Slashdot Mirror

Let's do a brain test on you. Please cite at least one peer-reviewed, scientific study that demonstrates CO2 greenhouse gas effect.

Here's one:

Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010

Abstract (emphasis mine):

The climatic impact of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is usually quantified in terms of radiative forcing, calculated as the difference between estimates of the Earth’s radiation field from pre-industrial and present-day concentrations of these gases. Radiative transfer models calculate that the increase in CO2 since 1750 corresponds to a global annual-mean radiative forcing at the tropopause of 1.82 ± 0.19 W m2. However, despite widespread scientific discussion and modelling of the climate impacts of well-mixed greenhouse gases, there is little direct observational evidence of the radiative impact of increasing atmospheric CO2. Here we present observationally based evidence of clear-sky CO2 surface radiative forcing that is directly attributable to the increase, between 2000 and 2010, of 22 parts per million atmospheric CO2. The time series of this forcing at the two locations—the Southern Great Plains and the North Slope of Alaska—are derived from Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer spectra together with ancillary measurements and thoroughly corroborated radiative transfer calculations. The time series both show statistically significant trends of 0.2 W m2 per decade (with respective uncertainties of ±0.06 W m2 per decade and ±0.07 W m2 per decade) and have seasonal ranges of 0.1–0.2 W m2. This is approximately ten per cent of the trend in downwelling longwave radiation. These results confirm theoretical predictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic emissions, and provide empirical evidence of how rising CO2 levels, mediated by temporal variations due to photosynthesis and respiration, are affecting the surface energy balance.

How about this one? http://www.climatechangenews.c... That appears to be a news report on this study: https://www.nature.com/article...

To weigh them in the manner you suggest they would have to have built in associations between places and these racial groups.

Not in the program, no.

Cite proof. The source code can be audited. Surely court cases could demand it. Where is the evidence?

Like I said, it's not in the program. The program doesn't know that race is a thing, it's not programmed explicitly to be racist, it's just learned to make decisions similar to the ones it's been trained on, which have a racial bias that is only reflected in proxy factors. The program only "knows" that certain values for these proxy factors are bad, especially in combination. But it's not so easy to audit the "source code" of neural networks anyway.

That means the correlating element is not race... its ability.

This would only be true if the training data was completely free of racial bias. If you want to argue that, we'll have to agree to disagree, which I'd be glad to do considering that you're ignoring a well-known problem with machine learning algorithms trained on biased human decisions which I can link to again. But you won't read it, you'll stick your head in the sand and call it a liberal witch hunt. Why, I wonder.

Source? Of course you don't have knee because your lying.

OK...I'd think by know you ACs would know better than to challenge me.

This one is to show R&D and clinical trial costs are inflated.

https://www.npr.org/sections/h...

And this one is to show that profit is being reported as costs when a pharma does R&D and clinical trials (this one might be behind a paywall for you).

https://www.nature.com/article...

Forbes did a survey of 100 pharmaceutical companies. The average estimate they gave for the cost of developing a new prescription drug and bringing it to market was $5 billion (with a "b"). It turns out that the average new drug costs $30-40 million for R&D plus clinical trials.

Re: "... and requires us to throw away the last 100 years of progress ..."

This is really the crux of the debate: You view cosmology, the planetary sciences and astrophysics as functioning domains of science devoid of any persistent mysteries even as the scientists themselves admit the problems ...

"Astronomy: Planets in chaos

The discovery of thousands of star systems wildly different from our own has demolished ideas about how planets form. Astronomers are searching for a whole new theory.

Over the past 15 years, for example, experiments designed to detect individual particles of dark matter have become a million times more sensitive, and yet no signs of these elusive particles have appeared. And although the Large Hadron Collider has by all technical standards performed beautifully, with the exception of the Higgs boson, no new particles or other phenomena have been discovered.

The stubborn elusiveness of dark matter has left many scientists both surprised and confused. We had what seemed like very good reasons to expect particles of dark matter to be discovered by now. And yet the hunt continues, and the mystery deepens.

In many ways, we have only more open questions now than we did a decade or two ago. And at times, it can seem that the more precisely we measure our universe, the less we understand it. Throughout the second half of the 20th century, theoretical particle physicists were often very successful at predicting the kinds of particles that would be discovered as accelerators became increasingly powerful. It was a truly impressive run.

But our prescience seems to have come to an end -- the long-predicted particles associated with our favorite and most well-motivated theories have stubbornly refused to appear. Perhaps the discoveries of such particles are right around the corner, and our confidence will soon be restored. But right now, there seems to be little support for such optimism.

In response, droves of physicists are going back to their chalkboards, revisiting and revising their assumptions. With bruised egos and a bit more humility, we are desperately attempting to find a new way to make sense of our world."

