Science & Technology News

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Sheriffdep

I believe i may now be on the side of Newhaul. The idea that we can stop climate change is delusional. I have always known this, just was trying to proactively discuss the perceived changes that we are told we must do ie...everyone must stop flying, buy electric cars, change over to heat pumps, quit eating meat and dairy, etc... rather than argue over the science part. And at least attempt to avoid the politics which might not be possible.

Every solution put forward is to have governments through force (the governments don't do anything without force, or no one would do their bidding; and that includes the USA) dictate what they decide is best and then all people must comply. You can wrap that package as nicely as you want, but in the end its still true. Most all solutions to fix CC also indicate that the only way to enforce compliance is to have a world governing body decide all the factors and countries with wealth pay for the changes and people in countries with the least.

Ok, you've confirmed that you didn't come here with an open mind... you are just taking a turn at bat for the denial side..

COVID is a global crisis. Governments had to lead, mandate or force some changes, and spend money, to attack it. Climate change is also a global crisis, albeit one that is unfolding at a rate that's a few orders of magnitude slower. But it will still also require national and international leadership/coordination. And changes in behaviour (both collective and individual), some difficult. And money spent, though sustainability and alternative energy sources will be profitable new industries and future employers.

Again you've simply thrown another piece or two of Denier 101 at us - that the task of stopping climate change is too big, too hard, too expensive. And that anything that might put a tiny crimp in your lifestyle or suck an extra dollar out of a wealthy person's wallet is too horrible to think about. It's not do-able, so do nothing. And further, because we can't contemplate enacting a solution, let's just deny that there's even a problem.

Whether or not we can still stop climate change in its tracks, it's still necessary to do better, and for more reasons than just climate change. Fossil fuels will not last forever; burning it all up in the next 100 to 200 years doesn't seem very smart. We've made some horrendous industrial and pollution messes; it's about time we did a better job of cleaning up. Many of our current practices are simply too wasteful, messy and unsustainable. Doing nothing is just making it all worse, and kicking it down the road to our kids and their kids.

Delusional is pretending we can't or don't need to recognize and address these problems.

[GordMay]

If the trend of declining coral growth continues at the current rate, the world's coral reefs may cease calcifying around 2054, a new study [1] has found.
Drawing on research from the late 1960s until now, the paper reveals the global spatiotemporal trends and drivers of coral reef ecosystem growth [calcification].

One hundred and sixteen studies, from 53 published papers, of sites from all over the globewere analysed. The most studied country was Australia (Great Barrier Reef, Lord Howe Island and Western Australia reefs). Other case studies included reef sites in Japan, Hawaii, the Red Sea, French Polynesia and Bermuda, among others.

They found that rates of coral ecosystem calcification are significantly declining, at an average rate of 4.3% ± 1.9% yr-1, with a concurrent reduction in mean coral cover of 1.8% yr-1. This suggests that loss of coral cover may not be the sole contributor of declining calcification. Stress events, like coral bleaching, can impact calcification, even without coral death. Corals improve their chances of survival during stressful times by temporarily reducing calcification.

To sustain coral reefs, individual corals need to grow to provide food and habitat for the ecosystem. Coral growth is called 'calcification'. As corals take up calcium carbonate [CaCO3] from the water column to produce their skeletons, calcification rates can be determined through water chemistry changes.

Coral dissolution is the opposite, where the skeletons release CaCO3 back into the water, typically in periods of no productivity, or when stressed. The higher the rate of net growth [calcification- dissolution], the more reef-building corals and calcifying algae are producing for the ecosystem.

[1] “Global coral reef ecosystems exhibit declining calcification and increasing primary productivity” ~ by Kay L. Davis et al
➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-021-00168-w

However, see also ➥ https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums...ml#post3427437

[Sheriffdep]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

[QUOTE

A 2017 study [2], in Science Advances, found that by 2100, temperatures could rise to the point that, just going outside for a few hours in some places, including parts of India and Eastern China, will result in death, even for the fittest of humans.”

]

Unless you’re wearing layers of heavy clothing, going outside in January for a few hours anywhere in Canada and in much of the US will also result in death. If the worlds overall climate does continue to warm, some areas that have had hospitable climates in the past will become too warm but areas that have traditionally had less than hospitable climates will become more comfortable and better able to grow crops. I don’t understand why some seem to think this is so alarming.

