Slashdot Mirror

Hm, never heared that the mosquitos themsleves are infected. The parasites live in the human blood the mosquitos suck. Not in the blood of the mosquitos. But perhaps they can infect the organs of the mosquito. I found an article on sciense mag, http://www.sciencemag.org/news...

Well, I figured I'd google to see. So I checked "Is IQ genetically linked?. The top three links at this time of posting are:

(1): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ : (relevant snippet) "The general figure for the heritability of IQ, according to an authoritative American Psychological Association report, is 0.45 for children, and rises to around 0.75 for late teens and adults.[5][6] The heritability of IQ increases with age and reaches an asymptote at 18â"20 years of age and continues at that level well into adulthood.[7] Recent studies suggest that family and parenting characteristics are not significant contributors to variation in IQ scores;[8] however, poor prenatal environment, malnutrition and disease can have deleterious effects.[9][10]"

[7]: Bouchard, Thomas J. (2013). "The Wilson Effect: The Increase in Heritability of IQ With Age". Twin Research and Human Genetics. 16 (05): 923â"930. doi:10.1017/thg.2013.54. ISSN 1832-4274. PMID 23919982.

[8]: Beaver, KM. (2014). "A closer look at the role of parenting-related influences on verbal intelligence over the life course: Results from an adoption-based research design.". Intelligence. 46: 179â"187. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2014.06.002.

[9]: Eppig, C. (2010). "Parasite prevalence and the worldwide distribution of cognitive ability". Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences. 277 (1701): 3801â"3808. doi:10.1098/rspb.2010.0973. PMC 2992705Freely accessible. PMID 20591860.

[10]: Daniele, V. (2013). "The burden of disease and the IQ of nations". Learning and Individual Differences. 28: 109â"118. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2013.09.015.


(2) https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/traits/intelligence "Is intelligence determined by genetics?" (relevant huge chunk) "Researchers have conducted many studies to look for genes that influence intelligence. Many of these studies have focused on similarities and differences in IQ within families, particularly looking at adopted children and twins. These studies suggest that genetic factors underlie about 50 percent of the difference in intelligence among individuals. Other studies have examined variations across the entire genomes of many people (an approach called genome-wide association studies or GWAS) to determine whether any specific areas of the genome are associated with IQ. These studies have not conclusively identified any genes that underlie differences in intelligence. It is likely that a large number of genes are involved, each of which makes only a small contribution to a personâ(TM)s intelligence."

"Intelligence is also strongly influenced by the environment. Factors related to a childâ(TM)s home environment and parenting, education and availability of learning resources, and nutrition, among others, all contribute to intelligence. A personâ(TM)s environment and genes influence each other, and it can be challenging to tease apart the effects of the environment from those of genetics. For example, if a childâ(TM)s IQ is similar to that of his or her parents, is that similarity due to genetic factors passed down from parent to child, to shared environmental factors, or (most likely) to a combination of both? It is clear that both environmental and genetic factors play a part in determining intelligence."


(3) http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/10/genes-dont-just-influence-your-iq-they-determine-how-well-you-do-school (relevant snippets) " A new study of more than 6000 pairs of twins finds that academic achievement is influenced by genes affecting motivation, personality, confidence, and dozens of other traits, in addition to those that shape intelligence"

"In all, about 62% of the individual differences in acade

ScienceAlert.com incorrectly credits this work to scientists at the Carnegie Institution.

In fact, Paul Asimow at Carnegie wrote a "Perspective" (comment) for the journal "Science," but as you can see in the published paper, the research was actually done by first author Emily Sarafian and colleagues at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts.

This is why it is important to go to the primary sources when possible, instead of relying on a news report which, in this case, was not correct.

ScienceAlert.com incorrectly credits this work to scientists at the Carnegie Institution.

In fact, Paul Asimow at Carnegie wrote a "Perspective" (comment) for the journal "Science," but as you can see in the published paper, the research was actually done by first author Emily Sarafian and colleagues at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts.

This is why it is important to go to the primary sources when possible, instead of relying on a news report which, in this case, was not correct.

Even I can see through this lie. It's really just Maxwell's daemon sorting molecules. Just another BS story on Slashdot that will get hype for a few days and then no product will ever come to market. An obvious clue that even the "inventors" know this is complete bullshit is the claim "All the work is done by the huge temperature difference, about 290C, between the surface of the Earth and that of outer space,". Is anyone buying that crap? 'cause if you don't then it is pretty obvious this can't work.

Abstract: Passive radiative cooling draws heat from surfaces and radiates it into space as infrared radiation to which the atmosphere is transparent. However, the energy density mismatch between solar irradiance and the low infrared radiation flux from a near-ambient-temperature surface require materials that strongly emit thermal energy and barely absorb sunlight. We embedded resonant polar dielectric microspheres randomly in a polymeric matrix, resulting in a metamaterial that is fully transparent to the solar spectrum while having an infrared emissivity greater than 0.93 across the atmospheric window. When backed with silver coating, the metamaterial shows a noon-time radiative cooling power of 93 W/m2 under direct sunshine. More critically, we demonstrated high-throughput, economical roll-to-roll manufacturing of the metamaterial, vital for promoting radiative cooling as a viable energy technology. Scalable-manufactured randomized glass-polymer hybrid metamaterial for daytime radiative cooling

Pretty hard to get your research paper published in the peer-reviewed journal Science, unless it's at least scientifically plausible.

Although I give a strong weight to first-hand testimony, I get my information from Science magazine, New Scientist, and the New York Times. For example:

http://science.sciencemag.org/...
The Electronics Revolution: From E-Wonderland to E-Wasteland , Oladele A. Ogunseitan1,*, , Julie M. Schoenung2, , Jean-Daniel M. Saphores3 and , Andrew A. Shapiro4
Science 30 Oct 2009:
Vol. 326, Issue 5953, pp. 670-671
DOI: 10.1126/science.1176929

Since the mid-1990s, electronic waste (e-waste) has been recognized as the fastest-growing component of the solid-waste stream, as small consumer electronic products, such as cellular phones, have become ubiquitous in developed and developing countries (1). In the absence of adequate recycling policies, the small size, short useful life-span, and high costs of recycling these products mean they are routinely discarded without much concern for their adverse impacts on the environment and public health. These impacts occur throughout the product life cycle, from acquisition of raw materials (2) to manufacturing to disposal at the end of products' useful life.

