iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-11-26--Italian Covid-19 Lockdown Businesses Threaten a Tax Strike

50,000 Italian businesses hit with repeated lockdowns have threatened a tax strike , on the grounds it is unreasonable for the government to demand tax money if they are not allowed to conduct their business .
A Tuscan group representing small and medium-sized enterprises has threatened the government with a tax strike if businesses are forced to close due to Wuhan coronavirus lockdown measures .
Confcommercio Toscana said that it would support any of its 50,000 members across Tuscany in their tax strike .
The group ’ s president , Anna Lapini , stated that “ those who govern us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to our companies , which instead continue to run ” .
She added that businesses would not have the cash needed to make tax payments .
“ Our companies no longer have resources , and we prefer to continue to pay employees and suppliers as a priority over a state that does not understand , but rather tramples on , our reasons for existence .
So we pay no more taxes , ” Lapini said , according to Il Giornale .
If a business is not allowed to conduct their business , how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pay their taxes ?
Of course , I am not in any way advocating anyone break the law .
Anyone who refuses to pay their taxes , for whatever reason , is likely to have a very rough time indeed .

Carbon tax symbol of energy as oil and gas price increase and taxes on coal plants and nuclear fuel power plant shaped as a hand as a concept for environmental green tariffs with 3D illustration elements.
Guest essay by Eric Worrall
50,000 Italian businesses hit with repeated lockdowns have threatened a tax strike, on the grounds it is unreasonable for the government to demand tax money if they are not allowed to conduct their business.
Italian Businesses Threaten Tax Strike If Closed Under Lockdown CHRIS TOMLINSON
25 Nov 2020 A Tuscan group representing small and medium-sized enterprises has threatened the government with a tax strike if businesses are forced to close due to Wuhan coronavirus lockdown measures. Confcommercio Toscana said that it would support any of its 50,000 members across Tuscany in their tax strike. The group’s president, Anna Lapini, stated that “those who govern us have not bothered to stop the costs to our companies, which instead continue to run”. She added that businesses would not have the cash needed to make tax payments. “Our companies no longer have resources, and we prefer to continue to pay employees and suppliers as a priority over a state that does not understand, but rather tramples on, our reasons for existence. So we pay no more taxes,” Lapini said, according to Il Giornale. … Read more: https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2020/11/25/italian-businesses-threaten-tax-strike-if-closed-under-lockdown/
If a business is not allowed to conduct their business, how are they supposed to raise revenue to pay their taxes?
Of course, I am not in any way advocating anyone break the law. Anyone who refuses to pay their taxes, for whatever reason, is likely to have a very rough time indeed.
Like this: Like Loading…
Related


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-11-26--The Kraken is released on Georgia and Michigan

Sidney Powell has dropped the bombshell cases in Georgia and Michigan These cases are specifically suing the State officials .
In Georgia , they are going after the Governor , Brian Kemp , and the Secretary of State , Brad Raffensberger .
In Michigan , it is also the Governor , Gretchen Whitmer and Secretary of State , Jocelyn Benson .
“ The scheme and artifice to defraud was for the purpose of illegally and fraudulently manipulating the vote count to make certain the election of Joe Biden as President of the United States.
” Powell ’ s ( Georgia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including that : At least 96,600 absentee ballots were requested and counted but were never recorded as being returned to county election boards by the voter .
“ Thus , at a minimum , 96,600 votes must be disregarded , ” the suit said .
Kemp and Raffensperger “ rushed through the purchase of Dominion voting machines and software in 2019 for the 2020 Presidential Election ” without due diligence and disregarded safety concerns .
“ There is incontrovertible physical evidence that the standards of physical security of the voting machines and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were connected to the internet in violation of professional standards and state and federal laws.
” Fulton [ … ]

Sidney Powell has dropped the bombshell cases in Georgia and Michigan
These cases are specifically suing the State officials. In Georgia, they are going after the Governor, Brian Kemp, and the Secretary of State, Brad Raffensberger. In Michigan, it is also the Governor, Gretchen Whitmer and Secretary of State, Jocelyn Benson.
“The scheme and artifice to defraud was for the purpose of illegally and fraudulently manipulating the vote count to make certain the election of Joe Biden as President of the United States.”
John Solomon on JustTheNews
Powell’s (Georgia) suit made a variety of allegations, including that: At least 96,600 absentee ballots were requested and counted but were never recorded as being returned to county election boards by the voter. “Thus, at a minimum, 96,600 votes must be disregarded,” the suit said. Kemp and Raffensperger “rushed through the purchase of Dominion voting machines and software in 2019 for the 2020 Presidential Election” without due diligence and disregarded safety concerns. “There is incontrovertible physical evidence that the standards of physical security of the voting machines and the software were breached, and machines were connected to the internet in violation of professional standards and state and federal laws.” Fulton […]
Rating: 7.8/10 (4 votes cast)
via JoNova
https://ift.tt/3o2V6ln
November 26, 2020 at 04:25AM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-11-26--Polar bear habitat update for late November

Sea ice formation is ahead of usual in some regions and behind in others but overall , sea ice habitat is abundant enough for this time of year for virtually all polar bears across the Arctic to be back out on the sea ice hunting seals .
Overall , there was more sea ice at 24 November 2020 than there was on the same date in 2016 , which was the last year that a number of polar bear subpopulations were surveyed , including Western and Southern Hudson Bay , Southern Beaufort , Chukchi Sea ( Crockford 2019 , 2020 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Masie : Ice is forming rapidly over Hudson Bay a bit earlier than usual but Davis Strait off southern Baffin Island still has little ice cover .
The pattern of ice formation over Hudson Bay has been a bit unusual this year because winds blew a big chunk of ice offshore part-way through the freeze-up process .
Also , freeze-up came earlier than normal .
Aside from noting that one bear with a tracking collar was on the ice at 16 November , polar bear researcher Andrew Derocher has been silent as to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ collared bears until this morning , when he published a chart dated 23 November showing that half of the eight bears that are likely not pregnant females are on the ice ( see below ) .
The other four will stay onshore in dens to have their cubs later this year .
Of course , knowing these bears are all offshore now doesn ’ t tell us when they actually left shore – as far as we know , they went on the ice 17 November ( the day after Derocher ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ falsely implied in his tweet this morning that the situation at 23 November supported his claim that this was “ not an early freeze-up.
” Except that by all independent measures , including ice charts , reports from eyes-on-the-ground , and photos of bears hunting on the ice , freezeup this year was early even for the 1970s and 1980s ( Castro de la Guardia et al .
2017 ; Stirling et al .
1977 ) .
Many bears ( but not all ) were out on the ice hunting by the first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ below ) , which would have been earlier than usual in the 1980s ( when the average date for bears to leave was 16 November ) .
A few stragglers stayed behind , including Derocher ’ s collared bears , apparently in no obvious hurry to get on the ice .
The Canadian Ice Service chart of ‘ departure from normal ’ for Hudson Bay shows there is a lot more ice than usual in the middle of the bay and south into James Bay ( all that blue ! )
.
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than usual in northern Hudson Bay and Davis Strait ( off southern Baffin Island ) , shown in red and pink .
A study by Castro de la Guardia and colleagues ( 2017 : Figure 3 ) determined that the earliest freeze-up dates since 1979 for Western Hudson Bay came on 6 November in 1991 and 1993 .
As the ice charts from CIS archives ( below ) show , there was about as much ice off the shore of Western Hudson Bay in 1991 for the first week of November as there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In other words , Derocher saying this wasn ’ t an early freeze-up year does not make it so .
In 1993 ( below ) , there was much more ice in the north of Hudson Bay than this year in early November but not any more along the west coast , where polar bears congregate waiting for the ice to form : Two weeks later , the amount of ice cover over Hudson Bay is impressive for this time of year , according to ice present for the week of 23 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shows the actual amount of ice cover rather than the anomaly .
The ice is forming quickly .
So , I ’ d say it ’ s no wonder polar bear experts have not published ‘ official ’ breakup/freezeup dates for polar bears since 2015 ( Castro de la Guardia et al .
2017 ) – freezeup has been average ( 2017 ) or earlier than average ( 2018-2020 ) , for the last four years in a row .
Although in 2016 freeze-up was very late , we know that occasionally a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it did in 1983 , even before claims were made that man-made climate change was the regulator of all Arctic ice ( Ramsay and Stirling 1988 ) .
The latest two reports from the Polar Bear Alert Program in Churchill ( for weeks 11 and 12 , November 2-8 and 9-15 ) were finally published online today but neither of them mention the state of the ice .
But given no report appears to have been published this week and the low number of incidents in week 12 ( 4 ‘ occurrences ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the holding facility ( PBHF ) at the end of last week ( 0 ) , it looks like the report for 9-15 November ( below ) was the last of the season .
For comparison to the above , see the last problem bear report for 2017 ( below ) : Western Arctic including Russian Far East The Beaufort Sea has been largely ice-covered since the third week in October ( in contrast , in 2012 this didn ’ t happen until mid-November ) .
Currently , shorefast ice is forming rapidly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but ice from the Chukchi Sea has not yet moved south through the Bering Strait .
Wrangel Island , where many Chukchi polar bear females have their cubs , was reached by the advancing ice pack by 11 November .
On the Russian coast , the Laptev and East Siberian Seas have been completely ice covered in ice since early November ( below ) after rapidly forming shorefast ice met up with slowly advancing the pack ice this fall .
Franz Josef Land in the eastern Barents Sea has now got substantial ice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Arctic ice pack .
However , the Svalbard archipelago in the western Barents is still ice-free , as it has been for many years now at this point in the fall ( except last year ) .
As a consequence , most Barents Sea pregnant female polar bears will choose to make their maternity dens on the mobile pack ice to the north or on one of the islands of Franz Josef Land .
There is little ice in eastern Kara Sea at this point in the season , especially around Novaya Zemlya @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for this region since the late 1990s at least .
A graph of ice cover over the Kara Sea for the last five years ( NSIDC Masie , below ) , shows that 2020 was only the second lowest in recent years after 2016 .
Crockford , S.J .
2019 .
The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened .
Global Warming Policy Foundation , London .
Available in paperback and ebook formats .
Crockford , S.J .
2020 .
State of the Polar Bear Report 2019 .
Global Warming Policy Foundation Report 39 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , M.A .
and Stirling , I .
1988 .
Reproductive biology and ecology of female polar bears ( Ursus maritimus ) .
Journal of Zoology London 214:601-624. http : //onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1988.tb03762.x/abstract Stirling I , Jonkel C , Smith P , Robertson R , Cross D. 1977 .
The ecology of the polar bear ( Ursus maritimus ) along the western coast of Hudson Bay .
Canadian Wildlife Service Occasional Paper No .
33. pdf here .

