by Judith Curry
A few things that caught my eye this past week.
In the news
This is the best, clearest explanation I’ve seen of neutrinos and this year’s Nobel physics prize [link]
Physics Nobel Winners Also Solved Solar Mystery [link]
This year’s #NobelPrize for medicine goes to drugs that improved the lives of 3.4 billion people worldwide [link]
Amazing story about possibly the greatest mathematical discovery of the past century, but no one understands it. [link] …
Andy Revkin: “Korean Economist is Elected to Lead UN IPCC” [link] …
“The geological storage of carbon dioxide for Carbon Capture and Storage is secure and safe” [link] …
A Shifting Approach to Saving Endangered Species: [link]
“Bacteria in the world’s oceans produce millions of tons of hydrocarbons [crude oil] each year” [link] …
What’s an “atmospheric river” and why is it relevant to #Joaquin? @DrShepherd2013 explains: [link]
NOAA scientists declare 3rd #GlobalCoralBleaching event on record: [link] …
New papers
Special Royal Society issue on Climate Feedbacks [link]
Good overview article by Eric Wolff: Understanding Climate Feedbacks [link]
The change in simulated temperature in response to a second doubling of CO2 is 40% larger than the first doubling [link] …
The inconstancy of the transient climate response parameter under increasing CO2 [link]
Central England temperature & global temperature [link]…
“Scientists solve deep ocean carbon riddle” why dissolved organic carbon isn’t increasing in deep ocean. [link]
New paper finds CO2 fertilization has greened warm, arid environments by 11% [link] …
Must click: Visualized OCO2 satellite data showing global carbon dioxide concentrations [link] …
Looks interesting – Coincidence vs. Causality: Connections in the climate system [link]
Svensmark’s Solar Amplifier Theory Solidifies [link]
“Most models unrealistically form Antarctic Bottom Water by open ocean deep convection in the Weddell & Ross seas.” [link]
New paper finds prior “reconstructions of time series in climatology” are “mathematically incorrect” [link]
Ozone destroyer drops mysteriously [link]
New paper explains how phases of natural oscillations ENSO and PDO interact to influence number of typhoons [link]
A Short Summary of Soon, Connolly and Connolly, 2015; “Re-evaluating the role of solar variability on Northern Hem… [link]
Sea ice is not a stable habitat for polar bears – summarized today in The Arctic Journal [link] …
Ancient islands stranded in the Arctic [link]
New paper: jet “contrails impact hydrological cycle in the atmosphere by reducing the total water column and clouds” [link]
Paradigm shift: energy optimized imprecise supercomputers [link] …
GMOs, food & nutrition
An important and brilliant effort to completely reframe the debate over GMOs [link]
Best piece yet: “These Emails Show Monsanto Leaning on Professors to Fight the GMO PR War” in Mother Jones [link]. Looks positively RICO worthy
#Monsanto academic scandal spreads to Canada. [link]
Here’s @MonsantoCo perspective: Why does Monsanto work with academics? [link]
GMO propaganda and the sociology of science [link]
Whole milk vs skim milk: How hypothesis became dogma …the case, though thinly supported, was presented as if it were a sure thing [link]
USDA chief: US dietary guidelines just ‘hunches’ & ‘opinion.’ Wishes for ‘scientific facts.’ [link]
About science
“Political Scientists”. Scott Findlay explains what it means to be a scientist-advocate. [link]
Interesting paper by @AmeliaSharman on impact of climate controversy on the production of knowledge – addresses the impact of skeptics [link] Discussed at BishopHill [link]
.@PTetlock & @DGardner’s Superforecasting is a fantastic—and important—read. Who knew? @TheEconomist’s review: [link] …
An interview with social psychologist @PTetlock, author of “Superforecasting: The Art and Science of Prediction” [link] …
Very interesting read: Simon Schaffer and Sujit Sivasundaram on taking a global view of the history of science: [link]…
Science for the people! A brief history of radical science [link]…
Is withholding your data simply bad science, or should it fall under scientific misconduct? [link]