It has been a while since I have posted on here but I have kept an eye on the topics and some of the good, bad and ugly posts. Laura sure does have a hard job.
Back on topic, our local newspaper has been keeping an eye on the CCD. There are many opinions about the CCD. Personally, I think it could be a collection of things. Now I am not scientist or anything special but it could be the environment around the bees has become to harsh for their delicate bodies to handle and everything but the bee itself has adapted. I mean new viruses are introduced to us everyday, whether it is a new strain of some virus or the same virus, if we didn't adapt to the new virus then our immune system would not be able to handle it and some or all of the human population would die. Another factor could be one of my pass times as a kid that a bee would land on a newly sprouted flower and I would hunt the bee and step on the bee and kill the bee. I would think it would take alot of kids to kill that many bees all around the country.

Honey bees have always lived in a very wide range of climates, with mean temperatures that vary by as much as 20-30 degrees Fahrenheit. (Canada and Arizona for example.)

The theory that a 1-2 degree shift in temperature at some locations on the planet could be responsible for the decline in the worldwide bee population is so utterly irrational, that it must make sense to AGW proponents.

The dangerous thing is that AGW is now the excuse to ignore a multitude of other environmental issues - such as the real cause of the decline in the bee population.

speaking to a friend who's a beekeeper, you're right about the temperature shifts not being a problem, if the plants that the bees pollinate thrive in the environment for the bees, then the temp shift doesn't matter to them either.

He opts for some unknown virus that hasn't been found though he's VERY intrigued and wouldn't be surprised if it had something to do with cell phones and microwaves messing up their sense of directions.

More nonsensical comments from Patrick. Why are we not surprised?

Very few, if any, are attributing this solely to AGW. I think Laura said that it's been mentioned a couple times. It's irresponsible to discount anything at this point.

Let's also not forget that honeybees aren't native North America. They were introduced here.

I don't know what the results of this study will be but:

Federal scientists are researching whether the same industrial chemicals blamed for sickening and killing thousands of pets are responsible for decimating the honeybee population.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_508326.html

Since some commercial bee feeds are protein-based, using ingredients like brewer's yeast and soy flour, the possibility that melamine could be causing the unexplained bee die-off is worth investigating

Laura,

Thank you. I am now convinced of AGW. I am selling my SUV. How could I have been so blind. Temps go up by 1 degree over the last 150 years after falling 1 degree over a few hundred years and in 1971 Bee populations start to decline because of GW. I understand that Honey Bees range over many different climates, however the correlation that temps went up and bees populations declining is a no brainer, kind of like CO2 levels go up and temps go up. No proof is needed, just the fact that both happened around the same time on the same planet is all I need. Yes, lets keep a close eye on this one and fund a bunch of clowns to create models that show how bee populations MIGHT decline because of the Industrial Revolution if they plug in the right combinations of guesses.

Your neutrality biased towards AGW has helped me determine that as far as this blog doing any thing useful is useless. You will publish any crackpot article and that lends credibility since you are a meteorologist even though you have little regard for science and the scientific method. You ignore the FACT that many scientists who actually use the scientific method are now turning on AGW because the science has not stood up. Your name is definitely going on the side of Gore on the GW Monument, your blogs will be proof enough of your position. I stopped using Weather.Com because Heidi Cullen is an idiot. I don't think you're an idiot, but your posing as a scientist is pretty pathetic.

"Praise Al Gore, Our Lord and Savior. Deliver us from Evil and AGW Skeptics. Make our church rich via Carbon Credits and taxing deniers." No need to block me, I will no longer be posting as it is a waste of time.

I'm sure that we will all miss Steve's contributions to this blog.

Non-linear systems are notoriously difficult to analyze and understand, and do not correspond to "common sense" views of the world.

Joe is taking a shower and has to spend an extra thirty seconds finding a towel because Bobby used his and Annie hasn't sorted and folded the clean ones yet. Joe is therefore thirty seconds later when he leaves the house. Joe runs to the bus stop, but the 8:37 pulls away as he gets there. The 9:11 arrives late, at 9:17. He therefore misses his train by three minutes. Because he missed his train, he misses his flight. Because he missed his flight, the job he was interviewing for is given to another applicant. Joe and his family suffer terrible financial hardship, because these positions come up rarely.