Based on theoretical studies of how magnetism is generated in stars, it’s thought that the fully convective interiors of ultracool dwarfs can’t support large-scale magnetic field formation. This should prevent these stars from exhibiting activity cycles like the Sun. But recent radio observations of dwarf stars have led scientist Matthew Route (ITaP Research Computing, Purdue University) to question these models ...

Inspired by this possibility, Route conducted an investigation of the long-term magnetic behavior of all known radio-flaring ultracool dwarfs, a list of 14 stars. Using polarized radio emission measurements, he found that many of his targets exhibited similar polarity flips, which he argues is evidence that these dwarfs are undergoing magnetic field reversals on roughly decade-long timescales, analogous to those reversals that occur in the Sun.

If this is indeed true, then we need to examine our models of how magnetic fields are generated in stars ...

Planetary scientists have admitted that they have no idea how to construct the vast majority of the exoplanetary systems which have been observed using existing theory. Cosmologists have admitted that they cannot -- using your cherished approach -- explain basic observations for how galaxies rotate.

Solar scientists cannot even explain how it is that the solar wind fails to appreciably decelerate even as it passes the Earth's orbit (in the lab, we accelerate such particles w/ electric fiel

In my country the temperature varies from -30 C in winter, and +30 C in summer. If the themperatures chang in the future to -29 C in winter, and +31 C in summer. Why should this change the climate so much as it is claimed, when there is already a 60 C change year around?? I call BS on the climatechange.

This lake is almost always covered in ice year round and, from 2007 to 2012 had a mean summer temperatures of -4.9C. The increase in temperature is warming and melting the surrounding permafrost, which drains into the lake, raising both its level and temperature ... This affects the algae and fish in the lake, which affects the people that fish the lake -- as well as everything downstream.

From: Lake Hazen

Although air temperatures in this area often rise above 10C in July and August, Lake Hazen remains ice covered in most years.

From the actual study in Nature The world’s largest High Arctic lake responds rapidly to climate warming. (linked in the TFA):

A decrease in seasonal ice cover resulted in warming of surface waters and, more importantly, allowed planktonic algae to fill a niche which was previously climatically inaccessible, re-organizing the ecology of the lake at the base of the foodweb.

Collectively, rising air temperatures, increasing glacial melt and runoff, decreasing summer lake ice cover, shifts in primary producer communities and declining fish condition demonstrate the coupling between watershed changes and in-lake conditions and processes.

This vast, deep lake, the High Arctic’s largest freshwater ecosystem, has experienced drastic changes in the last decade, despite its volume, thermal inertia and hypothesized resilience to climate change.

Such changes, and their consequences, are certain to increase further as warming of northern latitudes continues into the future, undoubtedly jeopardizing the security of traditional freshwater foods and other ecosystem services for northern Indigenous peoples throughout the Arctic.

Well, how about looking at a few actual facts:

"Random YouTube guys facts are true but peer-reviewed study from journal Nature is not."

https://www.nature.com/article...

You can avoid acrylamide in cooked food by (1) eating meat or (2) eating boiled food. So... meat and potatoes! Specifically roasted meat and boiled potatoes.

FWIW, you cannot avoid acrylamide in roasted meats. Acrylamide is a byproduct of the Maillard reaction. Basically applying high heat anything that has sugars and amino acids (specifically asparagine which is found in meat, eggs, dairy, as well as potatoes, asparagus and other vegetables and most foods you eat). You would need to also "boil" both the meat and potatoes to avoid the Maillard reaction which creates this chemical.

To make things worse, there was a recent study that potentially implicates the amino-acid asparagine itself in the spread of cancer... Of course, you can't avoid asparagine because like nearly every food source, humans produce asparagine as part of their normal existence so if you avoid eating it you body will likely crank up it's own production to make up for the deficit.

Short story: we may simply all be doomed in this respect. Perhaps just eat/drink what you want?

So, now that we're actually looking at the data, it's clear that the main conclusion of the paper is only one of many that could be drawn. The biggest alternative conclusion is that students who adapt their sleep schedule to their class times do better than students who don't. The main argument of the authors is that it "may be difficult" for people to change their sleep schedule, and cite jeg lag studies, without ever addressing that jet lag clearly does not last an academic term and within a few days most people are functioning normally. I think the jet lag studies more clearly show that people can and do change their sleep schedules, and that it may take a week or two to do so.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-23044-8#Sec7

Looks like a shit study. Determining a student's circadian cycle from just analyzing the "learning management system login events for 14,894 Northeastern Illinois University (NEIU)" seems a stretch. And the study doesn't seem to differentiate between a student that has the bad habit of staying up too late for a reason like socializing, which would also be in indicator of poor academic performance (kid prefers to party rather than study) versus a student who is a "midnight owl" chronotype.