I live in a cold climate and I do think winters have generally become a little less severe, but that means less snow shoveling and a lower heating bill and less dangerous driving conditions and a slightly longer growing season and outdoor activities season. I can understand the concern about warming by people who live in the deep south but shouldn’t those of us who are starting to enjoy a slightly more hospitable climate be happy about it?[/QUOTE]

Adding to this - for hundreds of thousands of years the climate has changed. Some areas that were lush forests became deserts (Sahara Desert Region for example) and vise versa. Humans lived in groups that typically travelled large distances seasonally to where their resources were during that time of years. Modern humans build a high rise or mansion 1ft above high tide along the ocean. Then start screaming that ocean levels are rising and we must do something about it. Same for hurricanes - they are not worse than the ones in the past. But the ones now hitting shores are causing human development damage in which you consistently hear "Hurricane X is projected to cause billions in damage; worst hurricane since X" Well its not through a climate viewpoint. Financial yes, but that is humans fault.

The earth has been cooling and continues to cool as we speak. This has been taking place over the past several years and will continue for at least a few more years if not for the next 30. Plenty of proof for that in this thread by Newhaul's citing of graphs.

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Ok, you've confirmed that you didn't come here with an open mind... you are just taking a turn at bat for the denial side..

COVID is a global crisis. Governments had to lead, mandate or force some changes, and spend money, to attack it. Climate change is also a global crisis, albeit one that is unfolding at a rate that's a few orders of magnitude slower. But it will still also require national and international leadership/coordination. And changes in behaviour (both collective and individual), some difficult. And money spent, though sustainability and alternative energy sources will be profitable new industries and future employers.

Again you've simply thrown another piece or two of Denier 101 at us - that the task of stopping climate change is too big, too hard, too expensive. And that anything that might put a tiny crimp in your lifestyle or suck an extra dollar out of a wealthy person's wallet is too horrible to think about. It's not do-able, so do nothing. And further, because we can't contemplate enacting a solution, let's just deny that there's even a problem.

Whether or not we can still stop climate change in its tracks, it's still necessary to do better, and for more reasons than just climate change. Fossil fuels will not last forever; burning it all up in the next 100 to 200 years doesn't seem very smart. We've made some horrendous industrial and pollution messes; it's about time we did a better job of cleaning up. Many of our current practices are simply too wasteful, messy and unsustainable. Doing nothing is just making it all worse, and kicking it down the road to our kids and their kids.

Delusional is pretending we can't or don't need to recognize and address these problems.

First, why do you label people who disagree with some of your opinions regarding climate, “deniers?” Is that any better than them calling you a sheeple? Does either term persuade anyone? Does it make you feel smarter or more virtuous than him to call him a name?

I agree with you that we should continue to try to pollute less and should attempt to clean up messes that we’ve created.

But surely you realize that CO2 will continue to increase no matter what we in the developed world do. Also, those who advocate for widespread sacrifice that won’t change our climate by any measurable amount aren’t themselves participating on any large scale in the sacrifices they advocate for the rest of us and many of them make choices that make their carbon footprints much larger than most of ours. If they (you?) feel so strongly about it, why do they still travel in airplanes and SUV’s and run their air conditioners, etc? I suspect it’s for the same reason I think we need to accept climate change and adapt to it, because these strong advocates for others sacrifice know that them not getting on a private jet won’t make a difference, and neither will anything that North America and Europe does as long as so many billions of others around the world are striving to have the same standard of living you and I enjoy, and to have any chance of achieving that they need cheap energy and unless we start building nuke plants everywhere that means more CO2 in the atmosphere. So rather than using climate change as a handy way to virtue signal when you realistically know that CO2 levels will continue to rise and climates will continue to change, why not focus on how we can best adapt to whatever changes come our way? And maybe once you stop your attacking and labeling and virtue signaling we can all agree on and actually achieve something if we focus on achievable goals such as cleaning up pollution our lifestyles generate as much as possible until such time as technology develops a source of cheap energy that will allow the 3rd world to catch up with the rest of us. Until then, adapting is our best strategy and something we can all help each other with.

[newhaul]

https://www.jefferson.edu/about/news...es-to-dna.html
I just cursory scanned this one so don't crucify me just seems like a good time to post something new.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by newhaul

https://www.jefferson.edu/about/news...es-to-dna.html
I just cursory scanned this one so don't crucify me just seems like a good time to post something new.

Interesting article.
The study discussed:
“Polθ reverse transcribes RNA and promotes RNA-templated DNA repair” ~ by Gurushankar Chandramouly et al
➥ https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/7/24/eabf1771

This link provides references to a number of similar articles:
➥ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34117057/

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Interesting article.
The study discussed:
“Polθ reverse transcribes RNA and promotes RNA-templated DNA repair” ~ by Gurushankar Chandramouly et al
➥ https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/7/24/eabf1771

This link provides references to a number of similar articles:
➥ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34117057/

Thanks for the synopsis and links.
Just noticed your location same as mine latitude by 122.4 W

[GordMay]

An affordable decades-old drug has been reformulated and repurposed to treat COVID-19 patients.

Following FDA and Health Canada approval, the drug has now begun Phase 3 of a North American clinical trial.

