SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: TimF who wrote (19413)1/7/2008 6:51:23 PM
From: maceng2  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 36921
 
Lets just keep our fingers crossed that Habibullah Abdusamatov is right eh?

gather.com

The trouble the denialists face is planting your head in the sand and ignoring the facts, or being plain disingenuous, can give the socialists even more justification for their taxes and carbon credits when proved right. Rather then just fight the plain fact that human activity does indeed effect the climate, why not be a political force into what projects money and effort is channeled?

I am totally against the "carbon credits" B/S. It is just an excuse for celebrities to fly around the planet giving speeches on saving the planet and still feel good about their excessive lifestyles at the same time.

Maybe some money could be spent on another trip to the moon??

===========================================================

gather.com

Boreholes on the Moon could solve climate puzzle
05 January 2008

Here's another reason to go back to the moon: it may help settle a climate change controversy.

Climate modellers use ice cores, tree rings and sunspot data to see how much solar energy reached Earth centuries ago and whether it affected global temperatures. Such methods are far from reliable, though: sunspot data is incomplete, while conditions on Earth can skew results.

Bob Cahalan at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, and colleagues calculated that boreholes on the moon just 10 metres deep would provide a temperature record stretching back to the 1600s, and so help researchers gauge solar energy in the past more accurately (Geophysical Research Letters, DOI: 10.1029/2007GL032171).



To: TimF who wrote (19413)1/7/2008 8:38:12 PM
From: neolib  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 36921
 
I wouldn't necessarily say climate science is more full of wholes than evolutionary biology, but I would say specific models of AGW are more densely full of holes than evolutionary biology.

I disagree. Evolution is a skeletal framework. 99+% of the details are missing. Climate science is far better filled in. You are correct that one field is much larger than the other. We can model most of the major contribution in climate science with a reasonable numerical accuracy. In evolution we don't have even a foggy idea of the relative importance of the mechanisms we know about.

In climate science, we don't know much numerically about certain specific dynamic systems (ocean conveyors, etc) which can clearly cause some tippings. So yes, there is still plenty to learn.



To: TimF who wrote (19413)1/7/2008 8:46:53 PM
From: neolib  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 36921
 
Perhaps the best way I can cast the AGW debate to you is as follows:

Suppose the Sun were directly measured to have been slowly increasing output, such that we measured 2W/m2 increase from the 1800's till now, and it was currently continuing to increase at a rate which would tack on another 2W/m2 by 2100. Lets say we had excellent historical and current direct measurements of this. What would your view be regarding scientists and climate modelers claiming that this increased solar flux was causing the earth to warm?

Now, instead of the Sun changing, what if you have the situation we do have, the measured CO2 is going up at the rate it is?

What I see is that all the AGW deniers hold out hope that the 2W/m2 forcing from CO2 will somehow be negated by other climate issues, since the field is so complex and we know so little. The argument from ignorance so to speak. But if the 2W/m2 was observed to be from increased solar output, they would accept that as a legitimate source of global warming.

Sorry, the science of climate change is the same in both cases. If you doubt AGW, you should also doubt the sun could warm the planet for the same level of forcing (2-4W/m2)



To: TimF who wrote (19413)1/7/2008 10:22:19 PM
From: neolib  Respond to of 36921
 
Hi Tim: This is an example of the sort of holes we keep finding in evolutionary biology:

New Route For Heredity Bypasses DNA

ScienceDaily (Jan. 4, 2008) — A group of scientists in Princeton's Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology has uncovered a new biological mechanism that could provide a clearer window into a cell's inner workings.

What's more, this mechanism could represent an "epigenetic" pathway -- a route that bypasses an organism's normal DNA genetic program -- for so-called Lamarckian evolution, enabling an organism to pass on to its offspring characteristics acquired during its lifetime to improve their chances for survival. Lamarckian evolution is the notion, for example, that the giraffe's long neck evolved by its continually stretching higher and higher in order to munch on the more plentiful top tree leaves and gain a better shot at surviving.

The research also could have implications as a new method for controlling cellular processes, such as the splicing order of DNA segments, and increasing the understanding of natural cellular regulatory processes, such as which segments of DNA are retained versus lost during development. The team's findings will be published Jan. 10 in the journal Nature.

Princeton biologists Laura Landweber, Mariusz Nowacki and Vikram Vijayan, together with other members of the lab, wanted to decipher how the cell accomplished this feat, which required reorganizing its genome without resorting to its original genetic program. They chose the singled-celled ciliate Oxytricha trifallax as their testbed.

Ciliates are pond-dwelling protozoa that are ideal model systems for studying epigenetic phenomena. While typical human cells each have one nucleus, serving as the control center for the cell, these ciliate cells have two. One, the somatic nucleus, contains the DNA needed to carry out all the non-reproductive functions of the cell, such as metabolism. The second, the germline nucleus, like humans' sperm and egg, is home to the DNA needed for sexual reproduction.

When two of these ciliate cells mate, the somatic nucleus gets destroyed, and must somehow be reconstituted in their offspring in order for them to survive. The germline nucleus contains abundant DNA, yet 95 percent of it is thrown away during regeneration of a new somatic nucleus, in a process that compresses a pretty big genome (one-third the size of the human genome) into a tiny fraction of the space. This leaves only 5 percent of the organism's DNA free for encoding functions. Yet this small hodgepodge of remaining DNA always gets correctly chosen and then descrambled by the cell to form a new, working genome in a process (described as "genome acrobatics") that is still not well understood, but extremely deliberate and precise.

