Thursday, December 16, 2010

Ten Water Tech Startups To Watch, All 2010 Imagine H2O Competition Finalists

 

Ten Water Tech Startups To Watch, All 2010 Imagine H2O Competition Finalists: "
A competition for water-related clean tech startups, Imagine H2O, announced its 2010 finalists today. The competition focuses on water startups that save energy, especially in the areas of sourcing, distributing, treating and disposing of water.

Sure, oil and water don’t mix. Neither do electricity and water. There’s still a serious connection between energy and H2O. We use huge amounts of power to get our water, and vice versa.

According to the American Council For An Energy Efficient Economy:

“Water and wastewater treatment and distribution in the United States is estimated to consume 50,000 GWh annually, representing 1.4 percent of the total national electricity consumption, and cost over $4 billion each year.”

Further research by the River Network found:

“On average, two gallons of water is consumed for every kilowatt of electricity used in the United States. This means that 170 gallons are used to run the clothes dryer, 55 gallons are used to run the computer and 73 gallons of water are used to run a TV in a typical American household every month.”

At utilities and in the home, where consumers use a significant amount of energy to heat their water, reducing water consumption almost always leads to lower costs, reduced energy consumption and less air pollution.

Imagine H2O seeks to halt a widely anticipated global water crisis, but also views global water problems today as an estimated $500 billion market opportunity for providers of water products and services.

In 2009, Fruition Sciences took the Imagine H2O grand prize for a system that monitors vineyards with wireless sensors, weather stations and software, ensuring that vines are irrigated efficiently, leading to optimal berry (or grape) yields.

The Fruition Sciences website explains:

“[The company's] real-time sensors [are placed on vines, and] send a wireless reading of a vine’s transpiration rate, providing a precise measurement of how much water is moving through the vine…This gives an indication of the vine’s water needs. A slow rate of transpiration indicates a vine is low on water (stressed) and potentially at risk of berry dehydration.”



This year’s IH2O grand prize winners will receive at least $20,000 in cash, $15,000 of in-kind legal services and the same amount in consulting services. IH2O’s second and third place winners will each receive at least $10,000 in cash, $7,500 of in-kind legal and the same amount in accounting services. They will be chosen by and announced in March 2011.

A list of the contenders, with company-provided descriptions, follows below:

    Agua Via develops a 1-atomic layer thick nanotech membrane that enables desalination at a 66% energy reduction and 50% cost reduction, providing energy-efficient purification and wastewater remediation. BlackGold Biofuels – Recovers energy from wastewater streams, creating lucrative renewable energy assets from pollution liabilities. FogBusters Inc. – Treats petroleum, biofuel and food processing wastewater “better, faster, cheaper, cleaner and greener” while capturing the FOG (fat, oil and grease) to make into biodiesel. Hydrovolts – Makes portable floating turbines that make renewable energy and clean water from an untapped global resource of hydrokinetic energy in water canals. mOasis (no website publicly available yet) – Harnesses water on any land in the world so that plants grow and the planet can restore its ability to sustain life. NLine Energy, Inc. – Converts wasted energy found in water transmission and distribution systems into renewable energy. Pilus Energy – Harnesses genetically enhanced bacteria in scalable electrogenic bioreactor and harvests the electricity and biogases from their metabolism of organics like those found in wastewater. Puralytics – Solves critical water contamination problems with environmentally superior products. Solar-Machines – Innovative, non-PV based technology directly and efficiently converts solar energy into mechanical work for water pumping applications. Water Resources Management Co. (WRMC) – Helps water utilities realize the full benefits of their investments in advanced meter reading, system control and asset management.