Sea ice formation is ahead of usual in some regions and behind in others but overall, sea ice habitat is abundant enough for this time of year for virtually all polar bears across the Arctic to be back out on the sea ice hunting seals.
Overall, there was more sea ice at 24 November 2020 than there was on the same date in 2016, which was the last year that a number of polar bear subpopulations were surveyed, including Western and Southern Hudson Bay, Southern Beaufort, Chukchi Sea (Crockford 2019, 2020), see graph below from NSIDC Masie:
Eastern Canadian Arctic
Ice is forming rapidly over Hudson Bay a bit earlier than usual but Davis Strait off southern Baffin Island still has little ice cover.
The pattern of ice formation over Hudson Bay has been a bit unusual this year because winds blew a big chunk of ice offshore part-way through the freeze-up process. Also, freeze-up came earlier than normal. Aside from noting that one bear with a tracking collar was on the ice at 16 November, polar bear researcher Andrew Derocher has been silent as to the locations of the rest of his collared bears until this morning, when he published a chart dated 23 November showing that half of the eight bears that are likely not pregnant females are on the ice (see below). The other four will stay onshore in dens to have their cubs later this year.
Of course, knowing these bears are all offshore now doesn’t tell us when they actually left shore – as far as we know, they went on the ice 17 November (the day after Derocher’s first announcement). Regardless, Derocher falsely implied in his tweet this morning that the situation at 23 November supported his claim that this was “not an early freeze-up.”
Except that by all independent measures, including ice charts, reports from eyes-on-the-ground, and photos of bears hunting on the ice, freezeup this year was early even for the 1970s and 1980s (Castro de la Guardia et al. 2017; Stirling et al. 1977). Many bears (but not all) were out on the ice hunting by the first few days of November (see chart below), which would have been earlier than usual in the 1980s (when the average date for bears to leave was 16 November). A few stragglers stayed behind, including Derocher’s collared bears, apparently in no obvious hurry to get on the ice.
The Canadian Ice Service chart of ‘departure from normal’ for Hudson Bay shows there is a lot more ice than usual in the middle of the bay and south into James Bay (all that blue!). In contrast, there is much less ice than usual in northern Hudson Bay and Davis Strait (off southern Baffin Island), shown in red and pink.
A study by Castro de la Guardia and colleagues (2017: Figure 3) determined that the earliest freeze-up dates since 1979 for Western Hudson Bay came on 6 November in 1991 and 1993. As the ice charts from CIS archives (below) show, there was about as much ice off the shore of Western Hudson Bay in 1991 for the first week of November as there was this year (chart above). In other words, Derocher saying this wasn’t an early freeze-up year does not make it so.
In 1993 (below), there was much more ice in the north of Hudson Bay than this year in early November but not any more along the west coast, where polar bears congregate waiting for the ice to form:
Two weeks later, the amount of ice cover over Hudson Bay is impressive for this time of year, according to ice present for the week of 23 November (below) – this chart shows the actual amount of ice cover rather than the anomaly. The ice is forming quickly.
So, I’d say it’s no wonder polar bear experts have not published ‘official’ breakup/freezeup dates for polar bears since 2015 (Castro de la Guardia et al. 2017) – freezeup has been average (2017) or earlier than average (2018-2020), for the last four years in a row. Although in 2016 freeze-up was very late, we know that occasionally a very late freezeup year happened, as it did in 1983, even before claims were made that man-made climate change was the regulator of all Arctic ice (Ramsay and Stirling 1988).
The latest two reports from the Polar Bear Alert Program in Churchill (for weeks 11 and 12, November 2-8 and 9-15) were finally published online today but neither of them mention the state of the ice. But given no report appears to have been published this week and the low number of incidents in week 12 (4 ‘occurrences’) and the number of bears in the holding facility (PBHF) at the end of last week (0), it looks like the report for 9-15 November (below) was the last of the season.
For comparison to the above, see the last problem bear report for 2017 (below): Western Arctic including Russian Far East
The Beaufort Sea has been largely ice-covered since the third week in October (in contrast, in 2012 this didn’t happen until mid-November). Currently, shorefast ice is forming rapidly along the shores of the Bering Sea but ice from the Chukchi Sea has not yet moved south through the Bering Strait. Wrangel Island, where many Chukchi polar bear females have their cubs, was reached by the advancing ice pack by 11 November.
Central Russian coast
On the Russian coast, the Laptev and East Siberian Seas have been completely ice covered in ice since early November (below) after rapidly forming shorefast ice met up with slowly advancing the pack ice this fall.
Barents and Kara Seas
Franz Josef Land in the eastern Barents Sea has now got substantial ice cover after a slow return of the Arctic ice pack. However, the Svalbard archipelago in the western Barents is still ice-free, as it has been for many years now at this point in the fall (except last year). As a consequence, most Barents Sea pregnant female polar bears will choose to make their maternity dens on the mobile pack ice to the north or on one of the islands of Franz Josef Land.
There is little ice in eastern Kara Sea at this point in the season, especially around Novaya Zemlya, but that has been the case for this region since the late 1990s at least. A graph of ice cover over the Kara Sea for the last five years (NSIDC Masie, below), shows that 2020 was only the second lowest in recent years after 2016.
References
Castro de la Guardia, L., Myers, P.G., Derocher, A.E., Lunn, N.J., Terwisscha van Scheltinga, A.D. 2017. Sea ice cycle in western Hudson Bay, Canada, from a polar bear perspective. Marine Ecology Progress Series 564: 225–233. http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/meps/v564/p225-233/
Crockford, S.J. 2019. The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened. Global Warming Policy Foundation, London. Available in paperback and ebook formats.
Crockford, S.J. 2020. State of the Polar Bear Report 2019. Global Warming Policy Foundation Report 39, London. pdf here.
Ramsay, M.A. and Stirling, I. 1988. Reproductive biology and ecology of female polar bears (Ursus maritimus). Journal of Zoology London 214:601-624.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1988.tb03762.x/abstract
Stirling I, Jonkel C, Smith P, Robertson R, Cross D. 1977. The ecology of the polar bear (Ursus maritimus) along the western coast of Hudson Bay. Canadian Wildlife Service Occasional Paper No. 33. pdf here.
#chukchi-sea, #davis-strait, #freeeze-up, #habitat, #hudson-bay, #kara-sea, #pack-ice, #polar-bear, #sea-ice
via polarbearscience
https://ift.tt/379e2YD
November 26, 2020 at 01:05AM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-11-26--Historical bias overlooks genes related to COVID-19

