Comment on Week in review – science edition by David L. Hagen

August 8, 2015, 6:39 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – science edition by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – science edition by David Springer

$

0

0

Bias in modeling clouds
Zhang et al. discovered a 15% bias in CMIP5 modeling of cloud brightness.
Xuanze Zhang, Xiaogu Zheng, Zhian Sun, and San Luo, 2015: Trends of MSU Brightness Temperature in the Middle Troposphere Simulated by CMIP5 Models and Their Sensitivity to Cloud Liquid Water
J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol., 32, 1029–1041. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JTECH-D-13-00250.1

the two approaches for estimating modeled MSU T2 are evaluated. For each CMIP5, it is shown that there exists a model-simulated static weighting function, such that the MSU T2 trend using the weighting function is equivalent to that calculated by RTM. The effect of modeled cloud liquid water on MSU T2 trends in CMIP5 simulations is investigated by comparing the modeled cloud liquid water vertical profile and the weighting function. Moreover, it is found that warming trends of MSU T2 for CMIP5 simulations calculated by the RTM are about 15% less than those using the two traditional static weighting functions. By comparing the model-derived weighting function with the two traditional weighting functions, the reason for the systematical biases is revealed.

---

Comment on Week in review – science edition by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3

August 8, 2015, 6:47 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – science edition by David Springer

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – science edition by David L. Hagen

$

0

0

I was looking for just the right source to tweak a few noses.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1229857/How-16-ships-create-pollution-cars-world.html

Comment on Week in review – science edition by David Springer

August 8, 2015, 6:59 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – science edition by AK

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – science edition by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3

$

0

0

Genetics is a fascinating real science moving forward by leaps and bounds. Global warming science is more of an actuary study that is moribund with essentially no progress in refining ECS estimates made in 50 years.

Some of the “holy crap” moments I’ve had keeping up with genetics is that protein coding genes are poly-functional. Reading in one direction produces a useful protein while reading in the opposite direction produces another. Frame shifting so codons (base pair triplets encoding individual amino acids) begin at a different point can produce yet another functional protein all out of the same coding gene! The vast majority of amino acid sequences produce nothing useful so the same 300 or so average base pair coding gene sequence being read in different directions and different starting points producing useful 5-dimensional building blocks is astounding.

Even so-called silent mutations have effects. There are 32 possible codons which translate to 21 amino acids. So there is some redundancy where two different codons translate to the same acid. The interesting thing is that the processing speed of the ribosome, the cellular machine that reads RNA like a paper tape and assembles a protein from it, is different for redundant codons. The output of a ribosome is like grease coming out of a grease gun where the speed influences how the protein folds coming out. Ribosomes in bacteria differ slightly from ribosomes in animals so when we started inserting human genes for say insulin into bacteria to manufacture it the result was a useless precipitate that hadn’t folded right. So we had to introduce silent mutations that caused the bacterial ribosome to produce the properly folded protein we wanted.

The complexity of what goes on in even the simplest free living organism almost defies imagination.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by AK

August 8, 2015, 7:05 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – science edition by AK

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – science edition by David Springer

$

0

0

<blockquote>One of the most prolific animals on the earth hasn’t been able to evolve around the need to have mosquitos host it for part of its life cycle.</blockquote>It's (probably) only been “[o]<i>ne of the most prolific animals on the earth</i>” for <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/22/health/22MALA.html" rel="nofollow">a few thousand years.</a> Maybe it was only created 6000 years ago, along with the rest of the Earth?

Comment on Week in review – science edition by AK

August 8, 2015, 7:14 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – science edition by jim2

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – science edition by AK

$

0

0

<a href="http://www.malariasite.com/history-parasites/" rel="nofollow">Evolution of Malaria Parasites</a>

Comment on Week in review – science edition by jim2

August 8, 2015, 7:15 am

≫ Next: Comment on Embracing uncertainty in climate change policy (!) by Vaughan Pratt

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – science edition by AK

$

0

0

David, see this:

http://www.plainsite.org/flashlight/nanocarbons-llc/

Comment on Embracing uncertainty in climate change policy (!) by Vaughan Pratt

August 8, 2015, 7:19 am

≫ Next: Comment on Embracing uncertainty in climate change policy (!) by Vaughan Pratt

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – science edition by jim2

$

0

0

@AK: Wrong! They only care about “intelligent” species, which they define as producing coherent radio waves. So your sample is only a century or so.

Great caricature, AK, thanks for that. The “Wrong!” instead of “Here’s an even better theory” is spot on.

