Science & Technology News

[SailOar]

World economy set to lose up to 18% GDP from climate change if no action taken, reveals Swiss Re Institute's stress-test analysis

* New Climate Economics Index stress-tests how climate change will impact 48 countries, representing 90% of world economy, and ranks their overall climate resilience

* Expected global GDP impact by 2050 under different scenarios compared to a world without climate change:
-18% if no mitigating actions are taken (3.2°C increase);
-14% if some mitigating actions are taken (2.6°C increase);
-11% if further mitigating actions are taken (2°C increase);
-4% if Paris Agreement targets are met (below 2°C increase)

* Economies in Asia would be hardest hit, with China at risk of losing nearly 24% of its GDP in a severe scenario, while the world’s biggest economy, the US, stands to lose close to 10%, and Europe almost 11%

The economics of climate change | Swiss Re

An interactive web page with breakdowns of how Climate Change will affect the major countries of the world.




Download Full Report

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SailOar

World economy set to lose up to 18% GDP from climate change if no action taken, reveals Swiss Re Institute's stress-test analysis

* New Climate Economics Index stress-tests how climate change will impact 48 countries, representing 90% of world economy, and ranks their overall climate resilience

* Expected global GDP impact by 2050 under different scenarios compared to a world without climate change:
-18% if no mitigating actions are taken (3.2°C increase);
-14% if some mitigating actions are taken (2.6°C increase);
-11% if further mitigating actions are taken (2°C increase);
-4% if Paris Agreement targets are met (below 2°C increase)

* Economies in Asia would be hardest hit, with China at risk of losing nearly 24% of its GDP in a severe scenario, while the world’s biggest economy, the US, stands to lose close to 10%, and Europe almost 11%

The economics of climate change | Swiss Re

An interactive web page with breakdowns of how Climate Change will affect the major countries of the world.




Download Full Report

Except it is colder than the multidecadal average last month and I bet this month will follow suit . So MMGWC is being shown to be the hookum I have been saying for decades.

The rise in global temps is man made.
The temperature fraud that Is.
https://youtu.be/S_79RstAB1g
Pay attention from about 2 minutes in

[bcboomer]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Except it is colder than the multidecadal average last month and I bet this month will follow suit . So MMGWC is being shown to be the hookum I have been saying for decades.

The rise in global temps is man made.
The temperature fraud that Is.
https://youtu.be/S_79RstAB1g
Pay attention from about 2 minutes in

Tony Heller/Steve Goddard is your source?
Maybe you should investigate your source to see how credible he is.

https://hughesfacts.com/who-said/tony-heller/
https://tonyhellerakastevengoddard.c...-with-glacier/

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by bcboomer

Tony Heller/Steve Goddard is your source?
Maybe you should investigate your source to see how credible he is.

https://hughesfacts.com/who-said/tony-heller/
https://tonyhellerakastevengoddard.c...-with-glacier/

One of my sources but the university of Alabama Huntsville is the main source for all of it before the government screws with it .

You don't like my sources because the data is correct.

[CatNewBee]

https://youtu.be/cRvzrg02gmc

Some more alu hats and science conspiracies for your enjoyment and entertainment.

WE ARE THE BORG, YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED [emoji12]

[bcboomer]

Originally Posted by newhaul

O

You don't like my sources because the data is correct.

I guess you didn't look at the links because he messed up the data so badly that he had to retract his articles. His data was not correct.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by bcboomer

I guess you didn't look at the links because he messed up the data so badly that he had to retract his articles. His data was not correct.

One minor article over a half decade ago and his data is just one part of it .
Don't get involved unless you are willing to actually put in the time to do the work .
My main sources are actually the US historical climatology network and the University of Alabama Huntsville.
Aka Dr Roy Spencer

Roy Spencer, PhD

Among others .

Side note we are about to be hit with a minor CME which should hit the west coast of the US about 2pm PDT. On Saturday. A class c8 flare was the cause .