Genes studied based on ease of experimentation rather than relevance to disease Based on genome-wide experiments , the human body has 2,064 genes relevant to COVID-19 .
So why are researchers only studying 611 of them ?
A historical bias — which has long dictated which human genes are studied — is now affecting how biomedical researchers study COVID-19 , according to new Northwestern University research .
Although biomedical researchers know that many overlooked human genes play a role in COVID-19 , they currently do not study them .
Instead , researchers that study COVID-19 continue to focus on human @ @ @ @ @ @ @ independent of coronaviruses .
“ For understandable reasons , researchers tend to build upon existing knowledge and research tools .
They appear to select genes to study based on the ease of experimentation rather than their ultimate relevance to a disease , ” said Northwestern ’ s Thomas Stoeger , who co-led the research .
“ This means that research into COVID-19 concentrates only on a small subset of the human genes involved in the response to the virus .
Consequently , many aspects of the response of human cells toward COVID-19 remain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ genes related to COVID-19 , but we don ’ t know what they are doing in the context of COVID-19 , ” added Northwestern ’ s Luís Amaral , who co-led the study with Stoeger .
“ We didn ’ t study these genes before the pandemic , and COVID-19 does not seem to be an incentive to investigate them.
” The research will be published on Nov. 24 in the journal eLife .
Stoeger is a data science scholar at the Northwestern Institute on Complex Systems ( NICO ) and the Center @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pathway to Independence ” award from the National Institute of Aging , Stoeger is starting a research laboratory dedicated to uncovering unstudied genes with important contributions to aging and age-related diseases .
Amaral is the Erastus O .
Haven Professor of Chemical and Biological Engineering in Northwestern ’ s McCormick School of Engineering .
Stoeger and Amaral are both members of Successful Clinical Response in Pneumonia Therapy ( SCRIPT ) Systems Biology Center.Pinpointing a historical bias This study builds on Stoeger and Amaral ’ s 2018 research , which was the first to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ popular to study than others .
In that work , they found that 30 % of all genes have never been studied and less than 20 % of genes are the subject of more than 90 % of published papers .
Despite the increasing availability of new techniques to study and characterize genes , researchers continue to study a small group of genes that scientists have studied since the 1980s .
Historically , these genes have been easier to investigate experimentally .
If an animal model has a similar gene to humans , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to study that gene .
The Northwestern team also discovered that postdoctoral fellows and Ph.D. students who focus on poorly characterized genes have a 50 % reduced chance of becoming an independent researcher .
Although the Human Genome Project — the identification and mapping of all human genes , completed in 2003 — aimed to expand the scope of scientific study beyond this small subset of genes , it has yet to fulfill this aim .
“ The bias to study the exact same human genes is very high , ” Amaral said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the very purpose of the agencies and scientific knowledge , which is to broaden the set of things we study and understand .
We need to make a concerted effort to incentivize the study of other genes important to human health.
” Bias continues into COVID-era For the new study , Stoeger and Amaral turned to LitCOVID , a collection of research publications related to COVID-19 , curated by the National Library of Medicine .
LitCOVID tags genes mentioned in the titles , abstracts or results sections of individual publications .
Northwestern researchers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the collection .
Then , they integrated them into a custom database along with more than 100 different biological and bibliometric databases in an effort to survey and measure all aspects of biomedical research .
Finally , they compared genes mentioned in the COVID-19 papers to COVID-19-related genes as identified by four genome-wide studies .
Stoeger and Amaral also tracked the occurrence of genes appearing in COVID-19 literature over time .
Surprisingly , they observed that studies of COVID-19 genes are becoming not more but less expansive since the onset of the pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other researchers to be aware of past biases and to explore unstudied genes .
“ Our findings have a direct implication on the long-term planning of scientific policymakers , ” Stoeger said .
“ We can point researchers toward human genes that are important for the cellular response against viruses but risk being ignored due to historically acquired biases , which are culturally reinforced.
” The study , “ Meta-Research : COVID-19 research risks ignoring important host genes due to preestablished research patterns , ” was supported by the SCRIPT Systems Biology Center @ @ @ @ @ @ @ National Science Foundation ( award number NSF 1956338 ) ; the Northwestern University Quantitative Biology Center ( award number NSF/Simons DMS-1764421 ) ; the Air Force Office of Scientific Research ( award number FA9550-19-1-0354 ) ; and the National Institute of Health ( award number NIH 1K99AG068544 ) .

Genes studied based on ease of experimentation rather than relevance to disease
NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY
Research News
Based on genome-wide experiments, the human body has 2,064 genes relevant to COVID-19. So why are researchers only studying 611 of them?
A historical bias — which has long dictated which human genes are studied — is now affecting how biomedical researchers study COVID-19, according to new Northwestern University research.
Although biomedical researchers know that many overlooked human genes play a role in COVID-19, they currently do not study them. Instead, researchers that study COVID-19 continue to focus on human genes that have already been heavily investigated independent of coronaviruses.
“For understandable reasons, researchers tend to build upon existing knowledge and research tools. They appear to select genes to study based on the ease of experimentation rather than their ultimate relevance to a disease,” said Northwestern’s Thomas Stoeger, who co-led the research. “This means that research into COVID-19 concentrates only on a small subset of the human genes involved in the response to the virus. Consequently, many aspects of the response of human cells toward COVID-19 remain not understood.”
“There are many genes related to COVID-19, but we don’t know what they are doing in the context of COVID-19,” added Northwestern’s Luís Amaral, who co-led the study with Stoeger. “We didn’t study these genes before the pandemic, and COVID-19 does not seem to be an incentive to investigate them.”
The research will be published on Nov. 24 in the journal eLife.
Stoeger is a data science scholar at the Northwestern Institute on Complex Systems (NICO) and the Center for Genetic Medicine. Through a “Pathway to Independence” award from the National Institute of Aging, Stoeger is starting a research laboratory dedicated to uncovering unstudied genes with important contributions to aging and age-related diseases. Amaral is the Erastus O. Haven Professor of Chemical and Biological Engineering in Northwestern’s McCormick School of Engineering. Stoeger and Amaral are both members of Successful Clinical Response in Pneumonia Therapy (SCRIPT) Systems Biology Center.Pinpointing a historical bias
This study builds on Stoeger and Amaral’s 2018 research, which was the first to explain why some human genes are more popular to study than others. In that work, they found that 30% of all genes have never been studied and less than 20% of genes are the subject of more than 90% of published papers.
Despite the increasing availability of new techniques to study and characterize genes, researchers continue to study a small group of genes that scientists have studied since the 1980s. Historically, these genes have been easier to investigate experimentally. If an animal model has a similar gene to humans, for example, researchers are more likely to study that gene. The Northwestern team also discovered that postdoctoral fellows and Ph.D. students who focus on poorly characterized genes have a 50% reduced chance of becoming an independent researcher.
Although the Human Genome Project — the identification and mapping of all human genes, completed in 2003 — aimed to expand the scope of scientific study beyond this small subset of genes, it has yet to fulfill this aim.
“The bias to study the exact same human genes is very high,” Amaral said. “The entire system is fighting the very purpose of the agencies and scientific knowledge, which is to broaden the set of things we study and understand. We need to make a concerted effort to incentivize the study of other genes important to human health.”Bias continues into COVID-era
For the new study, Stoeger and Amaral turned to LitCOVID, a collection of research publications related to COVID-19, curated by the National Library of Medicine. LitCOVID tags genes mentioned in the titles, abstracts or results sections of individual publications.
Northwestern researchers analyzed 10,395 published papers and pre-prints from the collection. Then, they integrated them into a custom database along with more than 100 different biological and bibliometric databases in an effort to survey and measure all aspects of biomedical research. Finally, they compared genes mentioned in the COVID-19 papers to COVID-19-related genes as identified by four genome-wide studies.
Stoeger and Amaral also tracked the occurrence of genes appearing in COVID-19 literature over time. Surprisingly, they observed that studies of COVID-19 genes are becoming not more but less expansive since the onset of the pandemic.
The team hopes its study inspires other researchers to be aware of past biases and to explore unstudied genes.
“Our findings have a direct implication on the long-term planning of scientific policymakers,” Stoeger said. “We can point researchers toward human genes that are important for the cellular response against viruses but risk being ignored due to historically acquired biases, which are culturally reinforced.”
###
The study, “Meta-Research: COVID-19 research risks ignoring important host genes due to preestablished research patterns,” was supported by the SCRIPT Systems Biology Center (award number U19AI135964); the National Science Foundation (award number NSF 1956338); the Northwestern University Quantitative Biology Center (award number NSF/Simons DMS-1764421); the Air Force Office of Scientific Research (award number FA9550-19-1-0354); and the National Institute of Health (award number NIH 1K99AG068544).
From EurekAlert!
Like this: Like Loading…
Related


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-11-26--Renewable Energy Outlook to 2025 – the Inconvenient Facts

The International Energy Agency ( IEA ) last week published its Renewable 2020 Report , an analysis of current trends @ @ @ @ @ and a projection … Continue reading The post Renewable Energy Outlook to 2025 – the @ @ @ @ @ Friends of Science Calgary .

Contributed by Robert Lyman ©2020
The International Energy Agency (IEA) last week published its Renewable 2020 Report, an analysis of current trends in global renewable energy markets and a projection … Continue reading
The post Renewable Energy Outlook to 2025 – the Inconvenient Facts first appeared on Friends of Science Calgary.
via Friends of Science Calgary
https://ift.tt/2V31IUp
November 26, 2020 at 03:46PM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-11-26--Central Banks And Climate: A Case Of Mission Creep

