I wonder what was wrong with that bear. It was obviously having trouble before they got there to be 'sleeping' out in the open like that. That's not normal bear behavior.
I wonder if they (the state/rangers) did an autopsy.
I've never seen anything like that in nature.
This makes me really sad, and a bit worried that we might start hearing about BCD (Bear Collapse Disorder-related to CCD in bees). I know up here in N California, we have a serious issue with very low water in our rivers causing warm water, which allows toxic algae to bloom, devastating our salmon (and other river fish) population. I have no idea if that's happening in Alaska too.
I wonder if this is related, either from eating tainted fish or drinking the water. It can kill healthy, well fed dogs within minutes of drinking it, so I'm curious what it's doing to the struggling wildlife that has no other source of water. I've not heard or seen any studies on that.
That's likely just one more part of the disaster that is the California drought. Fingers crossed we get some good rain this winter, if not things here are going to get a bit Thunderdome-y.

OK
#1. Your study quote which said no mechanism had been discovered.
#2. "but the drivers, magnitude, timing and location of methane consumption rates in High Arctic ecosystems are unclear."...LOCATION UNCLEAR MEANS NOT FOUND.
#3...this does not make sense, "this feedback will be moderate: of a magnitude similar to other climate–terrestrial ecosystem feedbacks" is self contradictory, since many terrestrial ecosystem feedbacks are NOT moderate...depending on the definition of "moderate". If less than 10 deg C is moderate, then they're right.
#4. You can tell them 98%+ of scientists in the field of climatology say side effects of industry/technology will cause "X" at a minimum in 100 years, and it has already caused "Y" (warming, weather changes, ocean acidification, environmental pollution, rising cancer rates, water shortages, other indisputable factors), send him back with proof of those effects, and I think same result..."no thanks".

I misunderstood I guess. If you did that, he would just be in a rubber room for claiming to be a time traveler, not seen as a visionary. ;-) If he could offer proof of the time travel, the state of the planet, and the environmental trends showing every issue is seemingly getting worse leading to cluster f*ck, it would not be a hard sell in the least, IMO. At least not to people with an IQ over 90. You don't have to abandon all those things (coal, yes), you would just have to design them better. Electric cars were often the norm before Ford in towns. Planes might be electric dirigibles, and satellites might be put in orbit by rail guns.
If you don't think 1/3 of the planet's population (a reasonable guess if water shortages continue the current trend) being migrant doesn't warrant 'panic' (which I never suggested, I will say it warrants concern even by those in the '1st' world) then I don't know what to tell you.
Citations:
#1. It may be unfishable in 15-20 years (I was off by 5 years) at current acidification rates.
http://www.ipsnews.net/2012/05/climate-change-threatens-crucial-marine-algae/
"By 2040, most of the Arctic Ocean will be too acidic for shell- forming species including most plankton. Significant areas of the Antarctic Ocean will be similarly affected, oceanographer Carol Turley from Plymouth Marine Laboratory in the UK previously told IPS."

#2. by 2025 it's estimated that 2/3 of people worldwide will live in a water shortage.
http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/water/interesting-water-facts/
"Unless we change our ways, two-thirds of the world’s population will face water scarcity by 2025"

#3. Northern India/Southern China is nearly 100% dependent on glacial melt water, glaciers that have lost 50% in the last decade
http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/water/interesting-water-facts/
"Rapid melting will reduce the Tibetan glaciers by 50 percent every decade, according to the Chinese Academy of Sciences
More than two-thirds of Chinese cities face water shortages"