You're exactly right.

I took a brief look through the paper. Table 3, glia (rightmost columns) seems to sum up this study nicely. Control group had 817 mice, 3 malignant brain tumors. Highest dose had 409 mice, 3 with malignant brain tumors. Not a significant difference in this entire table at any dose in any sub-population, even at p = 0.05 levels.

Table 2 focused on schwannomas, and they had to dig deep to male mice at highest exposure (n = 207) to get a significantly significant (at p = 0.05) difference. We're talking 3 / 207 male mice with malignant schwannomas at highest exposure. The control males had no cases (n = 412), but we're really in the weeds here where a stochastic variation of +/- 1 mouse makes a huge difference in their tallies. No other significant difference in any other dose in any other sub-population in any other table in this paper.

Kaplan-Meier survival curves (Figure 3 g-h) look just about identical for all doses: we're not seeing a big difference in survival times at any doses. And there's no effort to estimate error bars for those curves. That's a hint about (lack of) replicates.

From what I can see, there was exactly one replicate for each group / arm (e.g., mice exposed to a specific dose). This is not good, because technical and biological variability can cause flukes and false differences. 1 technical replicate per arm: if a technician had a bad day or screwed up a protocol when the exposing the mice to the highest dose, your one measurement set could be off. 1 biological replicate per arm: a weird batch of mice, or a batch of sick mice, etc., could throw off your one measurement set for the arm. Most cell line experiments we've worked with have at least 3 technical and biological replicates, in very controlled culture conditions. You'd be amazed at the variability, even in "identical" cells.

Oh, and read the neat Nature story (summary) where the sex of the scientist performing the experiments on mice can cause statistically significant differences. Because the male and female scents in our clothing can actually induce stress hormone changes in mice. Experiments are sensitive. Replicates are a good thing.

"it's pretty darn easy for me"

Is your sample too small? Because it's not always easy for qualified scientists and medical doctors to assign a sex based on visual appearance.

And it gets even harder when more than external appearances are taken into account.

https://www.nature.com/news/se...

In 2016, The Journal Nature published a story by Monya Baker, where more than 70% of 1,576 researchers tried and failed to reproduce other scientist's experiments [2].

Even worse, many did claim to have reproduced the Pons and Fleischmann Cold Fusion experiment shortly after their press release in 1989 [3]. So many in fact, Nathan Lewis of Cal Tech quipped "Cold fusion has been verified by no university without a good football team" [4].

The problem has been around for decades. I'm thinking there might be reasons, like patents, contracts, grants, money, and prestige. It could be that science, or at least a bunch of scientists, ain't what they're cracked up to be. Or maybe football appendages and their cozens just aren't that important.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis

[2]https://www.nature.com/news/1-500-scientists-lift-the-lid-on-reproducibility-1.19970

[3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleischmann%E2%80%93Pons_experiment

https://bwi.forums.rivals.com/threads/scientists-fleischmann-and-pons-cold-fusion-or-cold-illusion-25-years-later.10260/

RTFA:

"Using a recently developed index of severe winter weather, we show that the occurrence of severe winter weather in the United States is significantly related to anomalies in pan-Arctic geopotential heights and temperatures" https://www.nature.com/article...

It often explains what's missing from a headline and summary....

Although it is an elegant theory, I don't think anyone has developed a way to validate it yet and the Nobel committee generally isn't persuaded by elegant theories that may or may not turn out to be wrong...

Some researchers created an acoustic version of a black hole, that followed the same mathematical model, and exhibited Hawking radiation.

Not exactly the same thing, of course, but if our current modelling of black hole physics is correct, they should also exhibit Hawking radiation.

JunoCAM, which is a seriously downgraded camera system (there is barely a zoom on the lens), almost wasn't even included on this mission since NASA felt visual observations were unnecessary and wouldn't provide anything useful scientifically.

Let's take a look at the data sources for the papers as described in their abstracts...

• Doppler tracking of Juno's orbit.
• Measurements of Jupiter's gravity field by Juno's onboard instrument suite.
• Gravity data from a source not described in the abstract.
• A combination of visual (JunoCAM) and infared (JIRAM) measurements.

 
And if that weren't damming enough, the last paper doesn't even belong in this set - it's about the polar storms, not the deep jet streams. (In fact, it seems to imply that the storms are shallow phenomena.)

Just imagine we could have had even better visuals than this if a larger more sophisticated camera was included.

Better visuals are cool and all... But better visuals don't mean better science, they mean different science because a heavier camera would mean downgrading or displacing other instruments.

JunoCAM, which is a seriously downgraded camera system (there is barely a zoom on the lens), almost wasn't even included on this mission since NASA felt visual observations were unnecessary and wouldn't provide anything useful scientifically.