We are well accustomed to Mark Carney ’ s efforts to turn the Bank of England into the Bank of Green .
We have probably all half sensed the dangers inherent in it , but have found it difficult to put into words .
Step forward John H Cochrane , who has penned this excellent article explaining the path we are all heading down : The following is adapted from John H. Cochrane ’ s remarks at the European Central Bank ’ s Conference on Monetary Policy : Bridging Science and Practice .
His full presentation about the challenges facing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are rushing headlong into climate policy .
This is a mistake .
It will destroy central banks ’ independence , their ability to fulfill their main missions to control inflation and stem financial crises , and people ’ s faith in their impartiality and technical competence .
And it won ’ t help the climate .
In making this argument , I do not claim that climate change is fake or unimportant .
None of the following comments reflect any argument with scientific fact .
( I favor a uniform carbon tax in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this essay is not about carbon policy . )
The question is whether the European Central Bank ( ECB ) , other central banks , or international institutions such as the International Monetary Fund , the Bank for International Settlements , and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development should appoint themselves to take on climate policy—or other important social , environmental , or political causes—without a clear mandate to do so from politically accountable leaders .
The Western world faces a crisis of trust in our institutions , a crisis fed by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ run such institutions don ’ t know what they are doing , are politicized , and are going beyond the authority granted by accountable representatives .
Trust and independence must be earned by evident competence and institutional restraint .
Yet central banks , not obviously competent to target inflation with interest rates ; floundering to stop financial crisis by means other than wanton bailouts ; and still not addressing obvious risks lying ahead ; now want to be trusted to determine and implement their own climate change policy ?
( And next , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ justice ? )
We don ’ t want the agency that delivers drinking water to make a list of socially and environmentally favored businesses and start turning off the water to disfavored companies .
Nor should central banks .
They should provide liquidity , period .
But a popular movement wants all institutions of society to jump into the social and political goals of the moment , regardless of boring legalities .
Those constraints , of course , are essential for a functioning democratic society , for functioning independent technocratic institutions , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same important social and political goals .
The European Central Bank and other institutions are not just embarking on climate policy in general .
They are embarking on the enforcement of one particular set of climate policies—policies to force banks and private companies to defund fossil fuel industries , even while alternatives are not available at scale , and to provide subsidized funding to an ill-defined set of “ green ” projects .
Let me quote from ECB executive board member Isabel Schnabel ’ s recent speech .
I don ’ t mean @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expresses the climate agenda very well , and her speech bears the ECB imprimatur .
She recommends that Let me point out the unclothed emperor : climate change does not pose any financial risk at the one- , five- , or even ten-year horizon at which one can conceivably assess the risk to bank assets .
Repeating the contrary in speeches does not make it so .
Risk means variance , unforeseen events .
We know exactly where the climate is going in the next five to ten years .
Hurricanes and floods @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are well modeled for the next five to ten years .
Advanced economies and financial systems are remarkably impervious to weather .
Relative market demand for fossil vs. alternative energy is as easy or hard to forecast as anything else in the economy .
Exxon bonds are factually safer , financially , than Tesla bonds , and easier to value .
The main risk to fossil fuel companies is that regulators will destroy them , as the ECB proposes to do , a risk regulators themselves control .
And political risk is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ banks are risky because of exposure to carbon-emitting companies ; that carbon-emitting company debt is financially risky because of unexpected changes in climate , in ways that conventional risk measures do not capture ; that banks need to be regulated away from that exposure because of risk to the financial system—all this is nonsense .
( And even if it were not nonsense , regulating bank liabilities away from short term debt and towards more equity would be a more effective solution to the financial problem . )
Next , we contemplate a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , divest , and sanction We know where “ disclosure ” leads .
Now all companies that issue debt will be pressured to cut off disparaged investments and make whatever “ green ” investments the ECB is blessing .
Last , the ECB is urged to print money directly to fund green projects : Now you may say , “ Climate is a crisis .
Central banks must pitch in and help the cause .
They should just tell banks to stop lending to the evil fossil fuel companies , and print money @ @ @ @ @ @ @ projects.
” But central banks are not allowed to do this , and for very good reasons .
A central bank in a democracy is not an all-purpose do-good agency , with authority to subsidize what it decides to be worthy , defund what it dislikes , and force banks and companies to do the same .
A central bank , whose leaders do not regularly face voters , lives by an iron contract : freedom and independence so long as it stays within its limited and mandated powers .
The ECB in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ limited mandate .
For very good reasons , the ECB was not set up to decide which industries or regions need subsidizing and which should be scaled back , to direct bank investment across Europe , to set the price of bonds , or to print money to subsidize direct lending .
These are intensely political acts .
In a democracy , only elected representatives can take or commission such intensely political activities .
If I take out the words “ green , ” the EU member states , and EU voters , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at this proposal .
If the ECB bought different countries ’ bonds at different prices and in different quantities to reward those making greater progress on “ green ” policy implementation , there would likely be an outcry .
That ’ s why this movement goes through the convolutions of pretending that defunding fossil fuels and subsidizing green projects—however desirable—has something to do with systemic risk , which it patently does not .
That ’ s why one must pretend to diagnose “ market failures ” to justify buying bonds at too high @ @ @ @ @ @ @ green bonds “ mispriced ” and markets “ failing ” ?
Why only green bonds ?
The ECB does not scan all asset markets for “ mispriced ” securities to buy and sell after determining the “ right ” prices .
Here are two interpretations of the ECB ’ s proposal : One : we looked evenhandedly at all the risks to the financial system , and the most important financial risk we came up with just happens to be climate .
Two : we want to get involved with climate policy .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ our limited mandate to pay attention to financial stability ?
Who Gets the Green Light ?
How should we judge the proposal ?
I think it ’ s pretty obvious that the latter interpretation is true—or at least that the vast majority of people reading the proposal will interpret it as such .
Feeding this perception is the central omission of this speech : any concrete description of just how carbon sins will be measured .
At face value , “ carbon emitting ” does not mean just fossil fuel companies but cement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agriculture , transport , and everything else .
Will the carbon risk and defunding project really extend that far , in any sort of honest quantitative way ?
Or is “ carbon emitting ” just code for hounding the politically unpopular fossil fuel companies ?
In the disclosure and bond buying project , who will decide what is a green project ?
Already , cost-benefit analysis—euros spent per ton of carbon , per degrees of temperature reduced , per euros of GDP increased—is lacking .
By what process will the ECB avoid past @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ethanol , and high-speed trains to nowhere ?
How will it allow politically unpopular projects such as nuclear power , carbon capture , natural gas via fracking , residential zoning reform , and geoengineering ventures—which all , undeniably , scientifically , lower carbon and global temperatures—as well as adaptation projects that undeniably , scientifically , lower the impact on GDP ?
Well , clearly it won ’ t .
The ECB is embarking on one specific kind of green policy , popular at the cocktail parties at Davos , but having little to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climate policy .
In sum , where is the analysis for this program ?
I challenge the ECB to calculate how many degrees this bond buying plan would lower global temperatures , and how much it would raise GDP by the year 2100 , in any transparent , verifiable , and credible way .
Never mind the costs for now : where are the benefits ?
And how would the ECB resist political pressure to subsidize all sorts of boondoggles ?
If the central bank does not have and disclose neutral technical competence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the project will be perceived as simply made-up numbers to advance a political cause .
All of the central bank ’ s activities will then be tainted by association .
This will end badly .
Not because these policies are wrong , but because they are intensely political , and they make a mockery of the central bank ’ s limited mandates .
If this continues , the next ECB presidential appointment will be all about climate policy : who gets the subsidized green lending , who is defunded , what the next @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and not interest rates and financial stability .
Board appointments will become champions for each country ’ s desired subsidies .
Countries and industries that lose out will object .
This is exactly the sort of institutional aggrandizement that prompted Brexit .
If the ECB crosses this second Rubicon—buying sovereign and corporate debt was the first—be ready for more .
The IMF is already pushing redistribution .
The US Federal Reserve , though it has so far stayed away from climate policy , is rushing into “ inclusive ” employment and racial justice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world .
Once you start trying to shape climate policy , and so obviously break all the rules to do it , how can you resist the clamor to defund , disclose , and subsidize the rest ?
How will you resist demands to take up regional development , prop up dying industries , subsidize politicians ’ pet projects , and all the other sins that the ECB is explicitly enjoined from committing ?
A central bank that so blatantly breaks its mandates must lose its independence , its authority , and people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ technical competence to fight inflation and deflation , regulate banks , and stop financial crises .
The full account is here .
via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood
We are well accustomed to Mark Carney’s efforts to turn the Bank of England into the Bank of Green.
We have probably all half sensed the dangers inherent in it, but have found it difficult to put into words.
Step forward John H Cochrane, who has penned this excellent article explaining the path we are all heading down:
The following is adapted from John H. Cochrane’s remarks at the European Central Bank’s Conference on Monetary Policy: Bridging Science and Practice. His full presentation about the challenges facing central banks is here.
Central banks are rushing headlong into climate policy. This is a mistake. It will destroy central banks’ independence, their ability to fulfill their main missions to control inflation and stem financial crises, and people’s faith in their impartiality and technical competence. And it won’t help the climate.
In making this argument, I do not claim that climate change is fake or unimportant. None of the following comments reflect any argument with scientific fact. (I favor a uniform carbon tax in return for essentially no regulation, but this essay is not about carbon policy.)
The question is whether the European Central Bank (ECB), other central banks, or international institutions such as the International Monetary Fund, the Bank for International Settlements, and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development should appoint themselves to take on climate policy—or other important social, environmental, or political causes—without a clear mandate to do so from politically accountable leaders.
The Western world faces a crisis of trust in our institutions, a crisis fed by a not-inaccurate perception that the elites who run such institutions don’t know what they are doing, are politicized, and are going beyond the authority granted by accountable representatives.
Trust and independence must be earned by evident competence and institutional restraint. Yet central banks, not obviously competent to target inflation with interest rates; floundering to stop financial crisis by means other than wanton bailouts; and still not addressing obvious risks lying ahead; now want to be trusted to determine and implement their own climate change policy? (And next, likely, taking on inequality and social justice?)
We don’t want the agency that delivers drinking water to make a list of socially and environmentally favored businesses and start turning off the water to disfavored companies. Nor should central banks. They should provide liquidity, period.
But a popular movement wants all institutions of society to jump into the social and political goals of the moment, regardless of boring legalities. Those constraints, of course, are essential for a functioning democratic society, for functioning independent technocratic institutions, and incidentally for making durable progress on those same important social and political goals.
It’s Not About Risk
The European Central Bank and other institutions are not just embarking on climate policy in general. They are embarking on the enforcement of one particular set of climate policies—policies to force banks and private companies to defund fossil fuel industries, even while alternatives are not available at scale, and to provide subsidized funding to an ill-defined set of “green” projects.
Let me quote from ECB executive board member Isabel Schnabel’s recent speech. I don’t mean to pick on her, but she expresses the climate agenda very well, and her speech bears the ECB imprimatur. She recommends that
[f]irst, as prudential supervisor, we have an obligation to protect the safety and soundness of the banking sector. This includes making sure that banks properly assess the risks from carbon-intensive exposures. . . .
Let me point out the unclothed emperor: climate change does not pose any financial risk at the one-, five-, or even ten-year horizon at which one can conceivably assess the risk to bank assets. Repeating the contrary in speeches does not make it so.
Risk means variance, unforeseen events. We know exactly where the climate is going in the next five to ten years. Hurricanes and floods, though influenced by climate change, are well modeled for the next five to ten years. Advanced economies and financial systems are remarkably impervious to weather. Relative market demand for fossil vs. alternative energy is as easy or hard to forecast as anything else in the economy. Exxon bonds are factually safer, financially, than Tesla bonds, and easier to value. The main risk to fossil fuel companies is that regulators will destroy them, as the ECB proposes to do, a risk regulators themselves control. And political risk is a standard part of bond valuation.
That banks are risky because of exposure to carbon-emitting companies; that carbon-emitting company debt is financially risky because of unexpected changes in climate, in ways that conventional risk measures do not capture; that banks need to be regulated away from that exposure because of risk to the financial system—all this is nonsense. (And even if it were not nonsense, regulating bank liabilities away from short term debt and towards more equity would be a more effective solution to the financial problem.)
Next, we contemplate a pervasive regime essentially of shame, boycott, divest, and sanction
[to] link the eligibility of securities . . . as collateral in our refinancing operations to the disclosure regime of the issuing firms.
We know where “disclosure” leads. Now all companies that issue debt will be pressured to cut off disparaged investments and make whatever “green” investments the ECB is blessing.
Last, the ECB is urged to print money directly to fund green projects:
We should also consider reassessing the benchmark allocation of our private asset purchase programs. In the presence of market failures . . . the market by itself is not achieving efficient outcomes.
Now you may say, “Climate is a crisis. Central banks must pitch in and help the cause. They should just tell banks to stop lending to the evil fossil fuel companies, and print money and hand it out to worthy green projects.”
But central banks are not allowed to do this, and for very good reasons. A central bank in a democracy is not an all-purpose do-good agency, with authority to subsidize what it decides to be worthy, defund what it dislikes, and force banks and companies to do the same. A central bank, whose leaders do not regularly face voters, lives by an iron contract: freedom and independence so long as it stays within its limited and mandated powers.
The ECB in particular lives by a particularly delineated and limited mandate. For very good reasons, the ECB was not set up to decide which industries or regions need subsidizing and which should be scaled back, to direct bank investment across Europe, to set the price of bonds, or to print money to subsidize direct lending. These are intensely political acts. In a democracy, only elected representatives can take or commission such intensely political activities. If I take out the words “green,” the EU member states, and EU voters, would properly react with shock and outrage at this proposal. If the ECB bought different countries’ bonds at different prices and in different quantities to reward those making greater progress on “green” policy implementation, there would likely be an outcry.
That’s why this movement goes through the convolutions of pretending that defunding fossil fuels and subsidizing green projects—however desirable—has something to do with systemic risk, which it patently does not.
That’s why one must pretend to diagnose “market failures” to justify buying bonds at too high prices. By what objective measure are green bonds “mispriced” and markets “failing”? Why only green bonds? The ECB does not scan all asset markets for “mispriced” securities to buy and sell after determining the “right” prices.
Here are two interpretations of the ECB’s proposal:
One: we looked evenhandedly at all the risks to the financial system, and the most important financial risk we came up with just happens to be climate.
Two: we want to get involved with climate policy. How can we shoehorn that desire into our limited mandate to pay attention to financial stability?
Who Gets the Green Light?
How should we judge the proposal? I think it’s pretty obvious that the latter interpretation is true—or at least that the vast majority of people reading the proposal will interpret it as such. Feeding this perception is the central omission of this speech: any concrete description of just how carbon sins will be measured.
At face value, “carbon emitting” does not mean just fossil fuel companies but cement manufacturers, aluminum producers, construction, agriculture, transport, and everything else. Will the carbon risk and defunding project really extend that far, in any sort of honest quantitative way? Or is “carbon emitting” just code for hounding the politically unpopular fossil fuel companies?
In the disclosure and bond buying project, who will decide what is a green project? Already, cost-benefit analysis—euros spent per ton of carbon, per degrees of temperature reduced, per euros of GDP increased—is lacking. By what process will the ECB avoid past follies such as switchgrass biofuel, corn ethanol, and high-speed trains to nowhere? How will it allow politically unpopular projects such as nuclear power, carbon capture, natural gas via fracking, residential zoning reform, and geoengineering ventures—which all, undeniably, scientifically, lower carbon and global temperatures—as well as adaptation projects that undeniably, scientifically, lower the impact on GDP? Well, clearly it won’t. The ECB is embarking on one specific kind of green policy, popular at the cocktail parties at Davos, but having little to do with cost-benefit analysis or science of climate policy.
If the ECB crosses this second Rubicon—buying sovereign and corporate debt was the first—be ready for more. The IMF is already pushing redistribution. The US Federal Reserve, though it has so far stayed away from climate policy, is rushing into “inclusive” employment and racial justice. There are many problems in the world. Once you start trying to shape climate policy, and so obviously break all the rules to do it, how can you resist the clamor to defund, disclose, and subsidize the rest? How will you resist demands to take up regional development, prop up dying industries, subsidize politicians’ pet projects, and all the other sins that the ECB is explicitly enjoined from committing? A central bank that so blatantly breaks its mandates must lose its independence, its authority, and people’s trust in its objectivity and technical competence to fight inflation and deflation, regulate banks, and stop financial crises.
In sum, where is the analysis for this program? I challenge the ECB to calculate how many degrees this bond buying plan would lower global temperatures, and how much it would raise GDP by the year 2100, in any transparent, verifiable, and credible way. Never mind the costs for now: where are the benefits?
And how would the ECB resist political pressure to subsidize all sorts of boondoggles? If the central bank does not have and disclose neutral technical competence at making this sort of calculation, the project will be perceived as simply made-up numbers to advance a political cause. All of the central bank’s activities will then be tainted by association.
This will end badly. Not because these policies are wrong, but because they are intensely political, and they make a mockery of the central bank’s limited mandates. If this continues, the next ECB presidential appointment will be all about climate policy: who gets the subsidized green lending, who is defunded, what the next set of causes is to be, and not interest rates and financial stability. Board appointments will become champions for each country’s desired subsidies. Countries and industries that lose out will object. This is exactly the sort of institutional aggrandizement that prompted Brexit.
If the ECB crosses this second Rubicon—buying sovereign and corporate debt was the first—be ready for more. The IMF is already pushing redistribution. The US Federal Reserve, though it has so far stayed away from climate policy, is rushing into “inclusive” employment and racial justice. There are many problems in the world. Once you start trying to shape climate policy, and so obviously break all the rules to do it, how can you resist the clamor to defund, disclose, and subsidize the rest? How will you resist demands to take up regional development, prop up dying industries, subsidize politicians’ pet projects, and all the other sins that the ECB is explicitly enjoined from committing?
A central bank that so blatantly breaks its mandates must lose its independence, its authority, and people’s trust in its objectivity and technical competence to fight inflation and deflation, regulate banks, and stop financial crises.
The full account is here.
via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
https://ift.tt/3mbwO8a
November 26, 2020 at 03:39PM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-11-26--Possible dzud in Mongolia

