Making cement generates about 5% of global anthropogenic CO2.
Alex Moseson had developed a new cement that is much cheaper with much lower CO2. http://alexmoseson.net/ He is commercializing it through Greenstone Technologies.”
“Perhaps Mann would show how the IPCC models explain why the decadal temperature trends have declined from mild global warming, to flat and now to global cooling! Now "the observed trend inconsistent with warming at a rate of 0.2C/decade." i.e., outside +/- 2 sigma.
See analysis by Lucia Liljegren at The Blackboard for decades starting in 1975 through 2003. http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/using-arma11-reject-ar4-projections-of-0-2-cdecade/”
chrisd3 on Sep 26, 2012 at 11:09:31
“Lucia, by the way, although undoubtedly a nice person and not a fossil fuel shill, is a mechanical engineer. Foster is a fully qualified statistician.
On matters of mechanical engineering, I would go to Lucia, not Foster. On matters of statistics, however, her criticisms of Foster are unconvincing.”
Dallas Dunlap on Sep 26, 2012 at 07:46:46
“DavidHagen - Decadal trends? That's called cherry picking. Ten years is too short a time to plot a trend that has statistical significance. You have to start at 1993 to get a trend that is statistically significant. If you do that, you see a warming trend of 1.178 degC per decade with a CI of =/- 0.111
(HADCRUT 4) or, using GISTEMP LOTI, 0.188 degC per decade with CI of =/- 0.107.
Within a trend, you may see short term flattening or even cooling. (That's why you plot trends in the first place.) The range of natural variation is greater than the trend, so a short term natural anomaly can obscure the trend for a short time, but these deviations aren't significant.
You don't need Michael Mann to explain this. Foster and Rahmstorf 2011 have already done this, and showed how to isolate the climate signal from the noise. http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022/pdf/1748-9326_6_4_044022.pdf”
Publicola on Sep 26, 2012 at 03:59:56
“"Perhaps Mann would show how the IPCC models explain why the decadal temperature trends have declined from mild global warming, to flat and now to global cooling!"
The premise of your statement is false.
As opposed to citing an obscure, non-peer-reviewed blog (because it was posted on the Internet it must be true, right?) here's a reference to a study in the peer-reviewed scientific literature that refutes your claim:
Environmental Research Letters (2011)
Global Temperature Evolution 1979–2010
When the fluctuations in temperature over the last 32 years (which tend to obscure the continuation of the global warming trend) are accounted for [including El Niño and La Nina], it becomes obvious that there has not been any cessation, or even any slowing, of global warming over the last decade (or at any time during this time span).
In other words, any deviations from an unchanging linear warming trend are explained by the influence of ENSO [El Nino/La Nina], volcanoes and solar variability.
“Oh I think I'll trust the response of the natural world thanks, which is both a folksy and accurate way to figure out whether climate change is upon us or not. The migrating habitats of critters are consistent with the fact that, over the course of this planet's living history, rising CO2 in the air means rising temps, period. Of course a bird who's just trying to survive knows nothing of the science, but when we find ourselves scrambling to do the same, I don't think probabilities & percentages will be at the front of our minds either.”
gallon on Sep 26, 2012 at 01:04:15
“For the real science see
Royal Society of the United Kingdom
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
World Meteorological Organization
American Association of State Climatologists”
chrisd3 on Sep 26, 2012 at 00:22:04
“He doesn't need to. Foster and Rahmstorf 2011 have already done it.
And in any event, such short term trends are meaningless. It's quite amusing that there was such a hubbub in the denialosphere when Phil Jones agreed that the 15-year warming trend wasn't statistically significant, yet it never tires of trumpeting trends that are both much shorter and much less close to significance.”
ubrew12 on Sep 26, 2012 at 00:17:48
“we are just starting a new El Nino, so I would suggest we revisit your question in one year.
In the meantime, consider that in the last nine years, 5 trillion tons of land ice has melted and flown into the oceans. How much 'warming' does it take to melt that much ice? Enough to take a horizontal 'warming' and turn it significantly more vertical: http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/iceatmheat.png”
Re "accumulation of harmful mutations"
Science thrives on understanding the data.
Why have humans accumulated 100,000 single neucleotide mutations and 10,000 deletions different from the Denisovan DNA? (About 40 per generation.)