First, I thought you gave up.
Second, the ten year period you mention APPEARED to show a slowdown in the rate of rise expected, because most models did not account for the rise in deep water oceans, nor did they account for 'global dimming', which is the sun's radiation being deflected by particulates in the upper atmosphere (and it's more of a data skewer than one might think, in 2001 it was estimated that it was causing up to 3 degree C COOLING globally, and China at least is producing WAY more particulates today than they did then...which could explain most if not all of the 'missing' heat, but I never hear it mentioned).
I would say that what it means is the models are not useful for short term (ie 10 year) samples, they are intended for longer time frames. In the short term, one expects the model to not follow the prediction exactly, but in the long term it will. As I read it, that's what they said too.
If stating that scientists often simplify and omit functions they either think are unrelated or simply don't know about is 'spreading doubt about the science', se-la-vie. I think it's explaining the science and the reasons it's imperfect while at the same time supporting it. Because I think, based on past and current models and data, that it's likely important things have been missed does not mean I disagree with them in a meaningful way, only in degree and time frame.
I began watching this issue in the late 80's, and at that time, ALL public models were predicting less warming than we were seeing. I fear, and assume, that they have continued that trend for the reasons I've stated above. (I know, you'll say it just said there was a decade where it was below predictions...but they don't include deep ocean temps or global dimming in that data (or do they? I didn't go through it all, admittedly, so I admit I may be wrong), so it's wrong).
To me, that's only logical to think that until proven wrong, and I've yet to see all inclusive data that proves my hypothesis (that we're going to see more warming faster than predicted) wrong, but have seen many trends that support it. When I see a study that includes air, surface, sub surface, ice melt/flow, and ALL water temps (including but not limited to surface ocean, mid ocean, deep ocean, lakes, rivers, and aquifers), mentions global dimming's effects, volcanos, planes trains and automobiles, factories, deforestation, phytoplankton, reefs, diatoms, algae, cows and other methane producers, other random 'minor' greenhouse gasses, etc. I'll pay closer attention to what they say, but without including all the data (at least all we have) any model is going to be 'light' in it's predictions in my opinion. There's a hell of a lot of factors that go into 'climate', more than any simple model can account for. That's why I say they're nearly all technically wrong, but are on the right track. That does not mean I don't support the science/scientists. It means I wish they were more thorough and less swayed by finance or politics.

That's awesome. Also, stingrays feel incredible. I was recently at the Osaka Aquarium and they had a petting section with some sharks (not sure what kind) and some stingrays. The sharks felt coarse (and were also covered in lots of individual particles of sand), but the stingrays had this kind of slimy texture, sort of like algae without the residue. It was really amazing.

I grew up on a farm, and like many/most such kids, went through the experience of having "pet" chickens, pigs, and even a cow or two that ended up on our plates. I think that the key is to explain verbally that such animals are being raised to be food, and then using your best judgement about when they are ready to see something small get slaughtered and butchered.

For me, it was when I was about 6. We had an old rooster (we mostly had chickens for eggs, this fella was a 1-off), and I was a few feet away when my dad held it down and hacked off its head with a hatchet. Got to watch it run around headless, etc. Then I had to help (a little) in the plucking and processing. If you don't regularly do those things, you don't know the little tricks and they take FOREVER. We put way more hours and dollars of toil and effort into plucking, skinning, and preparing that old chicken than it would have cost to buy 10 whole rotisseried chickens from KFC or something. And he was too old to really provide good meat. BUT - I learned something and appreciated the food more, which was the point.

Later in life I was involved with the raising of pigs and cows for meat. I helped feed them every day, and then would help get them into a trailer and deliver them to the meat locker when it was time for them to be slaughtered and butchered. I didn't witness that in person, but I was old enough to fill in the gaps between putting that animal in the trailer and then eating a steak or pork chops a few days later. I think that if my parents had wanted me to have the experience of actually seeing the slaughter, the locker would have easily obliged. Not sure if the same would be true today.


OK, I've been rambling but I'll throw one more thing out there. Now I'm living in Thailand, where a lot of food is purchased in small farmer's market kinds of places, and some is slaughtered and prepared right in front of your very eyes. I love eating fresh Tilapia fish here (the "farm"-raised and frozen fish back in the US always tasted like algae to me, but the fish here don't have that taste at all) and they are alive in tanks when you order one at a market in Thailand. Within 45 seconds, they will pull out a fish of your selection, smack it on the head with a blunt instrument to kill it, rasp off the scales, gut it, put some slices into the sides for even cooking, and hand it to you in a bag to be cooked at home. Sometimes they flop around in the bag a bit (not alive, just muscles unwinding/relaxing) like a headless chicken. I think that will be a similar growing experience for my daughter that she'd be able to witness at a much earlier age. Then maybe when she's 5-6 like I was we'll watch a chicken get the axe.

