Slashdot Mirror

Why? Any 'math' either side of the issue presents is based on theories and statistics that may or may not represent the future.

True; actual development has show us that nuclear has a negative learning curve, renewables have positive learning curve, and the growth is constantly underestimated. So, yes, the future seems to be rather clear, save for some kind of unpredictable revolution that can't be counted on.

CNBC cited the wrong article.

Should have cited Measuring Artificial Sweeteners Toxicity Using a Bioluminescent Bacterial Panel.

The CNBC article confuses two studies: Neotame in mice and Artificial sweeteners on a bacterial panel.

The second of these does indeed test the toxicity of all the named sweeteners, albeit only on a model of gut bacteria (bioluminescent E.coli) in a laboratory setting.

Sucralose and neotame were found to inhibit E.coli bioluminescence. Saccharin, aspartame and ace-k induced it.

What does that mean? Your gas is as glowy as mine.

Ftfy

The CNBC article confuses two studies: Neotame in mice and Artificial sweeteners on a bacterial panel.

The second of these does indeed test the toxicity of all the named sweeteners, albeit only on a model of gut bacteria (bioluminescent E.coli) in a laboratory setting.

Sucralose and neotame were found to inhibit E.coli bioluminescence. Saccharin, aspartame and ace-k induced it.

What does that mean? Your gas is as glowy as mine.

Ftfy

Link to the original paper. Not paywalled, sweet. (see what I did there?)

The summaries, mindlessly cut and pasted several levels deep including in the /. summary, really suck. According to the summaries, the bacteria "became toxic". No they didn't, please get a clue.

Directly from the paper in the summary:

Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA
Department of Environmental Health Science, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA
Department of Population Health and Pathobiology, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27607, USA

None of these are Ben-Gurion University or Nanyang Technological University.
The correct paper is:
Measuring Artificial Sweeteners Toxicity Using a Bioluminescent Bacterial Panel

The CNBC article confuses two studies: Neotame in mice and Artificial sweeteners on a bacterial panel.

The second of these does indeed test the toxicity of all the named sweeteners, albeit only on a model of gut bacteria (bioluminescent E.coli) in a laboratory setting.

Sucralose and neotame were found to inhibit E.coli bioluminescence. Saccharin, aspartame and ace-k induced it.

What does that mean? Your guess is as good as mine.

The CNBC article confuses two studies: Neotame in mice and Artificial sweeteners on a bacterial panel.

The second of these does indeed test the toxicity of all the named sweeteners, albeit only on a model of gut bacteria (bioluminescent E.coli) in a laboratory setting.

Sucralose and neotame were found to inhibit E.coli bioluminescence. Saccharin, aspartame and ace-k induced it.

What does that mean? Your guess is as good as mine.

They were actually more diligent than you, as the second link goes to a CNN article, which quotes from a press release that links to a different article, and this article indeed was reporting about six artificial sweeteners: "In this study, the relative toxicity of six FDA-approved artificial sweeteners (aspartame, sucralose, saccharine, neotame, advantame and acesulfame potassium-k (ace-k)) and that of ten sport supplements containing these artificial sweeteners, were tested using genetically modified bioluminescent bacteria from E. coli." So before complaining, always wonder if it is your fault.

To be clear here, because TFS is a mess, there are two separate papers by two separate research teams. The paper described in the first line of the summary is this one, looking at a mix of supplements and how they affected bioluminescent reporting in bacteria. The paper which is linked in the first sentence ( this one ) is the one which looked at Neotame exposed mice, referred to in the last paragraph of TFS.

To be clear here, because TFS is a mess, there are two separate papers by two separate research teams. The paper described in the first line of the summary is this one, looking at a mix of supplements and how they affected bioluminescent reporting in bacteria. The paper which is linked in the first sentence ( this one ) is the one which looked at Neotame exposed mice, referred to in the last paragraph of TFS.

The Prius had a 1.3 kilowatt battery from its early years on.
What about that is not "large format"? How exactly could Chevron justify allowing packs of that size to be made and sold in ever greater numbers but not larger packs made by combining them?
That's like having the patents on a AA battery and allowing devices that use ONE of them to be made but not any that use 2 or more.