The clinical trial will test the use of PULM-001, in patients in the early stages of COVID-19.

PULM-001 has been used to reduce severe pulmonary inflammation, caused by other severe diseases, such as lupus and malaria.
The drug is not a replacement for taking the vaccine, and researchers say "people with COVID-19 should take PULM-001 after suffering symptoms for seven to 10 days".
This is one of very few Phase 3 clinical trials for COVID-19 therapies to obtain approval from both the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and Health Canada.

More about:

“Phase III North American Clinical Trial for COVID-19 Treatment begins after FDA & Health Canada approval” ~ McGill University Press Release
➥ https://reporter.mcgill.ca/phase-iii...nada-approval/

[SailOar]

Joint NASA, NOAA Study Finds Earth's Energy Imbalance Has Doubled

• Earth’s energy imbalance has approximately doubled during the 14-year period from 2005 to 2019
• Scientists at NASA and NOAA compared data from two independent measurements. NASA's Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES) suite of satellite sensors measure how much energy enters and leaves Earth's system. In addition, data from a global array of ocean floats, called Argo, enable an accurate estimate of the rate at which the world’s oceans are heating up.
• The imbalance is partially the result an increase in greenhouse gases due to human activity
• Partly due to increases in water vapor are trapping more outgoing longwave radiation
• Partly due to a related decrease in clouds and sea ice, leading to more absorption of solar energy
• And partly due to a flip of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) from a cool phase to a warm phase
• Loeb cautions that the study is only a snapshot relative to long-term climate change, and that it's not possible to predict with any certainty what the coming decades might look like for the balance of Earth's energy budget. The study does conclude, however, that unless the rate of heat uptake subsides, greater changes in climate than are already occurring should be expected.

The study is published in Geophysical Research Letters

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

First, why do you label people who disagree with some of your opinions regarding climate, “deniers?”

I can tell an honest skeptic from someone who's just spouting old anti-AGW pablum. If the word annoys... good. It means that the recipient might actually give a sh!t at some level.

But surely you realize that CO2 will continue to increase no matter what we in the developed world do.

Surely you realize that CO2 isn't controlled by a toggle switch - just off/on. I happen to think that emitting less CO2 is better than emitting more CO2. I also still have some faith in our ability to tackle problems, provided we can get past debating whether a problem exists or not.

Also, those who advocate for widespread sacrifice that won’t change our climate by any measurable amount aren’t themselves participating on any large scale in the sacrifices they advocate for the rest of us and many of them make choices that make their carbon footprints much larger than most of ours. If they (you?) feel so strongly about it, why do they still travel in airplanes and SUV’s and run their air conditioners, etc?

As I've mentioned previously, I have zero respect for that argument. It's juvenile, and completely misses the point that individual voluntary action will not by itself solve the problem. Should anyone concerned about overpopulation kill themselves, or else they're just hypocrites? And you DO NOT know the carbon footprints (feetprint?) of everyone who is concerned - eg what kind/size of air conditioner and how often they use it, etc etc.

I suspect it’s for the same reason I think we need to accept climate change and adapt to it, because these strong advocates for others sacrifice know that them not getting on a private jet won’t make a difference, and neither will anything that North America and Europe does as long as so many billions of others around the world are striving to have the same standard of living you and I enjoy, and to have any chance of achieving that they need cheap energy and unless we start building nuke plants everywhere that means more CO2 in the atmosphere.

I disagree with your pessimism. With some guided effort, the first world can accelerate the development of cleaner and more sustainable technologies for the developing world to use, instead of them repeating our mistakes and excesses. Lead by example.

Thing is, we have to move in this direction anyway; fossil fuel isn't forever. Moving sooner will be less painful and will preserve more of the planet than just status quo till we can't find any more to burn.

So rather than using climate change as a handy way to virtue signal when you realistically know that CO2 levels will continue to rise and climates will continue to change, why not focus on how we can best adapt to whatever changes come our way?

So adaptation to the effects of a problem will somehow be better than correcting irresponsible behaviour that's actually creating the problems in the first place?

And maybe once you stop your attacking and labeling and virtue signaling we can all agree on and actually achieve something if we focus on achievable goals such as cleaning up pollution our lifestyles generate as much as possible until such time as technology develops a source of cheap energy that will allow the 3rd world to catch up with the rest of us. Until then, adapting is our best strategy and something we can all help each other with.

Now who's naive? This is CF, not the floor of the UN. If we didn't have regular outbreaks of denier nonsense (such as their general sneering about current sustainable energy alternatives), you wouldn't hear from me here on the subject.

[Sheriffdep]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

As I've mentioned previously, I have zero respect for that argument. It's juvenile, and completely misses the point that individual voluntary action will not by itself solve the problem.