[GordMay]

Glimmer of hope from malaria vaccine trial

A malaria vaccine called “R21" has proved to be 77% effective, at preventing malaria in children in a small, early trial.

There is one approved malaria vaccine, GlaxoSmithKline’s “RTS,S” vaccine, but this jab is the first to reach the World Health Organization's goal of at least 75% efficacy.

R21 has been in the works for several years, and it informed the development of the Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine, which came out of the same group at the University of Oxford.
Large-scale phase III trials, to prove the vaccine’s safety and efficacy, are still to come, but this offers hope for a disease that kills 1,200 people each day, mostly children under 5.

About

“Building a better malaria vaccine” ~ by Anthony King
➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03639-5

Lancet Pre-Print - Not Peer-Reviewed
“High Efficacy of a Low Dose Candidate Malaria Vaccine, R21 in 1 Adjuvant Matrix-M™, with Seasonal Administration to Children in Burkina Faso” ~ by Mehreen S. Datoo et al
Full paper ➥ https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....act_id=3830681

[Ded reckoner]

Masks are ineffective against COVID-19 infection

A Stanford study summarized scientific evidence for the safety and efficacy of wearing facemasks to protect against COVID-19 infection. “Although several countries mandated wearing facemask in health care settings and public areas, scientific evidences are lacking supporting their efficacy for reducing morbidity or mortality associated with infectious or viral diseases.”

The study concludes, “The existing scientific evidences challenge the safety and efficacy of wearing facemask as preventive intervention for COVID-19. The data suggest that both medical [i.e. either surgical or N95] and non-medical [e.g. cloth, gauze, fabrics of synthetic or natural materials] facemasks are ineffective to block human-to-human transmission of viral and infectious disease such SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, supporting against the usage of facemasks.

"Wearing facemasks has been demonstrated to have substantial adverse physiological and psychological effects. These include hypoxia [oxygen deprivation in tissues such as the brain], hypercapnia [increased levels of carbon dioxide], shortness of breath, increased acidity and toxicity, activation of fear and stress response, rise in stress hormones, immunosuppression, fatigue, headaches, decline in cognitive performance, predisposition for viral and infectious illnesses, chronic stress, anxiety and depression. Long-term consequences of wearing facemask can cause health deterioration, developing and progression of chronic diseases and premature death…"

These results corroborate the November Danish study which found that masks are ineffective against COVID-19 infection.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Ded reckoner

Masks are ineffective against COVID-19 infection

A Stanford study summarized scientific evidence for the safety and efficacy of wearing facemasks to protect against COVID-19 infection. ...

Sigh... It took me 30 seconds to discover:

Stories Falsely Cite ‘Stanford Study’ to Misinform on Face Masks

The paper being referenced was not an original “study,” but one person’s hypothesis — or proposed explanation — based on a review of some previous literature. It was first published online in November by the journal Medical Hypotheses, which describes itself as “a forum for ideas in medicine and related biomedical sciences.” While the paper appears on PubMed Central — an archive of scientific literature run by the National Institutes of Health’s National Library of Medicine — that does not indicate NIH endorses or concurs with the content, as some of the viral stories wrongly suggest.

“The author, Baruch Vainshelboim, had no affiliation with the VA Palo Alto Health System or Stanford at the time of publication and has not had any affiliation since 2016, when his one-year term as a visiting scholar on matters unrelated to this paper ended,” she said in an email. She also noted that “Stanford Medicine strongly supports the use of face masks to control the spread of COVID-19.”

And if you don't like this source, just search for the author. There are plenty of similar references.

Stop spreading misinformation.

[bcboomer]

It isn't actually a "Stanford Study". In fact Stanford Medicine have stated that the author has no relationship with Stanford or the VA Palo Alto health system.

"Stanford Medicine strongly supports the use of face masks to control the spread of COVID-19"

Once again someone trying to get some notoriety without actually doing anything.

I suggest you take 2 or 3 minutes to investigate an article before you promote it. Especially when they are full of lies!