Comment on Embracing uncertainty in climate change policy (!) by Vaughan Pratt

August 8, 2015, 8:20 am

≫ Next: Comment on Embracing uncertainty in climate change policy (!) by AK

≪ Previous: Comment on Embracing uncertainty in climate change policy (!) by Vaughan Pratt

$

0

0

@TE: Sorry – won’t proceed on a false premise.

Thereby passing up a great opportunity to make your point, whatever it might be.

If you know P is false then you have not-P. So if you take P as a premise you have not-P and P, from which your point follows. Along with its negation but hopefully no one will notice if you obfuscate your reasoning sufficiently.

“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” –Ralph Waldo Emerson

Emerson was more of a libertarian than a logician.

---

Comment on Embracing uncertainty in climate change policy (!) by AK

August 8, 2015, 8:25 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D

≪ Previous: Comment on Embracing uncertainty in climate change policy (!) by Vaughan Pratt

$

0

0

<blockquote>You guys punted the ball when it came to giving an alternative theory Now U punt when offerred the chance for an alernative solution.</blockquote>I hope you're not including me in that “<i>U punt</i>”

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D

August 8, 2015, 8:34 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – science edition by cerescokid

≪ Previous: Comment on Embracing uncertainty in climate change policy (!) by AK

$

0

0

Michael Mann was interviewed on Bill Maher’s show last night. Unfortunately it was all quite tame as everyone just agrees with each other on the need to do something about climate change.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by cerescokid

August 8, 2015, 8:37 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D

$

0

0

Normally I wouldn’t challenge one of your links, but I had a hard time believing this until I read the calculations. It is difficult to put my arms around the numbers emmitted by just those 16 ships, especially against the total for autos but it sounds correct.

The comment by William WRT volcanic emmissions, if true, are equally interesting.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D

August 8, 2015, 8:45 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – science edition by cerescokid

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – science edition by cerescokid

$

0

0

An area that seems to have escaped fossil-fuel clean-up so far. Maybe some sensible regulations will improve things.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by cerescokid

August 8, 2015, 8:46 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D

$

0

0

Other than Mary, did you really expect anyone to have any critical thinking skills sufficient to take on the Left Wing Orthodoxy? I assume the hymnals were provided next to the kneelers.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D

August 8, 2015, 8:51 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – science edition by jim2

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – science edition by cerescokid

$

0

0

To their credit, they didn’t use much red-meat anti-denier rhetoric. That would have livened it up a bit for their audience, but it was just a conversation. Maher talked about the polls that rank climate as a low priority. Mann was able to respond other polls that showed most people want to regulate GHGs. It just depends on how the question is asked.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by jim2

August 8, 2015, 8:51 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – science edition by harrywr2

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D

$

0

0

Hansen sprinkled everyone with Holy Arrhenius Water from the East River, blessed with the Spirit of Back Radiation from ACO2. Afterwards, they kissed His Ring.

---

Comment on Week in review – science edition by harrywr2

August 8, 2015, 8:57 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – science edition by michael hart (@michael97087462)

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – science edition by jim2

$

0

0

Mystery Solved –

Passenger volume is up at Reagan and down at Dulles do to a rule change on how many flights can depart Reagan.

http://wjla.com/news/local/passenger-growth-at-reagan-national-airport-becoming-a-concern-fee-raise-proposed-to-reduce-strain-1

IMHO Temperature trends at airports are good measures as to how well the airport is doing.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by michael hart (@michael97087462)

August 8, 2015, 9:07 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – science edition by stevenreincarnated

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – science edition by harrywr2

$

0

0

“The output of a ribosome is like grease coming out of a grease gun where the speed influences how the protein folds coming out.”

That might well be true. I think it probably is. I’ll go as far as certainly.
But it has too often been ignored by many protein-folders because it is simply too hard to solve, when they can’t even do the simpler problems (like climatists). Again, nothing new.

David (Springer), do you have some recent references for that?

Comment on Week in review – science edition by stevenreincarnated

August 8, 2015, 9:15 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – science edition by aaron

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – science edition by michael hart (@michael97087462)

$

0

0

Yes, all you have to do is ask it in such a way to where it doesn’t make it sound like they have to pay for it.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by aaron

August 8, 2015, 9:18 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – science edition by stevenreincarnated

$

0

0

I feel for all the children living day in and day out within a few acres of super ships.

Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D

August 8, 2015, 9:21 am

≫ Next: Comment on Embracing uncertainty in climate change policy (!) by stevenreincarnated

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review – science edition by aaron

$

0

0

Yes, they don’t know that even trying to gradually shift to alternatives will collapse the global economy like your lot insist.