Science & Technology News

[Lake-Effect]

A Covid therapy derived from a llama named Fifi has shown "significant potential" in early trials.

It is a treatment made of "nanobodies", small, simpler versions of antibodies, which llamas and camels produce naturally in response to infection.

Once the therapy has been tested in humans, scientists say, it could be given as a simple nasal spray - to treat and even prevent early infection.

Prof James Naismith described nanobodies as "fantastically exciting".

[I'm surprised thet ThumbsUp hasn't brought this to our attention already. if it's not being touted in the conspiracy backwaters, that must mean that it might actually work. ]

[Thumbs Up]

Fifi doesn't deserves all of the credit. Wally was first.

The researchers immunized Wally with a piece of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and after about two months, the llama’s immune system produced mature nanobodies against the virus.https://wjactv.com/news/local/pitt-s...ama-nanobodies

Wally:
Fifi:

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

Pretty sure we're 'insulted our home' quite sufficiently (ha ha)... but this is the worse kind of political correctness, because of the real existential risk it carries.

Yeah... thanks for catching the typo. I though it was kinda funny too .

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

That's 'existential' for the way of life for the global North; the rest of the 'human experience' will just face a more severe go of it, though it seems that some of the 'less fortunate' of the homo sapien's spectrum live far happier lives...

As someone who lives in a more northerly latitude (Canada) I know it is possible to live with less energy. Heck, if we just turned the clock back 50 years with regard to energy use, we'd go a long way to cutting our resource use. As far as I know, Canada still existed 50 years ago, and not many were dying from the cold.

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

As for the rest of the macrobiological world, no need to worry about them, with 95% of the Earth's macrobiological biomass residing in humans and their 'support species', the rest of that macrobiological mass are destined, at least in the long to medium term (if not permanently), to exist in comparatively large 'viewing zoos'.

Indeed. This isn't about "saving the planet," or even saving most of the species on it. The world was doing just fine before humans learned to walk, and it will do just fine after we're all gone. The whole rapid climate change discussion is about the threat is poses to us, and more specifically to our global civilization.

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

Jevon's paradox is a bitch, but is, unfortunately, real...

Exactly .

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

During 2020, when the big lockdowns were off but there were still restrictions and lots of work from home, I noticed that the parks were busier, more people outside, bicycles selling out... I think that many people, once they got over the initial shocks, and support was there for most who needed it, actually enjoyed slowing down a bit. This gives me confidence that most of us could pull back a little and still have a great life. This would require more equitable sharing of wealth though, which is strictly verboten.

This is one of the positive lessons that I hope we in the developed world carry forward once this pandemic subsides. Many of us have learned that we can slow down, and that we don't need all that Walmart and Amazon crap. We CAN live with less, and this new life can be even more fulfilling than the 9 to 5 rat race most of us are locked into.

I hope this lesson is remembered as we move toward a new normal ... but I'm not overly optimistic.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

The planet is a cruising sailboat. We can rush from place to place with the engine always at max rpm, gobbling up the finite amount of onboard fuel, or we can run the engine when we need it at the most efficient speed, and take advantage of the wind instead, whenever we can. And enjoy the voyage more.

Choosing my current cruising lifestyle was done, in part, to lower my impact on the planet. Living on a sailboat is a lifestyle that lends itself to being less demanding. Of course, it's easily possible to make this a higher-impact lifestyle, but as you describe, it can be one where our footprint is smaller.

[GordMay]

How far will the global population rise?
Researchers can’t agree

For decades, the most influential population projection has been produced by a small group of modellers at the United Nations, which forecasts that nearly 11 billion people will be living on Earth, by the end of the century.

Rival groups say the population will peak earlier, and at a much lower level.

At issue are complex influences on fertility, and the thorny question, in a year when many censuses were delayed by the pandemic, of how many people are alive right now.

More ➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02522-6

[GordMay]

DNA offers a new look at how Polynesia was settled

The colonization of eastern Polynesia was a remarkable event, in which a vast area, some one-third of the planet, became inhabited by humans within about 500 years, leaving a genetic trail of the routes that the travelers took.

Comparisons of present-day Polynesians’ DNA indicate that sea journeys, launched from Samoa in western Polynesia, headed south and then east, reaching Rarotonga in the Cook Islands, by around the year 830.
From the mid-1100s to the mid-1300s, people who had traveled farther east, to a string of small islands called the Tuamotus, fanned out to settle Rapa Nui, also known as Easter Island, and several other islands separated by thousands of kilometers, on Polynesia’s eastern edge. On each of those islands, the Tuamotu travelers built massive stone statues like the ones Easter Island is famed for.

That’s the scenario sketched out in a new study [1] in the Sept. 23 ‘Nature’, by Stanford University computational biologist Alexander Ioannidis, population geneticist Andrés Moreno-Estrada of the National Laboratory of Genomics for Biodiversity in Irapuato, Mexico, and their colleagues.

The new analysis generally aligns with archaeological estimates of human migrations across eastern Polynesia from roughly 900 to 1250. And the study offers an unprecedented look at settlement pathways that zigged and zagged over a distance of more than 5,000 kilometers, the researchers say.