Let's take a look at the data sources for the papers as described in their abstracts...

• Doppler tracking of Juno's orbit.
• Measurements of Jupiter's gravity field by Juno's onboard instrument suite.
• Gravity data from a source not described in the abstract.
• A combination of visual (JunoCAM) and infared (JIRAM) measurements.

 
And if that weren't damming enough, the last paper doesn't even belong in this set - it's about the polar storms, not the deep jet streams. (In fact, it seems to imply that the storms are shallow phenomena.)

Just imagine we could have had even better visuals than this if a larger more sophisticated camera was included.

Better visuals are cool and all... But better visuals don't mean better science, they mean different science because a heavier camera would mean downgrading or displacing other instruments.

JunoCAM, which is a seriously downgraded camera system (there is barely a zoom on the lens), almost wasn't even included on this mission since NASA felt visual observations were unnecessary and wouldn't provide anything useful scientifically.

Let's take a look at the data sources for the papers as described in their abstracts...

• Doppler tracking of Juno's orbit.
• Measurements of Jupiter's gravity field by Juno's onboard instrument suite.
• Gravity data from a source not described in the abstract.
• A combination of visual (JunoCAM) and infared (JIRAM) measurements.

 
And if that weren't damming enough, the last paper doesn't even belong in this set - it's about the polar storms, not the deep jet streams. (In fact, it seems to imply that the storms are shallow phenomena.)

Just imagine we could have had even better visuals than this if a larger more sophisticated camera was included.

Better visuals are cool and all... But better visuals don't mean better science, they mean different science because a heavier camera would mean downgrading or displacing other instruments.

JunoCAM, which is a seriously downgraded camera system (there is barely a zoom on the lens), almost wasn't even included on this mission since NASA felt visual observations were unnecessary and wouldn't provide anything useful scientifically.

Let's take a look at the data sources for the papers as described in their abstracts...

• Doppler tracking of Juno's orbit.
• Measurements of Jupiter's gravity field by Juno's onboard instrument suite.
• Gravity data from a source not described in the abstract.
• A combination of visual (JunoCAM) and infared (JIRAM) measurements.

 
And if that weren't damming enough, the last paper doesn't even belong in this set - it's about the polar storms, not the deep jet streams. (In fact, it seems to imply that the storms are shallow phenomena.)

Just imagine we could have had even better visuals than this if a larger more sophisticated camera was included.

Better visuals are cool and all... But better visuals don't mean better science, they mean different science because a heavier camera would mean downgrading or displacing other instruments.

There's a big difference between growth of cells (they get bigger) and proliferation of cells (they divide to create new cells), and so it's important to be careful. (I've been working on modeling both cell growth and cell division for a good while, mostly in cancer and a little in tissue engineering and synthetic biology. e.g., here.)

I looked at the study. They stained for Ki-67, the gold standard immunohistochemical marker for cell division. Cells that are actively cycling--in late G1, S, G2, and M phase, and a smidgen of G1 phase after division because Ki67 protein doesn't instantaneously degrade--stain positive for this marker. In particular, it is a nuclear marker, so the stain is localized to the cell nucleus, and the stain is very definitive. It's one of the easiest immunostains to do image processing on, because you can do nuclear segmentation, then analyze the colors in the segmented nuclei to see if they stained positive or negative for Ki-67.

And that Ki-67 marker was virtually non-existent in the region of interest in all the samples above 13 years old. See Figure 2. This is *the* universal gold standard marker for cell division used across pathology and experimental biology. So yes, the study indeed found no proliferating cells in the GCL. And then they used this "young neuronal cell" marker (DCX+PSA-NCAM+ cells) to further confirm what they already saw in Ki67.

Also, the Nature link is the *summary* of the paper, and not the actual paper. It's pretty common for the big journals to ask for a non-involved scientist in the same field to write a summary and commentary when a potentially controversial or significant paper comes out. Here's the actual paper.

There's a big difference between growth of cells (they get bigger) and proliferation of cells (they divide to create new cells), and so it's important to be careful. (I've been working on modeling both cell growth and cell division for a good while, mostly in cancer and a little in tissue engineering and synthetic biology. e.g., here.)

I looked at the study. They stained for Ki-67, the gold standard immunohistochemical marker for cell division. Cells that are actively cycling--in late G1, S, G2, and M phase, and a smidgen of G1 phase after division because Ki67 protein doesn't instantaneously degrade--stain positive for this marker. In particular, it is a nuclear marker, so the stain is localized to the cell nucleus, and the stain is very definitive. It's one of the easiest immunostains to do image processing on, because you can do nuclear segmentation, then analyze the colors in the segmented nuclei to see if they stained positive or negative for Ki-67.

