Gabe Gross: Auburn needs to let White loose

first_imgGabe Gross at Auburn University on Wednesday, July 29, 2015.Gabe Gross at Auburn University on Wednesday, July 29, 2015.The biggest thing the Auburn Tigers needed out of the game with San Jose State was a win, and they got it.After two straight losses to LSU and Mississippi State, a win is what mattered most.  With that being said, at some point, Auburn needs to show vast improvement across the board to have a chance to win the majority of its remaining SEC schedule.There were some bright spots on both sides of the ball for Auburn, but overall, it was not the jump in improvement that Auburn needs.Defensively, Auburn was very opportunistic.  The Tigers created four turnovers, and that really was the difference in the football game. Not forcing SJSU into any three and outs and only one punt though is very concerning.  Auburn’s front seven have got to play better.There has been very little consistency for Auburn this year stopping the run.  Even when Auburn is able to make a “run stop,” it is usually still for a 3 or 4-yard gain instead of a loss or no gain.  That is a recipe for giving up sustained drives and having a worn out defense late in games.  Neither or which is going to allow Auburn to win many games.  Auburn has got to start coming up with some negative plays in the running game and creating some three and outs or the last half of the season could get scary.On a brighter note, one player on defense that I think is going to be a star soon is freshman Carlton Davis.  He is tall for a corner at 6-foot-1 and very rangy.  I don’t know that I have seen him in a bad cover position in man coverage all year, nor has he committed a bunch of pass interference penalties.  He has given up some big plays because he has struggled to get his head around quick enough on sideline throws, but he has been step for step with the receiver every time.  I think he is continuing to get better, and my feeling is he will be a dominant player at some point in his career, sooner rather than later.For Auburn to get to a higher level on offense, the Tigers are going to have to turn Sean White loose throwing the ball.  First and foremost, Auburn needs to continue to run the ball, but every defensive coordinator from here on out is going to try to take the running game away from Auburn until the Tigers prove they are a legitimate threat throwing the ball.Trying to become a threat throwing the ball is not as simple as just calling more pass plays either.  With nearly all decisions in football, there is more to consider than just what is in front of your face.  Right now, coach (Gus) Malzahn is trying to not only protect his young quarterback, but also his defense.  When you open the offense up by throwing the ball more, you also open yourself up to the possibility of more quick three and outs and more turnovers.  Both of which put a lot of pressure on your defense, which at this point has not shown the ability to handle being put in difficult situations.The possibility for things to go south is there, without a doubt.  If Auburn doesn’t allow White to air it out more though, I don’t believe it will be giving itself a chance to win against the elite competition that is coming.Auburn is not a team right now that is going to line up and run the ball down the throat of really good defenses without the threat of a passing game.  Even in 2013, Nick Marshall made enough plays through the air that teams had to respect his arm as well as his legs.  I think Auburn must put more of the game in the hands of White, but I also understand the risk of doing so.If White is given the chance to push the ball down the field, and he is able to make plays with his arm, Auburn has a chance to win every game it has left.  If he’s given the opportunity to push the ball downfield and interceptions and three and outs are the result, Auburn has a chance to lose nearly every game it has left.It is a high risk, high reward decision. If you are Gus Malzahn and Rhett Lashlee (offensive coordinator), you have two choices.  You can continue to allow White to do a minimal amount at quarterback and hope your running game, defense and some luck allow you to win games down the stretch.  The other option is to put the season’s fate in the hands of your young quarterback, knowing when that decision is made, you have invited both triumph and disaster to dinner.Which one shows up will be in the hands of a redshirt freshman nobody thought would be in this position a month ago.last_img read more

