Science & Technology News

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by newhaul

At current levels CO2 is at saturation point and would require a doubling of percentage to 800ppm ( approximately) to see any appreciative difference .

You've just contradicted yourself, in the same sentence. If CO2 is at "a saturation point", then it would not be possible to add any more. There is no saturation point for a gas component; you can have an atmosphere with 0% CO2, or 100% CO2.

Humans have increased the CO2 in the atmosphere by over 40% and it has had an effect. And we seem to be on track to get to 800ppm, if we don't moderate our fossil fuel use.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

You've just contradicted yourself, in the same sentence. If CO2 is at "a saturation point", then it would not be possible to add any more. There is no saturation point for a gas component; you can have an atmosphere with 0% CO2, or 100% CO2.

Humans have increased the CO2 in the atmosphere by over 40% and it has had an effect. And we seem to be on track to get to 800ppm, if we don't moderate our fossil fuel use.

Do your research we all know we are discussing CO2 ir saturation .
https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.00708
Read the attached and retract please.

Additional reading to educate

https://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins...2O%20and%20CO2

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Do your research we all know we are discussing CO2 ir saturation .
https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.00708
Read the attached and retract please.

Additional reading to educate

https://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins...2O%20and%20CO2

As per usual, it's you who needs to read, learn, and retract.

Is the CO2 effect saturated?

Is there a point at which adding more CO2 will not cause further warming?

A Saturated Gassy Argument

[newhaul]

Interesting solution but no way for me

https://www.ed.ac.uk/news/2021/bacte...plastic-crisis

[CatNewBee]

Originally Posted by GordMay

For clarification:
Differences Between DNA and RNA
The DNA [Deoxyribonucleic acid] is a double-stranded molecule, that has a long chain of nucleotides.
DNA replicates on its own, it is self-replicating.
The RNA [Ribonucleic acid] is a single-stranded molecule, which has a shorter chain of nucleotides.
RNA does not replicate on its own, it’s synthesized from DNA, when required.
More ➥ https://byjus.com/biology/difference...n-dna-and-rna/

Unfortunately wrong Gord. DNA doesnt replicate itself, RNA can also replicate and also be double stranded. Organic ancient live was RNA based, DNA is an evolution step and both still coexist.

However it is true, that RNA is more instable and faster reacting.

https://elifesciences.org/articles/32330

there are many great online lectures on the matter on YT too if you do not like long reads.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by CatNewBee

Unfortunately wrong Gord. DNA doesnt replicate itself ...
https://elifesciences.org/articles/32330 ...

The conventional science seems pretty firm, on the subject: DNA is self-replicating.
Where does your linked article [or any other source] say that DNA isn’t self-replicating?
I believe that this paper offers a more complete discussion, of the science:
“Origin and Evolution of DNA and DNA Replication Machineries” ~ by Patrick Forterre, Jonathan Filée, and Hannu Myllykallio.
➥ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6360/

[SailOar]

There’s an invisible climate threat seeping from grocery store freezers

• Most supermarkets in America use hydrofluorocarbons refrigerants to operate their coolers and freezers
• These are greenhouse gases thousands of times more powerful than carbon dioxide
• The industry estimates that every year supermarkets lose an average of 25 percent of their refrigerant charge; other estimates are even higher
• The Environmental Protection Agency has issued a public call for companies to report production and import data on HFCs
• Under the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act the EPA must phase down the production and import of these potent greenhouse gases 85 percent over the next 15 years

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by SailOar

There’s an invisible climate threat seeping from grocery store freezers

• Most supermarkets in America use hydrofluorocarbons refrigerants to operate their coolers and freezers
• These are greenhouse gases thousands of times more powerful than carbon dioxide
• The industry estimates that every year supermarkets lose an average of 25 percent of their refrigerant charge; other estimates are even higher
• The Environmental Protection Agency has issued a public call for companies to report production and import data on HFCs
• Under the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act the EPA must phase down the production and import of these potent greenhouse gases 85 percent over the next 15 years

Sorta ironic given that we switched to HFCs from CFCs in an effort to manage the ozone hole problem. The solution for one problem leads to an exacerbation of another. Something we need to keep in mind as we contemplate various technological solutions for anthropogenic climate change.

[CatNewBee]

Originally Posted by GordMay

The conventional science seems pretty firm, on the subject: DNA is self-replicating.
Where does your linked article [or any other source] say that DNA isn’t self-replicating?
I believe that this paper offers a more complete discussion, of the science:
“Origin and Evolution of DNA and DNA Replication Machineries” ~ by Patrick Forterre, Jonathan Filée, and Hannu Myllykallio.
➥ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6360/

Exactly what I said. You need enzymes to swell, unwind and split the double helix in order to enable it to replcate. DNA does not self replicate without those enzymes, nor does it transcribe in RNA without them to produce any proteins. It is so stable, it can survive centuries.