This creates considerable toxicity risks worldwide (3, 4). For example, the mean concentration of lead in the blood of children living in Guiyu, China, a notorious destination for improper e-waste recycling (5), is 15.3 Âg/dl. There is no known safe level of exposure to lead; remedial action is recommended for children with levels above 10 Âg/dl (6). Polybrominated diphenyl ethers used as flame-retardants in electronics have been detected in alarming quantities (up to 4.1 ppm lipid weight) in California's peregrine falcon eggs, raising the specter of species endangerment (7, 8).

It should be pointed out that George church has a huge conflict of interest in making such a statement, as he and Zhang are still affiliated with editas, the company they founded together to capitalize on CRISPR technology. Doudna was part of the company for a time but left after the patent war blew up to found her own company, intellia.

His statement that it is "anything but obvious" to adapt CRISPR to eukaryotic cells from bacteria would be refuted by pretty much any first year molecular biology student. Basically to get CRISPR working in mammalian cells is as simple as changing the DNA regulatory elements that drive expression of the Cas9 enzyme and the targeting RNA molecules from prokaryotic to mammalian elements. These elements are well understood and available essentially as "off-the-shelf" components and have been used to express literally thousands of non-native genes in mammalian cells by researchers for decades. And yes, this WAS the very obvious next step in the research, evident to many biologists. The "news and views" perspective article in the same issue of Science describing the landmark paper from Doudna/Charpentier specifically points out the tantalizing possibility of genome editing for gene therapy:

"Jinek et al. realized that a highly specific, customizable RNA-directed DNA nuclease could be useful to edit whole genomes. Based on the 20-nucleotide guide section of the crRNA, the enzyme could theoretically introduce breaks at unique sites in any eukaryotic genome. As a proof of concept, the authors programmed Cas9 to cleave a plasmid carrying the gene encoding green fluorescent protein at predetermined loci using a single chimeric crRNA containing just the critical segment of the tracrRNA. DNA breaks induce cellular DNA repair pathways (9) and this can be harnessed to disrupt, insert, or repair specific genes of cells. Introducing DNA breaks at desired loci using just Cas9 and a chimeric crRNA would be a substantial improvement over existing gene-targeting technologies, such as zinc finger nucleases and transcription activator–like effector nucleases, as these require protein engineering for every new target locus (10). Efficient gene repair strategies in cells from patients, and the reintroduction of repaired cells, could become increasingly important for treating many genetic disorders."

The size of the egos and paydays involved precludes any hope of a logical conclusion to the patent fight.

You'd love this article if you're a nitro-toluene guy: http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pi...

Because adding hexanitroisowurtzitane isn't quite nerve wracking enough. You know, stuff that gets more stable when you add TNT. Someone added 98% hydrogen peroxide, then crystallized with acetonitrile. Same crazy chemists co-crystallized the beta-phase of HMX with CL-20, which I'm sure deeply interested the USAF folks.

More unwarranted alarmism from nuclear energy haters? Why yes it is.

The high levels are inside the containment. The radiation reaching the sea is slightly higher than the FDA maximum for drinking water, but you could swim in it directly without harm.

A nice pairing with this to calm y'all down even further is the fact that the residents of the area were actually exposed to much less radiation on the ground than had been estimated.

Quite a bit of our genome came from bacteria, viruses, and fungi-- genes that "jumped" to us.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news...

That said, I hope this new treatment comes to something in human trials. I went through two years of intensive chemo, and from that feel we are in the dark ages still wrt cancer treatment. We give people poison that destroys their bodies to cure them (more often buy a little time). It seems like a treatment contemporary to bloodletting and leeches.

*Update, 7 February, 12:15 p.m.: The U.S. Department of Agriculture released a statement this morning regarding the removal of animal welfare reports from its Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) website:

“The review of APHIS’ website has been ongoing, and the agency is striving to balance the need for transparency with rules protecting individual privacy. In 2016, well before the change of Administration, APHIS decided to make adjustments to the posting of regulatory records. In addition, APHIS is currently involved in litigation concerning, among other issues, information posted on the agency’s website. While the agency is vigorously defending against this litigation, in an abundance of caution, the agency is taking additional measures to protect individual privacy. These decisions are not final. Adjustments may be made regarding information appropriate for release and posting.”

At a nuclear test site, volatiles boil off and condense farther away from the center of the explosion. Fine.

However, this has basically zilch to do with the formation of the moon. *That* impact literally knocked the earth into pieces. Likely there really was no more "center" of the impact. Also, note the quality of the science reporting: "volatile elements, most notably water". Who knew that water was an element?

The actual article is basically only about isotope separation of Zinc, and admits repeatedly during its text that other "studies of volatile compounds, such as water or OH in lunar glasses, suggest that the Moon may have volatile element abundances approaching Earth’s upper mantle composition".

tl;dr: This paper looked at what happens to Zinc isotopes at the center of a nuclear explosion. Everything else is conjecture, which they openly admit is contradicted by other studies. TFA in New Scientist omits the contradictory evidence and builds conjectures on top of those conjectures, until what they say has almost nothing to do with the actual article.

Actually it's just the National Review passing along an "expose" by The Daily Mail. This is the same "newspaper" that claimed a 63 year-old woman became pregnant with baby squid after eating calimari.

If you look into the objections, they're rubbish. The paper in question (Karl et al) is part of an ongoing back-and-forth by scientists over the degree of warming post-1998, so if it is part of a conspiracy by the scientific establishment to cover up contrary data it's a pretty lame conspiracy because it let both sides of the data out.