If Toyota had any balls they could easily have taken Chevron to court and won.

"Large format" refers to a large rigid prismatic cell design which is not spirally wound. They resemble the old style flooded cell NiCd or NiFe. Figure 9 in the link below shows an example:

http://www.mdpi.com/2313-0105/...

Epidemiology Without Biology: False Paradigms, Unfounded Assumptions, and Specious Statistics in Radiation Science

Bad science is the foundation for radiation regulations, the source of hysteria surrounding nuclear, and the cause of the outrageously increasing costs:

Nuclear Power Learning and Deployment Rates; Disruption and Global Benefits Forgone

This needs to be addressed, because the ordained "green" solutions aren't enough, and while we keep hearing about how cheap they are, they are mostly just making electricity more expensive.

You're applying the wrong toolbox - electrostatics. The macroscopic behavior of charged particles is defined by the domain of plasma physics, not electrostatics. You can observe this simple fact by observing any novelty plasma globe: Plasmas form into filaments within the laboratory, and these filaments conduct electric currents. The filaments tend to wrap around one another without combining, demonstrating both a long-range attraction and a short-range repulsion. What this means, in practice, is that the electric force can be extended to any distance. Wherever the plasma filament goes, it carries with it the electric force.

"Several researchers have reported direct evidence for large scale electric currents along astrophysical jets," and not only that, but in plasma physics, it's not always the case that the plasma emits any light. Plasmas can conduct even while they are in a dark mode - much like the wires in your home, of course.

http://www.mdpi.com/2075-4426/...

If this is real, Apple is very much behind the times when it comes to both sensor technology and understanding of the medical device market. Trying a spectroscopic approach (which appears to be the case) is way out of date, that's a generation behind even the FDA cleared tests, and isn't going to compete with the new generation of sensors being developed now.

There are several approaches to continuous monitoring of glucose, going back more than 10 years.

Many of these technologies, particularly the non-invasive ones, are more available outside the US than inside. This has more to do with the way medical device manufacturers are paid than any technical limitation. Bluntly, being in the glucose monitoring business is a great way to lose a lot of money quickly. Yes, the market is big, but it's brutal. Apple's strength is not dominating low margin, highly regulated markets.

Denialist research Yep, IPCC predictions are old enough you can compare ACTUAL weather data with their predictions, but I see you claim that can't be done. No character assassination, I leave that up to you, I've only presented factual data.

Time for you to say the link is an invalid source instead of debating the data shown. So in other words that would be you refusing to acknowledge actual measurements in order to keep your denial of how science works - hypothesis -> test -> observe results. Its not science if you ignore the observed results part like you appear to be doing.

I'll give you teh tl;dr version first, because I typed as I was doing the research. But you might like to see what I did.

Sorry, Coward - you are wrong follows is my background research on your statement.

Where's the data that the graph came from? That is not a report, it has zero citations. Of what use is work that the only reference is townhall.com?

Where are the cites? I'll grab some info myself, but a chart that I have to fish out the details leads me to this stuff:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFoss...

Professor and Director, Atmospheric Science Department, University of Alabama at Huntsville Alabama State Climatologist. Lead Author, 2001 IPCC TAR.

While he now acknowledges that global warming is real and the human contribution is significant, Christy has been a long-time skeptic who previously argued that satellite climate data do not show a trend toward global warming, and even show cooling in some areas. His findings have been widely disputed. Christy now asserts that global warming will have beneficial effects on the planet and that increased CO2 emissions from human activities are a net positive. some of his key events

17 May, 2000 Testified before Sen. John McCain and the Senate Commerce Committee that there wasn't sufficient evidence of global warming to warrant taking action to reduce emissions.

Source: Transcript, John Christy's testimony before Senate Commerce Committee 5/17/00

8 March, 2007

Appeared in documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle"

Source: The Great Global Warming Swindle (Documentary)

28 July, 2003

Co-author of Indpendent Institute report "New Perspectives in Climate Change: What the EPA Isn't Telling Us" criticizing the EPA's 2001 Climate Action Report.