Wow that's some misleading reporting, the researchers didn't claim that they found tiny organisms, but rather what looks like inorganic pieces of a mineral shell like the kind that forms around algae.

Related:
http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/09/proof-of-alien-life-you-need-a-lot-more-evidence-than-this/

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
Wow that's a large wall of text, @newtboy.
But yes, it appears that:
"Calleja has developed a lighting system that requires no electricity for power. Instead it draws CO2 from the atmosphere and uses it to produce light as well as oxygen as a byproduct. The key ingredient to this eco-friendly light? Algae."
I guess that's why the video empathized that Calleja has been a biochemist for twenty years. i.e. years of research have helped developed a strain of algae with such properties
Apparently the electricity the algae produces is stored in a battery underneath the unit.
http://www.geek.com/articles/geek-cetera/biochemist-creates-co2-eating-light-that-runs-on-algae-2012055/



It appears that this is NOT the case...which is why they redacted the claims here...http://www.earthtechling.com/2012/04/algae-powered-street-lamps-suck-up-c02/
(thanks entrOpy) Don't believe everything you read, especially if the writer is looking for investors!
...and I think you meant emphasized, but maybe they did empathize with him about something and that's why they agreed to re-print his unverified, improbable, sometimes completely wrong claims. *edit-after reading other articles and comments, I find that others claim Calleja is NOT known for being a leading biochemist, but instead is a businessman, which makes me even more warry of his claims.
Also, did no one else notice the name of the company...shame-an(d)-go, is that a play on words describing their actions?
Sorry for the wall of text, there were a lot of mis-statements and implications that needed pointing out and correcting. Science is rarely simple.

This one ?

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

Wow that's a large wall of text, @newtboy.
But yes, it appears that:
"Calleja has developed a lighting system that requires no electricity for power. Instead it draws CO2 from the atmosphere and uses it to produce light as well as oxygen as a byproduct. The key ingredient to this eco-friendly light? Algae."
I guess that's why the video empathized that Calleja has been a biochemist for twenty years. i.e. years of research have helped developed a strain of algae with such properties
Apparently the electricity the algae produces is stored in a battery underneath the unit.
http://www.geek.com/articles/geek-cete
ra/biochemist-creates-co2-eating-light-that-runs-on-algae-2012055/


>> ^newtboy:

The written description said 'with no electricity for power', but the video clearly shows an electric light in the center of the tank...not bioluminescent, electric. They tell you it only works 'in a lighted aquarium'. You even see the operator plug it in and the light turn on at :32, and again at :40, with the electric cord also clearly visible. The audio never claims the device or the algae MAKES light or electricity, only that it takes in CO2 and releases O2. The video of the garage version also shows this clearly, with the plain fluorescent lights turned on while they add the algae to a fish tank. If the power is supposed to be coming from the algae, not the grid, how is the light supposed to be being powered without any algae in the tank? There is never ANY mention of POWER being produced from the algae in the video itself, and the few ways I've read this could be possible are NO WHERE NEAR being financially viable, just possible. They require specialty genetically altered algae (expensive) and reactors with exotic materials to capture electrons from charged algae (also expensive), and the algae must be exposed to light to become charged. If, as the written description claims, they have solved this problem and ARE generating electricity from nothing more than an anaerobic reaction without external heat/light/energy required, you would think they would have said so in the video itself, and made a HUGE deal about it. They did not.
If this really worked without outside electricity added, they could put panels of the algae and reactors outside and run the white light (now inside the algae tank) indoors as a living solar panel/light setup, I note they did not do or even suggest this.
Without the 'magic', unmentioned light/electricity generating portion, this is NOT a new idea in the least as he claimed, people have advocated using simple algae and micro algae to scrub CO2 for decades, and usually in sun light rather than electric light so it's better than carbon neutral. What this really seems to be is a filter you can put OVER a light to make it produce some O2, but it also gives off far less light. There is no indication whatsoever from the video that this is intended to produce light or electricity itself without external power. I can't see where the poster got that idea. Perhaps they are involved in the project and want 'investors' that can't see the difference and can't do any research?

Wow that's a large wall of text, @newtboy.