I disagree with your pessimism. With some guided effort, the first world can accelerate the development of cleaner and more sustainable technologies for the developing world to use, instead of them repeating our mistakes and excesses. Lead by example.

You keep missing my point. I agree we should be changing to a much much cleaner environment. I also agree we should individually be conscious about our usage. I will also agree that man HAS put more CO2 into the atmosphere than at any other time in history and the numbers of CO2 are getting exponentially worse.

What organizations and governments are talking about is a massive upheaval for all those in first world wealthy countries to start. Massive structural changes to the electrical grid/production and massive changes to the transportation realm. Massive changes to production. Also massive changes to food consumption. This must all happen relatively quick timewise. And changes must start now.

This ALL costs a massive amount of money. Just to start; so my question to you is where does all this money come from lets say to start in the USA. Someone has to pay. And although the government does print money out of the clear blue sky they cannot print the amount to cover these costs. I dont want to know if its affordable; i want to know how its going to be paid for.

There - this has nothing to do with science, but it does have to do with fixing a scientific problem.

[GordMay]

Asking how to pay for the impact of climate change, is a profoundly wrongheaded line of inquiry, that implies that these costs are a matter of choice.
The reality is that global warming will impose massive costs, regardless of whether policymakers respond, or not.
Thus, the real question is not “How would you propose to pay?”; but instead “Who is going to pay?”, and “When”, and “How much?”
Alternatively, one could ask : Who is going to pay the costs of not responding, and how much.

Given that, we are going to have to pay for global warming, one way or another. The key question is who will pay, and how we can distribute those costs wisely, and fairly.

One simple, partial answer is: “User/Polluter pay” [carbon pricing with border adjustments], “now”, and “lots”.

But, this is a science thread, not an economics, political discussion.

[SeanPatrick]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Thus, the real question is not “How would you propose to pay?”; but instead “Who is going to pay?”, and “When”, and “How much?”
Alternatively, one could ask : Who is going to pay the costs of not responding, and how much.

Easy. Have all the "true believers" pay first. Then, when they're proven right, tax everyone else to pay their share and reimburse the "wiser" ones. Shouldn't be a problem, correct? I mean ... you seem extremely sure that you're right, so why not go ahead and place your bet? Even if the "deniers" never pay up, at least you'll know you've done the "right" thing. And that should at least help you sleep better.

[GordMay]

NASA is finally headed back to Venus

On June 2, 2021, NASA Administrator Bill Nelson announced that the agency had selected two winners of its latest Discovery class spacecraft mission competition, and both are headed to the second planet from the Sun. [1]

This is the first time, since the Magellan mission in 1989, that NASA has committed to sending spacecraft to study Venus. With the data these two Venus missions [VERITAS [2] and DAVINCI+ [3]] will collect, planetary scientists can start tackling one of the biggest mysteries in the solar system: Why is Venus, a planet almost the same size, density and age of Earth, so very different from the world humanity calls home?

Although only a little closer to the Sun than Earth, a runaway greenhouse effect means that it’s extremely hot at the surface [about 870 F, or 465 C], roughly the temperature of a self-cleaning oven. The pressure at the surface is a crushing 90 times the pressure at sea level on Earth. And to top it off, there are sulfuric acid clouds covering the entire planet, that corrode anything passing through them.

But perhaps the most fascinating aspect of Venus is that it may have once looked a lot like Earth. Recent climate models suggest that in the past the planet could have had liquid water oceans and a mild climate. [4] It may have been habitable for as long as 3 billion years, before succumbing to some sort of climate catastrophe, that triggered the runaway greenhouse. The goal of these two new missions to Venus is to try to determine if Venus really was Earth’s twin, why it changed and whether, in general, large rocky planets become habitable oases like Earth … or scorched wastelands like Venus.

[1] “NASA Selects 2 Missions to Study ‘Lost Habitable’ World of Venus” ➥ https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/n...world-of-venus

NASA’s Discovery Program ➥ https://www.nasa.gov/planetarymissions/discovery.html

[2] VERITAS ➥ https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/verita...ruths-of-venus

[3] DAVINCI+ ➥ https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard...dard-s-davinci

[4] “NASA Climate Modeling Suggests Venus May Have Been Habitable”
➥ https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard...been-habitable

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by SeanPatrick

Easy. Have all the "true believers" pay first. Then, when they're proven right, tax everyone else to pay their share and reimburse the "wiser" ones. Shouldn't be a problem, correct? I mean ... you seem extremely sure that you're right, so why not go ahead and place your bet? Even if the "deniers" never pay up, at least you'll know you've done the "right" thing. And that should at least help you sleep better.

As just demonstrated above, that's a silly, juvenile argument. Someone tell me again why this view shouldn't be labelled "denial".