Carnival of Evolution, at Evolution: Education and Outreach


The latest Carnival of Evolution is up, over at Evolution: Education and Outreach.  Adam Goldstein curated this one.

Evolution of the Carnival? No, Carnival of Evolution!  (Image from Carnival of Evolution #62 at Ecology and Evolution Footnotes)

Evolution of the Carnival? No, Carnival of Evolution! (Image from Carnival of Evolution #62 at Ecology and Evolution Footnotes)

Evolution sheds light on global warming and its effects, even:

Adaptation to drought conditions. Casey Terhorst’s post begins, “Global climate change will increase the frequency and duration of drought in many places,” reporting the surprising result that understanding the response of soil microbes to a drought requires an understanding of the reaction of plants with which they share the soil. Perhaps most striking is the claim that important evolutionary changes can occur in as few as three generations of the plants, an elapsed time of 6 months.

Much more. Go see.

Hey, while you’re at it, take a look at Carnival of Evolution #71, too, at Chimeras.

About these ads

63 Responses to Carnival of Evolution, at Evolution: Education and Outreach

  1. Black Flag® says:

    Idiotic statements, Ed, do not make an argument.

    As if people deny climate! Hohohho! What a diddy you try to pass here!

    “For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.” That’s you, Ed.

    Like

  2. Ed Darrell says:

    So it’s a cartoon from 2010! Some things in climate denialism just never, never change.

    Like

  3. jahigginbotham says:

    Thanks – it seemed to be the week cartoons link but it looks like a lot of my old posts are now appearing – sorry for the clutter

    Like

  4. Ed Darrell says:

    Give me some of the key words, I’ll see if it’s stuck in spam. I’m on the road, still getting extreme spam attacks . . . but will try to see.

    Like

  5. jahigginbotham says:

    hqtqtqpq:q/q/qmq.qtqhqeqwqeqeqkq.qcqoqmq/qcqaqrqtqoqoqnqsq/qiqnqdqeqxq/q2q0q0q8q0q2q/qeqxqaqmqiqnqiqnqgq-qtqhqeq-qeqvqiqdqeqnqcqeq-qfqoqrq-qcqlqiqmqaqtqeq-qcqhqaqnqgqeq

    Like

  6. jahigginbotham says:

    m.theweek.com/cartoons/index/200802/examining-the-evidence-for-climate-change

    Like

  7. jahigginbotham says:

    Been trying to post for several days from two computers – doesn’t complain, just won’t post – doesn’t seem to like one url

    Like

  8. jahigginbotham says:

    http://m.theweek.com/cartoons/index/200802/examining-the-evidence-for-climate-change

    been trying to post this for several days from two different computers

    Like

  9. jahigginbotham says:

    Someone cropped the signature.

    Like

  10. jahigginbotham says:

    http://m.theweek.com/cartoons/index/200802/examining-the-evidence-for-climate-change

    Someone cropped the signature.

    trying to post this for several days from 2 different computers

    Like

  11. jahigginbotham says:

    Pinko Punko said…
    Steve Breen, Creators Syndicate.

    Like

  12. jahigginbotham says:

    rabett.blogspot.com/2014/05/propositions-and-dots.html
    Pinko Punko said…
    Steve Breen, Creators Syndicate.
    m.theweek.com/cartoons/index/200802/examining-the-evidence-for-climate-change
    Someone cropped the signature.

    Like

  13. jahigginbotham says:

    test

    Liked by 1 person

  14. jahigginbotham says:

    http://rabett.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2014-06-06T00:22:00-07:00

    Anonymous Pinko Punko said…
    Steve Breen, Creators Syndicate.

    http://m.theweek.com/cartoons/index/200802/examining-the-evidence-for-climate-change

    Someone cropped the signature.

    Like

  15. jahigginbotham says:

    http://rabett.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2014-06-06T00:22:00-07:00

    Anonymous Pinko Punko said…
    Steve Breen, Creators Syndicate.

    http://m.theweek.com/cartoons/index/200802/examining-the-evidence-for-climate-change

    Someone cropped the signature.

    17/5/14 5:19 PM

    Like

  16. Ed Darrell says:

    Anyone know who is the cartoonist for this?

    Like

  17. Black Flag® says:

    Of course it isn’t. There is absolutely no science behind your assertion.