As for Karl et al, it's a highly technical paper, but to cut to the chase the reason it has the denialists in an uproar is that it proposes a method that erases their precious, cherry-picked post '98 "hiatus". That hiatus didn't exist if you smoothed the data or chose any other starting point but the record setting '98, and it was was blown away by 2014-2016 anyhow. So this is beating a dead horse that was barely alive to begin with. The method in the Karl paper also suggests that the rate of warming since the early 20th C is actually lower than previously believed. Alarmist!

The thing about this kind of bullshit response is that the attraction of a conspiracy theory is that it's quick and easy to understand, as long as you don't try to square it with actual events. People find CTs credible because it says the people bearing bad news are out to get them.

And independent analysis shows that the NOAA analysis is extremely accurate and even better than the competition.

It is not likely that the data would become tained. More likely the new administration would just stop collecting inconvenient data, or change the metric as described in the summary.

There is no way to trace what they did, no way to confirm their methods. Sadly the masses are not equipped to scrutinize the nonsense. [Steve A Morris, 2017-01-11]

You can trace what Hausfather et al. 2017 did by downloading the code they made freely available at bit.ly/2jXSy7G. You can confirm their methods by reading the full paper and following the links at the end which lead to all the data they used. Interested members of the public can read or watch the background they shared.

... they simply don't use 1/3 of the ARGO datasets because its data is "more ambiguous". Translation: "It doesn't fit our needs." [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

Read the paper to see if Lonny's "translation" is reasonable: "... Two of the three Argo near-SST records assessed, APDRC and H2008, agree well with the buoy-only and satellite-based records and suggest a cool bias in ERSSTv3b during the 2005-2015 period, when sufficient Argo data are available (Fig. 3). The RG2009 series is more ambiguous, with trends that are not significantly different (P > 0.05) from either ERSSTv3b or ERSSTv4. ..."

Lonny Eachus is wrong to claim that Hausfather et al. "simply don't use 1/3 of the ARGO datasets" (presumably a reference to RG2009). They used 3 independent Argo near-SST (near sea surface temperature) datasets, and reported the results from all 3 datasets. Anyone who reads the full paper will see that they mention RG2009 a total of 17 times while reporting the results of using that dataset.

... the study's argument is rather weak. ARGO data has best coverage, best instruments. Yet they arbitrarily throw out 1/3 of the ARGO data sets because they don't agree with their preconceptions. ... In sum, it appears that this paper committed the same likely error as Karl et al. That is to say: ignoring arguably better data because it doesn't fit their preconceptions. [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

Wrong. Hausfather et al. didn't "throw out" or "ignore" 1/3 of the Argo datasets. Look at figure 3 (backup). They show the results of all three Argo datasets, including four instances using the RG2009 dataset which Lonny baselessly accuses them of "arbitrarily throwing out" and "ignoring".

Paper: (1) "We constructed our own data set from other data sets." (2) Oops. But we left some out. "(3) "We find MOST of the data we used does not match our new contrived data set. So we will ignore it." [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

Again, Hausfather et al. didn't "leave out" or "ignore" the RG2009 dataset. Look at figure 4 (backup). They show the results of all 3 Argo datasets, including the RG2009 dataset which Lonny baselessly accuses them of "ignoring".

Figure 4 examines four composite SST records: ERSSTv4, ERSSTv3b, HadSST3, and COBE-SST. These composite SST records are compared to instrumentally homogenous datasets (which just means "from a single type of instrument"): b

There is no way to trace what they did, no way to confirm their methods. Sadly the masses are not equipped to scrutinize the nonsense. [Steve A Morris, 2017-01-11]

You can trace what Hausfather et al. 2017 did by downloading the code they made freely available at bit.ly/2jXSy7G. You can confirm their methods by reading the full paper and following the links at the end which lead to all the data they used. Interested members of the public can read or watch the background they shared.

... they simply don't use 1/3 of the ARGO datasets because its data is "more ambiguous". Translation: "It doesn't fit our needs." [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

Read the paper to see if Lonny's "translation" is reasonable: "... Two of the three Argo near-SST records assessed, APDRC and H2008, agree well with the buoy-only and satellite-based records and suggest a cool bias in ERSSTv3b during the 2005-2015 period, when sufficient Argo data are available (Fig. 3). The RG2009 series is more ambiguous, with trends that are not significantly different (P > 0.05) from either ERSSTv3b or ERSSTv4. ..."

Lonny Eachus is wrong to claim that Hausfather et al. "simply don't use 1/3 of the ARGO datasets" (presumably a reference to RG2009). They used 3 independent Argo near-SST (near sea surface temperature) datasets, and reported the results from all 3 datasets. Anyone who reads the full paper will see that they mention RG2009 a total of 17 times while reporting the results of using that dataset.

... the study's argument is rather weak. ARGO data has best coverage, best instruments. Yet they arbitrarily throw out 1/3 of the ARGO data sets because they don't agree with their preconceptions. ... In sum, it appears that this paper committed the same likely error as Karl et al. That is to say: ignoring arguably better data because it doesn't fit their preconceptions. [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

Wrong. Hausfather et al. didn't "throw out" or "ignore" 1/3 of the Argo datasets. Look at figure 3 (backup). They show the results of all three Argo datasets, including four instances using the RG2009 dataset which Lonny baselessly accuses them of "arbitrarily throwing out" and "ignoring".

Paper: (1) "We constructed our own data set from other data sets." (2) Oops. But we left some out. "(3) "We find MOST of the data we used does not match our new contrived data set. So we will ignore it." [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

Again, Hausfather et al. didn't "leave out" or "ignore" the RG2009 dataset. Look at figure 4 (backup). They show the results of all 3 Argo datasets, including the RG2009 dataset which Lonny baselessly accuses them of "ignoring".

Figure 4 examines four composite SST records: ERSSTv4, ERSSTv3b, HadSST3, and COBE-SST. These composite SST records are compared to instrumentally homogenous datasets (which just means "from a single type of instrument"): b

There is no way to trace what they did, no way to confirm their methods. Sadly the masses are not equipped to scrutinize the nonsense. [Steve A Morris, 2017-01-11]

You can trace what Hausfather et al. 2017 did by downloading the code they made freely available at bit.ly/2jXSy7G. You can confirm their methods by reading the full paper and following the links at the end which lead to all the data they used. Interested members of the public can read or watch the background they shared.