Source: Independent Institute report 2003

2 May, 2007

Appeared in Glenn Beck May 2, 2007 special "Exposed: The Climate of Fear"

Source: CNN, Glenn Beck special "Exposed: The Climate of Fear," May 2, 2007

Christy was a contributing writer to "Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths," published by Competitive Enterprise Institute in 2002. He spoke at a June 1998 briefing for congressional staff and media, which was sponsored by the Cooler Heads Coalition.

Okay "Climate of fear, eco myths, what the EPA isn't telling us" right away is a little disturbing. I'm surprised he hasn't written an article named All my Scientific enimies are fucking assholes". Those are terribly disrepectful and rude titles.

Christy short CV PhD University of Illinois, 1987, Atmospheric Science M.S. University of Illinois, 1984, Atmospheric Science M.Div. Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, 1978 B.A. California State University, Fresno, 1973, Mathematics

This might be an article that was involved - it was publiched in 2010

http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/...

Christy has done a lot of work with politically based organizations like the Cato Institute.

But a bit of what I could get gives me a few questions. What I could get after separating the science from the politics was that according to the measurements, the issue at hand was that

The cost of said odyssey is around 300 million dollars, and is a one-time cost, with dividends for your leisure society. Specifically, biologically synthesized aramid fibers on the cheap would enable the construction of better buildings for humans to live in, better clothing for humans to wear in hazardous situations, and possible medical applications as suture material. It's something you can get almost for free, when you consider that the scientific trajectory of your leisure society objective also encompasses many of the same goals. The question is not "Why do this", it is 'Why overlook doing this?"

So far, the reason you have given amounts to "because it makes my butt hurt to see other people's dreams come true and not mine!"

Your florid language points to something on the schizophrenic spectrum.

Your own language suggests somebody that is borderline sociopathic. Does everything other people choose to do have to result in your getting something to be considered of value to you?

Care to provide some citations of these mass-extinctions so I can have a TV? (I don't even have a TV BTW).

Sure. The industrialization of china has resulted in the destruction of many species in the yantze river due to overfishing and poorly managed industrial effluent discharging. Further inland, the processing of rare earth metals required to sustain many modern high tech industrial products being manufactured there has caused tremendous loss of biodiversity, and terrible problems for human inhabitants. That's not even counting the consequences of the petro-chemical processing needed to turn crude oil into the plastics necessary to produce the TV, which is having profound and measurable consequences on many animal forms globally. And of course, there's the highly critically acclaimed and "Controversial" issue with fossil fuel use, and the entering of the "anthropocene era", which I dont think really needs a citation, since slashdot covers it basically 5 times a day now.

"Be careful there kettle. It's not wise to call the pot black bottomed."

Your grasp of English idiom is lacking.

Care to elaborate on how I used it incorrectly? That particular epithet is used to discourage people from engaging in hypocrisy. The kettle is being a hypocrite by calling the pot "Black bottomed".

As I have just demonstrated, your "Leisure society" is just as guilty of mass ecosystem tampering for poorly justified reasons as my purposeful creation of a biosphere on a world that currently has none is. I was pointing out that I have just as much "Right" to do so, as you do here on earth.

But please, elaborate on how I misused the idiom.

Lame article, which points to a blog, which points to another blog, which points to the wrong place on a Russian site, which copied the article from The Daily Mail. The Daily Mail, even though a tabloid, has a halfway decent article.

I'm not going to explain inertial guidance; that's what Wikipedia is for. This is better inertial guidance. Here's a popular article which describes this new class of "gyros" and accelerometers. If you really want to know what's going on here, read Advances in Atomic Gyroscopes: A View from Inertial Navigation Applications

Laser "gyros", which work by interferometery and have no moving parts, have been around for decades. The best laser gyros still have more drift, by about 2 orders of magnitude, than the best mechanical gyros. Laser gyro technology has hit the limits of what you can do with photons. The idea here is to do interferometry with coupled atoms, rather than photons. That technology has been slowly improving for a decade or so, and it looks like it's getting close to deployment for high-end applcations.