Landweber and her colleagues have postulated that this programmed rearrangement of DNA fragments is guided by an existing "cache" of information in the form of a DNA or RNA template derived from the parent's nucleus. In the computer realm, a cache is a temporary storage site for frequently used information to enable quick and easy access, rather than having to re-fetch or re-create the original information from scratch every time it's needed.

"The notion of an RNA cache has been around for a while, as the idea of solving a jigsaw puzzle by peeking at the cover of the box is always tempting," said Landweber, associate professor of ecology and evolutionary biology. "These cells have a genomic puzzle to solve that involves gathering little pieces of DNA and putting them back together in a specified order. The original idea of an RNA cache emerged in a study of plants, rather than protozoan cells, though, but the situation in plants turned out to be incorrect."

Through a series of experiments, the group tested out their hypothesis that DNA or RNA molecules were providing the missing instruction booklet needed during development, and also tried to determine if the putative template was made of RNA or DNA. DNA is the genetic material of most organisms, however RNA is now known to play a diversity of important roles as well. RNA is DNA's chemical cousin, and has a primary role in interpreting the genetic code during the construction of proteins.

First, the researchers attempted to determine if the RNA cache idea was valid by directing specific RNA-destroying chemicals, known as RNAi, to the cell before fertilization. This gave encouraging results, disrupting the process of development, and even halting DNA rearrangement in some cases.

In a second experiment, Nowacki and Yi Zhou, both postdoctoral fellows, discovered that RNA templates did indeed exist early on in the cellular developmental process, and were just long-lived enough to lay out a pattern for reconstructing their main nucleus. This was soon followed by a third experiment that "… required real chutzpah," Landweber said, "because it meant reprogramming the cell to shuffle its own genetic material."

Nowacki, Zhou and Vijayan, a 2007 Princeton graduate in electrical engineering, constructed both artificial RNA and DNA templates that encoded a novel, pre-determined pattern; that is, that would take a DNA molecule of the ciliate's consisting of, for example, pieces 1-2-3-4-5 and transpose two of the segments, to produce the fragment 1-2-3-5-4. Injecting their synthetic templates into the developing cell produced the anticipated results, showing that a specified RNA template could provide a new set of rules for unscrambling the nuclear fragments in such a way as to reconstitute a working nucleus.

"This wonderful discovery showed for the first time that RNA can provide sequence information that guides accurate recombination of DNA, leading to reconstruction of genes and a genome that are necessary for the organism," said Meng-Chao Yao, director of the Institute of Molecular Biology at Taiwan's Academia Sinica. "It reveals that genetic information can be passed on to following generations via RNA, in addition to DNA."

The research team believes that if this mechanism extends to mammalian cells, then it could suggest novel ways for manipulating genes, besides those already known through the standard methods of genetic engineering. This could lead to possible applications for creating new gene combinations or restoring aberrant cells to their original, healthy state.

Support for the team's research was provided by the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health and the School of Engineering and Applied Science senior thesis research fund.



To: TimF who wrote (19413)1/7/2008 10:29:07 PM
From: neolib  Respond to of 36921
 
Hi Tim: An yet another one of interest in evolutionary biology showing that current understanding can't explain an entire class of evolutionary systems.

Insects' 'Giant Leap' Reconstructed By Founder Of Sociobiology

ScienceDaily (Jan. 4, 2008) — The January 2008 issue of BioScience includes an article by biologist Edward O. Wilson that argues for a new perspective on the evolution of advanced social organization in some ants, bees, and wasps (Hymenoptera).

Wilson's article surveys recent evidence that the high level of social organization called "eusociality," found in some Hymenoptera (and rarely in other species), is a result of natural selection on nascent colonies of species possessing features that predispose them to colonial life. Wilson concludes that these features, principally progressive provisioning of larvae and behavioral flexibility that leads to division of labor, allow some species to evolve colonies that are maintained and defended because of their proximity to food sources.

Eusociality is a challenge for biologists to understand because worker castes in eusocial species forgo individual reproduction but rear young that are not their own, a behavior that biologists label altruistic. Wilson's current view about eusociality differs from the assessment in his seminal book Sociobiology: The New Synthesis (1975). According to that widely accepted earlier account, selection acting on individuals that are related (kin selection), rather than on whole colonies, explains eusociality in Hymenoptera. Kin selection is thought to be especially powerful in these animals because of an unusual genetic system, known as haplodiploidy, that they share.

Wilson's survey in BioScience, which examines the findings of a number of researchers, points out aspects of the occurrence of eusociality that the standard explanation has difficulty accounting for. Eusociality has evolved only a few times, and not all of them were in haplodiploid species. Furthermore, the great majority of haplodiploid species are not eusocial. Wilson holds that selection acting on traits that emerge at a group level provides a more complete explanation for eusociality's rare instances than kin selection. Kin selection is, he writes, "not wrong" but incomplete.

The view Wilson advocates is controversial because theoretical biologists have thus far been unable to create mathematical models that demonstrate the strong colony-level selection that Wilson postulates. Any theory about eusociality has to explain why selection acting on individuals does not lead some to undermine the colony by reproducing themselves. According to some of Wilson's critics, the theory he now espouses relies on unacknowledged individual-level selection rather than group selection.

Journal article: One Giant Leap: How Insects Achieved Altruism and Colonial Life. Edward O. Wilson