... they simply don't use 1/3 of the ARGO datasets because its data is "more ambiguous". Translation: "It doesn't fit our needs." [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

Read the paper to see if Lonny's "translation" is reasonable: "... Two of the three Argo near-SST records assessed, APDRC and H2008, agree well with the buoy-only and satellite-based records and suggest a cool bias in ERSSTv3b during the 2005-2015 period, when sufficient Argo data are available (Fig. 3). The RG2009 series is more ambiguous, with trends that are not significantly different (P > 0.05) from either ERSSTv3b or ERSSTv4. ..."

Lonny Eachus is wrong to claim that Hausfather et al. "simply don't use 1/3 of the ARGO datasets" (presumably a reference to RG2009). They used 3 independent Argo near-SST (near sea surface temperature) datasets, and reported the results from all 3 datasets. Anyone who reads the full paper will see that they mention RG2009 a total of 17 times while reporting the results of using that dataset.

... the study's argument is rather weak. ARGO data has best coverage, best instruments. Yet they arbitrarily throw out 1/3 of the ARGO data sets because they don't agree with their preconceptions. ... In sum, it appears that this paper committed the same likely error as Karl et al. That is to say: ignoring arguably better data because it doesn't fit their preconceptions. [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

Wrong. Hausfather et al. didn't "throw out" or "ignore" 1/3 of the Argo datasets. Look at figure 3 (backup). They show the results of all three Argo datasets, including four instances using the RG2009 dataset which Lonny baselessly accuses them of "arbitrarily throwing out" and "ignoring".

Paper: (1) "We constructed our own data set from other data sets." (2) Oops. But we left some out. "(3) "We find MOST of the data we used does not match our new contrived data set. So we will ignore it." [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

Again, Hausfather et al. didn't "leave out" or "ignore" the RG2009 dataset. Look at figure 4 (backup). They show the results of all 3 Argo datasets, including the RG2009 dataset which Lonny baselessly accuses them of "ignoring".

Figure 4 examines four composite SST records: ERSSTv4, ERSSTv3b, HadSST3, and COBE-SST. These composite SST records are compared to instrumentally homogenous datasets (which just means "from a single type of instrument"): b

There is no way to trace what they did, no way to confirm their methods. Sadly the masses are not equipped to scrutinize the nonsense. [Steve A Morris, 2017-01-11]

You can trace what Hausfather et al. 2017 did by downloading the code they made freely available at bit.ly/2jXSy7G. You can confirm their methods by reading the full paper and following the links at the end which lead to all the data they used. Interested members of the public can read or watch the background they shared.

... they simply don't use 1/3 of the ARGO datasets because its data is "more ambiguous". Translation: "It doesn't fit our needs." [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

Read the paper to see if Lonny's "translation" is reasonable: "... Two of the three Argo near-SST records assessed, APDRC and H2008, agree well with the buoy-only and satellite-based records and suggest a cool bias in ERSSTv3b during the 2005-2015 period, when sufficient Argo data are available (Fig. 3). The RG2009 series is more ambiguous, with trends that are not significantly different (P > 0.05) from either ERSSTv3b or ERSSTv4. ..."

Lonny Eachus is wrong to claim that Hausfather et al. "simply don't use 1/3 of the ARGO datasets" (presumably a reference to RG2009). They used 3 independent Argo near-SST (near sea surface temperature) datasets, and reported the results from all 3 datasets. Anyone who reads the full paper will see that they mention RG2009 a total of 17 times while reporting the results of using that dataset.

... the study's argument is rather weak. ARGO data has best coverage, best instruments. Yet they arbitrarily throw out 1/3 of the ARGO data sets because they don't agree with their preconceptions. ... In sum, it appears that this paper committed the same likely error as Karl et al. That is to say: ignoring arguably better data because it doesn't fit their preconceptions. [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

Wrong. Hausfather et al. didn't "throw out" or "ignore" 1/3 of the Argo datasets. Look at figure 3 (backup). They show the results of all three Argo datasets, including four instances using the RG2009 dataset which Lonny baselessly accuses them of "arbitrarily throwing out" and "ignoring".

Paper: (1) "We constructed our own data set from other data sets." (2) Oops. But we left some out. "(3) "We find MOST of the data we used does not match our new contrived data set. So we will ignore it." [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

Again, Hausfather et al. didn't "leave out" or "ignore" the RG2009 dataset. Look at figure 4 (backup). They show the results of all 3 Argo datasets, including the RG2009 dataset which Lonny baselessly accuses them of "ignoring".

Figure 4 examines four composite SST records: ERSSTv4, ERSSTv3b, HadSST3, and COBE-SST. These composite SST records are compared to instrumentally homogenous datasets (which just means "from a single type of instrument"): b

There is no way to trace what they did, no way to confirm their methods. Sadly the masses are not equipped to scrutinize the nonsense. [Steve A Morris, 2017-01-11]

You can trace what Hausfather et al. 2017 did by downloading the code they made freely available at bit.ly/2jXSy7G. You can confirm their methods by reading the full paper and following the links at the end which lead to all the data they used. Interested members of the public can read or watch the background they shared.

... they simply don't use 1/3 of the ARGO datasets because its data is "more ambiguous". Translation: "It doesn't fit our needs." [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

Read the paper to see if Lonny's "translation" is reasonable: "... Two of the three Argo near-SST records assessed, APDRC and H2008, agree well with the buoy-only and satellite-based records and suggest a cool bias in ERSSTv3b during the 2005-2015 period, when sufficient Argo data are available (Fig. 3). The RG2009 series is more ambiguous, with trends that are not significantly different (P > 0.05) from either ERSSTv3b or ERSSTv4. ..."

Lonny Eachus is wrong to claim that Hausfather et al. "simply don't use 1/3 of the ARGO datasets" (presumably a reference to RG2009). They used 3 independent Argo near-SST (near sea surface temperature) datasets, and reported the results from all 3 datasets. Anyone who reads the full paper will see that they mention RG2009 a total of 17 times while reporting the results of using that dataset.