And that Ki-67 marker was virtually non-existent in the region of interest in all the samples above 13 years old. See Figure 2. This is *the* universal gold standard marker for cell division used across pathology and experimental biology. So yes, the study indeed found no proliferating cells in the GCL. And then they used this "young neuronal cell" marker (DCX+PSA-NCAM+ cells) to further confirm what they already saw in Ki67.

Also, the Nature link is the *summary* of the paper, and not the actual paper. It's pretty common for the big journals to ask for a non-involved scientist in the same field to write a summary and commentary when a potentially controversial or significant paper comes out. Here's the actual paper.

There's a big difference between growth of cells (they get bigger) and proliferation of cells (they divide to create new cells), and so it's important to be careful. (I've been working on modeling both cell growth and cell division for a good while, mostly in cancer and a little in tissue engineering and synthetic biology. e.g., here.)

I looked at the study. They stained for Ki-67, the gold standard immunohistochemical marker for cell division. Cells that are actively cycling--in late G1, S, G2, and M phase, and a smidgen of G1 phase after division because Ki67 protein doesn't instantaneously degrade--stain positive for this marker. In particular, it is a nuclear marker, so the stain is localized to the cell nucleus, and the stain is very definitive. It's one of the easiest immunostains to do image processing on, because you can do nuclear segmentation, then analyze the colors in the segmented nuclei to see if they stained positive or negative for Ki-67.

And that Ki-67 marker was virtually non-existent in the region of interest in all the samples above 13 years old. See Figure 2. This is *the* universal gold standard marker for cell division used across pathology and experimental biology. So yes, the study indeed found no proliferating cells in the GCL. And then they used this "young neuronal cell" marker (DCX+PSA-NCAM+ cells) to further confirm what they already saw in Ki67.

Also, the Nature link is the *summary* of the paper, and not the actual paper. It's pretty common for the big journals to ask for a non-involved scientist in the same field to write a summary and commentary when a potentially controversial or significant paper comes out. Here's the actual paper.

But the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere just doesn't appear to be capable of being the big bogey man everyone is trying to make it out to be.

For your edification here is a link to a study that measured the change in forcing from the increase in CO2 over about a decade. It found a statistically significant trend of an increase in forcing of 0.2 W/m^2 per decade.

Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010

And there's a PDF copy of the whole thing here so you don't need a subscription to Nature to read it.

CO2 is, however, a direct by product of an industrialized society so stopping CO2 emissions would mean slowing down industry. And if you follow the money trail, in the US at least, when the USSR collapsed the US based Communists needed to go somewhere else to ply their trade so they joined the environmentalism movements. What better way to destroy capitalism then to claim the artifacts of a capitalist society are going to destroy all life on the planet by increasing plant food - CO2 ? Hard to see how our current levels of CO2 can destroy life when during the reign of the dinosaurs the atmosphere had CO2 levels in the range of 2000ppm and we're only at 400ppm.

I find that when people start bringing in economic arguments that they are very motivated to just ignore the science as if economics trumps science. That's a pretty dangerous attitude. If some of the high end predictions about AGW come to pass it won't destroy life on Earth but it could well cause the collapse of human civilization. The Earth doesn't care. It will just respond to whatever the inputs are. Even if AGW causes a massive die off and extinction of significant parts of the biosphere after a few million years evolution will bring it back, but not necessarily with humans in the mix.

LDPE is like a sponge and it absorbs lots of other crap as it floats around for years in the ocean. Crap that you don't want in a fish's belly, but even uncontaminated PE can be problematic for a fish.

Saying PE is basically harmless is an over simplification and really only applies to normal uses of the material. There are exceptional cases where it can cause harm. It's the business of researchers to look at exceptional cases and see how our assumptions match up to reality.

Did you actually read any of those links from WUWT? As usual, what that blog claims and what the papers really say are often quite different. Here, let me list them for you, along with quotes from their abstracts:
Jevrejeva, Moore, Grinsted, and Woodworth 2008:

We provide observational evidence that sea level acceleration up to the present has been about 0.01 mm/yr^2 and appears to have started at the end of the 18th century. Sea level rose by 6 cm during the 19th century and 19 cm in the 20th century... the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates of sea level are probably too low.

Thomas Frederikse 2017:

Over the same period [1958-2014], the reconstruction shows a positive acceleration of 0.07 ± 0.02 mm yr^2

Dieng, Cazenave, Meyssignac, Ablain 2017:

An important increase of the GMSL rate, of 0.8 mm/yr, is found during the second half of the altimetry era (2004–2015) compared to the 1993–2004 time span, mostly due to Greenland mass loss increase and also to slight increase of all other components of the budget.