There is no direct causal connection between folding laundry and economic performance. Nevertheless, events do chain together in the real world like this. We are, now, learning how to model such complex and non-linear dynamic systems mathematically.

We have very strong evidence that global warming is changing the behavior of other insects. Mosquitos, for example, are becoming a problem for higher elevations because global warming changes the frost elevations. Various species of flowers bloom later. Various migration patterns change. All of these changes may very well change the population of various pathogens like viruses and bacteria. Any one of these might well ultimately be responsible for "CCD".

Global warming is surely one of several plausible scenarios worth investigating.

"Very few, if any, are attributing this solely to AGW."

Is that like being a "little bit pregnant?"

The earth's climate has varied up and down by dozens of degrees since bees arrived on the planet. Bees are still here despite the seemingly endless neuroses of AGW devotees. Obviously something else is causing their population to decline, though I am certain that all bees greatly appreciate your concern.

"There is no direct causal connection between folding laundry and economic performance. Nevertheless, events do chain together in the real world like this. We are, now, learning how to model such complex and non-linear dynamic systems mathematically."

I haven't heard about any economic models that use folding laundry as part of the model. Perhaps you could provide a reference?

Maybe bees are affected by the massive use of pesticides which by design render insects infertile, rather than inert CO2?

An article published this week saying that organic beekeepers are not affected by CCD -

http://www.informationliberation.com/index.php?id=21912

But why listen to a common sense explanation, when it is more satisfying to get hysterical about AGW?

As a point of info. A different article pointed out that it's not so much they're not reproducing, it's that's they're disappearing-the belief being that they're dying away from the hive or getting lost. The ones that come back do reproduce.

Remember, alot of these bees are trucked into locations; the hive is dropped off during pollination time (when the flowers are blooming) then they're loaded back up on trucks and moved to other parts of the country to pollinate there.

That's why the theories about microwaves because bees notoriously don't like high tension lines or strong EM fields, it messes with them.

Would't that be a kick in the head? We connect the world and dissect the bee population.

Patrick,

You obviously don't read what's been posted. Once again, I'll repeat: nobody has definitely attributed the bees' demise to AGW. It's not even the primary suspect at this point. However, it's not being ruled out.

"The earth's climate has varied up and down by dozens of degrees since bees arrived on the planet. Bees are still here despite the seemingly endless neuroses of AGW devotees. Obviously something else is causing their population to decline, though I am certain that all bees greatly appreciate your concern."

Oh really, Patrick? Perhaps you can tell us how you know that the bee populations didn't decline during past warm periods? Do you have data that supports this theory of yours?

Didn't think so. Think before you post.

Tom tried to give you a very simple example of how intricate non-linear systems are -- and yet -- it went over your head.

Steve,
See ya. It's interesting how it's always the deniers who run away from the debate when their arguments are completely torn apart. I have a feeling we'll be seeing you again soon, though.

I know I said I would not post again but can't help it.

I am a beekeeper.

The cause of CCD is not GW but it is affected by it. Though not a scientist, as so informed by BT and Mark, I believe that CCD is a combination of many things including, but not limited to: overuse of pesticides in industrial farming, overuse of bee "medicines", increased use of cell-phone "like" technology, and over-farming of the bee's product, honey.

Pesticides do not affect the hive, unless directly sprayed, but primarily the workers. Loss of work force strains the hive and it eventually dies off or leaves that location.

Bee medicines weaken the ability of the hive to naturally fend off seemingly minor problems. I feel it is equivalent to overuse of antibiotics on humans.

Cell phone like technology may contribute to confuse the normal day to day navigation. Workers get "lost" enroute to food and the hive weakens in the process.

Over-farming the honey leaves the hives with less food to live on during the winter. If the price of honey is high there is more pressure to take all of the honey you can. This leaves the bees vulnerable. Replacement feed often is not as good as the honey they "lost" to the keeper.

GW affects them when the weather swings drastically in temps day to day. Yes I know there is a difference between climate and daily "backyard" weather but one of the tenets of GW is great variation in temps. If the bees go out in the morning and it is "warm" say 40 to 50 and the temps drop into the 20's many will just freeze. So it may contribute to some small degree. I doubt it affects the pathogens as they survive the winter months and only flourish along with the colony no matter what the temps. If the colony croaks, they croak. Generally, hive interior cores are maintained by the colony at a temp of 80 to 90 degrees even in the winter. In summer, they fan to reduce the temp as needed, in winter, they cluster to bring the temp up as needed.

