Science & Technology News

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Simple you do what you always do attack the source and not address the data .

Follow the money and it doesn't lead to a wellhead.

In saying to me that "you do what you always do" you are in fact attacking me and not addressing my concerns. It seems the pot is calling the kettle "black". <laugh>

[Lake-Effect]

Could we please rename this thread "Science & Technology & newhaul"? Inclusiveness is very important these days.

[GordMay]

Electroverse article incorrectly claims the Sun is behind climate change

Verdict: INCORRECT


Misleading: Many things the article claims climate scientists "assume" are actually conclusions supported by extensive research and evidence. This includes the role of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in driving global warming.


Inadequate Support: The article's claims are not supported by published research. Of the two papers cited in the article, one does not support [1] the article's claim and the other [2] was criticized by scientists for errors in its methods.

[1] “A doubling of the Sun's coronal magnetic field during the past 100 years” ~ by M. Lockwood et al
➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/20867/

[2] “The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature” ~ by Ole Humlum et al
➥ https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...21818112001658
“Comment” ~ by MarkRichardson
➥ https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...21818113000908
“Comment” ~ by Troy Masters & Rasmus Benestadb
➥ https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...21818113000891

MUCH More ➥ https://climatefeedback.org/claimrev...limate-change/

[GordMay]

Rather than nonsense published by a relatively unknown sedimentologist, in an un-reviewed paper sharing site [which has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication], you’d be better off, sticking with Valentina’s peer reviewed articles, in respected journals.

“Oscillations of the baseline of solar magnetic field and solar irradiance on a millennial timescale” ~ by V. V. Zharkova et al
➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45584-3

Oh, wait, the Editors have retracted this Article.
➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-61020-3

Comments ➥ https://pubpeer.com/publications/3418816F1BA55AFB7A2E6A44847C24

More comment ➥ https://twitter.com/AstroMikeMerri/s...28692209868801

“Paper That Blames The Sun For Climate Change Was Just Retracted From Major Journal”
➥ https://www.sciencealert.com/a-paper...been-retracted

Heavily criticized paper blaming the sun for global warming is retracted
➥ https://retractionwatch.com/2020/03/...-is-retracted/

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Could we please rename this thread "Science & Technology & newhaul"? Inclusiveness is very important these days.

Sorry but I don't ascribe to that inclusive bs .
Measure on merits not skin color or views .

With that attack I'm out for now enjoy your collective delusions

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Rather than nonsense published by a relatively unknown sedimentologist, in an un-reviewed paper sharing site [which has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication], you’d be better off, sticking with Valentina’s peer reviewed articles, in respected journals.

“Oscillations of the baseline of solar magnetic field and solar irradiance on a millennial timescale” ~ by V. V. Zharkova et al
➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45584-3

Oh, wait, the Editors have retracted this Article.
➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-61020-3

Comments ➥ https://pubpeer.com/publications/3418816F1BA55AFB7A2E6A44847C24

More comment ➥ https://twitter.com/AstroMikeMerri/s...28692209868801

“Paper That Blames The Sun For Climate Change Was Just Retracted From Major Journal”
➥ https://www.sciencealert.com/a-paper...been-retracted

Heavily criticized paper blaming the sun for global warming is retracted
➥ https://retractionwatch.com/2020/03/...-is-retracted/

Of course it was deleted . Didn't fit the narrative.
Ministry of truth anyone .

[GordMay]

[GordMay]

The 2,000-year-old airborne disease theory that blinded Covid experts

As a result, precautions, such as wearing masks, and better ventilation in public spaces, were tragically delayed, says a new report [1].

“Droplets and surfaces are very convenient for people in power — all of the responsibility is on the individual. On the other hand, if you admit it is airborne, institutions, governments and companies have to do something.”

Chemist Jose-Luis Jimenez, the co-author of a review [1], that emphasized the role of airborne transmission, in the spread of respiratory pathogens, including SARS-CoV-2, considers why the idea has often been met with resistance.

More about ➥ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-h...airborne-late/

[1] “Airborne transmission of respiratory viruses” ~ by Chia C. Wang et al

Mechanisms of airborne transmission
The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted controversies and unknowns about how respiratory pathogens spread between hosts. Traditionally, it was thought that respiratory pathogens spread between people through large droplets produced in coughs and through contact with contaminated surfaces (fomites). However, several respiratory pathogens are known to spread through small respiratory aerosols, which can float and travel in air flows, infecting people who inhale them at short and long distances from the infected person. Wang et al. review recent advances in understanding airborne transmission gained from studying the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections and other respiratory pathogens. The authors suggest that airborne transmission may be the dominant form of transmission for several respiratory pathogens, including SARS-CoV-2, and that further understanding of the mechanisms underlying infection from the airborne route will better inform mitigation measures.
➥ https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abd9149

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by GordMay

...“Droplets and surfaces are very convenient for people in power — all of the responsibility is on the individual. On the other hand, if you admit it is airborne, institutions, governments and companies have to do something.”...

I'm not sure why the authors would say that if infection can be transmitted via surfaces it would place all the responsibility on individuals? I was recently a tourist to Canada and noted that virtually every store and restroom had a prominent alcohol sanitizer dispenser along with signs strongly recommending its use -- which is far less common in the US. And in the US, hospitals and other companies were doing "deep cleaning" of their premises on a regular basis, for awhile anyway. So it seems that institutions are taking responsibility for (misguided?) surface transmission.

