Watts Up With That?

Conjuring up images from the movie “It came from Outer Space“, it turns out we may all be from space. Some of us are “spacier” than others. This news of finding the building blocks of life in a meteorite comes as a small surprise.  I swear though I’m not related to anyone in Chico by by more than 17,000 AU.

Scientists have confirmed that the components of genetic material could have originated in a place other than Earth.

A recently published report explains how uracil and xanthine, two basic biological compounds, were found within a meteorite that landed in Australia.

The Murchinson Meteorite, more here

Here is the paper: “Extraterrestrial nucleobases in the Murchison meteorite”, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Sunday 15 June 2008 (Print publication)

A full copy of the research (HTML and PDF) can be downloaded at:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2008.03.026

Excerpt:

“They tested the meteorite material to determine whether the molecules came from the solar system or were a result of contamination when the meteorite landed on Earth. The analysis shows that the nucleobases contain a heavy form of carbon which could only have been formed in space. Materials formed on Earth consist of a lighter variety of carbon.”

Here is the full press release:

Imperial College News Release

For Immediate Release:
Friday 13 June 2008

Scientists have confirmed for the first time that an important component of early genetic material which has been found in meteorite fragments is extraterrestrial in origin, in a paper published on 15 June 2008.

The finding suggests that parts of the raw materials to make the first molecules of DNA and RNA may have come from the stars.

The scientists, from Europe and the USA, say that their research, published in the journal Earth and Planetary Science Letters, provides evidence that life’s raw materials came from sources beyond the Earth.

The team discovered the molecules in rock fragments of the Murchison meteorite, which crashed in Australia in 1969.

They tested the meteorite material to determine whether the molecules came from the solar system or were a result of contamination when the meteorite landed on Earth.

The analysis shows that the nucleobases contain a heavy form of carbon which could only have been formed in space. Materials formed on Earth consist of a lighter variety of carbon.

Lead author Dr Zita Martins, of the Department of Earth Science and Engineering at Imperial College London, says that the research may provide another piece of evidence explaining the evolution of early life. She says:

“We believe early life may have adopted nucleobases from meteoritic fragments for use in genetic coding which enabled them to pass on their successful features to subsequent generations.”

Between 3.8 to 4.5 billion years ago large numbers of rocks similar to the Murchison meteorite rained down on Earth at the time when primitive life was forming. The heavy bombardment would have dropped large amounts of meteorite material to the surface on planets like Earth and Mars.

Co-author Professor Mark Sephton, also of Imperial’s Department of Earth Science and Engineering, believes this research is an important step in understanding how early life might have evolved. He added:

“Because meteorites represent left over materials from the formation of the solar system, the key components for life — including nucleobases — could be widespread in the cosmos. As more and more of life’s raw materials are discovered in objects from space, the possibility of life springing forth wherever the right chemistry is present becomes more likely.”

Is a special day that many forget about, some people never even know about it.

To see what is special about June14th, see my new blog Weather Picture of The Day.

Don’t forget yours.

Preparing to launch a ”flame”.

A couple of things have happened this week that has made me look at this blog just a bit differently than in the past.

• I’ve had to ask for help for the very first time in moderating comments as I’ve run out of hours in the day. Thanks Jeez.
• I’ve had one of the most stressful weeks ever in trying to juggle all the workload with this blog, including a wildland fire that has made 5 of my 6 employees absent today.  The phones are quiet at the moment and nothing had broken (yet) in our 50 or so servers.
• The realization that I’m going to have half a million unique page views this month
• Some very rude and juvenile comments were posted as of late by anonymous commenters, some of which I’ve simply deleted wholesale. Some I’ve banned. The trend for this has been upwards.
• I’m not getting other important work done, such as getting the surfacestations.org database updated as new stations are surveyed, and I need to deploy my Stevenson Screen paint experiment again. One of the screens has been damaged my a recent windstorm (knocked over, anchors pulled out).
• I’m falling behind in email correspondence.

As I review my time, I find that a good portion of it goes towards managing this blog. It has become a hungry insatiable animal. While I have no lack of material for postings, doing the moderation/management is becoming a bit much. It is often irritating as well as time consuming.

Faced with a choice of giving up blogging (as Roger Pielke did for awhile) turning off comments altogether (as Roger Pielke did when he returned to blogging) or changing the way comments are handled, I’m considering the latter.

One of the things that has always bothered me about blogging and commentary is that the “anonymous cowards” (as Slashdot calls them) generally have the upper hand. Science bloggers like Tamino and Eli Rabbet fall into the “anonymous coward” category, as do many of the rude posters here and elsewhere. Some like “Dano” and “TCO” have whole careers based on snark. Who are they? I don’t know/don’t care, as they are irrelevant. But, they waste everybody’s time nonetheless.

Being anonymous or using a handle allows you to say any stupid, hateful, inciting, derogatory, or otherwise negative thing you want and have no accountability for your actions. At the same time, your opinion or writings is generally worthless as it can’t be verified. Anonymity IMHO, serves only the purpose to allow bad behaviour while protecting oneself or one’s reputation from any real damage.