It is not the primary issue by any stretch and CCD being linked to AGW is probably viewed as another method by which to confuse the public. It would difficult to prove as to how it affects any individual hive or area in any event.

And yes, to those of you who may recall, my hives made it through the cold snap in my area about a month or so ago. It did significantly weaken one of them but I think it will make it.

Being a skeptic of AGW, I do not deny GW, but am rather more concerned with the end result rather than who to blame. Ultimately, warming may help the bees as they will be able to "work" longer into the year and start more quickly after winter.

Back to sticking my head in the sand.

From Science Daily:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/05/050517110843.htm

The problem with the bees is a microscopic parasite - a bee mite that feeds off the host weakening the immune system. This Varroa Mite was first discovered in North America (Florida) in 1987.

AGW has nothing to do with the devastation to bee colonies. Good grief.

JP:

Varroa is a problem but does not, by itself, cause a colony to collapse like what seems to be occurring at present.

Mark,

If you have any familiarity with state of the art computer modeling (which I do for a living), you would understand how simple and limited even the most sophisticated models are.

The input parameters which climate models use are extremely limited and don't even remotely touch on any chaotic parameters like "folding laundry."

Try monitoring the accuweather 15 day forecasts for a particular location, and see how they change radically from one day to the next. AGW (and any long term climate/weather prediction) is based on extremely primitive subjective models which are in their infancy.

The input parameters which climate models use are extremely limited and don't even remotely touch on any chaotic parameters like "folding laundry."

Are you kidding? The entire point of climate models is that the model is itself chaotic. Even simple population models are chaotic -- see "Chaotic Population Dynamics" and "Anatomy of a chaotic attractor: Subtle model-predicted patterns revealed in population data", two examples pulled from a simple Google search. Such models are abundant -- this is not bleeding-edge research any more.

Traditional models make two fundamental assumptions that fall apart in the real world: (1) Small changes in input produce small changes in output and (2) Small changes in one location do not significantly change a different location. Like the "butterfly effect" (a butterfly flapping its wings in Tokyo causes a tornado in Kansas), the folding laundry example illustrates in a simple way how both (1) and (2) are often violated in real-world examples.

Try monitoring the accuweather 15 day forecasts for a particular location, and see how they change radically from one day to the next. AGW (and any long term climate/weather prediction) is based on extremely primitive subjective models which are in their infancy.

Why is it so difficult for some people to understand that climatology and meteorology are two different fields?

As I just wrote in another thread, try predicting the trajectory of a single molecule in a container of gas. That corresponds to the "forecasting" problem. It is computationally impossible to solve. In a related more common-place example, it is similar to predicting the final position of a billiard table with nine balls after a shot is made -- even given perfect information about the table and shot. It is theoretically not possible to solve, because the two assumptions cited above don't hold. In the case of the weather, the atmosphere does not contain enough information to accurately predict its future more than a few days out -- no matter how much computation is thrown at the problem. If the information isn't there, it can't be computed.

Even though the trajectory of a single molecule cannot be predicted, the relationship between pressure, temperature, and volume can, and is, predicted (within limits imposed by quantum effects). That corresponds to the "climatology" problem. It is computationally straightforward to solve. Not "easy", because there is a lot of information and we don't have good models yet. But "straightforward", in the sense that there is no theoretical or computational barrier to its solution. If we throw enough computer cycles at it, we will eventually be able to get an answer -- in the same way that we are now able to make very accurate models of the behavior of a gas.

"Why is it so difficult for some people to understand that climatology and meteorology are two different fields?"

Why is it so difficult for you to understand that if you can't predict temperatures for a region the size of North America next month within +/- 5 degrees, you certainly can't do it for the next century. Your analogy of gas temperature/pressure is absurd and deceptive. That system can be described by a simple equation which every high school chemistry student has known for the past two centuries.

AGW is based on the Dilbert Principle - i.e. "If I don't understand it, it must be simple." just blame it on CO2 and ignore everything else.

"there is no theoretical or computational barrier to its solution. If we throw enough computer cycles at it, we will eventually be able to get an answer"

Doubtful for any time soon, but at least you admit we don't have the answer now.