"

What Caffeine Actually Does To Your Brain

For all of its wild popularity, caffeine is one seriously misunderstood substance. It’s not a simple upper, and it works differently on different people with different tolerances — even in different menstrual cycles. But you can make it work better for you.
Photo by rbrwr.
We’ve covered all kinds of caffeine “hacks” here at Lifehacker, from taking “caffeine naps” to getting “optimally wired”. But when it comes to why so many of us love our coffee, tea or soft-drink fixes, and what they actually do to our busy brains, we’ve never really dug in.
While there’s a whole lot one can read on caffeine, most of it falls in the realm of highly specific medical research or often conflicting anecdotal evidence. Luckily one intrepid reader and writer has actually done that reading, weighed that evidence and put together a highly readable treatise on the subject.Buzz: The Science and Lore of Alcohol and Caffeine, by Stephen R. Braun, is well worth the short 224-page read. It was released in 1997, but remains the most accessible treatise on what is and isn’t understood about what caffeine and alcohol do to the brain. It’s not a social history of coffee, or a lecture on the evils of mass-market soft drinks — it’s condensed but clean science.
What follows is a brief explainer on how caffeine affects productivity, drawn from Buzz and other sources noted at bottom. We also sent Braun a few of the questions that arose while reading, and he graciously agreed to answer them.

Caffeine Doesn’t Actually Get You Wired

Right off the bat, it’s worth stating again: the human brain and caffeine are nowhere near totally understood and easily explained by modern science. That said, there is a general consensus on how a compound found all over nature, caffeine, affects the mind.
Every moment that you’re awake, the neurons in your brain are firing away. As those neurons fire, they produce adenosine as a byproduct, but adenosine is far from excrement. Your nervous system is actively monitoring adenosine levels through receptors. Normally when adenosine levels reached a certain point in your brain and spinal cord, your body will start nudging you toward sleep, or at least taking it easy. There are actually a few different adenosine receptors throughout the body, but the one caffeine seems to interact with most directly is the A1 receptor. More on that later.
Enter caffeine. It occurs in all kinds of plants, and chemical relatives of caffeine are found in your own body. But taken in substantial amounts — the semi-standard 100mg that comes from a strong eight-ounce coffee, for instance — it functions as a supremely talented adenosine impersonator. It heads right for the adenosine receptors in your system and, because of its similarities to adenosine, it’s accepted by your body as the real thing and gets into the receptors.
More important than just fitting in, though, caffeine actually binds to those receptors in efficient fashion, but doesn’t activate them — they’re plugged up by caffeine’s unique shape and chemical makeup. With those receptors blocked, the brain’s own stimulants,dopamine and glutamante, can do their work more freely — “Like taking the chaperones out of a high school dance,” Braun writes in an email. In the book, he ultimately likens caffeine’s powers to “putting a block of wood under one of the brain’s primary brake pedals”.
It’s an apt metaphor, because it spells out that caffeine very clearly doesn’t press the “gas” on your brain, and that it only blocks a “primary” brake. There are other compounds and receptors that have an effect on what your energy levels feel like — GABA, for example — but caffeine is crude way of preventing your brain from bringing things to a halt. “You can,” Braun writes, “get wired only to the extent that your natural excitatory neurotransmitters support it.” In other words, you can’t use caffeine to completely wipe out an entire week’s worth of very late nights of studying, but you can use it to make yourself feel less bogged down by sleepy feelings in the morning.
These effects will vary, in length and strength of effect, from person to person, depending on genetics, other physiology factors, and tolerance. But more on that in a bit. What’s important to take away is that caffeine is not as simple in effect as a direct stimulant, such as amphetamines or cocaine; its effect on your alertness is far more subtle.