On the other hand, people that put their name out there with their work or writings, such as John Coleman, Roger Pielke, Joe D’aleo, Basil Copeland, John Goetz, Steve McIntyre, David Smith, Evan Jones, Jim Goodridge, Warren Meyer, and many others (I’m sorry if I missed anyone), including myself, often get viciously criticized for putting their word and reputation on the line every day for writing something they believe in.

The “anonymous cowards” that publish blogs or comments take no such risks when they criticize or challenge. They can work for NASA, be a member of the IPCC, work for a science organization, be a professor at a university, and can taunt, castigate, or criticize in any tone they wish, all without risk to their professional or private reputation.

So today, when I got some angry anonymous comments, one of which came from a NASA employee (which I know because WordPress.com automatically puts the source IP next to each comment, that’s not something I had to search for) it made me think about “why am I taking all the risks”?

Peilke and D’Aleo solved the problem by turning off comments. I like comments because they give myself and others new perspectives, but I don’t like the easy “drive by vitriol” that sometimes springs forth from anonymity. The commenter “MA” recently provided an example of the worst sort of that.

My father, God rest his soul, always told me to “stand behind my words”. I do that, by putting my name on everything that publishes here. I’ve taken a lot of heat for doing so.

So I’m considering this:

Change of policy – all commenters must use their real name and  have valid reachable email. The name would be published, the email would not.

Sure, that will anger some folks, but at the same time it will also force those that wish to comment to choose their words carefully, to act responsibly, and to be courteous of others. It will also cut down on the volume of comments that need moderation.

I figure if you have something to say, and what you have to say is useful, factual, and important enough to add to the discussion, you’ll have no problem putting your name to it. Right?

Ok have at it. I’ll make a decision next week.

Reid once said:  ‘You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.’

From Roger Pielke 

Professor Greg  J. Tripoli of the University of Wisconsin – Madison has shared this sad news with all of us.

Excerpt:  “I have the sad news to report that Professor Emeritus Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin – Madison passed away in his sleep Wednesday morning. Reid founded the Department of Meteorology at the University of Wisconsin – Madison in 1948 . Although Reid is most well known for his work in Climate, People and the Environment,  it is less known that Reid was also a pioneer in tropical meteorology and hurricane forecasting.  As U.S. Army Air Corps meteorologist out of Saipan, Marshall Islands  during World War II (December, 1944).

Reid pieced together evidence that a  typhoon was apparently developing in harms way and commissioned reconnaissance of the storm that he believed surrounding observations suggested  must exist in one of the many data void regions.  The reconnaissance that he ordered found the storm, encountered 140 kt winds and  aborted an apparent eye wall penetration.  Reid then identified a trough of low pressure in the storms path and predicted to his superiors that the storm would recurve into the path of the US Third Fleet.  

Believing that typhoons never recurve so far to the east, Reid’s superior officers chose to not believe his forecast.  Reid pleaded that this was not a guess, they actually  flew into the storm and measured the winds!  His superior officers conceded to watch it closely but did not act to move the fleet.  

Reid tells me that he went so far as to place unofficial warnings (off the record) of his own which he is convinced did save lives.   Then 36 hours later the storm began the recurve, just  as Reid predicted and they tried to move the Third Fleet out of the way, but is was now too late.  

Unfortunately this resulted in one of the worst naval disasters in navy history (3 ships sunk, 28 ships damaged, 146 aircraft destroyed, 756 men lost at sea  (see Henderson, 2007: Down to the Sea, ISBN 978-0-06-117316-5 for a detailed account of this incident).  I suppose that this experience went a long way to shape Reid’s views on conventional thought and to compel him to dedicate the rest of his life to the science of weather and finding truth.”

Note from Anthony: That naval disaster due to the typhoon also was the basis of the idea for the novel and Movie The Caine Mutiny

Dendroclimatology: thermometer or hygrometer?

Hot climate or cold, tree leaves stay in comfort zone

From the Google Climate Discussion Group, see an article also in Science News

Paris, June 11; Agence France-Presse

A new study that shows their internal temperature remains constant at 21.4deg could challenge the way trees are used to determine historical climate data

The internal temperature of leaves, whether in the tropics or a cold-clime forest, tends toward a nearly constant 21.4 degrees Celsius, reports a study released today.

It had long been assumed that actively photosynthesising leaves – using energy from sunlight to convert carbon dioxide and water into sugar – are nearly as cold or hot as the air around them.

The new findings not only challenge long-held precepts in plant biology, but could upend climate models that use tree rings to infer or predict past and present temperature changes.

For decades, scientists studying the impact of global warming have measured the oxygen isotope ratio in tree-rings to determine the air temperature and relative humidity of historical climates.

Oxygen atoms within water molecules evaporate more or less quickly depending on the number of neutrons they carry, and the ratio between these differently weighted atoms in tree trunk rings has been used as a measure of year-to-year fluctuations in temperatures and rainfall.