Possible dzud in Mongolia

25 Nov 2020 – Dzud is possible in Bayankhongor , Uvurkhangai , Dundgovi and Gobi-Altai .
The Institute of Meteorology , Hydrology and Environmental Research has released a variety of ground observation and satellite data related to droughts , snowstorms and dzuds .
As of November 20 , more than 50 percent of the area was covered with snow .
Of these , Altai , Khangai , Khentei , Khuvsgul highlands , Kharkhiraa Turgen mountains , Khan Khukhii mountain range more than 20 cm .
( .. ) According to the dzud risk map , about 40 percent of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 30 percent is moderately at risk .
The risk of dzud is very high in Bayankhongor aimag , eastern Gobi-Altai , Uvurkhangai and Dundgovi as a whole , and some areas of Umnugovi , Dornogovi , Tuv and Sukhbaatar aimags .
Thanks to Argiris Diamantis for this info ( I have asked him for a link . )
According to Wikipedia , a dzud is a Mongolian term for a severe winter in which large number of livestock die , primarily due to starvation due to being unable to graze , in other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are various kinds of dzud , including white dzud , which is an extremely snowy winter in which livestock are unable to find nourishing foodstuff through the snow cover and starve .
One-third of Mongolia ’ s population depends entirely on pastoral farming for its livelihood , and harsh dzuds can cause economic crises and food security issues in the country .
This natural disaster is unique to Mongolia .
The post Possible dzud in Mongolia appeared first on Ice Age Now .