Chen, Zhang, Church, Watson, King, Monselesan, Legresy & Harig 2017:

Here we show that the rise, from the sum of all observed contributions to GMSL, increases from 2.2 ± 0.3mmyr1 in 1993 to 3.3 ± 0.3mmyr1 in 2014. This is in approximate agreement with observed increase in GMSL rise, 2.4 ± 0.2mmyr1 (1993) to 2.9 ± 0.3mmyr1 (2014), from satellite observations that have been adjusted for small systematic drift.

The single cited paper that didn't solidly confirm the accelerating rise of global mean sea level was Holgate 2007, who merely found "high variability in the rates of sea level change", and suggested that the first half of the 20th century rose a little faster than the second half. But that study was based solely on just nine "carefully selected" tide level gauges (where the selection criteria are thinly described at best).

Apparently they're tasty. From the article in Nature:

"Julia Jones, a conservation scientist at Bangor University, UK, who first identified4 marbled crayfish in Madagascar in 20074, says that the species’ spread is due largely to their popularity as a food source. In 2009, she met a man on a bus carrying a plastic bag full of them that he planned to dump into his rice fields in the hope of creating a sustainable stock, she says.

"Stopping their spread in Madagascar will be “almost impossible”, says Lyko. Collaborators there have begun campaigns urging people not to transport them or release them into rice fields. The message is a hard sell in a country where poverty levels are high and marbled crayfish are a cheap and popular source of protein. Lyko’s colleague brought a few dozen that she had caught to a family barbecue. “This went down quite well,” he says."

https://www.nature.com/article... Nobody knows. Best hypothesis is that it was a lucky mutation.

I thought it was because they were using pH to which would be affected by H2 and CO2. But it turns out they're actually interested in H2, O2 and CO2

https://www.nature.com/article...

Researches have previously shown that the microbial community of the intestine can be rapidly and reproducibly modulated by food19. Our data are complemented by the analysis of the microbial community of the faecal samples and metabolomic analysis of faecal short chain fatty acids (SCFA). The focus of our discussion is on the O2, H2 and, to some extent, CO2 profiles. O2 is chosen due to the fact that different segments of the gut have very different O2 concentration levels. Furthermore, and because the movement of the capsules through the gut is governed by the type of dietary intake, we examined whether the O2 profile can be used to identify the location of the capsule and the speed of food passage through each segment. This process of localizing the position of the capsule in the gastrointestinal tract is benchmarked with ultrasound31.

To investigate fermentation of the food intake in the gut both CO2 and H2 profiles were obtained. However, the H2 profiles are of more interest here, as CO2 profile can still be interfered with the respiratory production. H2 plays an important role in understanding the microbial fermentation of the food in the gut as it appears in their metabolic pathways. Gut fermentation is the anaerobic process by which most small bowel and colonic microbes gain energy from unabsorbed food. From previous flatus and measurements in vitro, it is known that H2 excretion varies markedly with different food substrates. H2 by-production is critical for initiating and continuous fermentation, while excessive H2 is thermodynamically counterproductive, restricting further fermentation. This is naturally mitigated as H2 concentration is regulated by its simultaneous oxidation, which is conducted by three main groups of H2-utilizing microbes: reductive acetogens, methanogens and sulphate-reducing bacteria10. These microbes, together with flatus and breath excretion, dynamically reduce H2 concentration. Overall, the first step to understand the food fermentation in the gut is measuring the dynamics of H2 in situ, which has so far not been possible. The capabilities of our gas capsule in measuring H2 are explored in this work through modulating the dietary fibre content (excluding readily fermentable carbohydrates) of the food intake of the subjects in various scenarios.

no, reputable scientists aren't and don't point to a weather event and say it was due to climate change.

Sure they don't...

Clostridium difficile disease has recently increased to become a dominant nosocomial pathogen in North America and Europe, although little is known about what has driven this emergence. Here we show that two epidemic ribotypes (RT027 and RT078) have acquired unique mechanisms to metabolize low concentrations of the disaccharide trehalose. RT027 strains contain a single point mutation in the trehalose repressor that increases the sensitivity of this ribotype to trehalose by more than 500-fold. Furthermore, dietary trehalose increases the virulence of a RT027 strain in a mouse model of infection. RT078 strains acquired a cluster of four genes involved in trehalose metabolism, including a PTS permease that is both necessary and sufficient for growth on low concentrations of trehalose. We propose that the implementation of trehalose as a food additive into the human diet, shortly before the emergence of these two epidemic lineages, helped select for their emergence and contributed to hypervirulence.

I haven't read the paper and don't have a background in it. Reviewers do sometimes make mistakes obviously. But you'd be an idiot to say this is "just an unproven possibility." Leave spewing "meh, scientists, what do they know, just a theory" FUD to the sleazeballs hired by the relevant industry. If you have an actual critique of their methods, by all means, post it here and on pubmed commons or wherever else. Publish a response in nature even. But don't fucking parrot cigarette company lawyers, climate change deniers, and creationists, here on slashdot.