Darren,
These mites have been present in about every colony that reported population collapse. If you read the entire study, the only question is how many different pathologies are effecting the bees. Besides the deformed wings and attack on the bee's immune system, there is a worry that the parasite is also affecting the larvae. The researchers took into account any chemical pesticides, etc... used at the colonies as well as other enviromental factors. In every case, the sudden collapse of these colonies can be attributed to the parasites.

Tom,
You do have a point; however, it goes both ways. How many times do climatologists attribute synoptic and sub-synoptic events to Global Climate Change? Most climatologists have shortened the window of thier concern from centuries to decades, and now to years. Instead of forecasting the movement and strength of hemispheric teleconnections, they concern themselves with synoptic events of relatively short duration (ie Hurricane activity over the Northwest Altantic Basin from May to November).

You can't have it both ways.

I like the analogy to the jar for climate versus weather. However, where it falls apart is that climate modeling and forecasting are similar in that they deal with constraints and the variables in the system. It's not that the atmosphere doesn't contain the variables to tease out an accurate forecast a couple of days in advance. It DOES contain everything but our feeble minds can't pull out every detail. There are too MANY variables that we don't have the crunching capabilities to analyze. So we constrain our system and the result is that we can't forecast more than a few days out.

Now shift to macro level forecasting or climate studies. Same situation, however, because we want to look at the jar as opposed to a molecule, the types of variables present are seemingly more modelable-but don't be fooled, it's not that simple. There are a whole bunch of variables that could effect our simulation so we constrain and/or(all together now!) ASSUME! And when we assume what happens? You make an "A**" of "U" and "ME"

We can model climate ONLY because of these assumptions/constraints. If it weren't for assuming the impact of things like ocean current feedbacks, cosmic rays, solar activity, methane sinks, convection patterns, etc., guess what? We wouldn't be able to (and some say we can't) predict the climate either.

But alas we digress...

I need to check on my mead...

"Try monitoring the accuweather 15 day forecasts for a particular location, and see how they change radically from one day to the next."

Again, climate and weather; you're talking about weather, we're talking about climate.

"If you have any familiarity with state of the art computer modeling (which I do for a living), you would understand how simple and limited even the most sophisticated models are."

I think everyone understands that, but show me how the climate models have been grossly inaccurate thus far. Why can't any of the deniers answer this question? Is it because their hasn't been any gross inaccuracies so far?

plish,

I want to comment on your claim that humans only contribute 0.12% towards CO2 emissions. This claim is very misleading. First of all: yes, there are other entities out there which emit more CO2 than humans, namely vegetation, oceans and marine life. However, all of these entities absorb all of the CO2 that they emit, resulting in no net gain or loss of CO2. For example, oceans emit nearly 100 Gigatons of CO2 per year. But they also absorb 100 Gitatons per year, resulting in a net gain of zero. Plant decay emits about 60 Gigatons, but plant regrowth absorbs 60 Gigatons, resulting in a net gain of zero.

Humans, however, emit about 5.5 Gigatons per year, but there is no return mechanism to bring the CO2 back into a sink. Oceans absorb about half of our CO2 emissions, but the rest of it accumulates in the atmosphere. This is why you see CO2 concentrations increase every single year.

We've increased from 280 ppm to 383 ppm. That's an increase of 103 ppm. You should focus on how much humans' contribute to the ~increase~ in CO2 concentrations. I'd say humans are responsible for almost 100% of the increase. I challenge you or anyone to disprove this.

It's not that the atmosphere doesn't contain the variables to tease out an accurate forecast a couple of days in advance.

Perhaps our resident meteorologist can comment.

As I understand it, the error terms accumulate. This is a way that meteorology is similar to the billiard ball example. Thus, any small delta (including quantum uncertainty) is amplified as the equations unwind. This process happens quickly enough that whatever state the system is in at some time t, that state is simply not part of the equations a few days later. It specifically is not about limits of our minds or our computing capacity -- it is, instead, the way the universe works. Something like the limits imposed by quantum uncertainty.

In the 19th century, the scientific world believed that it was theoretical possible to measure all the variables and model all the equations and then, "like clockwork", predict the subsequent behavior of the universe. We learned, when we discovered quantum uncertainty, that this model is fundamentally and theoretically impossible. My understanding is that meteorology is subject to similar theoretical limits.