It Boosts Your Speed, But Not Your Skill — Depending On Your Skill Set

Johann Sebastian Bach loved him some coffee. So did Voltaire, Balzac and many other great minds. But the type of work they did didn’t necessarily get a boost from their prodigious coffee consumption — unless their work was so second-nature to them that it felt like data entry.
The general consensus on caffeine studies shows that it can enhance work output, but mainly in certain types of work. For tired people who are doing work that’s relatively straightforward, that doesn’t require lots of subtle or abstract thinking, coffee has been shown to help increase output and quality. Caffeine has also been seen to improve memory creation and retention when it comes to “declarative memory”, the kind students use to remember lists or answers to exam questions.
(In a semi-crazy side note we couldn’t resist, researchers have implied this memory boost may be tied to caffeine’s effect on adrenaline production. You have, presumably, sharper memories of terrifying or exhilarating moments in life, due in part to your body’s fight-or-flight juice. Everyone has their “Where I was when I heard that X died” story, plugging in John F. Kennedy, John Lennon or Kurt Cobain, depending on generational relatability).
Then again, one study in which subjects proofread text showed that a measurable boost was mainly seen by those who could be considered “impulsive” or willing to sacrifice accuracy and quality for speed. And the effect was only seen in morning tests, indicating the subjects may have either become lightly dependent on caffeine, or were more disposed to such tasks at that time of day.
So when it comes to caffeine’s effects on your work, think speed, not power. Or consider it an unresolved question. If we’re only part of the way to understanding how caffeine effects the brain, we’re a long way to knowing exactly what kind of chemicals or processes are affected when, say, one writes a post about caffeine science one highly caffeinated afternoon.
For a more direct look at what happens to your brain when there’s caffeine in your system, we turn to the the crew at Current. They hooked up one of their reporters to a brain monitor while taking on some new caffeine habits and share their brains on caffeine:

Effectiveness, Tolerance And Headaches

Why do so many patients coming out of anaesthesia after major surgery feel a headache? It’s because, in most cases, they’re not used to going so long without coffee. The good news? If they wait a few more days, they can start saving coffee again for when they really need it.
The effectiveness of caffeine varies significantly from person to person, due to genetics and other factors in play. The average half-life of caffeine — that is, how long it takes for half of an ingested dose to wear off — is about five to six hours in a human body. Women taking oral birth control require about twice as long to process caffeine. Women between the onset of ovulation and beginning of menstruation see a similar, if less severe, extended half-life. For regular smokers, caffeine takes half as long to process — which, in some ways, explains why smokers often drink more coffee and feel more agitated and anxious, because they’re unaware of how their bodies work without cigarettes.
As one starts to regularly take in caffeine, the body and mind build up a tolerance to it, so getting the same kind of boost as one’s first-ever sip takes more caffeine — this, researchers can agree on. Exactly how that tolerance developers is not so clear cut. Many studies have suggested that, just as with any drug addiction, the brain strives to return to its normal function while under “attack” from caffeine by up-regulating or creating more adenosine receptors. But regular caffeine use has also been shown to decrease receptors for norepinephrine, a hormone akin to adrenaline, along with serotonin, a mood enhancer. At the same time, your body can see a 65 per cent increase in receptors for GABA, a compound that does many things, including regulate muscle tone and neuron firing. Caffeine, it’s been suggested, is probably not directly responsible for all these changes. By keeping your brain from using its normal “I’m tired” sensors though, your caffeine may be causing the brain to change the way all of its generally excitable things are regulated. Your next venti double shot goes a little less far each time, in any case. Photo by zoghal.
A 1995 study suggests that humans become tolerant to their daily dose of caffeine — whether a single soda or a serious espresso habit — somewhere between a week and 12 days. And that tolerance is pretty strong. One test of regular caffeine pill use had some participants getting an astronomical 900 milligrams per day, others placebos — found that the two groups were nearly identical in mood, energy and alertness after 18 days. The folks taking the equivalent of nine stiff coffee pours every day weren’t really feeling it anymore. They would feel it, though, when they stopped.
You start to feel caffeine withdrawal very quickly, anywhere from 12 to 24 hours after your last use. That’s a big part of why that first cup in the morning is so important — it’s staving off the early effects of withdrawal. The reasons for the withdrawal are the same as with any substance dependency — your brain was used to operating one way, and now it’s suddenly working under completely different circumstances. Headaches are the nearly universal effect of cutting off caffeine, but depression, fatigue, lethargy, irritability, nausea and vomiting can be part of your cut-off too, along with more specific issues, like eye muscle spasms. Generally, though, you’ll be over it in around 10 days — again, depending on your own physiology and other factors.