25 Nov 2020 – Dzud is possible in Bayankhongor, Uvurkhangai, Dundgovi and Gobi-Altai.
The Institute of Meteorology, Hydrology and Environmental Research has released a variety of ground observation and satellite data related to droughts, snowstorms and dzuds. As of November 20, more than 50 percent of the area was covered with snow.
Of these, Altai, Khangai, Khentei, Khuvsgul highlands, Kharkhiraa Turgen mountains, Khan Khukhii mountain range more than 20 cm. (..)
According to the dzud risk map, about 40 percent of the country is at high risk and about 30 percent is moderately at risk.
The risk of dzud is very high in Bayankhongor aimag, eastern Gobi-Altai, Uvurkhangai and Dundgovi as a whole, and some areas of Umnugovi, Dornogovi, Tuv and Sukhbaatar aimags.
Thanks to Argiris Diamantis for this info(I have asked him for a link.)
_________
What is a dzud?
According to Wikipedia, a dzud is a Mongolian term for a severe winter in which large number of livestock die, primarily due to starvation due to being unable to graze, in other cases directly from the cold. There are various kinds of dzud, including white dzud, which is an extremely snowy winter in which livestock are unable to find nourishing foodstuff through the snow cover and starve.
One-third of Mongolia’s population depends entirely on pastoral farming for its livelihood, and harsh dzuds can cause economic crises and food security issues in the country. This natural disaster is unique to Mongolia.
The post Possible dzud in Mongolia appeared first on Ice Age Now.
via Ice Age Now
https://ift.tt/3leRKJX
November 26, 2020 at 02:40PM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-11-26--Motorway speed limits cut to 60 mph in bid to reduce carbon emissions

Highways England has kicked off a 12-month trial on sections of motorway in England .
In 2019 , the transport sector accounted for 34 % of the UK ’ s total carbon emissions , according to GOV.UK .
It ’ s also the UK ’ s largest producer of emissions .
The UK has set itself an ambitious target to become a zero-carbon country by 2050 .
But we won ’ t reach that target unless the government takes greater action .
That ’ s according to Energy Institute ’ s Energy Barometer report .
To that end , Highways @ @ @ @ @ @ @ certain sections of motorway to 60 mph .
This is part of a trial that it hopes will help bring road emissions down to legal levels .
But one in four ( 26 % ) people think it ’ s not worth the inconvenience* .
Speeding up requires power , which burns more fuel .
Slowing down uses the brakes , which give off harmful brake-dust particles .
With constant speeding up and slowing down on the motorway , you can see how pollution can build up fast .
Cutting the speed limit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ means less acceleration .
This means less fuel consumption , and fewer emissions .
Highways England estimates that a 60 mph speed limit on the motorway could cut emissions by as much as 17 % .
No doubt this bonkers idea was dreamt up by some wet behind the ears “ expert ” , who has no real experience of driving .
What happens whenever you hit a 60 mph zone on the motorway ?
Cars start to concertina together , which inevitably means more stopping and starting .
You don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that this increases fuel consumption , not to matter dust from brakes .
Question – where are the AA and RAC , who should be sticking up for drivers ’ rights ?
via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood
h/t Dennis Ambler
Highways England has kicked off a 12-month trial on sections of motorway in England.
In 2019, the transport sector accounted for 34% of the UK’s total carbon emissions, according to GOV.UK. It’s also the UK’s largest producer of emissions.
The UK has set itself an ambitious target to become a zero-carbon country by 2050.
But we won’t reach that target unless the government takes greater action. That’s according to Energy Institute’s Energy Barometer report.
To that end, Highways England has cut the speed limit on certain sections of motorway to 60 mph.
This is part of a trial that it hopes will help bring road emissions down to legal levels.
But one in four (26%) people think it’s not worth the inconvenience*.
How does speed impact carbon emissions?
Speeding up requires power, which burns more fuel. Slowing down uses the brakes, which give off harmful brake-dust particles.
With constant speeding up and slowing down on the motorway, you can see how pollution can build up fast.
Cutting the speed limit to 60 mph rather than 70 mph means less acceleration. This means less fuel consumption, and fewer emissions.
Highways England estimates that a 60 mph speed limit on the motorway could cut emissions by as much as 17%.
https://www.confused.com/on-the-road/driving-law/speed-limit-cuts-to-reduce-emissions
No doubt this bonkers idea was dreamt up by some wet behind the ears “expert”, who has no real experience of driving.
What happens whenever you hit a 60 mph zone on the motorway? Cars start to concertina together, which inevitably means more stopping and starting.
You don’t need to be a genius to understand that this increases fuel consumption, not to matter dust from brakes.
Question – where are the AA and RAC, who should be sticking up for drivers’ rights?
via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
https://ift.tt/3fBpXCz
November 26, 2020 at 01:27PM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-11-26--Animal instincts could be inherited expert knowledge

In addition to studying complex human reasoning , I have been observing complex instinctive reasoning in animals for many years .
Instinctive behavior is often thought of as simple , perhaps even mindless .
I came to a very different conclusion , that an instinct is basically inherited expert knowledge .
Instinctive behavior is often very complex , involving sophisticated concepts , expert knowledge and a lot of decision making .
So I wrote up my observations and hypotheses , in the form of a four year long series of 46 short blog articles .
The blog title is Horse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many are discussed ) .
It runs around 30,000 words so there is lots of stuff .
My approach is one I call “ robotic analysis ” which means asking what a robot would have to sense , understand , know and decide in order to do what the animal does instinctively .
This does not mean the animal ’ s behavior is robotic , far from it .
Artificial intelligence robotics tries to model intelligent behavior .
For example , developing the self driving car required a lot of study on precisely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Knowing the difference between a pedestrian , which can move , and a mailbox which can not ( except under extreme circumstances ) .
Here are snapshots of a few of the many blog articles , to give you the flavor of the findings : A small herd of cows and their calves is threatened by dogs .
The cows do not all face the dogs .
Instead they form a defensive ring with each cow facing out .
The calves go to the middle of the ring .
Consider what is required @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threat as calling for a circle .
They have to know how to form that circle , which is far from simple , especially since some are facing away from the dogs .
The calves have to know to go to the center .
A baby bird hides under my riding mower as I approach , planning to mow .
When I sit on the mower it runs out and hides under my truck .
This baby knows when to hide , where to hide and how to hide .
It also knows @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are complex behaviors .
A bird building a nest flies long distances to specific places to get materials .
The bird must know what it wants at that point in construction and it must have already learned where the right stuff was .
Not knowing how to trot .
October 2013 Two legged critters like us can only walk forward one step at a time , but four legged folks can do it a variety of ways .
In horses one of these ways is the trot .
However , most Tennessee Walking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they are as physically capable as other breeds that do trot , which is most of them .
Walkers lack this instinctive knowledge .
I began this research many years ago when my wife and I , avid backpackers , camped near an active beaver pond .
The beaver pair was still building their dam .
My first career was designing earth dams for the US flood control program , so the dam interested me .
I was amazed to find that it was much more sophisticated than our dams , which are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The beaver dam was a lattice of sticks , supporting a mud and rock wall on the upstream face .
Building this complex structure is an equally complex process , including felling trees for the wood materials .
I discuss this in the December 2013 article Meet the beaver .
There is also a lot on the robotic analysis research method , as well as on the overall concept of an instinct as an unlearned body of expert knowledge .
When an expert looks at a situation that falls under their domain of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that non-experts can not do .
In many cases instinctive behavior in animals is just like that .
Animals live complex lives that we do not understand .
Both domestic animal husbandry and wildlife management depend on how well we understand the animals we are caring for or care about .
Robotic analysis is a way to understand a lot more .
David Wojick , Ph.D. is an independent analyst working at the intersection of science , technology and policy .
For origins see For over 100 prior articles for CFACT see Available @ @ @ @ @ @

Reposted from CFACT
By David Wojick |November 24th, 2020|Environment|
In addition to studying complex human reasoning, I have been observing complex instinctive reasoning in animals for many years. Instinctive behavior is often thought of as simple, perhaps even mindless. I came to a very different conclusion, that an instinct is basically inherited expert knowledge. Instinctive behavior is often very complex, involving sophisticated concepts, expert knowledge and a lot of decision making.
So I wrote up my observations and hypotheses, in the form of a four year long series of 46 short blog articles. The blog title is Horse cognition and other critters (of which many are discussed). It runs around 30,000 words so there is lots of stuff.
My approach is one I call “robotic analysis” which means asking what a robot would have to sense, understand, know and decide in order to do what the animal does instinctively.
This does not mean the animal’s behavior is robotic, far from it. Artificial intelligence robotics tries to model intelligent behavior. For example, developing the self driving car required a lot of study on precisely what we do when we drive. Knowing the difference between a pedestrian, which can move, and a mailbox which cannot (except under extreme circumstances).
Here are snapshots of a few of the many blog articles, to give you the flavor of the findings:
The amazing cow circle. June 2015
A small herd of cows and their calves is threatened by dogs. The cows do not all face the dogs. Instead they form a defensive ring with each cow facing out. The calves go to the middle of the ring. Consider what is required. The cows have to recognize the threat as calling for a circle. They have to know how to form that circle, which is far from simple, especially since some are facing away from the dogs. The calves have to know to go to the center.
Baby behavior. May 2016
A baby bird hides under my riding mower as I approach, planning to mow. When I sit on the mower it runs out and hides under my truck. This baby knows when to hide, where to hide and how to hide. It also knows when to change hiding places. These are complex behaviors.
Instinctive learning. April 2016
A bird building a nest flies long distances to specific places to get materials. The bird must know what it wants at that point in construction and it must have already learned where the right stuff was.
Not knowing how to trot. October 2013
Two legged critters like us can only walk forward one step at a time, but four legged folks can do it a variety of ways. In horses one of these ways is the trot. However, most Tennessee Walking Houses cannot trot, even though they are as physically capable as other breeds that do trot, which is most of them. Walkers lack this instinctive knowledge.
I began this research many years ago when my wife and I, avid backpackers, camped near an active beaver pond. The beaver pair was still building their dam. My first career was designing earth dams for the US flood control program, so the dam interested me.
I was amazed to find that it was much more sophisticated than our dams, which are basically carefully prepared piles of dirt. The beaver dam was a lattice of sticks, supporting a mud and rock wall on the upstream face. Building this complex structure is an equally complex process, including felling trees for the wood materials. I discuss this in the December 2013 article Meet the beaver.
There is also a lot on the robotic analysis research method, as well as on the overall concept of an instinct as an unlearned body of expert knowledge.
When an expert looks at a situation that falls under their domain of expertise, they see and think things that non-experts cannot do. In many cases instinctive behavior in animals is just like that.
Animals live complex lives that we do not understand. Both domestic animal husbandry and wildlife management depend on how well we understand the animals we are caring for or care about. Robotic analysis is a way to understand a lot more.
Author
David Wojick, Ph.D. is an independent analyst working at the intersection of science, technology and policy. For origins see
http://www.stemed.info/engineer_tackles_confusion.html
For over 100 prior articles for CFACT see
http://www.cfact.org/author/david-wojick-ph-d/
Available for confidential research and consulting.
Like this: Like Loading…
Related