One of the more interesting possibilities here is chip-scale gyros of moderate precision. Here's a Honewell patent from 2006 for one.

Removing data points that did not fit their model, apply transformations to the data points that are not uniform across the entire dataset, using a filter that generates the same output even if the input was noise. Need I go on?

Yes, because you are repeating hearsay. The GP requested citations. You have provided nothing.

As the GP, I never expect any, because there isn't that much.

I could point out that there has been some suspect or even bad work on AGW. They might cite the study performed by a group in Argentina - The Universal Ecological Fund - was so bad and actually quite preposterous claiming that the planet would warm by 2.4 C - round 4.3 F. Interestingly enough, also from the Guardian.

http://www.theguardian.com/env...

Scientists were all over this study as just plain bad.

And most surprising that the deniers do not quote from the paper "Misdiagnosis of Surface Temeperature Feedback" by Spencer and Braswell.

http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/...

This is the touchstone for AGW deniers who love to claim that NASA's temperature figures are all wrong, and that more heat escapes from the atmosphere than predicted.

Their model had no realistic ocean, no El Niino, nor La Nina, and no hydrological cycle. And all the parameters could be adjusted to give an infinite number of "best fits" from CO2 insensitive to very sensitive.

Some critical reading on the matter:

http://bbickmore.wordpress.com...

http://www.realclimate.org/ind...

In the end, we can pick and choose. We can get our science teachings form Scientists, or we can get our science knowledge from politicians and religious leaders.

The only mention of cloud cover I could find was in the full paper:

FUEGO — Fire Urgency Estimator in Geosynchronous Orbit — A Proposed Early-Warning Fire Detection System

One quote from the paper:

Atmospheric transmission windows in the near and mid-infrared are adequate for detecting fires. Fires
cannot be seen under heavy cloud cover, and can be detected with reduced sensitivity under smoke and
thin clouds, depending on the wavelength of the detectors, smoke particulate size, and moisture content
of the atmospheric column.

In the case of Roundup, a lot of studies have been done testing the danger to human health, and it seems to be no more dangerous than manure.

Well, there have been a lot of studies run by Monsanto that seem to show that. But then there are other studies that show links to Parkinson's and Autism, cancer, degradation of soil nutrients, as well as lethal effects in amphibians, and perhaps most alarming, a recent study found roundup in the urine of 44% of European Union citizens. Not only that, but it seems that it is actually many of the adjucts used in Roundup applications that are being shown to have the most toxicity, an issue most of the studies completely ignore by studying only the glyphosate, instead of the entirety of the compounds being used in such abundance.

There is, I believe, an open question on its effects on our gut bacteria (warning, maybe slightly overambitious conclusions), which could affect nutrient absorption. This, of course, assumes enough of it is getting onto the plate, which is another question for which you can find plenty of unscientific mudslinging (on both sides, really). I guess there's some evidence that it might.

Thanks for the reply. I think we are on the same page with a lot of our ideas.

I am the father (of the newborn) actually, and yes breast-fed... :)

You asked for a reference regarding a pediatrician coining a variation of a latin word for something known until then as a serum sickness: http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/14/8/1399 Download the full PDF version and look at the bottom of page 23.

I initially got a hold of this paper reading some anti-vaxx materials. It's interesting because it goes into the biochemistry of serum applications (vaccines included). The material certainly indicates a lot of details that vaccine development need to consider. And while it may give some credibility to the idea that vaccines can be dangerous, we all need to accept that we are our own last line of defense...

I believe the anti-vaxx view and interpretation of the paper may be an extreme interpretation, however that being said, vaccine studies rely in part on statistical analysis of observations made to exposed organisms. If those observations are not impartial because of some political motivation, then there truly be more merit in concerns regarding vaccines.

My "ref needed" point is because I gleaned that information from someone in a conversation but haven't researched the claim. No wikipedia ref there sorry.