Mark,

100% How can you be sure? Is it your position that human technology has mastered the measuring of such subtle change that may result in significant change that which BT addresses? You are treading on thin ice.

BT, We're talking the same thing I believe, different words. The appearance and disappearance of a variable is a variable itself and not model-able. These pseudovariables exist in climate modelling also, just their impact has been minimized through assumption.

Mark, you say:

"We've increased from 280 ppm to 383 ppm. That's an increase of 103 ppm. You should focus on how much humans' contribute to the ~increase~ in CO2 concentrations. I'd say humans are responsible for almost 100% of the increase. I challenge you or anyone to disprove this."

What I would argue is that when you say the CO2 gets resorbed by other sources the implication is that most or all of the global CO2 operates in a closed system except for the human influence part which pushes us over the warming edge. It becomes a shell game. I could play the game too. I say that ALL the human CO2 is absorbed by the oceans and the oceans are responsible for the excess. ;-)

I choose not to ignore the .12 percent because it's a number I heard and it sounds reasonable. CO2 is approximately 3% of the atmosphere. Approximately 3%-4% of THAT is from humans (and I've seen this number quoted in pro and anti AGW writings). That's the .12%.

Don't get me wrong. I believe I'm a minority thinker in that I DO believe that life on this planet is INCREDIBLY fragile. So many variables need to align in order for life to form and be sustained that I don't think life is common in the universe (that's where I'm in the minority).

However, while we are incredibly amazing beings capable of amazing things, I think we're giving ourselves too much credit for being able to influence the climate that much-especially given heating/cooling episodes that are still unexplained from the past...

When I was fresh out of school I was doing a calculation and a senior person checked my calcs, took my lovely calculations (which were calculated out to 4 significant digits),laughed, rounded up, said, "this will work" and it did.

Scientists love numbers and I share the story becuase it shows how I was hell bent on precision, my mentor on results in the real world. Not that there isn't a place for precision, but climatology, which bases its models on historical data for which the error bars could explain a climate itself, and then we talk of .1C average changes and we believe ourselves that we explain entire earth climate temperature variations in a sacred average number...

I don't know...we're special but I think we give ourselves alittle too much credit.

Mark :

"show me how the climate models have been grossly inaccurate thus far. Why can't any of the deniers answer this question? Is it because their hasn't been any gross inaccuracies so far?"

Here is one example of a gross inaccuracy of the climate models : they have predicted about a 1 deg rise in temperature in the Arctic, yet we know the Arctic has warmed about 7 deg. So either the models are in significant error in their ability to register the measured change, or the models are correct in predicting the 1 deg change, and the additional warming is actually the result of a natural warming cycle which the models can in no way account for.

Either way, we should not place any more faith in these models than we would a 14-day forecast.

Yes, Thor, I think we're responsible for most of the 103 ppm rise. Are we only responsible for, say, 90 ppm, leaving the other 13 ppm from natural sources? I don't know. Personally, I find that doubtful. Can you identify other natural sources which provide a significant net gain of CO2 in the atmosphere? The key word being significant. Volcanoes emit CO2 during eruptions, but they produce a very small amount of CO2 when compared with humans.

Also, I didn't say that we're 100% responsible for the warming. It could very well be that we're 100% responsible for the CO2 rise, but only 70% responsible for the warming, for example.

I know someone will jump into this argument and say that the CO2 rise is from an 800-year lag effect. Puh-leeeze. If you believe that, then you still believe the Earth is flat.

Plain and simple.

"show me how the climate models have been grossly inaccurate thus far. Why can't any of the deniers answer this question? Is it because their hasn't been any gross inaccuracies so far?"

Let me turn this around - can you show me one long term forecast from the Climate Prediction Center at NOAA which has turned out to be accurate?
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/site_index.shtml

At the end of January the "Climate Prediction Center" predicted the northeast US would have a warm February. Instead they had record cold.

I emphasized the term "climate" several times here to (hopefully) save the usual culprits from feeling obligated to babble something about how climate and weather have nothing to do with each other.

Gary,

Wow! So you're saying the models have underestimated the warmth in certain regions?