... the study's argument is rather weak. ARGO data has best coverage, best instruments. Yet they arbitrarily throw out 1/3 of the ARGO data sets because they don't agree with their preconceptions. ... In sum, it appears that this paper committed the same likely error as Karl et al. That is to say: ignoring arguably better data because it doesn't fit their preconceptions. [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

Wrong. Hausfather et al. didn't "throw out" or "ignore" 1/3 of the Argo datasets. Look at figure 3 (backup). They show the results of all three Argo datasets, including four instances using the RG2009 dataset which Lonny baselessly accuses them of "arbitrarily throwing out" and "ignoring".

Paper: (1) "We constructed our own data set from other data sets." (2) Oops. But we left some out. "(3) "We find MOST of the data we used does not match our new contrived data set. So we will ignore it." [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

Again, Hausfather et al. didn't "leave out" or "ignore" the RG2009 dataset. Look at figure 4 (backup). They show the results of all 3 Argo datasets, including the RG2009 dataset which Lonny baselessly accuses them of "ignoring".

Figure 4 examines four composite SST records: ERSSTv4, ERSSTv3b, HadSST3, and COBE-SST. These composite SST records are compared to instrumentally homogenous datasets (which just means "from a single type of instrument"): b

There is no way to trace what they did, no way to confirm their methods. Sadly the masses are not equipped to scrutinize the nonsense. [Steve A Morris, 2017-01-11]

You can trace what Hausfather et al. 2017 did by downloading the code they made freely available at bit.ly/2jXSy7G. You can confirm their methods by reading the full paper and following the links at the end which lead to all the data they used. Interested members of the public can read or watch the background they shared.

... they simply don't use 1/3 of the ARGO datasets because its data is "more ambiguous". Translation: "It doesn't fit our needs." [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

Read the paper to see if Lonny's "translation" is reasonable: "... Two of the three Argo near-SST records assessed, APDRC and H2008, agree well with the buoy-only and satellite-based records and suggest a cool bias in ERSSTv3b during the 2005-2015 period, when sufficient Argo data are available (Fig. 3). The RG2009 series is more ambiguous, with trends that are not significantly different (P > 0.05) from either ERSSTv3b or ERSSTv4. ..."

Lonny Eachus is wrong to claim that Hausfather et al. "simply don't use 1/3 of the ARGO datasets" (presumably a reference to RG2009). They used 3 independent Argo near-SST (near sea surface temperature) datasets, and reported the results from all 3 datasets. Anyone who reads the full paper will see that they mention RG2009 a total of 17 times while reporting the results of using that dataset.

... the study's argument is rather weak. ARGO data has best coverage, best instruments. Yet they arbitrarily throw out 1/3 of the ARGO data sets because they don't agree with their preconceptions. ... In sum, it appears that this paper committed the same likely error as Karl et al. That is to say: ignoring arguably better data because it doesn't fit their preconceptions. [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

Wrong. Hausfather et al. didn't "throw out" or "ignore" 1/3 of the Argo datasets. Look at figure 3 (backup). They show the results of all three Argo datasets, including four instances using the RG2009 dataset which Lonny baselessly accuses them of "arbitrarily throwing out" and "ignoring".

Paper: (1) "We constructed our own data set from other data sets." (2) Oops. But we left some out. "(3) "We find MOST of the data we used does not match our new contrived data set. So we will ignore it." [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

Again, Hausfather et al. didn't "leave out" or "ignore" the RG2009 dataset. Look at figure 4 (backup). They show the results of all 3 Argo datasets, including the RG2009 dataset which Lonny baselessly accuses them of "ignoring".

Figure 4 examines four composite SST records: ERSSTv4, ERSSTv3b, HadSST3, and COBE-SST. These composite SST records are compared to instrumentally homogenous datasets (which just means "from a single type of instrument"): b

Regarding recent Hausfather et al. paper, which is the source of the latest hype about "no pause": As Anthony Watts points out, the study only goes to 2015, and the middle of its strong El Nino. If it had gone to the present, after record cooling, it would show less or no overall warming. Quote Watts: "Personally, it looks like ignoring the most current data available for 2016, which has been cooling compared to 2015, invalidates the claim right out of the gate" Here's the quote and some other criticisms of Hausfather et al. dailycaller.com/2017/01/05/new-study... [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

No. When Hausfather et al. 2017 was published (long after it was submitted) the most current available NOAA data ended in November 2016. Nick Stokes showed that even if Hausfather et al. had used a time machine to include those data when submitting their paper, it would have showed more warming. Even the silly opinion piece Lonny linked notes that "climate models will more closely match observations once 2016 data is included".

... its conclusions might have been different after the record cooling we've seen, post- El Nino. [Lonny Eachus, 2017-01-11]

Ironically, Zeke Hausfather showed that including all the 2016 data available at publication actually increases the observed warming trends compared to their paper's conclusions using data through 2015. This is still true using the full 2016 NOAA data which just became available on January 18. Lonny could verify this by repeating these least squares trend estimates with the monthly data, or just noticing that the annual ocean average was even higher in 2016 than in 2015. Zeke Hausfather challenged Anthony Watts to find an ocean temperature record that was cooler on average in 2016 than in 2015. Watts couldn't name one or bring himself to retract his claim. Can Lonny?

... Personally, it looks like ignoring the most current data available for 2016, which has been cooling compared to 2015, invalidates the claim right out of the gate. ... the data only goes to December 2015. They've missed an ENTIRE YEAR's worth of data... Looks like a clear case of cherry picking to me, by not using all the available data. ... [Anthony Watts, 2017-01-04]

Watts accuses Hausfather et al. of ignoring the most current data and missing an ENTIRE YEAR's worth of data. Since Hausfather et al. 2017 was submitted in early 2016, they'd have needed a time machine to include the ENTIRE YEAR's worth of data that Watts accused them of ignoring and missing. In contrast, Sou notes that Anthony Watts presented an AGU poster in 2015 without data from 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, or 2009.