...highlight the unintended consequences of introducing otherwise harmless additives to the food supply.

It seems like this 'highlights' one unique and unproven possibility, and nothing more. Getting ahead of ourselves....

Actually, reading the paper over in Nature (sorry, paywall) and good science reporting from the kinds of places that'll link you straight to Nature? They're very clear that they've not gotten to do human trials--which is understandable, you're not going to get to do them without the paper, and even then you might have a severe amount of trouble getting permission to do them given that C. diff can be fatal.

What it highlights, really, is that the current methods used to determine if a food additive is harmless are stupid. Animal models are only good at telling us if it's safe for that species--in this specific case, some of the weaknesses the researchers behind the paper note is that we don't know if trehalose makes it far enough in the human intestine to reach where C. diff gets found. (It totally does in mice.) The models they used, however, were a lot closer to human than is usual for safety testing: the mice were modified and set up to have human-like gut flora, which is what was required to catch this problem. That said, given that the enzyme required to break down trehalose is not abundant even in those people who have it? It's likely that the mouse models are close enough.

And shame on both the LA Times and /. for not ensuring that there was a link to the original article or at least a DOI.

It is the job of government to think long term. Even if that is their job how can they realistically do that as leadership changes due to elections? Businesses would naturally have a much longer term outlook.

and ideally to show their work.

Problem is, they can't even do that. Governments have been among some of the worst entities for being transparent with data or how data is arrived at.

Of course for government to make decisions like that, you first have to get people to believe in the scientific method and related fields.

Why would they when supposed real scientists do not? They are also altering data sets, massaging data to fit conclusions, laughing off people who want to review work. In such an environment you can't just say "trust the scientific method" because it does not apply any more.

Mr Trump has proclaimed thåat he is going to Make America Great Again without really defining what that means in a quantifiable way. In my opinion a great country would do the math, protect the rights of both the majority and the minority

Since when has a politician really been quantifiable? By the way, you and Mr Trump agree that he should be protecting the rights of the majority and the minority. That is what he has been doing...

And above all, we value the dignity of every human life, protect the rights of every person, and share the hope of every soul to live in freedom. That is who we are.

Both of those papers deal with overestimation for a particular 15 year period (1998 - 2013) and the second is based on tropospheric satellite measurements rather than ground temperature measurement like the first study. There have are disputing papers that say the divergence is within the bounds of natural variability, and this nature article seems to sum up the divergence issue: "There is no evidence for a change in the long-term warming trend, he says, and there are always a host of reasons why a short-term trend might diverge — and why the climate models might not capture that divergence."

In any case, there have been multiple developments that indicate that the temperature record was biased low over the period both your papers consider in several areas: ocean warming, temperature coverage at the poles, and systematic errors in satellite measurements. Each of which has been found to have a small, but significant, effect on the temperature record. It doesn't look like Fyfe and company have released a new paper that accounts for those issues, yet.

Here's an article explaining why your "climate models are inaccurate" assertion is wrong.

Here's a paper for CMIP5 and here's the Chapter of the AR5 assessment on climate-model agreement.

I don't expect you'll actually read them, though.

Your point is valid, but your example is not. There are steel-aluminum alloys, but they tend to be brittle. A South Korean research team claims to have found a solution to this, but I haven't heard of any commercial uses.

Bah, why let actual facts get in the way of fringe fake news?

Your point is valid, but your example is not. There are steel-aluminum alloys, but they tend to be brittle. A South Korean research team claims to have found a solution to this, but I haven't heard of any commercial uses.

If you read the literature, most eye damage from viewing solar eclipses is temporary and heals within 6 months. There are cases reported of suspected permanent loss in acuity, but they are rare and it's unclear whether there can be attributed to the solar exposure alone:

This is the largest nationwide study of the visual effects of a solar eclipse ever undertaken. There were no recorded cases of permanent visual loss, which corroborates the previous evidence that visual morbidity is likely to be temporary. It would appear probable that public health education was most effective in reducing visual morbidity and hence keeping the consequent burden on the NHS to a minimum.

The upshot is: don't look at the sun directly and use protective eye wear when viewing solar eclipses, but also don't sensationalize the effects with terms like "frying your eyes" and don't panic.

Science is simply a collection of facts and theories of various quality.

Let me stop you right there. A collection of facts is called "evidence". Theories without evidence are called "hypotheses". Theories with evidence are called "theories", and a theory with sufficient evidence from independent sources to convince a majority of scientists in the field that it is highly unlikely to be methodological error is accepted as "knowledge" - unless/until it is superseded by a better theory that more completely or more elegantly explains the evidence. We call this process the "scientific method", and I'll thank you not to redefine it.