Deniers, take note of Gary's post. People seem to think that if the models are going to err, they are going to err on the side of overestimating warmth. But there is the real possibility that they're erring on the side of underestimating warmth and that we could actually become warmer than what the models are predicting.

Patrick,
Just answer the question. Gary answered it. Although his answer supports the thought that AGW could be even worse than predicted.

Mark,

so you don't think it possible that small changes on the sun can result in large changes on earth, such as co2 concentration rise?

My personal opinion is that we are aggravating a natural trend and that's wrong but there's no disaster with co2 in the time-frame that Al Gore subscribes. Al Gore is an alarmist!

I emphasized the term "climate" several times here to (hopefully) save the usual culprits from feeling obligated to babble something about how climate and weather have nothing to do with each other.

At least Patrick seems to have heard enough of the "babble" to realize that maybe climate and weather are different. Perhaps, with time, he can eventually realize for himself what this means.

Scientists love numbers and I share the story becuase it shows how I was hell bent on precision, my mentor on results in the real world. Not that there isn't a place for precision, but climatology, which bases its models on historical data for which the error bars could explain a climate itself, and then we talk of .1C average changes and we believe ourselves that we explain entire earth climate temperature variations in a sacred average number...

I do think we're on the same page here, plish. The subtlety that I'm not sure you appreciate is that there is more going on here than just precision versus practicality.

There are some algebraic terms for which we can show that, for certain ranges of values, small-signal changes (like numeric errors) wash out and an approximation is fine. The classic example is an amplifier with some gain and negative feedback; if the gain is larger than about ten, then the behavior of the amplifier is determined by the feedback and the precise value of the gain doesn't matter. A good bit of the art in engineering analysis is to learn how to understand and apply these principles.

The point, though, is that there are some contexts for which this doesn't hold true. A real-world example that is all-too-familiar to any programmer is coding calculation chains for financial applications, especially things like compound interest calculations. These contain terms with positive exponents. On any physical machine, the numeric representation will contain an error term -- an error term that will be exponentially amplified by the positive exponent. The question of how those error terms are handled pays the salaries of an army of mathematicians who specialize in number theory. You see the result each time you look at the "average daily balance", including the current month's finance charge, on your credit-card statement. You might naively think that, given the terms of the financial instrument, there was one "correct" answer to what your monthly finance charge is. Bzzzt! -- wrong answer. Every bank is different.

Lorentz discovered, way back in 1960, that the equations that drive atmospheric models have similar behavior. It isn't exactly that the models are "inaccurate" -- it is, instead, that when a specific variable is represented in a physical and finite machine, some quantization error is introduced. Lorentz showed that that quantization error, in very short order, dominates everything else. This is how non-linear systems theory was born.

Some of these parameters can, in fact, be specified to essentially arbitrary precision. Others cannot. Our intuitions from "well-behaved" systems with closed-form solutions do not, in general, apply.

This is one aspect of why something like atmospheric CO2 concentration can have such a huge impact on the results of a climate model even though it is, in absolute terms, a tiny component of the atmosphere.

Mark,

I did answer the question in detail in the next sentence.

Please feel free to read all four of my sentences before jumping on the keyboard to fire off a knee-jerk response.

BTW - please explain why temperatures in Antarctica and Greenland are going down ;^)

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2007&month_last=04&sat=4&sst=0&type=anoms&mean_gen=03&year1=1990&year2=2007&base1=1930&base2=1990&radius=1200&pol=reg

"so you don't think it possible that small changes on the sun can result in large changes on earth, such as co2 concentration rise?"

No, I really don't. If the sun played a significant part in our CO2 concentration, then the rises in CO2 would be more erratic. It may rise 2 ppm one year, then fall 0.5 ppm the next year, rise again the next year, etc, etc.

It takes a much further stretch of the imagination to believe that there is some natural cause to this CO2 rise than it does to believe that humans are causing it.

I'll answer your question, Patrick, once you tell me why 70% of the earth is bright red in your map.

Anyone have any links on theories as to why CO2 rose in in the distant past?

Thanks!

"I'll answer your question, Patrick, once you tell me why 70% of the earth is bright red in your map."

Looks more like 10% is bright red to me, the rest of your 'bright red' is orange and yellow

There's an article in the new SCIENCE that discusses this... the jury is out...