There are a lot of such enzymes developed in parallel and also dismissed / disappeared during evolution in both worlds RNA and DNA, some can even transcribe both RNA and DNA or exchange genetic code between DNA and RNA one way, or both ways. (transcriptase, reverse-transcriptase).

This agents (enzymes) are encoded in the genome too, the cell can produce them when needed. Some viruses bring their own transcriptase or reverse transcriptase enzymes or uses the ones from the target cell - some even inject their RNA parts to produce the necessary enzymes in the attacked cell. It is a war.

Virus RNA also appends eventually parts of the host genome to camouflage it self against the immune system - part of evolution, adaption and coexistence. This is how variants evolve. The virus needs a host, that is alive - not dead.

Therefore when people with no clue parrot mRNA cannot be transcribed in DNA and claim science on their side are simply ridiculously uninformed and reluctant to learn something about genetic sciences, the transcription mechanisms and the evolution. Life is not static.

Just be a little open minded and read real science publications, books and lectures and not only Fauci on CNN or NYT.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by CatNewBee

1. Exactly what I said ...
... 2. Just be a little open minded and read real science publications, books and lectures and not only Fauci on CNN or NYT.

1. What you actually said was: "Unfortunately wrong Gord. DNA doesnt replicate itself ..."
2. Like the National Center for Biotechnology Information [NCBI], the U.S. National Library of Medicine [NLM], to which I linked?
Or would you prefer I refer to the real science publications you [didn't] cite?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by CatNewBee

Therefore when people with no clue parrot mRNA cannot be transcribed in DNA and claim science on their side are simply ridiculously uninformed and reluctant to learn something about genetic sciences, the transcription mechanisms and the evolution.

By "people with no clue", would that include people who claim that DNA isn't self-replicating?

I'm still waiting to encounter anyone who's said "mRNA cannot be transcribed in DNA". Let alone understand it. Something to look forward to, I guess.

I have run into a few who claim that the current COVID mRNA vaccines are "genetic therapy" and can alter DNA... but all of us here know that that's a ridiculous claim and not true, right?

[CatNewBee]

Originally Posted by GordMay

1. What you actually said was: "Unfortunately wrong Gord. DNA doesnt replicate itself ..."
2. Like the National Center for Biotechnology Information [NCBI], the U.S. National Library of Medicine [NLM], to which I linked?
Or would you prefer I refer to the real science publications you [didn't] cite?

"self-replicating" only when exposed to the right enzymes, otherwise DNA does nothing alone.

One can argue if it is self-replicating because it can produce the necessary enzymes in a cell and apply them to itself to replicate - in this sense - yes.

Extracted DNA cannot replicate alone, it is fortunately a very stable polymer molecule by its double-helix structure, that does not react easily with other molecules.

One can help her to replicate by adding the right enzymes. Basically this is how you do genetic sequencing and tests - you get a small probe, isolate the DNA, add the enzymes and multiply it several times until you have enough material to do the sequencing and research on it.

But the processes of replication are quite well described in detail in the publication you linked, so no disagreement from me about the content - it was not new to me.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Sorta ironic given that we switched to HFCs from CFCs in an effort to manage the ozone hole problem. The solution for one problem leads to an exacerbation of another. Something we need to keep in mind as we contemplate various technological solutions for anthropogenic climate change.

Policy making inherently involves balancing one thing against another, and trying to grope towards some kind of optimum compromise.


This is proof of the evil of fanatacism.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Policy making inherently involves balancing one thing against another, and trying to grope towards some kind of optimum compromise.

Yes, well, my actual point was more along the lines of recognizing the risk of unintended consequences when making these types of decisions. It's the cautionary tale of: I knew and Old Lady who Swallowed a Fly. As we consider various technological ideas to mitigating the effects of a rapidly changing climate, we would all do well to approach any big plan with humility and caution.

But yes, public policy often ends up being a trade off, or balance, of interests. One hopes this is also results in the optimum solution.

Originally Posted by Dockhead

This is proof of the evil of fanatacism.

Not sure I follow you DH, unless you're suggesting the need to address the ozone hole was done fanatically?.

And I gotta say, this assertion of yours does come off a bit -- fanatical .

[GordMay]

Global research consortium examines if COVID-19 may cause diabetes

It's been well established that having diabetes is likely to cause worse outcomes, for those who contract COVID-19.

Now, an international consortium of researchers [1] is trying to find out if the novel coronavirus may also cause diabetes in some people. The project is a joint initiative between King's College London and Australia's Monash University.

The researchers are trying to establish how diabetes might develop in those who have contracted COVID-19.

[1] Global Registry of COVID-19-related diabetes ➥ CoviDiab Registry
More ➥ http://covidiab.e-dendrite.com/introduction.html

See also:
“New-Onset Diabetes in Covid-19" ~ by Francesco Rubino, M.D. et al
➥ https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmc2018688