Getting Out Of The Habit And Learning To Tame Caffeine

Beyond the equivalent of four cups of coffee in your system at once, caffeine isn’t giving you much more boost — in fact, at around the 10-cup level, you’re probably less alert than non-drinkers. So what if you want to start getting a real boost from caffeine once again, in a newly learned, less dependent way?
Our own Jason Fitzpatrick has both intentionally “quit” coffee, as well as just plain run out of coffee. Being the kind of guy who measures his own headaches and discomfort, he suggests measuring your caffeine intake, using caffeine amounts in all your drinks, chocolate and other “boosting” foods.Wise Bread has a good roundup of caffeine amounts, and the Buzz Vs The Bulge chart also shows how many calories you’ll be cutting if you start scaling back. Once you know your levels, map out a multi-week process of scaling down, and stick to it. Jason also suggests that dependency kicking is a good time to start taking walks, doing breathing exercises or other mind-clearing things, because, in his experience, their effects are much greater when caffeine is not so much a part of your make-up.
Braun, author of Buzz, sees it the same way, but still uses coffee — strategically, according to our email exchange:
In practical terms, this means that if you’d like to be able to turn to caffeine when you need it for a quick, effective jolt, it’s best to let your brain “dry out” for at least several days prior to administration. This is actually my current mode of consumption. I don’t regularly drink coffee anymore (gasp).
This from a man who loved (and wore out) his home espresso maker. I love coffee in all its guises. But after 30+ years it wasn’t working for me. For one thing, the problem with caffeine is that there are adenosine receptors all over the body, including muscles. For me, that meant that caffeine made me vaguely stiff and sore, and it aggravated a tender lower back that was prone to spasm. But I also just wasn’t getting a clean, clear buzz from coffee…I drank so much, so regularly, that drinking an extra cup or two didn’t do a helluva lot except, perhaps, make me a little more irritable.
So about a year ago I slowly tapered down, and now I have, if anything, a cup of tea (half black, half peppermint) in the morning. (The amount of caffeine from the black tea isn’t enough to wire a gnat.) Not only does my body feel better now, my brain is clean of caffeine, so I really want (or need) a good neural jump-start, I will freely…nay, ecstatically…indulge. Then I stop and let the brain settle again.
That’s the theory, anyway…and it’s basically true, although I’ll freely admit that sometimes I have an espresso or coffee just because it tastes so damned good.
That’s our attempt at summing up the science and common understanding of caffeine in one post. There is, as you can imagine, a lot more to explore — Braun’s Buzz is a good starting point, but you’ll find your own way from there. What’s the most interesting thing you’ve learned about caffeine, either from reading or personal experience? Share the science in the comments.
Republished from Lifehacker