Why has the Online Mendelian Inheritence in Man recorded 21,382 enteries including all known mendelian disorders (mutations) besides 12,000 genes? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/omim
Why is cancer increasing? http://www.cancer.gov/statistics/find
I recommend actually reading Sanford's book and using Mendel's Accountant to understand these issues.”
SocBeat on Sep 3, 2012 at 15:35:19
“Did you read your own links? They don't support your assertions, and even if they did, your assertions don't support the hypothesis that harmful mutations accumulate faster than beneficial ones. Please understand that mutations can be benign - they don't have to be either harmful or beneficial in the phenotype expression - or they don't express at all in a specific creature if they're recessive or in the so-called junk DNA space.
Mae culpa on a poor example. I was trying to describe constraints on the rate of mutations vs time. Here is another popular example.
Try filling the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve(10^14 g or 727 mega bbl) with a nano-pipette in one second. I.e. 10^23 times difference between filling rate and capacity needed.
Re: descent w/ modification mediated by selection
Stochastic processes forming blueprints for complex micro-machines is far fetched!
With numerous mutations, how can any cell or species select out a neutral to mildly harmful mutation? John Sanford pictures a “Princess on a pile of mattresses over numerous nucleotides.” Denisovan vs modern human DNA mutations quantify rates.
For technical explanations see:
Axe DD (2010) The limits of complex adaptation: An analysis based on a simple model of structured bacterial populations. BIO-Complexity 2010(4):1-10. doi:10.5048/BIO-C.2010.4
Gauger AK, Axe DD (2011) The evolutionary accessibility of new enzyme functions: a case study from the biotin pathway. BIO-Complexity 2011(1):1-17.
Yockey and Hoyle were evolutionists correcting neoDarwinian misunderstandings. Their mathematics apply to macroevolution and OOL.
hp blogger Robert J. Asher on Sep 3, 2012 at 17:40:56
You wrote "Mae culpa on a poor example. I was trying to describe constraints on the rate of mutations vs time."
I think we've made some progress here. On the other hand, your statements about pipetting, fuel reserves, and mattresses haven't really improved the relevance/intelligibility of your point(s).
You wrote "Stochastic processes forming blueprints for complex micro-machines is far fetched!"
This statement is just as wrong as your sandstorm-DVD example. The whole point is that "stochastic" in this context does not equal random. While selection does entail random elements, in the big picture it's biased, not random. Propagandists connected to the Disco-Institute (including most of the authors who publish in "Biocomplexity") will not help you understand this. Try reading biologists like Wallace Arthur, Peter Lawrence, Sean Carroll, or popular science writers like Carl Zimmer. And hey if you read my book and post something about it elsewhere (I do read the ID-friendly sites from time-to-time), let me know and I'll continue the conversation there (or at least I'll try...)
p.s. RE: your comment Denisovans: I hope you understand that there are millions of SNPs & other genetic differences between you & other members of H. sapiens. But you've more in common with me, SocBeat, and a Denisovan than you do with a macaque, marmoset, lemur, rat, elephant, opossum ... (in that order). "Design" does not explain this; evolution does!”
I presume then that you are eager to examine evidence.
Compare modern human with the latest Denisovan DNA:
"About 100,000 places where single nucleotides -- the individual building blocks of DNA -- have changed, so that one type of nucleotide has been swapped out for another.
About 10,000 places where a piece of DNA has been lost, or a new bit added.
Most of the changes will make no difference to the structure of proteins our genomes carry codes for. But the scientists identified 260 changes that would alter a protein's form by changing one of the amino acids it contains.
By your books, it is good to see you have thought a little on the issues. Dig deeper.
Your argument “no other theory comes close to Darwin's as an explanation for our world's incredible biodiversity” logically fails by “the excluded middle”.
The appearance of macro-evolution and evidence of mutations is insufficient. You must also address the quantitative consequence and accumulation rate of mutations.
Joe Thorton equivocates on “impossible”, effectively saying:
Sand can abrade silica. Therefore a sandstorm can create a DVD of the Library of Congress.
A 747 can fly across the ocean, and a nano-pipette can dispense liquid. Therefore, a leaky degrading nano-pipette can refuel a 747 in one minute.
Dig into Yockey’s quantitative arguments. Read Behe’s and Sanford’s books, and the quantitative papers on Darwinian searches by Marks and Dembski at evoinfo.org.
While quantitative physical processes constrain mutation accumulation rates, they are fatal to a stochastic the Origin of Life (OOL).
