses radar on the ground and images from orbiting satellites with a continual eye on Earth. They use reports from a large national network of weather reporting stations, and they launch balloons in the air to measure air temperature, air pressure, wind, and humidity. They put all this data into various computer models to give them weather forecasts. NWS also broadcasts all of their weather reports on special NOAA weather radio, and posts them immediately on their Interactive Weather Information Network website at: http://iwin.nws.noaa.gov/iwin/graphicsversion/bigmain.html.
 
What Climate Means
In short, climate is the description of the long-term pattern of weather in a particular area.

Some scientists define climate as the average weather for a particular region and time period, usually taken over 30-years. It's really an average pattern of weather for a particular region.

When scientists talk about climate, they're looking at averages of precipitation, temperature, humidity, sunshine, wind velocity, phenomena such as fog, frost, and hail storms, and other measures of the weather that occur over a long period in a particular place.

For example, after looking at rain gauge data, lake and reservoir levels, and satellite data, scientists can tell if during a summer, an area was drier than average. If it continues to be drier than normal over the course of many summers, than it would likely indicate a change in the climate.

Why Study Climate?
The reason studying climate and a changing climate is important, is that will affect people around the world. Rising global temperatures are expected to raise sea levels, and change precipitation and other local climate conditions. Changing regional climate could alter forests, crop yields, and water supplies. It could also affect human health, animals, and many types of ecosystems. Deserts may expand into existing rangelands, and features of some of our National Parks and National Forests may be permanently altered.
Temperature Map
An example of a Monthly Mean Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR) product produced from NOAA polar-orbiter satellite data, which is frequently used to study global climate change.
Credits: NOAA

The National Academy of Sciences, a lead scientific body in the U.S., determined that the Earth's surface temperature has risen by about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the past century, with accelerated warming during the past two decades. There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. Yet, there is still some debate about the role of natural cycles and processes.

Human activities have altered the chemical composition of the atmosphere through the buildup of greenhouse gases – primarily carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. The heat-trapping property of these gases is undisputed although uncertanties exist about exactly how Earth's climate responds to them. According to the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (http://www.climatescience.gov), factors such as aerosols, land use change and others may play important roles in climate change, but their influence is highly uncertain at the present time.

Who Studies Climate Change?
Modern climate prediction started back in the late 1700s with Thomas Jefferson and continues to be studied around the world today.

At the national level, the U.S. Global Change Research Program coordinates the world's most extensive research effort on climate change. In addition, NASA, NOAA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other federal agencies are actively engaging the private sector, states, and localities in partnerships based on a win-win philosophy and aimed at addressing the challenge of global warming while, at the same time, strengthening the economy. Many university and private scientists also study climate change.

What is the U.S. Global Change Research Program?
The United States Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) was created in 1989 as a high-priority national research program to address key uncertainties about changes in the Earth's global environmental system, both natural and human-induced; to monitor, understand, and predict global change; and to provide a sound scientific basis for national and international decision-making.

Since its inception, the USGCRP has strengthened research on global environmental change and fostered insight into the processes and interactions of the Earth system, including the atmosphere, oceans, land, frozen regions, plants and animals, and human societies. The USGCRP was codified by Congress in the Global Change Research Act of 1990. The basic rationale for establishing the program was that the issues of global change are so complex and wide-ranging that they extend beyond the mission, resources, and expertise of any single agency, requiring instead the integrated efforts of several agencies.

Some Federal Agencies Studying Climate 
In the 1980s the National Weather Service established the Climate Prediction Center (CPC), known at the time as the Climate Analysis Center (CAC). The CPC is best known for its United States climate forecasts based on El Niño and La Niña conditions in the tropical Pacific.
 
Current Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies
Image Above: The operational SST anomaly charts are useful in assessing ENSO (El Niño - Southern Oscillation) development, monitoring hurricane "wake" cooling, and even major shifts in coastal upwelling.
Credits: NOAA
CPC was established to give short-term climate prediction a home in NOAA. CPC's products are operational predictions or forecasts of how climate may change and includes real-time monitoring of climate. They cover the land, the ocean, and the atmosphere, extending into the upper atmosphere (stratosphere). Climate prediction is very useful in various industries, including agriculture, energy, transportation, water resources, and health.