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-11-26--Spending review ‘undermines UK green vision’-Harrabin

Harrabin is throwing his toys out the pram again !
The UK chancellor ’ s Spending Review has been accused of undermining the prime minister ’ s “ green ” vision by pushing ahead with a £27bn roads programme .
After several speeches in which Boris Johnson pledged to rescue the economy by “ building back greener ” , Rishi Sunak ’ s speech on Wednesday barely mentioned the climate .
He said he was pursuing the nation ’ s priorities .
But he offered no increase on the £12bn Mr Johnson says the government has mobilised to tackle climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much less than what ’ s been agreed in France , Germany and others .
Environment groups are most angry at the roads programme .
The chancellor said it would ease congestion , improve commute times and “ keep travel arteries open.
” It was essential , he said , because people are shunning public transport during the Covid-19 pandemic .
It is not the Spending Review which has “ undermined ” the green vision , it is harsh economic reality .
( Not the Harrabin seems to have a clue what that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s 10-Point Plan made it obvious that the government could not commit to the barmy extremes demanded by Harrabin and his cronies .
Although it promised £12bn , this will be effectively spread over ten years , making it tiny in relative terms , a pump priming exercise more than anything .
So let ’ s take it apart step-by-step , and see what public spending it commits to : £160m into modern ports and manufacturing infrastructure .
Despite this , even the government admits that 40 % of the content in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abroad .
The aim is to have 5GW of hydrogen production capacity by 2030 , but this will need a further £4bn investment from the private sector .
Even then , it will only provide a tiny fraction of the amount of hydrogen needed to supplant natural gas .
£385m for an Advanced Nuclear Fund and £215m investment in small nuclear reactors , to encourage development of new technologies .
Also £170m for R+D on Advanced Modular Reactors , and £40m for supply chains .
£1bn to support the electrification of UK vehicles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Gigafactories ” in the UK .
£1.3bn to accelerate the roll out of charging infrastructure .
£582m for subsidising the purchase of EVs , which at £3500 each equates to 166,000 cars – enough to support EV sales for two years at the current rate , but absolutely irrelevant in overall terms .
£15m for research into zero emission flight , and £20m for clean shipping technology While the plan talks of energy efficiency and heat pumps , the only money actually committed is £1bn to extend measures such as the Green @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out already , the annual cost of installing the promised 600,000 heat pumps a year will be over £6bn .
The cost of any meaningful insulation in homes and public buildings will be many times greater .
Clearly the government can not afford such sums , which raises the question of who will pay the bill .
£1bn for a CCS Infrastructure Fund , which will provide industry with the certainty required to deploy CCUS at pace and at scale .
It is worth noting that the CCS pilot projects at Drax and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ £1bn .
Both projects were abandoned .
It is not clear exactly what the government will get for this new £1bn , or whether CCS can even be made to work economically .
But any large scale roll out will cost considerably more to set up , and will of course be hugely expensive to operate .
It is not immediately clear how this will “ transform the UK ’ s industrial regions ” , as claimed .
It is more likely to be a millstone around its neck !
£1bn for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the green technologies for net zero .
As I said at the top , most of this is pump priming , attempting to draw in private investment and support research and innovation .
Some of it actually makes sense , such as support for the nuclear sector .
But it is really just fiddling around at the edges .
If we are going to do all of things needed for Net Zero – electrification of transport and heat , roll out of hydrogen , energy efficiency , expansion of renewable energy , upgrading @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the cost will run into hundreds of billions and maybe even more .
Sooner or later , someone will have to pick up the bill .
via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood
Harrabin is throwing his toys out the pram again!
The UK chancellor’s Spending Review has been accused of undermining the prime minister’s “green” vision by pushing ahead with a £27bn roads programme.
After several speeches in which Boris Johnson pledged to rescue the economy by “building back greener”, Rishi Sunak’s speech on Wednesday barely mentioned the climate.
He said he was pursuing the nation’s priorities.
Mr Sunak put detailed numbers on the PM’s recent green technology plan.
But he offered no increase on the £12bn Mr Johnson says the government has mobilised to tackle climate change – even though the sum is much less than what’s been agreed in France, Germany and others.
Environment groups are most angry at the roads programme. The chancellor said it would ease congestion, improve commute times and “keep travel arteries open.” It was essential, he said, because people are shunning public transport during the Covid-19 pandemic.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-55077760
It is not the Spending Review which has “undermined” the green vision, it is harsh economic reality. (Not the Harrabin seems to have a clue what that is)
In fact, the PM’s 10-Point Plan made it obvious that the government could not commit to the barmy extremes demanded by Harrabin and his cronies.
Although it promised £12bn, this will be effectively spread over ten years, making it tiny in relative terms, a pump priming exercise more than anything.
So let’s take it apart step-by-step, and see what public spending it commits to:
Offshore Wind
£160m into modern ports and manufacturing infrastructure. Despite this, even the government admits that 40% of the content in offshore wind farms will be sourced from abroad.
Hydrogen
£240m Hydrogen Fund, to encourage development of hydrogen production capacity.
The aim is to have 5GW of hydrogen production capacity by 2030, but this will need a further £4bn investment from the private sector. Even then, it will only provide a tiny fraction of the amount of hydrogen needed to supplant natural gas.
Nuclear
£385m for an Advanced Nuclear Fund and £215m investment in small nuclear reactors, to encourage development of new technologies.
Also £170m for R+D on Advanced Modular Reactors, and £40m for supply chains.
Zero Emission Vehicles
£1bn to support the electrification of UK vehicles and their supply chains, including developing “Gigafactories” in the UK.
£1.3bn to accelerate the roll out of charging infrastructure.
£582m for subsidising the purchase of EVs, which at £3500 each equates to 166,000 cars – enough to support EV sales for two years at the current rate, but absolutely irrelevant in overall terms.
£20m for HGV trials.
Public Transport & Cycling/Walking
Invest £5.0bn for public transport, cycling and walking schemes.
Aviation & Shipping
£15m for research into zero emission flight, and £20m for clean shipping technology
Greener Buildings
While the plan talks of energy efficiency and heat pumps, the only money actually committed is £1bn to extend measures such as the Green Homes Grant.
As I have pointed out already, the annual cost of installing the promised 600,000 heat pumps a year will be over £6bn. The cost of any meaningful insulation in homes and public buildings will be many times greater.
Clearly the government cannot afford such sums, which raises the question of who will pay the bill.
Carbon Storage
£1bn for a CCS Infrastructure Fund, which will provide industry with the certainty required to deploy CCUS at pace and at scale.
It is worth noting that the CCS pilot projects at Drax and Peterhead were going to be funded with £1bn. Both projects were abandoned.
It is not clear exactly what the government will get for this new £1bn, or whether CCS can even be made to work economically. But any large scale roll out will cost considerably more to set up, and will of course be hugely expensive to operate.
It is not immediately clear how this will “transform the UK’s industrial regions”, as claimed. It is more likely to be a millstone around its neck!
The Environment
£40m for the Green Recovery Challenge Fund.
Green Finance and Innovation
£1bn for the new Zero Innovation Portfolio, further developing the green technologies for net zero.
As I said at the top, most of this is pump priming, attempting to draw in private investment and support research and innovation.
Some of it actually makes sense, such as support for the nuclear sector.
But it is really just fiddling around at the edges. If we are going to do all of things needed for Net Zero – electrification of transport and heat, roll out of hydrogen, energy efficiency, expansion of renewable energy, upgrading the electricity gris and so on – the cost will run into hundreds of billions and maybe even more.
Sooner or later, someone will have to pick up the bill.
via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
https://ift.tt/3marotT
November 26, 2020 at 12:15PM


iowaclimatescienceeducation--2020-11-26--Measuring Old Corals & Coral Reefs (Part 1)