PS Your ad homs contra Behe and Hoyle fail to address their quantitive models.
Yockey has to sell his book, and so uses the equivocation that he supports “evolution” though his mathematics and logic destroy it. Yockey illogically redefines Behe’s “irreducible complexity” and presumes Behe’s examples of self replicating cells and macro systems to claim that irreducible complexity cannot exist.
Physics requires 10^-15 evidence to prove elementary particles. Evolution uses hand waving to explain stochastically ineffective models without addressing quantitative accumulations of harmful mutations. Try addressing the physics.”
hp blogger Robert J. Asher on Sep 1, 2012 at 15:09:20
"Joe Thorton equivocates on “impossible”, effectively saying:
Sand can abrade silica. Therefore a sandstorm can create a DVD of the Library of Congress."
No he doesn't. This is one of the biggest flaws of the ID movement, and you're repeating it. Selection, or even drift, is not equivalent to pure entropy. A biased process (e.g., descent w/ modification mediated by selection) acting on molecular mechanisms we see today can and does generate complexity (e.g., I discuss trichromatic vision in primates in my book). What purely random processes (e.g., thought experiments RE: 747s) do is completely irrelevant. I also suspect you've not really appreciated the difference between a theory about the origin of life vs. biological evolution thereafter, hence your
repeated reference to Yockey. Your implication that he's a closet creationist is absurd, as obviously dissing Darwin makes for pretty good book sales (e.g., Behe), and if Yockey wanted to do so he surely would.”
Your argument has merit for a single specific mutation with a strong fitness reduction, (but not for a mild or neutral reduction). However, when the total rate of mutations is greater than the rate of removing them, total mutations will accumulate, as I understand biology and population dynamics. Check out the impacts yourself using Mendel's Accountant which provides quantitative forward modeling, and read the papers at: http://mendelsaccountant.info/ For experts, see the numerous references in the books above by Michael Behe and John C. Sanford.”
SocBeat on Sep 2, 2012 at 10:35:22
“I'm sorry, my argument doesn't even address single specific mutations; it addresses the case that you raise in you original post - "They might actually discover the relative probability of accumulation of harmful mutations is greater than acquiring beneficial ones." And that's wrong, for the reasons I gave.
Behe and Sanford, as I'm sure you're aware, are among a small group of loners in their thinking about evolution, and seem to have no trouble ignoring the evidence that doesn't support their case.
Sorry, but I'm not buying into an hypothesis that requires selective use of evidences and replaces natural processes with supernatural ones.”
“In defending orthodox dogma, it is sad that Asher Querent have not studied quantitative population dynamics, nor actually understood physical probabilities of mutation rates and the time required to achieve specific changes. They might actually discover the relative probability of accumulation of harmful mutations is greater than acquiring beneficial ones.
Test it for yourself by using Mendal's Accountant and the best parameters you can find in the literature for each of the available parameters. http://mendelsaccountant.info/
For a popular description with a technical appendix on population models, See John C. Sanford, Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome.
For mutation limits see Michael Behe, "The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism". For quantitative evaluations of the probabilities of life, see what evolutionists actually say in Sir Fred Hoyle, "The Mathematics of Evolution", and Hubert P. Yockey, "Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life" (except his illogical rhetoric against his redefinition “irreducible complexity”). Yockey recognizes that “the message in the genetic information system is 'segregated, linear, and digital'”, and “There is nothing in the physico-chemical world that remotely resembles reactions being determined by a sequence and codes between sequences.” “. . .it is impossible that the origin of life was 'proteins first'.” For further quantitative limits see the Evolutionary Informatics Lab http://www.evoinfo.org/
Scientists who actually understand stochastic probabilities of chemical processes and biomolecular processes have the greatest skepticism over the dogma of evolution.”
SocBeat on Aug 31, 2012 at 15:12:12
“Robert Asher has done a great job of responding to your note (above), but I'd like to add a couple of points.
"They might actually discover the relative probability of accumulation of harmful mutations is greater than acquiring beneficial ones"
The probablity of accumulation of harmful mutations is, by the principles of natural selection, extremely low - precisely because the creatures with harmful mutations have a much higher probablilty of getting killed off before reproducing. Let me add that this is not a circular argument - it's the explanation from within evolution theory as to why beneficial mutations accumulate while harmful ones do not.
"Scientists who actually understand stochastic probabilities of chemical processes and biomolecular processes have the greatest skepticism over the dogma of evolution."