Barbados on track to retain title after beating Guyana

first_imgA blistering half century from Deandra Dottin and a four-wicket haul from Hayley Matthews helped Barbados to a five-wicket win over Guyana in the Cricket West Indies/ Colonial Medical Insurance Women’s Super50 yesterday. At the National Stadium, Providence in the Round Four showdown, Barbados won the toss and inserted Guyana on a slow pitch.Guyana, 98-3 at one stage, were dismissed for 159 in 42.3 overs.In reply, Barbados recovered from 28-3 to cruise to 164-5 with player of the match, Dottin smashing Akaze Thompson for a four followed by the only six of the match over long on in the 26th over to seal the victory.Shemaine Campbelle tucks the ball down during her top score of 40 Dottin entered the crease with the in-form batter and captain, Matthews (11) and Kyshona Small (02) already back in the shed after being dismissed by off-spinner, Sheneta Grimmond who finished with 2-23.A motivated Dottin finished unbeaten on 75 from just 55 balls.The second highest ranked One Day International batter from the Caribbean showed her skill on both sides of the wicket but favoured the sweep shot which earned her four of her 12 boundaries. Dottin took a liking to left-arm seamer, Erva Giddings (2-52) who had knocked over Danielle Small for four, as she pounded her for five boundaries.The 27-year-old was fortunate as she was dropped on 43 and 56. She then went on to share in a 91-run partnership with Kaycia Knight.Knight looked solid, stroking five boundaries through the cover region as well as three through the third man area before looping a simple return catch to Thompson and end her 44-ball innings on 45. Earlier, Guyana lost Grimmond leg before wicket (lbw) in the second over but Shemaine Campbelle once again proved her stability, top scoring with 40 from 65 balls with six boundaries.The 26-year-old shared in a second-wicket stand of 40 with Mandy Mangru before the teen was dismissed trying to turn a full toss to the leg side only to get a leading edge into the hands of Matthews for 16 off of 19 balls comprised of two boundaries.The West Indies player also shared in a 48-run union with Shabika Gajnabi but the two fell in quick succession,  bowled by Dottin who ended with 2-27. Gajnabi managed 24 from 43 balls in her hour long stay that saw her hitting three fours. Apart from Lashuna Toussaint (18) and Treymane Smartt (19), no other batter reached double figure as Matthews ripped through the lower order including the wickets of Melanie Henry and Cherry Ann Fraser off of successive deliveries.She finished with 4-25 to bring her total wickets in the tournament to 15, pointing out that the ball was doing a bit and it was just about sticking to the right areas.After the match, Campbelle said she thought her side put out a bit of effort but was unfortunate to lose the game, noting that it is time to go back to the drawing board and work out their mistakes.She pointed out that the fielding let them down as well as the batting that collapsed but having already been knocked out of contention for the title, she believes that they can still salvage a win and prepare to head into the T20 format. Meanwhile, Dottin said the performance was pretty good but credited her mindset for the exceptional performance, noting that she has been working on her fitness and her game.Matthews acknowledged that it was a pretty good performance from their batting despite the top order not doing so well.Barbados will now face undefeated Trinidad and Tobago in the final contest at Enmore Community Centre on Tuesday.last_img read more

Humans held responsible for twists and turns of climate change since 1900

first_img Universal History Archive/UIG/Getty Images Sign up for our daily newsletter Get more great content like this delivered right to you! Country The AMO arose from observations that sea surface temperatures in the North Atlantic seem to swing from unusually warm to cold and back over some 20 to 60 years; the ancient climate appears to have had similar swings. Researchers theorized that periodic shifts in the conveyor belt of Atlantic Ocean currents drive this variability. But why the conveyor would regularly speed and slow on its own was a mystery, and the evidence for grand regular oscillations has slowly been eroding, says Gabriele Hegerl, a statistical climatologist at the University of Edinburgh. “Those are harder to defend.”The new skepticism kicked off with work led by Ben Booth, a climate scientist at the Met Office Hadley Centre in Exeter, U.K.. In 2012, he reported in Nature that pollution hazes, or aerosols, began thickening the clouds over the Atlantic in the 1950s, which could have cooled the ocean with little help from an internal oscillation. In the past year, several independent models have yielded similar results. Meanwhile, most global climate models have been unable to reproduce AMO-like oscillations unless researchers include the influence of pollutants, such as soot and sulfates produced by burning fossil fuels, says Amy Clement, a climate scientist at the University of Miami in Florida.Now, it seems plausible that such human influences, with help from aerosols spewed by volcanic eruptions, drove virtually all 20th century climate change. Haustein and his co-authors tweaked a relatively simple climate model to account for the fact that most pollution originates over land, which heats and cools faster than the ocean—and there’s much more land in the Northern Hemisphere. And they dialed back the cooling effect of volcanic eruptions—a reasonable move, says Booth, who is not affiliated with the study. “We’ve known models respond too strongly to volcanoes.”The also adjusted the global temperature record to account for a change in how ocean temperatures are measured; during World War II, the British practice of measuring water samples in buckets gave way to systematically warmer U.S. readings of water passing through ships’ intake valves. Past efforts to compensate for that change fell short, Haustein and his team found, so they used data from weather stations on coastlines and islands to correct the record.As input for the model, the team used greenhouse gas and aerosol records developed for the next U.N. climate report, along with records of historical volcanic eruptions, solar cycles, and El Niño warmings of the Pacific. Comparing the simulated climate with the adjusted temperature record, they found that internal variability could explain only 7% of the record. Instead, soot from industry drove early 20th century warming as it drifted into the Arctic, darkening snow and absorbing sunlight. After World War II, light-reflecting sulfate haze from power plants increased, holding off potential warming from rising greenhouse gases. Then, pollution control arrived during the 1970s, allowing warming to speed ahead.It’s a compelling portrait, but it could have been substantially different if the team had used other, equally justifiable assumptions about the climate impact of aerosols, Booth says. Trenberth thinks the team’s adjustments had the effect of fitting the model to an uncertain record. “There is considerable wiggle room in just what the actual record is,” he says.Haustein disputes that the team tailored the model to explain the 20th century warming. “All we did was use available data in the most physically consistent way,” he says. The researchers ran the model from 1500 to 2015, and he says it matches paleoclimate records well, including Europe’s Little Ice Age.If a grand ocean oscillation isn’t shaping climate, a future ocean cooling is unlikely to buy society time to address global warming. But the demise of the AMO also might make it easier to predict what is in store. “All we’re going to get in the future,” Haustein says, “is what we do.” Click to view the privacy policy. Required fields are indicated by an asterisk (*) Soot from industry in Europe and the United States drove Arctic warming a century ago. By Paul VoosenMay. 23, 2019 , 12:15 PMcenter_img Country * Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia, Plurinational State of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d’Ivoire Croatia Cuba Curaçao Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Isle of Man Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People’s Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Norway Oman Pakistan Palestine Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Martin (French part) Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Sint Maarten (Dutch part) Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Vietnam Virgin Islands, British Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Email While industry and agriculture belched greenhouse gases at an increasing pace through the 20th century, global temperature followed a jagged course, surging for 3 decades starting in 1915, leveling off from the 1950s to the late 1970s, and then resuming its climb. For decades, scientists have chalked up these early swings to the planet’s internal variability—in particular, a climatic pacemaker called the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), which is characterized by long-term shifts in ocean temperatures. But researchers are increasingly questioning whether the AMO played the dominant role once thought. The oceanic pacemaker seems to be fluttering.It is now possible to explain the record’s twists and turns almost entirely without the AMO, says Karsten Haustein, a climate scientist at the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom and lead author of a new study published this month in the Journal of Climate. After correcting for the distinct effects of pollution hazes over land and ocean and for flaws in the temperature record, Haustein and his colleagues calculated that the interplay of greenhouse gases and atmospheric pollution almost singlehandedly shaped 20th century climate. “It’s very unlikely there’s this ocean leprechaun that produces cyclicity that we don’t know about,” Haustein says—which means it is also unlikely that a future cool swing in the AMO will blunt the ongoing human-driven warming.Others aren’t convinced the “leprechaun” is entirely vanquished. “They are probably right in that [the AMO] is not as big a player globally as has sometimes been thought,” says Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado. “But my guess is that they underestimate its role a bit.” Humans held responsible for twists and turns of climate change since 1900last_img read more