Global Warming Lies: thinkprogress.org/climate... "It's Happening Now"
No, it isn't. NO warming

You want evidence of the last glacial maximum? Srsly?

http://www.sciencemag.org/cont...
Science 24 August 2007:
Vol. 317 no. 5841 pp. 1039-1040
DOI: 10.1126/science.1144241

Policy Forum
Sacred Barriers to Conflict Resolution
Scott Atran, Robert Axelrod, Richard Davis
Resolution of quarrels arising from conflicting sacred values, as in the Middle East, may require concessions that acknowledge the opposition's core concerns

We went to the Middle East in February 2007 to directly probe issues of material trade-offs and symbolic concessions with leaders of the major parties to the Israel-Palestine dispute. We asked 14 interviewees in Syria, Palestine, and Israel to verify statements for citation. No off-the-record statements contradicted these.

Responses were consistent with our previous findings (1), with one important difference. Previously, people with sacred values had responded "No" to the proposed trade-off; "No" accompanied by emotional outrage and increased support for violence to the trade-off coupled with a substantial and credible material incentive; and "Yes, perhaps" to trade-offs that also involve symbolic concessions (of no material benefit) from the other side. Leaders responded in the same way, except that the symbolic concession was not enough in itself, but only a necessary condition to opening serious negotiations involving material issues as well. For example, Musa Abu Marzouk (former chairman, and current deputy chairman, of Hamas) said "No" to a trade-off for peace without granting a right of return; a more emphatic "No, we do not sell ourselves for any amount," when given a trade-off with a substantial material incentive (credible offering of substantial U.S. aid for the rebuilding of Palestinian infrastructure); but "Yes, an apology is important, but only as a beginning. It's not enough, because our houses and land were taken away from us and something has to be done about that."

Similarly, Binyamin Netanyahu (former Israeli prime minister and current opposition leader in parliament) responded to our question, "Would you seriously consider accepting a two-state solution following the 1967 borders if all major Palestinian factions, including Hamas, were to recognize the right of the Jewish people to an independent state in the region?" with the answer: "Yes, but the Palestinians would have to show that they sincerely mean it, change their textbooks and anti-Semitic characterizations and then allow some border adjustments so that Ben Gurion [Airport] would be out of range of shoulder-fired missiles."

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05...
Who Wants to Be a Martyr?
By Scott Atran
May 5, 2003

One given in the war against terrorism seems to be that suicide attackers are evil, deluded or homicidal misfits who thrive in poverty, ignorance and anarchy.

(Actually they are well-adjusted, successful, and educated. Reviews the evidence based on interviews with terrorists.)

Quoting from the original paper ( http://advances.sciencemag.org... ):

"To understand this difference, we built full atomic models of the 3D graphene assembly in molecular dynamics (MD) simulations by mimicking the synthesis of the porous material. Large-scale simulations based on a reactive force field (22–24) are performed to simulate the process of fusing graphene flakes together into the 3D assembly"

Quoting from the original paper ( http://advances.sciencemag.org... ):

"To understand this difference, we built full atomic models of the 3D graphene assembly in molecular dynamics (MD) simulations by mimicking the synthesis of the porous material. Large-scale simulations based on a reactive force field (22–24) are performed to simulate the process of fusing graphene flakes together into the 3D assembly"

Over- oversold, actually:

They did not create even "a bit" of it. The research is about simulation of the structure, and verification on a scaled up plastic model only.

The original paper is here - they don't come even close to hint they built the material:
http://advances.sciencemag.org...

The coverage is quite good and more than sufficient for evaluating global temperature trends (and much more besides!). In fact, the ARGO buoys are of sufficient resolution to be used in the study of mesoscale eddies!

Since you refuse to look at the evidence for yourself, the eight major investigations that cleared CRU of any scientific misconduct include:

  - House of Commons Science and Technology Committee: "the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact"

  - Independent Climate Change Review: "we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt."

  - International Science Assessment Panel: "We found absolutely no evidence of impropriety whatsoever"

  - Pennsylvania State University first panel and second panel: "Dr. Michael E. Mann did not engage in, nor did he participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community"

  - United States Environmental Protection Agency: CRU critics came to "faulty scientific conclusions" and "resorted to hyperbole."

  - Department of Commerce: "We did not find any evidence that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data or failed to adhere to appropriate peer review procedures"

- National Science Foundation: "We found no basis to conclude that the emails were evidence of research misconduct or that they pointed to such evidence."

Since you refuse to look at the evidence for yourself, the eight major investigations that cleared CRU of any scientific misconduct include:

  - House of Commons Science and Technology Committee: "the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact"

  - Independent Climate Change Review: "we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt."

  - International Science Assessment Panel: "We found absolutely no evidence of impropriety whatsoever"

  - Pennsylvania State University first panel and second panel: "Dr. Michael E. Mann did not engage in, nor did he participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community"

  - United States Environmental Protection Agency: CRU critics came to "faulty scientific conclusions" and "resorted to hyperbole."

  - Department of Commerce: "We did not find any evidence that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data or failed to adhere to appropriate peer review procedures"

- National Science Foundation: "We found no basis to conclude that the emails were evidence of research misconduct or that they pointed to such evidence."

No evidence for a scientific consensus on climate change? How about this? Or this? Or this? Or this? Or this? Or this? Or this? Or this?

To get a picture of what I'm talking about, you can look at some extreme examples of radically different mental ability.

Blind people, through necessity, can develop mental abilities that seem superhuman like echolocation and rapid aural comprehension, being born blind doesn't seem to be a factor but losing your sight whilst still young is, which is in line with Neuroplasticity. Naturally this is in response to some kind of trauma that renders part of the brain useless without anything to do, and so it rewires itself.

So if the brain can drastically rewire itself in response to trauma, how does it follow that 'general intelligence' is somehow hardwired? So what makes some people 'smarter' than others anyway? You can handwave that away with genetics all you like but it seems likely that our education systems are doing a poor job.

Through standardised testing its fairly common knowledge that the Chinese score much higher on PISA maths tests than Americans do, is that because the Chinese are genetically superior to americans? or do they have a better way of teaching maths so it makes sense to a broader spectrum of the population? A little closer to home, the Canadians score higher as well.