Monday, December 13, 2010

Power Plants: Engineers Mimic Photosynthesis to Harvest Light Energy


 | December 13, 2010
Plants take advantage of quantum mechanics to harvest sunlight with near-perfect efficiency—though only roughly 2 percent of that capture sunlight ultimately gets stored as chemical energy. Now scientists are studying how this light-harvesting step of photosynthesis is optimized by nature to learn how to mimic it in engineered systems for use in solar cells or artificial leaves that produce fuels directly from the sun.
Plants rely on chromophores—molecules that absorb certain wavelengths of visible light while reflecting othersto harvest energy from the sun. When sunlight hits a plant, electrons in the topmost chromophores absorb energy from incoming photons and then transfer it from the newly energized molecule to another molecule at a lower energy state. That transfer repeats itself via a chain of molecules, a cascade of rapid energy pass-offs that ultimately separates an electron from the last chromophore in the chain, which provides energy that is stored by the plant as a carbohydrate.
In this way chromophores perform three functions: they absorb energy from sunlight (acting as "acceptors"); they donate the energy they absorbed (as "donors"); and they transfer energy to another molecule (as "bridges"). Using measurements from other researchers of the intensity of photons absorbed and emitted by chromophores, chemist Jianshu Cao and his colleagues at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology developed a computer model to arrive at the ratio of acceptors, donors and bridges that optimizes the efficiency of the light-harvesting step of photosynthesis.
The findings: there is an optimal ratio of 10 donors for each acceptor in order to efficiently transfer energy in a natural photosynthetic system with just those two chromophore functions. Adding bridges to an arrangement of donors and acceptors then further increases the efficiency of energy transfer, Cao says.
Chromophores are arranged in bundles in plant cells, and these structures and configurations influence light-harvesting efficiency as well. University of California, Berkeley, chemist Matt Francis created artificial light-harvesting systems by attaching chromophores to tobacco mosaic virus molecules. Modeling these genetically engineered systems, Cao found that one structure—stacks of chromophore disks—could be tuned to improve the overall efficiency by combining multiple disks of similar size but different combinations of bridges, acceptors and donors. One particular configuration of two disks comprising bridges and acceptors stacked between disks made entirely of donors is a good candidate for designing artificial light-harvesting devices, according to the study published October 21 in The Journal of Physical Chemistry B.
Earlier research found that photosynthesis takes advantage of an effect known as quantum coherence. In one study researchers found that the energy absorbed by achromophore travels through multiple networks at the same time in order to take the quickest path. Other research observed that "noise," or random fluctuations, at the quantum level helps move energy from chromophores to the reaction centers of photosynthesis. Building on this work, Cao and M.I.T. chemist Robert Silbey modeled a light-harvesting system in green sulfur bacteria and found that photosynthesis is most efficient when there is an intermediate amount of noise in the system. "In experimental conditions one always tries to reduce noise," Cao says, "but in a quantum mechanical system, it's actually useful to have some noise."
He offers the analogy of surface friction: If a car is on ice, without any friction it won't move at all. But if there is too much friction, a car also won't move. In photosynthetic systems an intermediate amount of random quantum fluctuations (think: friction) helps move the electrons carrying energy from one reaction center to the next, Silbey and Cao wrote in the October issue of the New Journal of Physics. By changing the temperature, strength and length of the random fluctuations in their models, they were able to optimize the energy transfer.
Engineering artificial systems like those involved in the light harvesting step of photosynthesis calls for a different design approach, says Seth Lloyd of M.I.T. and the Santa Fe Institute, who also works on quantum coherence in photosynthesis. "Natural selection is adding quantum design features and tuning them to the point where it is just complex enough to get the job done without compromising robustness." Engineers are often advised to keep it simple, but Lloyd says not too simple: "You want to have as many knobs that you can turn as functions you want to accomplish."

Brain Oddities: Spelling is Irrelevant to Comprehension

In trying to make sense of the world around us, our brains have evolved to do some very odd things. The more we learn about our cognitive processes, the more it seems we have inherited a very weird wetware set, filled with bizarre and misleading foibles.

While most of the cognitive errors I reference here work against us — especially as investors — today’s example of a cognitive process works strangely in the brain’s favor: Spelling don’t matter. Comprehension remains essentially unchanged, even when all letters of a word are totally mixed up — just so long as the first and last letters are in their proper place.

Spelling, it seems, is irrelevant to comprehension. Try this jumble below and see if the flawed wetware you call a brain can read it:



Pretty cool, eh? Quite a marvelous set of neurons you got there . . .

Sunday, December 12, 2010

Could Stonehenge Have Been Built With Balls?