NASA has been using satellites to study Earth's changing climate. Thanks to satellite and computer model technology, NASA has been able to calculate actual surface temperatures around the world and measure how they've been warming. To accomplish the calculations, the satellites actually measure the Sun's radiation reflected and absorbed by the land and oceans.NASA satellites keep eyes on the ozone hole, El Nino's warm waters in the eastern Pacific, volcanoes, melting ice sheets and glaciers, changes in global wind and pressure systems and much more.

At the global level, countries around the world have expressed a firm commitment to strengthening international responses to the risks of climate change. The U.S. is working to strengthen international action and broaden participation under the support of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Today, scientists around the world continue to try and solve the puzzle of climate change by working with satellites, other tools and computer models that simulate and predict the Earth's conditions.

will trump ever have a wall boarder built

Donald Trump's Mexico wall: Who is going to pay for it?




Media captionHow will President Trump deliver on border wall promise?

President Donald Trump has set in motion his plan to build an "impenetrable, physical, tall, powerful, beautiful, southern border wall" between the US and Mexico.
The border is about 1,900 miles (3,100 km) long and traverses all sorts of terrain.
Mr Trump says his wall will cover 1,000 miles and natural obstacles will take care of the rest.
But how much will it cost and who is going to foot the bill?

What is the estimated budget?

"I would build a great wall, and nobody builds walls better than me, believe me, and I build them very inexpensively."
Mr Trump claims the total cost of the wall will be $10bn (£7.5bn) to $12bn. But estimates from fact checkers and engineers seem to be universally higher.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell estimated it will cost between $12-15bn, as he addressed reporters at a Republican conference in Philadelphia.



Media captionWhat Republican delegates said about Trump's wall before the election

The 650 miles of fencing already put up has cost the government more than $7bn, and none of it could be described, even charitably, as impenetrable, physical, tall, powerful or beautiful.
There are other reasons the costs would be likely to escalate beyond Mr Trump's price tag - his plans require extending the wall into increasingly remote and mountainous regions, raising the building costs substantially.

Map showing where there is already a fence between the US and Mexico border

Adding even more to the expense, the new 1,000 miles would crisscross private land, which would have to be purchased, perhaps by legal force, or financial settlements made with owners.
A study by the Washington Post estimated the cost of the president's wall would be closer to $25bn.

The row over payment

President Trump has always insisted Mexico will pay. Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto has been equally insistent he will not.


Media captionThe US-Mexican family split by the border

Needing to fulfil his election pledge to start building on day one, Mr Trump has signed an executive order setting it in motion.
He has accepted that US taxpayers will have to cover the initial funding.
Congressional approval would be needed and Republicans have suggested a supplemental appropriations bill could be fleshed out over the next two months.

So, how would that money be recouped from Mexico?

There are a number of options, but nothing has been officially decided.
1. Raising tariffs on imports. Mr Trump's spokesman, Sean Spicer, said on 26 January that the president wanted a 20% tax on Mexican imports to pay for the wall, although he later added that it was one of several options still being considered. "By doing it that way we can do $10bn (£8bn) a year and easily pay for the wall, just through that mechanism alone," he told journalists. Forbes has argued that existing duties on Mexican goods would have to be quadrupled to pay for the whole of the wall, even if its cost were spread over 10 years. US companies would also almost certainly source products from elsewhere, reducing the revenue. The Mexican government could respond by removing tax benefits for US foreign investment. The investment totalled $101bn in 2013.
2. Remittances. Two possibilities here. President Trump could try to use laws aimed at preventing money-laundering to halt Mexicans working in the US from wiring money to families back home. The sector is huge - about $25bn a year. The hope is that the threat would cow Mexico into coughing up for the wall. The second option is to tax the remittances. Either a flat tax on all, or a far more punitive tax on those who cannot prove legal residence. But Mexicans affected by remittances might simply avoid using the wire companies and find undocumented third parties to transfer the cash.
3. Levying a "border adjustment" tax. House Republicans propose lowering corporation tax from 35% to 20% but base it on the place of consumption, not production. Imports would be taxed but not exports. A 20% tax, given the $60bn trade deficit with Mexico, would raise $12bn a year. Mexico could do little, the Washington Post reports, because border adjustments would apply to all US trading partners and would not therefore be seen as a singling out Mexico.
4. Increasing travel visa and border crossing fees. Targeting countries that have a bad record on illegal immigration, including Mexico, for higher visa fees would be popular among many Republicans. Along with increasing the fees on cars and individual people crossing the border it would raise revenue, but would probably not be enough alone.
Asked whether any of his solutions were realistic, he told the Washington Post: "It's realistic if you know something about the art of negotiating. If you have a bunch of clowns negotiating, it's not realistic."