But yes, it appears that:
"Calleja has developed a lighting system that requires no electricity for power. Instead it draws CO2 from the atmosphere and uses it to produce light as well as oxygen as a byproduct. The key ingredient to this eco-friendly light? Algae."

I guess that's why the video emphasized that Calleja has been a biochemist for twenty years. i.e. years of research have helped developed a strain of algae with such properties

Apparently the electricity the algae produces is stored in a battery underneath the unit.

http://www.geek.com/articles/geek-cetera/biochemist-creates-co2-eating-light-that-runs-on-algae-2012055/

>> ^newtboy:

The written description said 'with no electricity for power', but the video clearly shows an electric light in the center of the tank...not bioluminescent, electric. They tell you it only works 'in a lighted aquarium'. You even see the operator plug it in and the light turn on at :32, and again at :40, with the electric cord also clearly visible. The audio never claims the device or the algae MAKES light or electricity, only that it takes in CO2 and releases O2. The video of the garage version also shows this clearly, with the plain fluorescent lights turned on while they add the algae to a fish tank.


If you follow the chain of reposting and adding more sensational claims that goes through shashdot and their source geek.com you eventually arrive at this site, which has already redacted it's claims about the algae in the lamp producing any light or power.

Going only from what's said in the video, I think the entire point is carbon sequestration. But keep in mind the algae is also absorbing some of the light from the lamp, requiring the use of more lamps to light the same area.

The written description said 'with no electricity for power', but the video clearly shows an electric light in the center of the tank...not bioluminescent, electric. They tell you it only works 'in a lighted aquarium'. You even see the operator plug it in and the light turn on at :32, and again at :40, with the electric cord also clearly visible. The audio never claims the device or the algae MAKES light or electricity, only that it takes in CO2 and releases O2. The video of the garage version also shows this clearly, with the plain fluorescent lights turned on while they add the algae to a fish tank. If the power is supposed to be coming from the algae, not the grid, how is the light supposed to be being powered without any algae in the tank? There is never ANY mention of POWER being produced from the algae in the video itself, and the few ways I've read this could be possible are NO WHERE NEAR being financially viable, just possible. They require specialty genetically altered algae (expensive) and reactors with exotic materials to capture electrons from charged algae (also expensive), and the algae must be exposed to light to become charged. If, as the written description claims, they have solved this problem and ARE generating electricity from nothing more than an anaerobic reaction without external heat/light/energy required, you would think they would have said so in the video itself, and made a HUGE deal about it. They did not.
If this really worked without outside electricity added, they could put panels of the algae and reactors outside and run the white light (now inside the algae tank) indoors as a living solar panel/light setup, I note they did not do or even suggest this.
Without the 'magic', unmentioned light/electricity generating portion, this is NOT a new idea in the least as he claimed, people have advocated using simple algae and micro algae to scrub CO2 for decades, and usually in sun light rather than electric light so it's better than carbon neutral. What this really seems to be is a filter you can put OVER a light to make it produce some O2, but it also gives off far less light. There is no indication whatsoever from the video that this is intended to produce light or electricity itself without external power. I can't see where the poster got that idea. Perhaps they are involved in the project and want 'investors' that can't see the difference and can't do any research?

@dannym3141

It's a brand new technology. Give it a decade or two of investment and of course it'll become brighter and more efficient.
Hell start a business model based on these and put it on kickstarter if you're that concerned.

@Darkhand

It's fuckin' algae, man. Unless it mutates into corrosive flesh-eating algae. I think we're safe.

@BoneRemake

Heh, I knew you meant a bedroom. But if I hadn't made that rapist joke.. you'd have never graced us with your terrible 80s white man rap. ..rappist

>> ^quantumushroom:

Zach was mining so much comedy gold in that studio he shoulda been wearing a hardhat with the light on it.
Yes, Bone, she wouldn't qualify as algae on a think tank, but those tanned thighs...


That is perfect, that made me laugh very hard. algae on a think tank HAH!.

Zach was mining so much comedy gold in that studio he shoulda been wearing a hardhat with the light on it.

Yes, Bone, she wouldn't qualify as algae on a think tank, but those tanned thighs...