On the other hand, if infection is primarily transmitted through the air, I'm not sure why the authors would say that "institutions, governments and companies" have to do something -- as if there isn't anything the individual can do? An individual can choose to wear a mask, or not. Or they can choose to keep it pulled over their nose, or not. Or they can choose to wear less-effective cloth masks, or more-effective N-95 or K-95 masks.

I'm also not sure why it's taken so long to determine that COVID is primarily contracted through the air. Early on in the pandemic Singapore did very aggressive contact tracing of sick people. They found that people who became infected at restaurants did so when sitting "down wind" from other infected restaurant patrons, but almost never from infected food prep workers.

As a result I've become very lackadaisical in using alcohol sanitizer, but much more consistent in using an N-95 mask when in crowded indoor areas, even though I live in a highly-vaccinated state, am fully vaccinated and will get a booster when I'm eligible. I've had relatives and friends die, or get extremely sick, because they didn't take either COVID or vaccines seriously.

[SailOar]

Climate Change Is Devastating Coral Reefs Worldwide, Major Report Says

• The world lost about 14 percent of its coral reefs in the decade after 2009, mainly because of climate change
• The 14 percent decline, he said, was cause for deep concern. “In finance, we worry about half-percent declines and half-percent changes in employment and interest rates.”
• Especially alarming is the trajectory. The first global bleaching event occurred in 1998, but many reefs bounced back. That no longer appears to be the case.
• Since 2009, it’s a constant decline at the global level
• Perhaps 900 species of coral exist, and the researchers noted that some appear more resilient to the heat and acidification that accompany climate change. Unfortunately, those tend to be slower-growing and not the more familiar, reef-building varieties that support the richest biodiversity.
• Dr. Hughes said the report may skew toward healthier reefs, as researchers and monitoring programs often abandon sites that become degraded, or don’t establish new studies there, because nobody wants to study a reef that is covered in silt and algae instead of corals

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The Sixth Status of Corals of the World: 2020 Report

The Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network (GCRMN) is an operational network of the International Coral Reef Initiative that aims to provide the best available scientific information on the status and trends of coral reef ecosystems for their conservation and management. The GCRMN is a global network of scientists, managers and organisations that monitor the condition of coral reefs throughout the world. The GCRMN operates through 10 regional nodes.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Sure is nice that Dr Ridd and Dr newhaul have reassured us that we can all go back to sleep because all is well.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by SailOar

I'm also not sure why it's taken so long to determine that COVID is primarily contracted through the air.

It's my recollection that COVID was understood to be transmissible through the air by late spring or early summer of last year. But it's still likely that if a microscopic airborne droplet can infect you, a healthy sneeze on a door handle is probably also going to do the trick. Anyway, a pump bottle of sanitizer is cheaper than completely revamping ventilation systems...

[newhaul]

https://www.swri.org/press-release/s...pheric-density

October 4, 2021 —*When Pluto passed in front of a star on the night of August 15, 2018, a Southwest Research Institute-led team of astronomers had deployed telescopes at numerous sites in the U.S. and Mexico to observe Pluto’s atmosphere as it was briefly backlit by the well-placed star. Scientists used this occultation event to measure the overall abundance of Pluto’s tenuous atmosphere and found compelling evidence that it is beginning to disappear, refreezing back onto its surface as it moves farther away from the Sun.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

It's my recollection that COVID was understood to be transmissible through the air by late spring or early summer of last year. But it's still likely that if a microscopic airborne droplet can infect you, a healthy sneeze on a door handle is probably also going to do the trick. Anyway, a pump bottle of sanitizer is cheaper than completely revamping ventilation systems...

Actually late northern spring.

https://youtu.be/_xRHRCkfxsU

[sv_pelagia]

No, Vaccinated People Are Not ‘Just as Likely’ to Spread the Coronavirus as Unvaccinated People

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...-covid/620161/

... the single most important factor in spreading the coronavirus: To spread the coronavirus, you have to have the coronavirus. And vaccinated people are far less likely to have the coronavirus....

Despite concern about waning immunity, vaccines provide the best protection against infection. And if someone isn’t infected, they can’t spread the coronavirus. It’s truly that simple. Additionally, for those instances of a vaccinated person getting a breakthrough case, yes, they can be as infectious as an unvaccinated person. But they are likely contagious for a shorter period of time when compared with the unvaccinated, and they may harbor less infectious virus overall.

[CatNewBee]

Originally Posted by sv_pelagia

No, Vaccinated People Are Not ‘Just as Likely’ to Spread the Coronavirus as Unvaccinated People

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...-covid/620161/

... the single most important factor in spreading the coronavirus: To spread the coronavirus, you have to have the coronavirus. And vaccinated people are far less likely to have the coronavirus....

Despite concern about waning immunity, vaccines provide the best protection against infection. And if someone isn’t infected, they can’t spread the coronavirus. It’s truly that simple. Additionally, for those instances of a vaccinated person getting a breakthrough case, yes, they can be as infectious as an unvaccinated person. But they are likely contagious for a shorter period of time when compared with the unvaccinated, and they may harbor less infectious virus overall.

Exactly. Unvaccinated healthy people cannot spread the virus, because they don't have it. .