Could Stonehenge Have Been Built With Balls?: "


Stonehenge. How the heck was it built? The latest theory, from a student, says since the Stone Age men didn’t have the wheel, they could have built rails with wooden balls inside to transport the massive stone pieces.
Andrew Young, the student behind the new theory, started cooking up the idea when he saw carved stone balls near Neolithic stone circles. He said:
“I measured and weighed a number of these stone balls and realised that they are all precisely the same size-around 70 millimeters [3 inches] in diameter-which made me think they must have been made to be used in unison, rather than alone”
He further speculated that wooden balls could be used because they were easier to carve and were much lighter to transport.
When he tested this rail-and-balls set up, he found that he could move 220 pounds of concrete with just one finger. And with seven people pushing, they could move a four-ton load, as heavy as Stonehenge’s smaller stones. As for the 45-ton bigger rocks, Young speculates that it could’ve been a combination of oxen and Stone Age strength.
An interesting theory, that with a little more work and testing, might be able to explain how those gigantic slabs of stone were transported miles upon miles. Ah balls, as integral to history as ever.

Friday, December 10, 2010

Car Commuting Without Driving: Computerized Convoy Hits The Road

Car Commuting Without Driving: Computerized Convoy Hits The Road: "

Semi-autonomous driving could make your commute to work a pleasure instead of pain. Road trains have been proposed for decades as a safe eco-solution for driving cars on freeways. Now, finally, a two-car test is hitting the streets in Europe this month.
The 'Safe Road Trains for the Environment' (SARTRE) system puts advanced automation and sensing technology into typical cars, giving them the ability to join a convoy that moves in sync down a freeway with only the lead vehicle needing the control of a human driver.
There's a plethora of gizmos needed to make this safe: sensors to ensure each car in the train maintains its position relative to the one in front, systems that allow individual drivers to seize control of their own car without upsetting the other cars, brake sensors, acceleration sensors, and so on.
But the economic cost of these automatic systems (which could easily be built into future production cars as they're not too far advanced from existing ABS and parking sensors and the like) are easily off-set by the benefits of driving in convoys. You get faster average journey times, reduced chances of accidents (as
the system can be way better at avoiding dangerous traffic situations
than a human is), and faster traffic on the road as a whole.
Best of all, while you're in a convoy, you don't actually have to
drive. This could add to business productivity, or lead to
reduced stress levels in commuters.
SARTRE relies on one professional driver in a truck or van to lead the train, and includes sensors to check this person's alertness, blood-alcohol level, and so on. SARTRE is running a two-car test this month, then a five-car test in 2011, with no particular target date for commercialization.
We do wonder whether the SARTRE team ought to get together with the Google autonomous driving team. Replace that lead truck in SARTRE with a self-driving Google car, and you've got an even more interesting concept in transportation.
To read more news on this, and similar stuff, keep up with my updates by following me, Kit Eaton, on Twitter.

"

How Will Clouds Respond to Climate Change?


Clouds will respond to climate change in ways that further heat the planet, a new study suggests.

The research, published yesterday in the journal Science, appears to solve one of of the biggest remaining mysteries in climate science: How well do computer climate models predict the behavior of clouds?

That's important because clouds can work to cool or heat the Earth, depending on the type of cloud and where it sits in the atmosphere. Clouds cool the planet by reflecting incoming radiation from the sun. They heat it by trapping outgoing radiation from the planet's surface. The question scientists have been struggling to answer is which of these two effects will dominate as climate change intensifies.

"Clouds are really, I would say, the biggest uncertainty in understanding how much warming we're going to get in the future," said study author Andrew Dessler, an atmospheric scientist at Texas A&M University. "And up until my paper, all we really had were the models. We had no idea if the models were completely wrong."

Computerized climate models vary widely in their predictions of how clouds will respond to long-term climate change. A few models predict clouds will be neutral players, neither compounding warming nor counteracting it, while others predict clouds will exacerbate warming.