    Like

  18. Ed Darrell says:

    The warming ocean is due to the activities of humans.

    Like

  19. Black Flag® says:

    Read it again, Ed.
    Neither have anything to do with “man”

    Like

  20. Ed Darrell says:

    Please read again what you quoted:

    Thwaites Glacier, the large, rapidly changing outlet of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, is not only being eroded by the ocean . . .

    Like

  21. Black Flag® says:

    Darn, Ed. More “it ain’t human caused”

    Researchers find major West Antarctic glacier melting from geothermal sources

    AUSTIN, Texas — Thwaites Glacier, the large, rapidly changing outlet of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, is not only being eroded by the ocean, it’s being melted from below by geothermal heat, researchers at the Institute for Geophysics at The University of Texas at Austin (UTIG) report in the current edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

    Like

  22. Black Flag® says:

    No matter what tyranny you wish to enact upon free men, you will never stop idiots.

    But you will most certainly destroy freedom.

    Like

  23. Ed Darrell says:

    We need adequate rules and barriers to prevent idiots from killing themselves and their children, and others. Some humans seem simply incapable of using reason in dealing with chemicals, even simple ones like water — or more stealthy ones like carbon dioxide.

    http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/jury-rules-radio-station-jennifer-strange-water-drinking/story?id=8970712

    Like

  24. Black Flag® says:

    By your position, because water -in your mind- could be a pollutant, you believe we need to act now and limit the water available to life on earth – just in case.

    Like

  25. Ed Darrell says:

    Yes, water could be a pollutant. Hot water kills fish (indeed, any great temperature difference in water can kill the little buggers, when you want them to stay alive).

    It’s a parody, but there is a great piece Joel Achenbach (sp?) did in the Washington Post demanding regulation of dihydrogen monoxide, listing its many, many dangers.

    I’ve noted before, it’s in the dose, in the place, in the time.

    For water, it’s at a premium in the cold northern deserts where I grew up. But we still build dams to control it. During one nasty spring melt season (probably aggravated by global warming), Utah turned one of the major streets in Salt Lake City into a river, sandbagging the sides of the street to keep the water flowing there, and not flooding the rest of the City. The great, late Scott Matheson, then governor, looked out on the thing and said, “This is a helluva way to run a desert.”

    There are two distinct drowning responses, both involve the human body’s attempts to control salt levels in the blood and lungs and stomach. In fresh water, the body pulls salt out of the blood and tries to balance out the salinity of the water in the lungs or stomach. Generally this sufficiently depletes salts in the blood, causing circulatory collapse and heart attack. In salt water, the body pulls salt out of the fluids in the lungs or stomach, making the blood too saline, causing circulatory collapse and heart attack. If you’re paying attention, you’ll note this poses an issue of simply drinking too much water — and generally, the rule is that 16 pints of water is enough to be fatal. Water intoxication. http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/jury-rules-radio-station-jennifer-strange-water-drinking/story?id=8970712

    Like

  26. Black Flag® says:

    By your bizarre definition, water is a pollutant – indeed everything is.

    Your ilk zealotry turns words to meaningless.

    Like

  27. Black Flag® says:

    For better and for worse, Ed, I read almost everything you post

    Like

  28. Ed Darrell says:

    CO2 is necessary AND a pollutant.

    O2 is necessary, AND in abundance, especially after birth, can be fatal and cause blindness.

    N2 is inert, BUT can be fatal in great concentrations.

    In your stomach is a 5% solution of hydrochloric acid. That doesn’t mean it’s safe to drink such a solution, nor that you could bathe in it without harm.

    Life is not black and white, but possible only in the grays.

    CO2 is necessary for life on Earth; too much, it stifles life on Earth.

    Like

  29. Ed Darrell says:

    You never did read that evolution article, did you.

    Like

  30. Black Flag® says:

    Exactly, Ed. Co2 is a requirement of life, and not a pollutant. Its usefulness is in making life, but you want to limit Co2, thus YOU WAN TO LIMIT LIFE.

    Again, your lack of science knowledge is astounding. If there was no Co2 in the air, we would NOT be a ball of ice, Ed, – sorry, you have no idea how the Earth keeps warm.