[GordMay]

Polar 'Wobble' & Climate Change

Of all the things attributable to climate change, the rotational poles moving differently is definitely one of the weirder ones. But, a new study [1] shows that’s exactly what’s happening. It builds on previous findings [2] to show that disappearing ice is playing a major role, and shows that groundwater depletion is responsible for contributing to wobbles as well.

The findings [1], published last month in Geophysical Research Letters, uses satellites that track gravity to track what researchers call “polar drift.” While we think of gravity as a constant, it’s actually a moving target based on the shape of the planet. While earthquakes and other geophysical activities can certainly play a role by pushing land around, it’s water that is responsible for the biggest shifts. The satellites used for the study, known as GRACE and GRACE-FO, were calibrated to measure Earth’s shifting mass.

In general, the paper (along with previous works [2]) reveals the strong connection between the climate variability, and how the Earth wobbles.

“... The accelerated terrestrial water storage decline resulting from glacial ice melting is thus the main driver of the rapid polar drift toward the east after the 1990s. This new finding indicates that a close relationship existed between polar motion and climate change in the past ...”

[1] “Polar Drift in the 1990s Explained by Terrestrial Water Storage Changes” ~ by S. Deng et al
➥ https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley....9/2020GL092114

[2] “Climate-driven polar motion: 2003–2015" ~ by Surendra Adhikari and Erik R. Ivins
➥ https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/4/e1501693

[GordMay]

Stargazers may have a chance to see the Aurora Borealis this weekend, following an immense eruption from the surface of the Sun

As newhaul warned us ➥ https://www.cruisersforum.com/forums...ml#post3393237

Just after midnight, Eastern Daylight Time, on April 22, 2021, an active region on the Sun emitted a weak, C3-class solar flare. Flares like this are relatively common during the Sun's more active periods. With the start of a new solar cycle in December of 2019, we can expect to see more and more of these, in the years ahead.

Flares of this magnitude tend to have minimal impact on Earth (M-class and X-class are the ones to watch out for). However, in the hours after the flare, the NASA-ESA Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) captured very faint indications that this event had resulted in a coronal mass ejection (CME).
As a result, they have issued a G2 geomagnetic storm watch, for Sunday, April 25.

More ➥ https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/news/g2-mo...-april-utc-day

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Sigh... It took me 30 seconds to discover:

Stories Falsely Cite ‘Stanford Study’ to Misinform on Face Masks

And if you don't like this source, just search for the author. There are plenty of similar references.

Stop spreading misinformation.

Originally Posted by bcboomer

It isn't actually a "Stanford Study". In fact Stanford Medicine have stated that the author has no relationship with Stanford or the VA Palo Alto health system.

"Stanford Medicine strongly supports the use of face masks to control the spread of COVID-19"

Once again someone trying to get some notoriety without actually doing anything.

I suggest you take 2 or 3 minutes to investigate an article before you promote it. Especially when they are full of lies!

It's not clear to me why you are panning these findings. It is published by the National Institutes of Health in the US National Library of Medicine. I strongly doubt that it is "spreading misinformation" or that "they are full of lies!"

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7680614/

[Ded reckoner]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Stop spreading misinformation.

Is it beyond your abilities to address the content? Do you not know that legitimate scientific studies review, assimilate, and analyze other reports? The report is published on an NIH archive site and the content and claims are extensively referenced. If you are dissatisfied with the author, did you bother to investigate any of the underlying references for the claims made and use that as a basis for judgment? In tandem with the November Danish study, this comprehensive review more firmly establishes the fact that masks are ineffective against COVID-19 infection. This conclusion is made in opposition to herculean, but failed, attempts to provide some scientific basis for mandating mask wearing on the public. Against the evidence that has come out, if Stanford Medicine still maintains masks are effective against COVID-19 infection, then they need to publish supporting data (don’t hold your breath; there are none). If they have done so, then perhaps you can give this reference.