I'm pretty sure techniques very similar to this have been available in France for more than a decade. So maybe the story should be that the slow U.S. regulatory process for medical procedures is a decade behind as opposed to framing it as brand new cutting-edge technology.

Not true. I follow French medical science -- everybody in medicine does. Much of their work is excellent, but they don't hide it. They talk about it at international conferences and publish their results in major journals. Like everything else in medicine, when the French come up with a good idea, the rest of the world picks it up.

For that matter, when a French scientist comes up with a good idea, graduate students all over the world want to study in his lab, just like French grad students want to study in other labs worldwide. So a lot of the cutting-edge work is by international teams. You can see that by searching Youtube for Dance Your PhD http://www.sciencemag.org/news...

Cancer immunology is a big field. Everybody's trying to make it work. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Bone marrow transplants (actually blood cell transplants) are standard now for some leukemias, and fairly effective. This specific treatment has never been done before, not in France, or anywhere.

It's also not true that the European regulatory agencies approve drugs faster than the US FDA:

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/1...
The 21st Century Cures Act â" Will It Take Us Back in Time?
Jerry Avorn and Aaron S. Kesselheim
N Engl J Med 2015; 372:2473-2475
June 25, 2015
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp1506964

An underlying premise of the bill is the need to accelerate approval for new products, but this process is already quite efficient. A third of new drugs are currently approved on the basis of a single pivotal trial; the median size for all pivotal trials is just 760 patients. More than two thirds of new drugs are approved on the basis of studies lasting 6 months or less â" a potential problem for medications designed to be taken for a lifetime. Once the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) starts its review, it approves new medications about as quickly as any regulatory agency in the world, evaluating nearly all new drug applications within 6 to 10 months, an impressive turnaround for such complex assessments.

Back in 2007, Dick Chaney's cardiologist disabled his pacemaker - article also talks about the Homeland episode where this happened.

LOL that most anything is controllable these days

I hate opioids too. Only take them when I really, really need to. The dangers of pot are extremely minimal compared with tobacco, alcohol and opioids. On top of being addictive, opioids make the pain worse once they wear off, making people go back for more to reduce the now increased pain. Pot does not do that.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news...

I expect the attacks on pot to really intensify now that CA has legalized it. The companies that deal deadly drugs can see the trend, and it is terrifying them.

Pot was never made illegal because of safety concerns. Take a look at Nixon's huge report on pot from the 1970s. They knew it was much less dangerous than alcohol a long time ago.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/...

Take a look at the Schaffer report commissioned by Nixon: http://www.druglibrary.org/sch...

How is this nonsensical rambling modded as insightful? What Trump can—and can't—do all by himself on climate

Fly ash is primarily silicates from the plant material the was made into coal. When it is added to Portland Cement, it increases the strength over other silicate like silica sand because it is much finer and porous, additionally the silicates react chemically with CO2 removing it from the atmosphere over time, about 42% of the CO2 used in making the cement to begin with.

Well, there are certainly credible scientists that assert that it does happen at several sites around the world. This might not cover every single coral reef in the world, but it I'd say the phenomenon is well documented and has had a massively detrimental and well-documented impact already. http://science.sciencemag.org/...

An AI can solve imperfect information games, it just is a lot harder. See, for instance this solution of heads-up limit Texas hold-em. Since the game has imperfect information and aspects of randomness, it's impossible to win every single time, but in the long run, the AI plays as well as or better than any other player.

Just how much harder it gets shouldn't be overlooked. Even imperfect information chess (Kriegspiel) would be pretty much impossible. Now imagine how much greater a game state StarCraft 2 has in comparison to chess... and I'm not holding my breath.

Please do read the links. Please also read Soden 2005 which uses "satellite measurements to highlight a distinct radiative signature of upper tropospheric moistening over the period 1982 to 2004." and finds "The observed moistening is accurately captured by climate model simulations" - that is, the moistening that emerges from the physics coded into the models.

As the atmosphere warms it will moisten. That is confirmed by the models, it's confirmed by observations, and it's confirmed by basic physics. Hornwumpus is right about only one thing:

Water vapor is by far the largest greenhouse gas. If the increase in temperature caused by CO2 results in a large increase in atmospheric water vapor CO2 induced global warming will be bad,

I would say it definitely warrants caution.

While neodymium, the specific metal being used in the magnetic ink, has not yet been observed in the brain, there is some concern that metallic nanoparticles may have neurological effects after entering the brain through the olfactory bulb after being inhaled into the nasal cavity. With regard to neodymium specifically, the following has been reported: "Breathing the dust can cause lung embolisms, and accumulated exposure damages the liver."

You know, people who think that scientists don't like controversy probably don't know many of them. Shifting consensus is how reputations and careers are made. And if there were some credible line of inquiry that promised we could burn as much fossil fuel as we wanted, it wouldn't be hard at all to find funding for it.

For that matter, I'd personally like it if we could burn as much fossil fuel as we wanted -- with local pollution controls of course. But that's wishful thinking.

If you want to create some kind of grand social dynamics theory of climate change science, you should at least take time to familiarize yourself with the literature on AGW. If you go into Google Scholar you'll see that the consensus in the 1950s was that the Earth was entering a cooling period. It took fifty years to shift that consensus and the substance of how it shifted is worth studying before engaging in armchair sociology.

We're in a warming trend (actually overdue, given the rock and ice records).

Actually we should be in a cooling period. You can't just plot out the cycles and infer a period, the main driver of the cycles is the interaction of the Earth's orbital and rotational precession, which is why scientists used to think we were heading into a cooling period that should last for about the next twenty-thousand years.

Absolutely true. It will produce almost infinitely more mercury, sulphur dioxide, sooth particles etc. Clearly a the better alternative!

Radioactivity as well. Coal power generation releases much more radioactivity than a nuc plant http://science.sciencemag.org/... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

I'd much rather live beside a nuc power plant than a coal fired one.

Specifically the part where it notes that the trend from 1900 onwards is graphing the instrumental record, while the period before 1900 is from their proxy reconstruction.