    Without Co2, live as we know it on the Earth would cease.

    So your zealotry you want to end live on earth in the horrific mistake thinking Co2 is the major warming cause….. eek.

    Like

  31. Ed Darrell says:

    Selenium is just a marginal nutrient. Vitamin K is just a marginal nutrient.

    Try living without them.

    You keep failing to recognize that chemicals, even in very small quantities, can have great influence on dynamic fluids and their flows, and heat flows.

    CO2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere, but one without which the Earth would be an ice ball. Double that minor trace, Earth may become an anti-ice ball.

    Like

  32. Black Flag® says:

    Life adapts to the ever changing Earth.
    Why this surprises you now is funny.

    Like

  33. Black Flag® says:

    So typical of ego-centric world view, Ed.

    What is too thick or too thin or just right for Co2? You haven’t a clue.

    Co2 adds but a marginal component, as already presented. You are spitting in the ocean declaring you are making waves.

    Like

  34. Ed Darrell says:

    I merely noted that evolution has something to say in the discussion of what to do about global warming. You were the one who raised completely different issues.

    Like

  35. Ed Darrell says:

    Darn annoying science, Ed, shows that the Sun, not man, causes changes in the variation of temp.

    Most of the heat comes from the Sun, yes. The blanket of carbon dioxide that traps the heat and warms us, too much if the blanket is too thick, is now mostly man-made.

    Like

  36. Ed Darrell says:

    Thanks for identifying the Zhao and Feng piece.

    Like

  37. Black Flag® says:

    First, Ed, it isn’t plagiarism when I put it in quotes … that kinda states it is a copy from source.

    Further, in the past, you haven’t read the stuff anyway.

    If YOU want to find the source YOU use Google. This is a tactic to get YOU to actually start doing YOUR own work and reading more than the stupid junk you seem to have married yourself to.

    Like

  38. Black Flag® says:

    ZHAO X H, FENG X S. Periodicities of solar activity and the surface temperature variation of the Earth and their correlations (in Chinese). Chin Sci Bull (Chin Ver), 2014, 59: 1284, doi: 10.1360/972013-1089 http://csb.scichina.com:8080/kxtb/CN/abstract/abstract514043.shtml

    The obtained results demonstrate that solar activity and the Earth’s temperature have significant resonance cycles, and the Earth’s temperature has periodic variations similar to those of solar activity
    This study also implies that the “modern maximum” of solar activity agrees well with the recent global warming of the Earth. A significant correlation between them can be found.

    As pointed out by a peer reviewer, “this work provides a possible explanation for the global warming”.

    Darn annoying science, Ed, shows that the Sun, not man, causes changes in the variation of temp.

    Like

  39. Black Flag® says:

    Duh?

    So you raise a piece that has nothing to with your myth that man is “changing” the climate to reinforce your myth that man is “changing” the climate.

    Typical of the utter confusion in your head, Ed.

    Like

  40. Black Flag® says:

    “Location of El Nino, and not existence?”

    What????

    Tracking El Ninos in the eastern Pacific, we see a dramatic increase in frequency. ”

    You quote a piece that directly invalidates your own claim.

    Undeterred, you continue to make the same claim, thinking that repeating what has already been utterly dismissed will somehow turn what is wrong into what is right?

    Try reading AND understanding, Ed

    but relatively little long-term trend. El Niño events were strong in the last part of the 19th century and first part of the 20th century and again in the latter part of the 20th century, with weak El Niño events in the middle of the 20th century.”

    Like

  41. Ed Darrell says:

    Here’s the paper my original post referred to, BF. Got anything to say on topic?

    http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/281/1785/20140028

    From the Proceedings of the Royal Society:

    The relative importance of rapid evolution for plant-microbe interactions depends on ecological context