However, no current line of evidence can resolve the mystery of why, after spending nearly 2,000 years on Samoa, Tonga and Fiji, Polynesians began voyaging thousands of kilometers eastward in search of new lands.

[1] “Paths and timings of the peopling of Polynesia inferred from genomic networks” ~ by Alexander G. Ioannidis et al
➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/s415...ciencenews.org

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by GordMay

How far will the global population rise?
Researchers can’t agree

For decades, the most influential population projection has been produced by a small group of modellers at the United Nations, which forecasts that nearly 11 billion people will be living on Earth, by the end of the century.

Rival groups say the population will peak earlier, and at a much lower level.

At issue are complex influences on fertility, and the thorny question, in a year when many censuses were delayed by the pandemic, of how many people are alive right now.

More ➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02522-6

Thanks Gord. Good reading for all those who point at over-population as the primary issue driving our global ecological problems. As I keep saying, it ain't.

No matter which model you choose to believe, it's been clear for decades that global population would peak in the mid to late 21st century. After this, global population will decline rapidly.

This will present humanity which a wholly new challenge; one we've never faced (outside of blips around massive war and pandemics). We know how to manage growth, but we as a species have never had to manage sustained population decline. It's gonna be interesting...

[newhaul]

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/esnt/20...west-on-record

[jimbunyard]

Polar Science Center » PIOMAS Arctic Sea Ice Volume Reanalysis

Average Arctic sea ice volume in August 2021 was 5,580 km3. This value is the 6th lowest on record for August about 600 km^3 above the record set in 2012. Monthly ice volume was 70% below the maximum in 1979 and 53% below the mean value for 1979-2020.

https://earth.gsfc.nasa.gov/cryo/dat...-sea-ice-cover

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

Polar Science Center » PIOMAS Arctic Sea Ice Volume Reanalysis

Average Arctic sea ice volume in August 2021 was 5,580 km3. This value is the 6th lowest on record for August about 600 km^3 above the record set in 2012. Monthly ice volume was 70% below the maximum in 1979 and 53% below the mean value for 1979-2020.

https://earth.gsfc.nasa.gov/cryo/dat...-sea-ice-cover

Really ?? You just can't accept that the mmgwc was wrong about sea ice being gone in summer by 2014 . all that really counts is how much survives the e tire summer melt and it was higher than 12 of the last 20 years . bet it's higher next September as well .

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by newhaul

. bet it's higher next September as well .

... when you say 'bet', it seldom ends well.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

... when you say 'bet', it seldom ends well.

I rarely am incorrect . Last time I missed the temperature mark by .02°C if you recall. That is the temperature difference felt by your toes and your hips in a 21°C room measured at thermostat level which is approx 1.5 meters above floor level.

Care to wager? It is a long game

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Thanks Gord. Good reading for all those who point at over-population as the primary issue driving our global ecological problems. As I keep saying, it ain't.

No matter which model you choose to believe, it's been clear for decades that global population would peak in the mid to late 21st century. After this, global population will decline rapidly.

This will present humanity which a wholly new challenge; one we've never faced (outside of blips around massive war and pandemics). We know how to manage growth, but we as a species have never had to manage sustained population decline. It's gonna be interesting...

Where do you come up with the idea that all(?) models suggest that global population will decline rapidly after mid to late 21st century?





Projections of population growth

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by newhaul

I rarely am incorrect . Last time I missed the temperature mark by .02°C if you recall. That is the temperature difference felt by your toes and your hips in a 21°C room measured at thermostat level which is approx 1.5 meters above floor level.

Actually, you are rarely correct.

Last time you did not miss by .02°C; you missed by 0.14°C for 2019, and 0.16°C for 2020.

Global Temperature Report for 2020 - Berkeley Earth

Originally Posted by newhaul

Care to wager? It is a long game

You already lost another wager in which you promised to not make any more climate-related posts if you lost. It only took you a month or so to break your promise. Sadly, that particular thread has been deleted, so we can't rub your nose in your broken promise. But there are people on this thread who remember your broken promise.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Actually, you are rarely correct.

Last time you did not miss by .02°C; you missed by 0.14°C for 2019, and 0.16°C for 2020.

Global Temperature Report for 2020 - Berkeley Earth



You already lost another wager in which you promised to not make any more climate-related posts if you lost. It only took you a month or so to break your promise. Sadly, that particular thread has been deleted, so we can't rub your nose in your broken promise. But there are people on this thread who remember your broken promise.

Incorrect as usual that bet was on the temp and I didn't post anymore on that thread until I was asked to.

It really shows the fact you don't post anything but mmgwc narrative bs.

Damn I guess I did really good I have free rent inside the head of a mmgwc prophet.

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Ok here goes a hurricane cat 1 or 2 is highly likely to come ashore in Louisiana in the vicinity of Marsh Island. On Sunday at approximately 1800 UTC.

I know not the PNW or marine repair or fishing fleets but I am confident in this .

Originally Posted by newhaul

I rarely am incorrect...

100 miles, 2-3 (almost 3-4) catagories off, timing? --- close enough,. I guess.

In the same thread, no less...