Those saying storms will likely get more frequent and/or severe have theory on their side, but little/no data

They have a hypothesis, with no support in data. There are hypotheses that say that equalized temperature over the globe will lessen the intensity of storms as well (less severe fronts). Until we have more data, it's scientifically wrong to make claims either way.

one of the four models examined (a respected model) predicts fewer strong hurricanes in a warmer world instead. - http://www.earthzine.org/2011/04/16/will-a-warmer-world-be-stormier/

The results suggest that storm-track intensity is not related in a simple way to global-mean surface temperature - http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/10/18/1011547107

Here's another way of extracting storm intensity values from a few decades back, by looking at damages: http://www.springerlink.com/content/v1851121221p0244/

(2) As a division within the Department of Commerce, NOAA is undoubtedly subject to various political pressures to toe the party line. That doesn't necessarily mean that their study is compromised, but I would want to see a confirming study from an independent group before I ascribe much weight to it.

Who's independent? JPL (below)? I'm not sure what you're getting at.

A likely source of the decrease is the change in measurement of MSLP with the cessation of
routine aircraft reconnaissance in 1987. There is no significant trend in intense storms either
before or after 1987 when the two periods are analyzed separately. - http://www.mdpi.com/2073-4433/3/1/124/pdf

A possible clue to the apparent discrepancy is that the increase in overall tornado reports roughly matches that of the U.S. population over this time, suggesting that the trend may be an artifact of greater tornado detection due to increases in population density, awareness of severe weather threats, and modern technological advances such as Doppler radar. At the current time, it is therefore not possible to anticipate even the sign of any climate change in tornado occurrence or strength. - NASA, same earthzine link as above.

Also, more discussion on reporting here: http://www.stanford.edu/~omramom/Diffenbaugh_Eos_08.pdf

My point is that we shouldn't make statements that do not accurately reflect the current state of science.

See, that's the problem. Any scientist that questions it is immediately deemed unqualified or even unethical simply because they have bothered to question it.

Oh come on Archer. The criterion for "suitably qualified" is not whether they personally agree or disagree with any position. It is simply whether they are literally suitably qualified, which is to say, are they working and publishing (in an ISI listed peer reviewed journal, i.e. not a phish journal like E&E) in the field, the holder of a chair in the relevant discipline etc.. And ultimately it's not what scientists say, but what the bulk of the published science says that we must defer to.

Nor is there universal agreement among most expert climatologists. But the baby questions, such as is anthropogenic carbon in the atmosphere rising; are mean global temperatures rising; and are the two causally linked, are now settled in the affirmative. The scientific debate has largely moved on. And recent attempts to revive these questions by the very few suitably qualified scientists who do disagree with the mainstream has invariably resulted in disaster: Witness Lindzen & Choi (2009) (In Lindzen's favour, once the flaws in this paper were pointed out he withdrew it without hesitation), or the debacle surrounding Spencer and Braswell (2011).

Now once he was presented with the body of the science, the editor of Remote Sensing (where Spencer and Braswell appeared) realised he'd been duped and took the appropriate course of action (for which see the link above). When are you going to wake up Archer, and face up to the fact that you've been duped too?

If you actually read the paper and not the incredibly hyped press releases, the paper basically disclaims the validity of its own results. Note the following paragraph, immediately before the conclusions:

Our preliminary work on this issue suggests no simple answer to the question. We conclude that the fundamental obstacle to feedback diagnosis remains the same, no matter what time lag is addressed: without knowledge of time-varying radiative forcing components in the satellite radiative flux measurements, feedback cannot be accurately diagnosed from the co-variations between radiative flux and temperature.

The entire paper is about to trying to analyze the feedback from the co-variation between radiative flux and temperature-- this sentence basically says that, in their analysis, the analysis cannot be done accurately.

Basically, the paper does not "blow holes in global warming"-- what it does is say that this particular technique is not able to accurately discriminate the feedback function.

Why is this claptrap from a creationist, which is not published in a climatology journal but one about remote sensing technology, being treated like it was actual climate science?

From the article:

"It is concluded that atmospheric feedback diagnosis of the climate system remains an unsolved problem, due primarily to the inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in satellite radiative budget observations."

http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf

It's about cloud coverage. So it makes it harder to make accurate warming models.