    Casey P. terHorst1⇑,
    Jay T. Lennon2 and
    Jennifer A. Lau3

    + Author Affiliations

    1Department of Biology, California State University, Northridge, CA, USA
    2Department of Biology, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA
    3Kellogg Biological Station and Department of Plant Biology, Michigan State University, Hickory Corners, MI, USA

    e-mail: casey.terhorst@kbs.msu.edu

    Abstract

    Evolution can occur on ecological time-scales, affecting community and ecosystem processes. However, the importance of evolutionary change relative to ecological processes remains largely unknown. Here, we analyse data from a long-term experiment in which we allowed plant populations to evolve for three generations in dry or wet soils and used a reciprocal transplant to compare the ecological effect of drought and the effect of plant evolutionary responses to drought on soil microbial communities and nutrient availability. Plants that evolved under drought tended to support higher bacterial and fungal richness, and increased fungal : bacterial ratios in the soil. Overall, the magnitudes of ecological and evolutionary effects on microbial communities were similar; however, the strength and direction of these effects depended on the context in which they were measured. For example, plants that evolved in dry environments increased bacterial abundance in dry contemporary environments, but decreased bacterial abundance in wet contemporary environments. Our results suggest that interactions between recent evolutionary history and ecological context affect both the direction and magnitude of plant effects on soil microbes. Consequently, an eco-evolutionary perspective is required to fully understand plant–microbe interactions.

    Like

  42. Ed Darrell says:

    Location of El Nino, and not existence?

    Tracking El Ninos in the eastern Pacific, we see a dramatic increase in frequency. Your defense is that they existed in other places, earlier?

    That doesn’t change the fact that when such an event occurs in the eastern Pacific, it changes weather dramatically across Central, North and South America — a result of climate change that shifts the location more frequently.

    Back to the drawing board, BF. If you can’t figure out where you get the stuff, you don’t get to complain when I point out your sources really said the opposite of what you claim.

    Like

  43. Ed Darrell says:

    I may impose a new standard: When a poster quotes extensively from a source, it’s ruled plagiarism, and deleted, unless there is adequate citation.

    If you can’t be bothered to make your case, saying Google exists won’t save you.

    Like

  44. Black Flag® says:

    and this…

    “…However, the null hypothesis that the location of El Niño can be represented as a random distribution about a central longitude of about 140°W cannot be rejected….”

    In other words, Ed, nature wins and its not “man-made”

    Like

  45. Black Flag® says:

    Duh?

    From your own quote, Ed – do you ACTUALLY READ!??

    “….Using the new index, El Niño in the reanalysis shows prominent decadal variability of strength but relatively little long-term trend…”

    Like

  46. Black Flag® says:

    Learn to use Google, because in the past you haven’t read the sources presented anyway.

    Like

  47. Ed Darrell says:

    Well, that disagrees with Ray & Giese in 2011, doesn’t it?

    Keywords:

    El Niño;
    ocean reanalysis;
    decadal variability

    [1] A new ocean reanalysis that covers the period from 1871 to 2008 is used to explore the time-evolving characteristics of El Niño. The new reanalysis assimilates all available hydrographic and sea surface temperature data into a model of the global ocean forced with surface boundary conditions from an atmospheric reanalysis that also covers the period from 1871 through 2008. Using traditional measures of El Niño, our reanalysis shows that the timing of El Niño events is in agreement with sea surface temperature reconstructions, but El Niño in the reanalysis is stronger, particularly from 1871 to 1920. A new index based on the first moment of the temperature anomaly is introduced. The new index is used to characterize the strength and location of El Niño events and has the advantage that it is independent of the location of El Niño. Using the new index, El Niño in the reanalysis shows prominent decadal variability of strength but relatively little long-term trend. El Niño events were strong in the last part of the 19th century and first part of the 20th century and again in the latter part of the 20th century, with weak El Niño events in the middle of the 20th century. The location of El Niño also varies considerably, ranging from the western to the eastern Pacific near the coast of South America. However, the null hypothesis that the location of El Niño can be represented as a random distribution about a central longitude of about 140°W cannot be rejected.

    El Niño variability in simple ocean data assimilation (SODA), 1871–2008

    Benjamin S. Giese and
    Sulagna Ray

    Article first published online: 17 FEB 2011
    Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans (1978–2012)
    Volume 116, Issue C2, February 2011
    DOI: 10.1029/2010JC006695
    Copyright 2011 by the American Geophysical Union.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010JC006695/full

    Like

  48. Ed Darrell says:

    Got a source on that?

    Like

  49. Black Flag® says:

    Again, not true, Ed.