Some climate skeptics have alleged that models "got clouds completely wrong," Dessler said. He believes that his paper, which suggests long-term climate change will create a positive feedback from clouds that produces additional heating of the planet, "shows that models are doing a reasonable job as a group."
A bolt from Cancun
One of those skeptics is Roy Spencer, a climatologist at the University of Alabama, Huntsville. He issued a statement yesterday attacking Dessler's study, calling its "central evidence weak at best, misleading at worst."

Spencer has published a paper arguing that clouds will cool the planet and counteract warming. He drew on that work to argue that Dessler's study confuses the cause and effect of warming by failing to take into account the idea that changes in clouds drive temperature, rather than temperature changes driving cloud behavior.

Dennis Hartmann, a professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Washington, agreed with Dessler.

"I do think it's very significant that this analysis shows that a strongly negative, short-term cloud feedback is very unlikely, based upon the evidence, and that positive cloud feedback is more likely," said Hartmann, who did not contribute to the new study. "Current climate models vary widely on their assessments of cloud feedback. But if you were forced to draw consensus on what models are saying so far, they're saying that cloud feedback is moderately positive."

The new analysis is based on the first 10 years of data collected by an instrument flying aboard NASA's Terra satellite that monitors how much radiation is entering and leaving Earth's atmosphere. The instrument, known as CERES (short for "Clouds and Earth's Radiant Energy System"), began collecting information in March 2000.

Dessler used the data to determine how the El Niño-Southern Oscillation weathercycle affected the amount of radiation leaving the atmosphere over a 10-year period -- an indirect measurement of cloud behavior and the ensuing climate response.
A 10-year glimpse of cloud behavior
That's not a precise analogue for cloud behavior in response to long-term climate change, he said.

The latter "is really what we care about," Dessler added. "In order to understand how clouds are going to respond to long-term warming, you have to wait until there is long-term warming. That will take decades. Looking at the short-term is the best we can do right now."

Hartmann noted that the warming observed during an El Niño cycle of a year or two is different than the long-term climate change prompted by human activities that produce greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide.

El Niño warms the tropics, whereas climate change driven by greenhouse gases warms the planet up everywhere, Hartmann said. But the scientist said he thought Dessler's approach still amounted to a "useful diagnostic tool" for trying to understand whether climate models' representation of clouds is on the right track.

Meanwhile, Dessler said his next step is aimed at identifying how well individual climate models do predicting cloud behavior, by examining their output for different regions of the globe -- such as land versus ocean, or high latitudes versus low latitudes.

"This is a significantly harder problem, and it's a tougher test of the models," he said. "My hope is that looking at the spatial distribution will allow me to say, 'These models are doing a good job. These models are doing a terrible job.'"
Interfering with skeptics' 'negative impact'?
In his statement attacking Dessler's study, Spencer also said he suspected, but had no proof, "that Dessler was under pressure to get this paper published to blunt the negative impact our work has had on the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]'s efforts."

Spencer appeared in Cancun accompanied by Marc Morano, founder of Climate Depot, which regularly attacks mainstream climate change science, and Lord Christopher Monckton, a British skeptic who asserted the Kyoto Protocol threatens national sovereignty and individual freedom.

In a response posted yesterday afternoon on the blog "RealClimate," Dessler said his disagreement with Spencer stemmed from their very different views about the cause of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO), quoting an e-mail exchange with Spencer.

"My position is the mainstream one, backed up by decades of research," Dessler wrote on the blog. "This mainstream theory is quite successful at simulating almost all of the aspects of ENSO. Dr. Spencer, on the other hand, is as far out of the mainstream when it comes to ENSO as he is when it comes to climate change. He is advancing here a completely new and untested theory of ENSO -- based on just one figure in one of his papers (and, as I told him in one of our e-mails, there are other interpretations of those data that do not agree with his interpretation)."

He added: "And as far as my interest in influencing the policy debate goes, I'll just say that I'm in College Station this week, while Dr. Spencer is in Cancun."
Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. www.eenews.net, 202-628-6500