What type of wall will he build?

Throughout his presidential campaign, Mr Trump was adamant that he would fortify the southern border with a wall ("a wall is better than fencing and it's much more powerful").
Concrete is the obvious choice. Ali F Rhuzkan, a New York-based structural engineer, estimated in an article for National Memo that a 1,900-mile wall - seemingly Mr Trump's original plan - would require about 339 million cubic feet (12.5 million cubic yards) of concrete - three times more than the Hoover Dam.
Mr Rhuzkan's estimate was based on a wall that ran 5ft beneath the ground and 20ft above. Mr Trump's claims for the wall range between 30ft and, more recently, 55ft. Even at 1,000 miles - vast amounts of concrete would be required.
That concrete, Mr Rhuzkan wrote, would need to be manufactured in slabs nearby - likely in dedicated plants - and transported to building sites, with all the enormous production and staffing costs involved.
However, since assuming office, Mr Trump's secretary of Homeland Security has said that parts of the wall will be transparent.
"There will be the physical wall and then parts of the wall that you can actually see through because it will rely on sensors and other technology," Secretary John Kelly told Fox News.

What about the environment?

Free movement between the US and Mexico is not just a human issue. What would the construction of a wall mean for animals that live near the border?
The US-Mexico border region is a delicate ecosystem with regular animal and bird migrations moving between the north and south of the American continent.

The Rio Grande flows along the U.S.-Mexico border on August 16, 2016 near Roma, Texas.Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES
Image captionThe Rio Grande flows along sections of the US-Mexico border

A number of species need to cross the border to mate with their genetically different cousins, including the endangered North American jaguar and black bears, which would be threatened without being able to mate with Mexican bears.
The wall would also have to take into account natural flooding zones as well as large areas of sand, where the ground effectively moves.
Then there is the detrimental impact to the landscape of a massive construction project - digging, road building, and the appearance of a concrete wall up to 50 feet high, notwithstanding Mr Trump's pledge that it will be "very beautiful".

martes, 3 de octubre de 2017

THE PROS AND CONS OF ADVERTISING

THE PROS AND CONS OF ADVERTISING

A CASE FOR ADVERTISING

A CASE AGAINST  ADVERTISING

 http://schoolnet.org.za/learningcircles/pubs06-2/P10/findings.html

Gun culture.