Fundamental to science is measurement .
It is a way of objectively assessing something , anything , even the state of a coral reef , even of an individual coral .
Historically coral growth rates were measured by coring the really old massive Porites .
Like tree rings in temperature forests , the massive old Porites can be cored to see the banding and from this it is possible to calculate coral calcification rates which are a measure of the growth rate of individual corals .
Peter Ridd has been asking for some quality assurance of so many of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including coral growth rates .
Key Australian institutions have responded by stonewalling , and in the case of James Cook University , actually sacking him .
After two rounds in the federal courts his appeal against his dismissal is finally going to the High Court of Australia .
While the lawyers are preoccupied with Peter ’ s rights , or otherwise , to academic freedom and freedom of speech , my concern is whether Peter is actually telling the truth when he says that the Great Barrier Reef is resilient and definitely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there is a problem with the integrity of the science .
Most media reports , based on extensive aerial surveys by his one-time colleague Terry Hughes , conclude that the reef is variously 50 % or 60 % dead from coral bleaching as a direct consequence of global warming .
These media reports do not consider coral growth rates , but rather the area of coral that Professor Hughes has measured to be bleached , with an inference being that this will all die .
Terry Hughes and Peter Ridd can ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have come to such different conclusions regarding the health of the Great Barrier Reef ?
Is the reef half dead , or not ?
My working hypothesis is that Terry Hughes ’ claims the reef is half dead , are not objective because there is a flaw with his particular survey method .
his method is detailed in the technical literature , I ’ m specifically referring to his paper in Ecology published in 2018 entitled ‘ Large-scale bleaching of corals on the Great Barrier Reef ’ .
Science is not a truth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the truth via some method or other that often involves measurement .
Sometimes scientists get the method wrong , and so they come up with answers that are also wrong .
Sometimes the wrong answer pleases because it is politically correct .
Could it be that in surveying from an aeroplane at such a high altitude ( 150 metres ) , and then ground truthing only with respect to a particular reef habitat-type known as the ‘ reef crescent ’ , Professor Hughes has inadvertently recorded a wrong answer ?
Marine scientists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reefs , knows that there are distinct ecological zones at coral reefs .
The reef crest , as the name suggests , is the highest part with corals in this habitat often exposed at low tides , sometimes rained-on , and during storms and cyclones this is the part of the reef that will be most likely smashed by big waves .
Not surprisingly this habitat/area of a coral reef may be totally devoid of live coral or the coral may be more stunted , and sparse .
At the same reef there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and back reef to the leeward side of the crest , and also corals growing down the front slope , even around the perimeter of the crest if it is a flat-topped platform .
So , in only surveying the crest , the scientist/Terry Hughes could come away with the impression the reef is dead , when it is actually teeming with life – just not at the reef crest .
Professor Hughes specifically states in his 2018 article that underwater surveys were conducted to assess the accuracy of aerial surveys using five @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the reef crest .
There is no suggestion that he distinguished between the different reef habitats .
I tested my hypothesis that Professor Hughes ’ s methodology is wanting at Pixie Reef just yesterday .
We put my drone Skido into the air and took photographs at 5 , 10 , 20 , 40 , 100 and 120 metres of altitude at the reef crest , reef lagoon and reef front slope .
Following are photographs just at 5 and 120 metres and just from the crest and lagoon at Pixie Reef .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of these type of photographs together from different reefs , they could form the basis of a note for publication about measurement and the importance of measuring different habitat types at the same reef if the idea is to understand the health of the entire reef ecosystem , not just the reef crest .
A photograph taken at 120 metres altitude of the reef crest is quite different from a photograph of the reef lagoon taken at exactly the same altitude .
At 120 metres altitude parts of the reef crest looks rather @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mostly concluded that the Great Barrier Reef is 60 % bleached from 150 metres .
The rather large white circular objects in the lagoon photograph from 120 metres up are massive Porites .
The type of coral that Peter Ridd would like AIMS to core , so we had an objective measure of coral growth rates back 100s of years .
The photograph of the reef crest from 120 metres altitude was taken by the drone ( Skido of course ) lifted vertically from 5 metres to 120 metres .
This is what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 5 metres .
There are live corals but no massive Porites or even red Gorgonians , though both exist in abundance at Pixie reef but would have been excluded from a 10 metre belt transect across the reef crest , because they only exist in a different habitat type at this same reef .
A photograph taken at 5 metres from above a section of reef lagoon shows plate corals , presenting as toadstools which seems most appropriate given this is Pixie reef .
I didn ’ t find any pixie ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plate corals on top of dead coral .
Of course , the Great Barrier Reef is but a thin veneer of living coral growing over at least five previous now extinct reef systems .
So much thanks to Stuart Ireland for taking me to Pixie Reef .
**** The image at the very top of this blog post is of me/Jen swimming over the top of a 7 metre wide Porites at Pixie Reef on 25th November 2020 .
This is the type and size of coral that Peter Ridd would like to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Australian Institute of Marine Science ( AIMS ) , as an objective measure of coral growth rates .
AIMS used to core these old corals , to get an idea of climate change back hundreds of years .
This coral could be more than 400 years old , with annual bands that can be measured at the scale of one year , year on year perhaps back 300 or 400 years to calculate an annual growth rate .
So , from the one coral we could ( if they cored it ) see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year on year , or not .

Fundamental to science is measurement. It is a way of objectively assessing something, anything, even the state of a coral reef, even of an individual coral. Historically coral growth rates were measured by coring the really old massive Porites.
Like tree rings in temperature forests, the massive old Porites can be cored to see the banding and from this it is possible to calculate coral calcification rates which are a measure of the growth rate of individual corals.
Peter Ridd has been asking for some quality assurance of so many of the measurements relating to Great Barrier Reef health, including coral growth rates. Key Australian institutions have responded by stonewalling, and in the case of James Cook University, actually sacking him. After two rounds in the federal courts his appeal against his dismissal is finally going to the High Court of Australia. While the lawyers are preoccupied with Peter’s rights, or otherwise, to academic freedom and freedom of speech, my concern is whether Peter is actually telling the truth when he says that the Great Barrier Reef is resilient and definitely not dying from coral bleaching, though there is a problem with the integrity of the science.
Most media reports, based on extensive aerial surveys by his one-time colleague Terry Hughes, conclude that the reef is variously 50% or 60% dead from coral bleaching as a direct consequence of global warming.
These media reports do not consider coral growth rates, but rather the area of coral that Professor Hughes has measured to be bleached, with an inference being that this will all die.
Terry Hughes and Peter Ridd can’t both be right. How can they have come to such different conclusions regarding the health of the Great Barrier Reef? Is the reef half dead, or not?
My working hypothesis is that Terry Hughes’ claims the reef is half dead, are not objective because there is a flaw with his particular survey method. his method is detailed in the technical literature, I’m specifically referring to his paper in Ecology published in 2018 entitled ‘Large-scale bleaching of corals on the Great Barrier Reef’.
Science is not a truth. It is a way of getting to the truth via some method or other that often involves measurement. Sometimes scientists get the method wrong, and so they come up with answers that are also wrong. Sometimes the wrong answer pleases because it is politically correct.
Could it be that in surveying from an aeroplane at such a high altitude (150 metres), and then ground truthing only with respect to a particular reef habitat-type known as the ‘reef crescent’, Professor Hughes has inadvertently recorded a wrong answer?
Marine scientists, and anyone with experience diving coral reefs, knows that there are distinct ecological zones at coral reefs. The reef crest, as the name suggests, is the highest part with corals in this habitat often exposed at low tides, sometimes rained-on, and during storms and cyclones this is the part of the reef that will be most likely smashed by big waves. Not surprisingly this habitat/area of a coral reef may be totally devoid of live coral or the coral may be more stunted, and sparse. At the same reef there may be healthy corals in the lagoon and back reef to the leeward side of the crest, and also corals growing down the front slope, even around the perimeter of the crest if it is a flat-topped platform. So, in only surveying the crest, the scientist/Terry Hughes could come away with the impression the reef is dead, when it is actually teeming with life – just not at the reef crest.
Professor Hughes specifically states in his 2018 article that underwater surveys were conducted to assess the accuracy of aerial surveys using five 10 x 1m belt transects placed on the reef crest. There is no suggestion that he distinguished between the different reef habitats.
I tested my hypothesis that Professor Hughes’s methodology is wanting at Pixie Reef just yesterday. We put my drone Skido into the air and took photographs at 5, 10, 20, 40, 100 and 120 metres of altitude at the reef crest, reef lagoon and reef front slope. Following are photographs just at 5 and 120 metres and just from the crest and lagoon at Pixie Reef. If I can get a large collection of these type of photographs together from different reefs, they could form the basis of a note for publication about measurement and the importance of measuring different habitat types at the same reef if the idea is to understand the health of the entire reef ecosystem, not just the reef crest.
A photograph taken at 120 metres altitude of the reef crest is quite different from a photograph of the reef lagoon taken at exactly the same altitude. At 120 metres altitude parts of the reef crest looks rather barren, perhaps bleached. Hughes has mostly concluded that the Great Barrier Reef is 60% bleached from 150 metres.
The rather large white circular objects in the lagoon photograph from 120 metres up are massive Porites. The type of coral that Peter Ridd would like AIMS to core, so we had an objective measure of coral growth rates back 100s of years.
The photograph of the reef crest from 120 metres altitude was taken by the drone (Skido of course) lifted vertically from 5 metres to 120 metres. This is what the same reef looked like at just 5 metres. There are live corals but no massive Porites or even red Gorgonians, though both exist in abundance at Pixie reef but would have been excluded from a 10 metre belt transect across the reef crest, because they only exist in a different habitat type at this same reef.
A photograph taken at 5 metres from above a section of reef lagoon shows plate corals, presenting as toadstools which seems most appropriate given this is Pixie reef. I didn’t find any pixie’s though, and the toadstools are actually plate corals on top of dead coral. Of course, the Great Barrier Reef is but a thin veneer of living coral growing over at least five previous now extinct reef systems.
So much thanks to Stuart Ireland for taking me to Pixie Reef.
****
The image at the very top of this blog post is of me/Jen swimming over the top of a 7 metre wide Porites at Pixie Reef on 25th November 2020. This is the type and size of coral that Peter Ridd would like to think was still being cored by the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS), as an objective measure of coral growth rates. AIMS used to core these old corals, to get an idea of climate change back hundreds of years. This coral could be more than 400 years old, with annual bands that can be measured at the scale of one year, year on year perhaps back 300 or 400 years to calculate an annual growth rate. So, from the one coral we could (if they cored it) see if growth rates have increased or decreased year on year, or not.