The knowledge that humans are causing the climate change we're seeing is a result of the tens of thousands of peer-reviewed papers in dozens of different geophysical fields accumulated over decades, which have convinced the vast majority of practicing scientists in those fields that yes, AGW is really a thing. Of course there is plenty of science to be done in the details of "where" and "when" and "how much" etc, but unless/until someone comes up an alternate theory that better explains all the evidence then anyone simply claiming "the scientists are wrong and this one guy is right" is going to get dismissed out of hand.

The fact that you cite only a blog (that cites only other blogs) to back up your claim, while ignoring the vast number of peer-reviewed studies showing otherwise (rigorously cited and summarised in the IPCC reports), not to mention the considered conclusions of every major scientific, academic, and meteorological organisation on the planet, shows only that you are happy to cherry-pick your sources and aren't too concerned about quality of evidence. Your claim that your practical expertise in a single aspect somehow enables you to contradict the conclusions of thousands of trained and practicing climatologists from many other fields who have spent decades actually gathering evidence shows only that you don't realise how little you actually know about those fields.

More directly, your evidence-free claim that contrary science is being suppressed is pure conspiracy fodder. Your reference to "money to be made" might actually be on the ball - if you had noticed that there was vastly more money being made by those with an interest in seeing climate science discredited, not to mention no shortage of documented evidence of those interests spending hundreds of millions doing exactly that. BTW I'm happy to cite reputable sources for any of these statements, but I'm assuming at this stage that you're unlikely to consider new evidence.

And if you think pages as provably wrong as that CO2 denial link are convincing, then think again. Point 1 is nonsense (greenhouse gases work by re-emission of energy back towards the surface, not just absorbing it), point 2 is apparently claiming that the Stefan-Boltzmann constant has been wrong all this time (who knew), and point 3 is true but irrelevant to the issue, which is how much energy is effectively blocked. This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue, perhaps stemming from the simplified popular explanation of CO2 as a "blanket" that is getting thicker, but of course the actual atmospheric science is rather more nuanced than this (as practicing climatologists are well aware).

For example, it's true that the atmospheric column as a whole already absorbs most of the IR on the CO2 absorption bands - but it cannot be "completely opaque" as absorption is logarithmic, and thus some IR still gets through. Secondly, it's much easier for IR to escape from the uppermost layers of the atmosphere where CO2 is thinner, so increasing CO2 makes a significant difference to the energy radiated from there. And third, we've directly measured the decreasing IR radiation in those CO2 bands from satellites, so we have hard experimental evidence of the increasing greenhouse effect in action.

There are different types of advances in batteries. Sometime someone come up with a new chemistry or design. In this case they were looking at a problem (degradation of the electrodes) that had a known solution (coating the electrodes with graphene) but there wasn't a manufacturing process to do it. So they have come up with a very innovative way to do it that should be "easy" to add to manufacturing. This is probably one of those incremental breakthroughs that is closer to reality than a lot of the others we seen.

Proper link: https://www.nature.com/article...

Google translate: https://www.nature.com/news/de...

I think that he meant an everyday example like building better accounting software not something that would obviously benefit from deep learning like language tools.

Language tools are an obvious use for deep learning. Especially when users/contributors can tweak the context of words and idioms that do not directly translate very well into words and may require some cultural knowledge for proper use in sentences.

Something like accounting software would be hard to visualize using deep learning since the outcome is pure calculation. And argument could be made that deep learning would be suited to tax software for optimizing the reduction of your tax bill, through various what-if scenarios, and perhaps in keeping the rules updated.

Google translate: https://www.nature.com/news/de...

You don't need to link to Roy Spencer (if you don't want to). You can link to peer reviewed studies. There are plenty of studies showing they're wrong. This too.

You don't need to link to Roy Spencer (if you don't want to). You can link to peer reviewed studies. There are plenty of studies showing they're wrong. This too.

You don't need to link to Roy Spencer (if you don't want to). You can link to peer reviewed studies. There are plenty of studies showing they're wrong. This too.

You don't need to link to Roy Spencer (if you don't want to). You can link to peer reviewed studies. There are plenty of studies showing they're wrong. This too.

You don't need to link to Roy Spencer (if you don't want to). You can link to peer reviewed studies. There are plenty of studies showing they're wrong. This too.

Who needs silicon when you can use proteins engineered from plants or cyanobacteria to generate electricity?

Christian
  Catholic
  Islam

...January 2016 the boy, received a few more skin patches -- and in February he was released

For future reference, plural is more than one.

"This isn't some app some douche made that takes pictures and adds new filters, this is real science, and real science takes time."

No, self-promotional publishing takes time. And , "douche" doesn't mean what you think it means in science.