• At the White House media briefing, Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders sought to nip questions regarding gun control in the bud, insisting "there will certainly be a time for that policy discussion to take place, but that’s not the place that we’re in at this moment.” But in the same session, she raised a right-wing strawman, pointing to Chicago homicide statistics as supposed proof that gun control measures don’t necessarily save lives.
“Apparently it also is hard for Trump’s team to resist talking about policy, even when it insists that ‘today is a day for consoling the survivors and mourning those we lost,’” wrote my colleague Callum Borchers.
President Trump, of course, is at this point notorious for his relative insensitivity in the wake of terror attacks. He sought to scold London’s Muslim mayor in June as terror hit the British capital and, on the campaign trail, pointed to a mass shooting in Orlando carried out by a U.S. national of Afghan origin as justification for his ban on Muslims entering the United States.
• Regarding racial politics and gun rights in the U.S., Adam Winkler, a UCLA Law School professor, wrote a fascinating piece on the topic for The Post last year. Here’s an excerpt:
“The founding generation that adopted the Second Amendment also enacted racially discriminatory gun laws. Fearing slave revolts, early American lawmakers prohibited slaves — and often free blacks, too — from possessing weapons of any kind. Even in states where blacks were allowed to have guns, such as Virginia, they had to first obtain the permission of local officials. And while the ‘well regulated Militia’ mentioned in the Constitution largely fell out of military use, such groups continued to be employed to capture runaway slaves.
"After the Civil War, the question of guns and race changed: Many blacks from the South had obtained firearms when they fled to join colored units of the Union Army. When the war ended, the Army allowed them to keep their guns as compensation for unpaid wages. As many of those black soldiers returned to their home towns, those guns were seen by white racists as a threat to the enforcement of white supremacy. Armed blacks could fight back.
"So Southern states passed the Black Codes, which among other things barred the freedmen from possessing firearms. Racists formed groups like the Ku Klux Klan, riding at night to terrorize blacks and take away their guns. Congress, still controlled by the North, reacted by proposing the 14th Amendment to make the Bill of Rights, which previously limited only the federal government, a limit on the states, too. It was the greatest expansion of constitutional rights in American history — and, as historians have shown, it was prompted in part by the desire to protect the right of freedmen to have guns for self-defense."
• Over the weekend, Jagmeet Singh, a charismatic, 38-year-old Sikh Canadian, won the leadership race for the progressive New Democratic Party, the third-largest in Canada. He cuts a fascinating figure on the electoral scene, and is gearing up to challenge Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. He is the first “visible minority,”as the Globe and Mail put it, to lead a major Canadian federal party. Last month, a video of Singh calmly talking down a racist protester who thought he was Muslim went viral and won him online acclaim. But he has a hard job ahead of him, the Canadian daily reports:
"His success is rooted in the large following he has amassed in the South Asian community. But Mr. Singh's win is also being celebrated by many in the party's old guard who see the Ontario politician as a force for renewal: someone who can capture the imagination of voters and invigorate the New Democratic rank-and-file after the demoralizing losses of the past election.
"The sharply dressed, cosmopolitan, multilingual lawyer was drawn to the New Democrats through his social activism. At the age of 38, he is inheriting a party that is starved for money and has fallen significantly behind the Liberals and Conservatives in terms of donations with just two years to go before the next federal election."
• The Guardian’s soccer writer in Spain, Sid Lowe, wrote a terrific dispatch on the role that soccer giant FC Barcelona plays in the larger drama of Catalan nationalism. (For more on what has followed the region’s turbulent independence referendum, scroll down.) Here’s an excerpt from Lowe’s essay:
“They say sport and politics shouldn’t mix, by which they tend to mean other people’s politics. It’s a line Spain’s secretary of state for sport has used… but sport and politics do mix, especially with Barcelona, who the Marxist writer Manuel Vázquez Montalbán described as the ‘symbolic unarmed army of Catalonia.’
"That identification with Catalonia, while nuanced, shifting, unevenly embraced, sometimes vague and often problematic, is part of what gives Barça an explicitly socio-political dimension. It comes together, of course, in the slogan: mes que un club, more than a club. And that meant this was always going to be more than a match even if in the end it was less than one.
"In September 1976, Las Palmas came to the Camp Nou for the first Barcelona game broadcast in Catalan on Radio Barcelona. In October 1977, they were again the visitors when Barcelona invited Josep Taradellas, former head of the Catalan government, in exile since 1939, to preside over the game. ‘I’ll come on one condition,’ he said: ‘You win.’ Before the match, he told supporters they shared the ‘same faith’ he had 40 years earlier, insisting they had inherited a Barcelona ‘rooted in Catalanism’. Later in 1978, Las Palmas were again their opponents when they won the Cup for the first time since the transition to democracy, Johan Cruyff collecting the trophy from Juan Carlos. And then on Sunday, the day of the referendum, Las Palmas arrived once more. This time they said they didn’t want to be silent witnesses: they came with special shirts, Spain flags stitched to their chests."