“The assumption in all of these studies was that tree leaf temperatures were equal to ambient temperatures,” lead researcher Brent Helliker told AFP. “It turns out that they are not.”

Helliker and University of Pennsylvania colleague Suzanna Richter turned those assumptions upside down in examining 39 tree species, across 50 degrees of latitude ranging from sub-tropical Columbia to boreal Canada.

They compared current observed records of humidity and temperature against the isotope ratios in the trees, and found that tree leaves were internally cooler than surrounding air temperatures in warm climes, and warmer in cool climes.

Even more startling was that in all cases the average temperature – over the course of a growing season – was about 21degC.

“It is not surprising to think that a polar bear in northern Canada and a black bear in Florida have the same internal body temperature,” because both animals have internal thermostats to prevent overheating or freezing to death, he said.

“But to think that a Canadian black spruce and a Caribbean Pine have the same average leaf temperature is quite astonishing,” he added.

Tree leaves keep cool through constant evaporation and reducing sun exposure through leaf angles or reflective qualities. Warmth is gained by decreasing evaporation and increasing the number of leaves per branch.

All these tricks should be seen as evolutionary adaptations that help the trees attain a maximum of nutrients through optimal photosynthesis, Helliker said.

The fact that part of this adaptation occurs at the level of entire forest canopies, and not just within individual leaves, is one reason direct measurements of tree temperatures have been so hard.

The new findings, published in the British journal Nature, are bolstered by a recent study of a mixed species forest in Switzerland based on infrared thermal imaging.

Measured across an entire growing season, the forest canopy temperatures were found to be 4degC to 5degC higher than the cool, ambient air in the Swiss Alps.

AFPar 12/06/08 08-05NZ

A guest post by John Coleman, founder of The Weather Channel, and Chief Meteorologist of KUSI-TV in San Diego. See his previous challenge published here called “An Open Letter to Environmentalists“

Note from Anthony: I know John from way back. He’s a true pioneer in meteorology. I shared a table with him and Joe D’Aleo at the ICCC in New York in March, and I was there when you made his now famous challenge to Al Gore. Here he makes another. One of the biggest issue in my mind (that John touches on indirectly) is the logarithmic effect of CO2. Yes is causes warming, but beyond a point it’s effect diminishes.

Even Gavin Schmidt (NASA GISS) admits the amount of forcing in the 20th century due to CO2 is uncertain:

“One such question is the percentage of 20th Century warming that can be attributed to CO₂ increases. This appears straightforward, but it might be rather surprising to readers that this has neither an obvious definition, nor a precise answer. I will therefore try to explain why.”

[he goes on to cite modeling, forcings etc. here]

“In summary, I hope I’ve shown that there is too much ambiguity in any exact percentage attribution for it to be particularly relevant, though I don’t suppose that will stop it being discussed.”

In my mind, if you can’t quantify it, either by first order principles, by measurement, or by modeling, then saying “there’s too much ambiguity for it to be relevant” certainly does not help the argument. To imply then that we understand the atmosphere well enough to model the outcome and to publish scenarios that predict the future of global temperature based on CO2 level in our atmosphere, certainly then would be, “derived ambiguity”.

Global Warming and the Price of a Gallon of Gas
by John Coleman

You may want to give credit where credit is due to Al Gore and his global warming campaign the next time you fill your car with gasoline, because there is a direct connection between Global Warming and four dollar a gallon gas. 

It is shocking, but true, to learn that the entire Global Warming frenzy is based on the environmentalist’s attack on fossil fuels, particularly gasoline.  All this big time science, international meetings, thick research papers, dire threats for the future; all of it, comes down to their claim that the carbon dioxide in the exhaust from your car and in the smoke stacks from our power plants is destroying the climate of planet Earth.  What an amazing fraud; what a scam.

The future of our civilization lies in the balance. 

That’s the battle cry of the High Priest of Global Warming Al Gore and his fellow, agenda driven disciples as they predict a calamitous outcome from anthropogenic global warming.  According to Mr. Gore the polar ice caps will collapse and melt and sea levels will rise 20 feet inundating the coastal cities making 100 million of us refugees.  Vice President Gore tells us numerous Pacific islands will be totally submerged and uninhabitable.  He tells us global warming will disrupt the circulation of the ocean waters, dramatically changing climates, throwing the world food supply into chaos. He tells us global warming will turn hurricanes into super storms, produce droughts, wipe out the polar bears and result in bleaching of coral reefs. He tells us tropical diseases will spread to mid latitudes and heat waves will kill tens of thousands.  He preaches to us that we must change our lives and eliminate fossil fuels or face the dire consequences. 

The future of our civilization is in the balance.

With a preacher’s zeal, Mr. Gore sets out to strike terror into us and our children and make us feel we are all complicit in the potential demise of the planet.

Here is my rebuttal.
Read the rest of this entry »