But here are some fun facts. The global temperature has been rising over the past 10 years. Each summer has been hotter then the previous. There have been more droughts each year. Climate extremes (warmer summers, colder winters, harsher storms) have been increasing each year. Each climate event we have experienced has been consistent with global warming models.

So by all means bury your head in the ground and pretend food prices are not going up and electrical grid demands aren't increasing and water rationing aren't happening.

Remote Sensing (ISSN 2072-4292), an open access journal about the science and application of remote sensing technology, is published by MDPI online monthly.

Were the reviewers qualified to review this paper? I don't know.

Is this a high quality journal? I don't know.

Did he submit this to a zillion journals until he got lucky and one finally accepted it? I don't know.

What I do know is that if it is a crank paper, it wouldn't be the first one to get into a peer reviewed journal. Peer-review doesn't automatically make something "science", standing up to continued scrutiny by critical and qualified people makes something science. Peer-review is just one of many filters.

You don't know a lot of things, but you've already passed judgment. Glad you're looking at this scientifically.

The paper doesn't do anything close to what the summary suggests, nor what either story suggests. The submitter is basically trolling it up.

The paper is available for all to read here: http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf

Basically, they are talking about lack of model sensitivity for non-radiative feedback, which is something that was already known. The models on a MONTHLY basis don't go high enough on the maximums and don't go low enough on the minimums (and there is a lag). Or in other words, the models get the general predictions right (warmer temperatures) but don't capture shorter term variability as well (heat waves, cold snaps).

Of course, it's already well known that climate models don't capture short term variability very well. However, this paper helps quantify that and provides some insights on how to better improve that aspect of modeling.

Or if you don't want to read the whole paper just skip to the conclusions sections, which mention nothing about invalidating global warming or the science thereof.

How that gets translated into "New Study Trashes Global Warming" is beyond me.

Remote Sensing (ISSN 2072-4292), an open access journal about the science and application of remote sensing technology, is published by MDPI online monthly.

Were the reviewers qualified to review this paper? I don't know.

Is this a high quality journal? I don't know.

Did he submit this to a zillion journals until he got lucky and one finally accepted it? I don't know.

What I do know is that if it is a crank paper, it wouldn't be the first one to get into a peer reviewed journal. Peer-review doesn't automatically make something "science", standing up to continued scrutiny by critical and qualified people makes something science. Peer-review is just one of many filters.

Anyone who is inclined to give a lot of weight to this "alarmist" press release should first read this, on a previous paper from Roy Spencer. Note this

what he gets through peer-review is far less threatening to the mainstream picture of anthropogenic global warming than you’d think from the spin he puts on it in press releases, presentations and the blogosphere.

Now, also read the paper, and note this

It is concluded that atmospheric feedback diagnosis of the climate system remains an unsolved problem, due primarily to the inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in satellite radiative budget observations.

Hmm, doesn't sound like the press release or the Forbes article much, does it ?

Use the above and your judgement to figure out just how much weight to give the above.

The guy who wrote this article is a little biased. The original paper is available online for those who want to see what it really has to say.
http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf

"You don't have to be really patient... plates move at 2-10 cm/year so you'd start getting GPS data within 2-5 years"

It's faster than that. A few days/weeks of monitoring with the right equipment is sufficient at a given station (these are *not* handheld GPS units!), allowing the motion of entire regions to be studied from many points in a year or two of fieldwork moving the stations around. And many regions now have permanently mounted GPS networks to monitor continuously. A couple of years of continuous data is sufficient to get great detail and precision. That allows geologists to study not only the motion of entire plates, but the details of deformation of mountain ranges at the plate boundaries and the effects of individual earthquakes -- essentially real-time monitoring of the motion of the Earth's surface at millimetre precision. Here are a few papers [PDF].

If you want to know how fast you are moving at your own location with respect to a given reference frame try this, which is derived from current whole-Earth models of plate motion. Please note that it probably won't be accurate in areas with complex deformation near plate boundaries (it models the plates as rigid), but if you're within the plate somewhere it will be a reasonable approximation.

One of the coolest analogies of scale ever: the plates move at about the same rate that your fingernails grow.