    Ray & Giese (2012) Historical changes in El Niño and La Niña characteristics in an ocean reanalysis found that El Niño events had not become stronger, or lasted longer, or occurred more often (among other things) since 1871. And manmade greenhouse gases are said to have caused global warming during that time period. The Ray & Giese (2012) abstract ends:

    Overall, there is no evidence that there are changes in the strength, frequency, duration, location or direction of propagation of El Niño and La Niña anomalies caused by global warming during the period from 1871 to 2008.

    Like

  50. Black Flag® says:

    “…more intense…”

    Again, not true.

    “During the past 6-years since Hurricane Katrina, global tropical cyclone frequency and energy have decreased dramatically, and are currently at near-historical record lows. According to a new peer-reviewed research paper accepted to be published, only 69 tropical storms were observed globally during 2010, the fewest in almost 40-years of reliable records.

    Furthermore, when each storm’s intensity and duration were taken into account, the total global tropical cyclone accumulated energy (ACE) was found to have fallen by half to the lowest level since 1977.”

    Like

  51. Ed Darrell says:

    Fewer hurricanes, but more intense storms.

    Technically, Superstorm Sandy was not a hurricane during much of its destruction.

    Intensity, sea level rise, and destruction, increase as predicted. Your denialism says, “well, yeah, we got all the bad stuff from climate change that the scientists predicted — but it wasn’t a hurricane, so it doesn’t count.”

    Technical fouls only work in in basketball.

    Like

  52. Ed Darrell says:

    Facts, and your crucifix isn’t any use against these, BF:

    Is there such a thing as “normal”, aside from El Niño and La Niña?*
    Over the long-term record, sea-surface temperatures in the central and eastern tropical Pacific diverge from normal in a roughly bell-curve fashion, with El Niño and La Niña at the tails of the curve. Some researchers argue there are only two states, El Niño and non-El Niño, while others believe either El Niño or La Niña is always present to a greater or lesser degree. According to one expert, NCAR’s Kevin Trenberth, El Niños were present 31% of the time and La Niñas 23% of the time from 1950 to 1997, leaving about 46% of the period in a neutral state. The frequency of El Niños has increased in recent decades, a shift being studied for its possible relationship to global climate change.

    How often does La Niña occur?
    El Niño and La Niña occur on average every 3 to 5 years. However, in the historical record the interval between events has varied from 2 to 7 years. According to the National Centers for Environmental Prediction, this century’s previous La Niñas began in 1903, 1906, 1909, 1916, 1924, 1928, 1938, 1950, 1954, 1964, 1970, 1973, 1975, 1988, and 1995. These events typically continued into the following spring. Since 1975, La Niñas have been only half as frequent as El Niños.

    http://www.elnino.noaa.gov/lanina_new_faq.html

    Like

  53. Ed Darrell says:

    You’re the Kenneth that Dan Rather’s attackers were looking for, aren’t you?

    Like

  54. Black Flag® says:

    The most recent U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report said it has “low confidence” of an increase in hurricanes or tornadoes.

    The U.S. is likely experiencing fewer tornadoes compared with 50 years ago, according to data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. This year’s tornado season was historically low. . . .

    The U.S. has not experienced a major hurricane in nearly 10 years.

    What astonishes me is that in a world where access to facts is so easy, there are people like you who continue to believe and repeat the nonsense of man-made climate change.

    Like

  55. Black Flag® says:

    Your claim about El Nino is non-factual. There is a very broad range of years between its oscillation – it is, again, a failure of your understanding of the natural chaos of nature by expecting nature is some how “regular” in its cycle.

    There is no “increase” in frequency of anything – simple no fact to support your claim.

    Like

  56. Ellie says:

    Some fascinating stuff there, Ed. I’ll be reading for days. Thanks!

    Like

  57. Ed Darrell says:

    “Increasing frequency” of X does not imply that previously there was no X.

    For example: The El Nino phenomenon occurs about once a decade, historically, over the past 500 years.

    Since 1950 it has increased in frequency, more than once per decade.

    Like

  58. Black Flag® says:

    “Global climate change will increase the frequency and duration of drought in many places”

    What idiocy!

    The inference is that before there was no Climate change – hence no droughts.

    Empty headed zealots with no real understanding of much at all….

    Like

Please play nice in the Bathtub -- splash no soap in anyone's eyes.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,478 other followers

%d bloggers like this: