Science & Technology News

[Sohum]

Originally Posted by newhaul

. Do you really think they would spend that much on beach front if sea level rise was actually an issue

No I don’t think they’d be in those home, if at present stood anything <2ft Amsl. But it’s not. They’re exceptionally wealthy, maybe they’re making moves. Maybe the homes were priced to sell? Maybe they felt like shopping? If and when they do sell, they’ll sell. What were the developers here thinking?

Ca wildfires, people who lost everything, rebuilding. Loam Prieta quake, the marina district got rocked, rebuilt.

https://sf.curbed.com/2019/10/17/208...iversary-quake

Shoreline Structures - Beachapedia

[GordMay]

Black Hole Swallows Neutron Star

For the first time, astronomers have witnessed a black hole swallowing a neutron star — the most dense object in the universe — all in a split-second gulp.
Ten days later they saw the same thing on the other side of the universe.

In both cases, a neutron star [a teaspoon of which would weigh a billion tons] orbits ever closer to that ultimate point of no return, a black hole, until they finally crash together, and the neutron star is gone.

Astronomers witnessed the last 500 orbits, before the neutron stars were swallowed, a process that took far less than a minute, and briefly generated as much energy as all the visible light in the observable universe.

While astronomers had seen gravitational waves from two black holes colliding with each other, and two neutron stars colliding with each other, this is the first time they saw one of each crashing together.

The bursts of energy from the collisions were discovered when detectors on Earth spotted the mergers' gravitational waves, cosmic energetic ripples soaring through space and time, as first theorized by Albert Einstein. They each came from more than one billion light-years away.

The waves were detected in January of 2020, but the study analyzing and interpreting the data, by more than 100 scientists, was published Tuesday [1], in Astrophysical Journal Letters.

[1]“Observation of Gravitational Waves from Two Neutron Star–Black Hole Coalescences” ~ by R. Abbott et al
➥ https://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...41-8213/ac082e

News reports about:

Here ➥ https://www.space.com/first-black-ho...rgers-detected

And ➥ https://www.npr.org/2021/06/29/10110...-gravitational


Neutron stars are corpses of massive stars, what's leftover after a big star dies in a supernova explosion. They are so dense [± 10 million tonnes] that they have about 1.5 to two times the mass of our sun, but condensed to about 10 kilometres wide.
A black hole, on the other hand, is a point in space that isn't made of material at all, but is pure space-time.
In 1916, Einstein proposed the existence of gravitational waves, as an outgrowth of his ground-breaking general theory of relativity, which depicted gravity as a distortion of space and time, triggered by the presence of matter. Essentially, he predicted that when two massive objects (in terms of weight) collide or merge, they will produce a ripple, much in the same way a rock does when dropped in a pool of water, but throughout space and time.
The first gravitational wave was detected, nearly a century later, in 2015, by the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO), which actually consists of two highly sensitive individual instruments located in Livingston, La., and Hanford, Wash.

[GordMay]

Oldest Strain of Plague

Five thousand years ago, a rodent bit a Stone Age hunter-gatherer. The creature carried a strain of pernicious bacteria called Yersinia pestis - the pathogen that caused the Black Death, or bubonic plague in the 1300s.

The bacteria likely killed the Stone Age man, who died in his 20s, according to a study [1] published Tuesday. It's the oldest strain of plague known to science so far*.

The strain's genome closely resembles the version of plague that wrecked medieval Europe more than 4,000 years later, killing up to half the region's population over the course of seven years. But it's missing a few key genes - notably, traits that helped it spread.

Unlike its microbial descendants, the plague that sickened the ancient hunter was a slow-moving disease and not very transmissible. It lacked the genes that enabled transmission by flea. During the Black Death, bites from fleas and lice were the key source of infections.

So in the millennia between the hunter-gatherer's demise and the Black Death, Y. pestis bacteria mutated in a way that gave it the ability to jump between species via fleas.

The Stone Age hunter-gatherer died in a region that's now Latvia. Near his bones, anthropologists also excavated the remains of another man, a teenage girl, and a newborn, but none had been infected.

The plague is mostly zoonotic, meaning it hops from animal hosts to humans.
The plague can take three forms:
Bubonic is the type that ravaged Europe and left victims with swollen, painful lymph nodes.
Septicemic refers to infections in which the bacteria enters the bloodstream and the patient's skin turns black and dies.
Pneumonic plague, meanwhile, can cause respiratory failure.

Researchers think the ancient hunter had septicemic plague, which could explain why no other members of his small group got the disease.

[1] “A 5,000-year-old hunter-gatherer already plagued by Yersinia pestis” ~ by Julian Susat, Ben Krause-Kyora et al
➥ https://www.cell.com/cell-reports/**...247(21)00645-8



* A previous study [2] described other strains that are roughly 5,000 years old, but Krause-Kyora said this particular one is a couple hundred years older. So his team concluded it was the earliest-known version of Y. pestis.

[2] “Early Divergent Strains of Yersinia pestis in Eurasia 5,000 Years Ago” ~ by Simon Rasmussen et al
➥ https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S...showall%3Dtrue

[GordMay]

Taking on the world’s biggest killer: Heart Disease

Around 25,000 people die every day from ischaemic heart disease, making it by far the world’s biggest killer.
Research is revealing what causes the heart to malfunction, and how to stop that from happening.
This Nature Outlook includes a graphical guide to how heart failure happens, a look at whether the long-held dogma of ‘bad’ cholesterol might be flawed, and an overview of the race to regenerate the heart.
It also reveals that coronavirus infections might cause lasting harm to the heart, even in those people who never had COVID-19 symptoms.

A collection of articles, from Nature Outlook: ➥ https://www.nature.com/collections/igeihbagfj

[GordMay]

Giant Comet Found in Outer Solar System by Dark Energy Survey

Comet Bernardinelli-Bernstein is estimated to be about 1000 times more massive than a typical comet, making it arguably the largest comet discovered in modern times [estimated to be 100–200 kilometers across].
It has an extremely elongated orbit, journeying inward from the distant Oort Cloud over millions of years.
It is the most distant comet to be discovered on its incoming path, giving us years to watch it evolve as it approaches the Sun [closest approach in 2031], though it's not predicted to become a naked-eye spectacle.

More ➥ https://noirlab.edu/public/news/noirlab2119/?lang

And ➥ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart...031-180978048/

[GordMay]

Beyond coronavirus: the virus discoveries transforming biology

SARS-CoV-2 is just one of nonillions of viruses on our planet, and scientists are rapidly identifying legions of new species.

Scientists estimate that there are about 1031 [oops: formatting won't take - that's 10 to the 31ST power] individual viral particles inhabiting the ocean at any given time — 10 billion times the estimated number of stars in the known Universe. But we’ve officially named only 9,110 virus species. Now, we are seeing an explosion in viral classification, thanks to changes that allow scientists to judge viruses on the basis of their genomes, instead of having to culture them and their hosts. The wealth of information is feeding a new wave of discovery about how endless variations of viruses propel evolution by shuttling genes between hosts.

More ➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01749-7

[Sohum]

Climate scientists take swipe at Exxon Mobil, industry in leaked report
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/0...-report-497805

“Looked like grass roots, really is Astrotruf”. These special interest groups surgical, done this to other industries too. So much to say it even shaped the current Congress, media, and people. Ex. Condo collapse, how many yrs did the board(tenents) argue over the amt??Described as ego trips. How bout trip another way, and come together.

[newhaul]

Just everyone remember that the INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE. Is a political organization not a scientific think tank . So take everything with a cup of salt . Politicians are always looking to see how to take money from us and line their own pockets .

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Just everyone remember that the INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE. Is a political organization not a scientific think tank . So take everything with a cup of salt . Politicians are always looking to see how to take money from us and line their own pockets .

Just everyone remember that CF has its share of gummint-hating faux libertarian science-twisting partisans who cannot be reached by facts, logic or reason.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Just everyone remember that CF has its share of gummint-hating faux libertarian science-twisting partisans who cannot be reached by facts, logic or reason.

Yep I don't trust governments period beyond what is necessary for safety of its citizens. Also I do look at all sides of actual scientific evidences but logic says to ignore politicians and the media .

[SailOar]

Mixing Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines provides strong protection, according to a preliminary study

• Administering the vaccines in either order is likely to provide potent protection
• Two doses of Pfizer-BioNTech produced levels of antibodies about 10 times as high as those who got two doses of AstraZeneca
• Pfizer followed by AstraZeneca showed antibody levels about five times as high as those with two doses of AstraZeneca
• AstraZeneca followed by Pfizer reached antibody levels about as high as those who got two doses of Pfizer
• Volunteers reported more chills, headaches and muscle pain than people who get two doses of the same vaccine. But the side effects were short-lived.
• Studies have also found that the AstraZeneca vaccine provides stronger protection if the second dose is delayed for up to 12 weeks
• The study also found that using different vaccines produced a higher level of immune cells primed to attack the coronavirus than did giving two doses of the same vaccine
• Researchers have begun a similar trial, adding vaccines from Moderna and Novavax to the list of possibilities

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Just everyone remember that the INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE. Is a political organization not a scientific think tank . So take everything with a cup of salt . Politicians are always looking to see how to take money from us and line their own pockets .

You are mistaken. Although the IPCC is an organization of the United Nations -- which is a political body -- the IPCC itself is a scientific body.


About the IPCC

[...]For the assessment reports, IPCC scientists volunteer their time to assess the thousands of scientific papers published each year to provide a comprehensive summary of what is known about the drivers of climate change, its impacts and future risks, and how adaptation and mitigation can reduce those risks. An open and transparent review by experts and governments around the world is an essential part of the IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment and to reflect a diverse range of views and expertise. Through its assessments, the IPCC identifies the strength of scientific agreement in different areas and indicates where further research is needed. The IPCC does not conduct its own research.

The IPCC: Who Are They and Why Do Their Climate Reports Matter?

[...]Authors, contributors, and reviewers

The technical support units, co-chairs, and bureaus of each working group together assemble a list of proposed authors for its assessment, but the lead authors are selected by the entire working group. Governments and non-governmental organizations around the world are invited to nominate potential authors.

A government nomination does not imply that the scientist’s views are endorsed by that government, or that the scientist is expected to represent his or her government’s view. It may mean that a government has provided a scientist with financial support, but many scientists receive no direct financial support for their contributions to the IPCC and others are merely reimbursed for travel expenses. Experts from developing nations who have received no financial support from their government are supported through the IPCC trust fund.

From these nominations, the full working group membership confirms 5 to 10 lead and coordinating lead authors, as well as two review editors, for each chapter of its assessment; every working group must have at least one co-chair from a non-OECD country.

In general, the appointed authors are widely recognized experts who represent a broad range of subject areas and opinion. They may come from academia, research facilities, industry, government, and non-government organizations (NGOs). A complete list of the lead authors is available at the IPCC website .

Lead authors and coordinating lead authors prepare a first draft of their chapter over a period of several months, reviewing and synthesizing peer-reviewed scientific literature. Lead authors also consult with expert scientists in the field, inviting those with needed expertise to serve as contributing authors.

The chapter teams hold several author meetings to clarify the issues and reach agreement on the text’s scope, balance, and conclusions. Contributing authors help write specific sections, contribute specific data, or represent particular perspectives. Though lead authors typically solicit such contributions, scientists are also encouraged, both individually and by their countries, to become contributing authors by submitting relevant material directly to the working group’s chairs.

The resulting first draft of a chapter then undergoes two rounds of scientific review and revision (described more fully below) before being finalized. Scientists are also encouraged to submit comments—AR5 WG1 alone generated 54,677 review comments. Many authors attest that this review process ranks among the most extensive for any scientific document. For comparison, a paper published in a peer-reviewed science journal is typically reviewed by only two or three experts.

The revised chapters are then combined into a technical report by the technical support units and circulated to governments and NGOs accredited by the IPCC before being considered and “accepted” at the working group’s plenary session. Acceptance in this context means that government representatives to the IPCC agree that the documents present an objective, comprehensive, and balanced scientific review of the subject matter.

Government representatives are not permitted to edit these book-length reports. In the end, it is the authors who bear the sole responsibility for the content of their chapters. Government representatives, however, do participate in the line-by-line review and revision of the much shorter summary for policymakers, or SPM, for each technical report. The working group’s lead authors write the SPM, technical experts review it first, and then government representatives provide a second round of reviews before the working group’s plenary session accepts it. Each SPM is released separately over the course of several months.

Government representatives may certainly try to influence the SPM wording in ways that support their negotiating positions, but the many other government representatives and experts in the session would ensure the language does not veer away from the evidence. The overriding goal of this process (and a key challenge) is to ensure that the SPM adequately and appropriately represents the underlying technical report prepared by the scientific community. Therefore, all of the lead authors and at least several contributing authors are expected to attend their working group’s plenary session so they can render interpretations, suggest clarifications, and ensure scientific integrity. Differing views are welcomed as long as there is empirical evidence or plausible reasons to support them.

The peer review process

The IPCC’s technical reports derive their credibility principally from an extensive, transparent, and iterative peer review process that, as mentioned above, is considered far more exhaustive than that associated with a single peer-reviewed publication in a scientific journal. This is due to the number of reviewers, the breadth of their disciplinary backgrounds and scientific perspectives, and the inclusion of independent “review editors” who certify that all comments have been fairly considered and appropriately resolved by the authors. To be as inclusive and open as possible, a balanced review effectively begins with the choice of lead authors. By intentionally including authors who represent the full range of expert opinion, many areas of disagreement can be worked out in discussions among the authors rather than waiting until the document is sent out for review.

The first round of review is conducted by a large number of expert reviewers—about 2,000 for the entire AR5—who include scientists, industry representatives, and NGO experts with a wide range of perspectives. Lead authors are required to consider all comments and incorporate those with scientific merit—a process overseen by review editors, who have expertise in the specific topic covered by a given chapter. All review comments are archived together with the authors’ responses and/or resulting actions, and are available upon request.

If major differences emerge, lead authors are encouraged to organize a meeting with both the contributing authors and review editors to discuss and resolve the differences. The goal is not to reach a potentially “watered-down” compromise that conceals scientific uncertainties or real differences in expert opinion, but to produce a report of the highest scientific integrity, reflecting the state of our understanding fairly and adequately.

The revised draft is then sent back to the expert reviewers and also to government representatives for the government review stage. Each government is entitled to organize any type of review process it deems appropriate. For example, in the past, the U.S. government sought comments from agencies, scientific experts, and the general public (through a notice in the Federal Register) as the starting point for its comments.

Lead authors prepare revisions in response to scientifically valid comments, and encourage reviewers and other experts to resolve any remaining major differences by communicating directly. The resulting document is then submitted to the working group’s plenary session for consideration and acceptance.[...]

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Mixing Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines provides strong protection, according to a preliminary study

• Administering the vaccines in either order is likely to provide potent protection
• Two doses of Pfizer-BioNTech produced levels of antibodies about 10 times as high as those who got two doses of AstraZeneca
• Pfizer followed by AstraZeneca showed antibody levels about five times as high as those with two doses of AstraZeneca
• AstraZeneca followed by Pfizer reached antibody levels about as high as those who got two doses of Pfizer
• Volunteers reported more chills, headaches and muscle pain than people who get two doses of the same vaccine. But the side effects were short-lived.
• Studies have also found that the AstraZeneca vaccine provides stronger protection if the second dose is delayed for up to 12 weeks
• The study also found that using different vaccines produced a higher level of immune cells primed to attack the coronavirus than did giving two doses of the same vaccine
• Researchers have begun a similar trial, adding vaccines from Moderna and Novavax to the list of possibilities

So more of the largest clinical trial of any medication in human history.

None of them have been approved yet.

[Thumbs Up]

Tin foil hat alert but also a must watch about weather control.
The Dimming:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rf78rEAJvhY&t=5s

[Thumbs Up]

Bill Gates want to create a highly controversial massive chemical cloud that will help cool the earth. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/07/bill...l-warming.html

The technology is not far from being ready and it’s affordable, but it could cause massive changes in regional weather patterns and eradicate blue sky.

“These consequences might be horrific. They might involve things like mass famine, mass flooding, drought of kinds that will affect very large populations,”