They can graph the trend based on a proxy measurement of observations discovered on stone tablets for all I care. What's important is not the source of the measurement (despite what the anti AGW crowd like to claim) but rather the accuracy and repeatability.

Amen on the accuracy. The original article has the graph data available here.

The overall reconstructions show about a 0.4 to 0.5C change in temperature with an error margin +/- 0.2C, so an error margin that's nearly as large as the signal. And that's just for the statistical uncertainty, not any other unaccounted for factors. When the comparison between that and an instrumental record differ, it's a bit less shocking and perhaps that difference in precision is a factor and not solely human activity starting in 1900.

Just going to note that here's what this means in terms of how the global average temperatures have been changing, and how rapidly so compared to the past:

http://xkcd.com/1732/

Here's a link to the actual paper the xkcd graph is derived from.

Before drawing conclusions from the graph trend starting at the year 1900, read the journal article more closely. Specifically the part where it notes that the trend from 1900 onwards is graphing the instrumental record, while the period before 1900 is from their proxy reconstruction. As in, before leaping up and declaring human industrial era began at 1900, also note that the SOURCE OF DATA changed at 1900 too.

http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pi...

The fact that the argument keeps changing should tell anyone everything they need to know.

Not to mention we're still in a cold period.

And the notion that there's some global temperature that climate is "supposed to be' is patently unscientific and ignorant of history.

The data shows we SHOULD be in a cold phase but the Earth has been warming rapidly compared to the last 10,000 years. The last time the average temperature rose 1c rapidly it took 900 years. Since the Industrial Revolution( roughly 1850s) the average temperature has risen a bit over 1C.

You can insist that given the great complexity of the Earth's ecosystem, scientists could not possibly know what will happen. They can theorize about weather change and some are right and some are wrong. But there is no doubt that the average temperature is rising and some areas close to the equator will start to be come uninhabitable in 20-30 years.

http://xkcd.com/1732/

Here's the main journal article xkcd referenced for that comic.

You've noted, in different words, that the trend since around 1900 is unprecedented in the entire time frame of the temperature reconstruction, last 20k years or more. You are absolutely correct, the journal article re-confirms that the graph trend from 1900 onward is unlike anything in the 20,000 years prior in the entire dataset.

If you read closer though, there is another potential explanation beyond human CO2 emissions that must also be accounted for. If you check the article, you will find that the data set from 1900 backwards is a DIFFERENT data set than the one graphed from 1900 forwards. The data graphed prior to 1900 is reconstructed from proxy sources, the data graphed after 1900 is the instrumental record.

When temperatures averaged over 100+ years, it's tough to average the tail end last 100 years well so using the instrumental record isn't wrong. Drawing conclusions SOLELY on the divergence that happens at 1900 though is to say the least, nuanced. Plainly, the most important and probable factor that must first be thoroughly ruled out is that the change in data sets is having an impact. There's a possibility that thermometers measure temperature more accurately than proxy records that are statistically analyzed and averaged over hundreds or thousands of years.

If you don't want to give away your e-mail use an anonymous one. Plenty out there.

Yes these are general books about programming but it's still good value. Some publishers like Elsevier take and take and take from the community without giving anything back EXCEPT POLITICAL DONATIONS TO CONGRESSMEN TO KEEP THEIR CARTEL. O'Reilly's done very well out of the programming community but he does give back. Good for him.

Well, these guys (http://www.deepspace.ucsb.edu/projects/directed-energy-interstellar-precursors) seem to think it may work, at least for small packages.

"As an example, on the eventual upper end, a full scale DE-STAR 4 (50-70 GW) will propel a wafer scale spacecraft with a 1 m laser sail to about 26% the speed of light in about 10 minutes (20 kgo accel), reach Mars (1 AU) in 30 minutes, pass Voyager I in less than 3 days, pass 1,000 AU in 12 days and reach Alpha Centauri in about 20 years. "

Apart from Mars being 0.52 AU away right now, it would take 15 minutes to pass Mars. Unfortunately, if you want to stop you need to put on the brakes after a few minutes. But still. That said, having an orbiting 50GW laser array over our head might make some nations a tad nervous.

Original article: https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/pa...

Here's the calculator: http://www.deepspace.ucsb.edu/...

A russian billionaire is funding this: http://www.sciencemag.org/news...

I've a picture of him at the press conference here: http://i33.photobucket.com/alb...

Why do you feel the need to insult a stranger when they are telling you the truth?

First I didn't insult you, I commented on your lack of knowledge about Greenland because you made multiple statements that are so obviously incorrect that the only possible way a person could actually believe they were true was if that person knew nothing at all about the country. Second, many of the things you have written are pants-on-fire false, and now when presented with direct evidence that contradicts your statements, you chose to ignore the evidence, and double down on your fact-free views. So, if you don't want you ignorance pointed out in public, don't put it on display.

Greenland was warmer in the past and got a lot colder... For example, the following proves my case, Greenland was much warmer in the past than it is today

The link you provided says the Viking colonies died out sometime around the early 16th century, which is in the middle of the Little Ice Age (~1300-1870), while it does suggest that temperatures may have dropped in the later years, that's only one of many possible reasons for the destruction of the settlements put forth. And it should notice that a no point does it make a comparison between today's temperatures and those of Viking settlements. Meanwhile, this study disputes the notion that Greenland was much warmer when it was first colonised based on analysis of glacier sediments which indicate that Greenland's glaciers did not undergo significant changes during the period that the Vikings had settled the island. If they are correct it shows that the Viking settlements did not enjoy a climate that was as warm as that of today, because if it had been warmer, then the glaciers should have shown similar or greater melting (over the course of 500 years) which they do not.

use the Scientific Method, please.

Frankly, I wonder how you think you are applying the scientific method here.

Your concern about measurement tech would be more significant if there was a step change in the data when there was a step change in the measurement tech.

The step change doesn't exist because the instrumental record is what the entire reconstruction is calibrated against. The alignment to 1900 isn't happening spontaneously, but by design. You can check out the details in Marcott's paper here, and more detailed methodology in the supplementary notes.