PBS space time, as user friendly as it is, constantly misrepresents the nature of reality for the convenience of explanation, just as a grain of salt. Not saying it’s a bad channel, just saying it’s supposed to be entry level.
Definitely. There’s always whole swathes of nuance and you have to do that. Even so I still find some of it hard to follow.
Similar to viascience. Great introductory material that gets harder and harder the deeper you go.
Which, to me, just speaks of the incredible depth of knowledge we have and astounds me that we figured out as much as we have as it gets less and less intuitive.
Climate change is moving water around, not creating or destroying it. Warmer air holds more water, so overall, the atmosphere can hold (and at times drop) more water than before. Permanent ice is melting as well, so that puts a bit more fresh water into the air and ocean. The water in the atmosphere is constantly circling the globe, forced largely by the rotation of the earth. Warmer temperature also makes for more evapotranspiration, so more fresh surface water is pulled into the air. But that same water will eventually fall elsewhere.
The sun is the source of energy that drives wind, rain, and evaporation. When you trap more of that energy with GHGs, it just turns up the volume for all of those things. There’s always seasonal and geographic variability, but the extremes increase because all those phenomena are solar powered.
Cool, that’s more of what I meant when I said “where is it going?” I didn’t think it was disappearing; I more meant, “Where is it being stored or released?” Makes sense why there would be more of it when precipitation does show up, given that hotter air can store more.
I’m still curious, though, if certain local patterns are moving off to other locations. I’ll have to look into that aspect, now that I kind of have an idea what to look for.
There’s been talk of some crops being able to be grown further north or south. But most of the weather patterns of a region are a function of proximity to ocean, predominant winds, and topography. It’s important not to confuse weather and climate. For a given drought or flood people may want to point to climate change as a cause, but it’s only going to amplify patterns that already existed.
What you are doing is exporting your key. Your public key is indeed something you can (and should) share as it enables others to verify that you are indeed who you claim to be (or more accurately, that you’re in control of the private key that’s linked to that public key). So while you should share your public key, your private key must remain private.
What these people on the dark web are doing is one step further: they sign their messages with their private key. This creates a cryptographic signature that’s different for each message (changing a single character in the message will generate a wildly different signature). Anyone with the public key can simply copy that message including the signature and validate it. If even a single character of the message was changed, the signature will not be valid. Thus ensuring others that the person who posted the message is indeed in control of the private key.
Signing is different from encrypting: while encryption renders your message totally unreadable to anyone without the correct key, signing doesn’t change the message itself. It simply appends a signature allowing others to check that the message wasn’t tampered with.
There are other reasons besides it being apocalyptic that climate scientists might consider the model less useful than others. This video rebuttal to the video you posted explains some of those reasons quite well. The rebuttal is from Dr. Adam Levy who is a climate scientist. I mention this only because Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder, the maker of your video, actually has a degree in physics, not climate science. One should be very cautious when considering opinions of people who are speaking outside their field of expertise. While she may be an expert in her own field, she is not a climate scientist.
“Full darkness” isn’t even a real thing in nature. It’s hard to tell with light pollution, but even in the absolute middle of nowhere with no artificial lights, you’re going to be able to see fairly well. Even with no moon, starlight isn’t just an expression. And on a full moon it can be surprisingly “bright” if you’re just out there for a while.
It’s not like climbing into a cupboard, shutting the door, and sealing all the cracks with duct tape.
You may be used to needi g full darkness to sleep, but that’s a learned habit. I guarantee if there was nothing you could do, it wouldn’t take you long to adapt your “requirement” of total darkness.
but even in the absolute middle of nowhere with no artificial lights, you’re going to be able to see fairly well.
I’m not sure I’d say fairly well. Maybe always well enough to not walk directly into a tree in otherwise open terrain. A full moon will be comfortable to walk around in, but new moons happen just as often, and sometimes the moon is below the horizon.
Source: Have walked around in the country at night.
I mean, my night vision was always better than most…
But growing up as kids we’d be sprinting thru the woods playing tag at like 10pm summer nights, not a single electric light in sight
You’re not going to recognize someone 100 yards away, but you’re not walking around with your hands in front of your face to make sure you don’t run into anything.
If you’re under an open sky, or even a primitive shelter, you’re not in complete darkness.
Hmm. Are we talking a high canopy, and fairly level ground? I feel like I’d definitely break an ankle if I tried sprinting otherwise.
I never had too much trouble, but sometimes things hiding in tall grass would surprise me, and in heavily treed patches I’d occasionally hit a low branch I didn’t notice.
I also have to account for the fact that there was some light pollution, and I could always see skyglow from towns in the distance. I doubt land ever gets close, prehistoric or not, but in the darkest conditions that happen at sea apparently you can’t see your own hands.
I feel like I’d definitely break an ankle if I tried sprinting otherwise
Yeah, we played paintball even, but stopped because one guy ran straight off like a 6 foot mini cliff. A couple of us were chasing him and he just disappeared. Was freaky as shit like that scene from LotRs.
I also have to account for the fact that there was some light pollution
Yeah, I’m talking really hillbilly stuff, zero light pollution.
but in the darkest conditions that happen at sea apparently you can’t see your own hands.
A ship gives off a lot of light pollution, but even without that, between the water reflecting and nothing blocking light, it’s brighter out there unless there’s heavy clouds cover. And even then it’s gotta be a lot of clouds and rough waves or else the light would still be refracting some.
Now a watertight compartment on a ship with the light switch on the outside?
Yeah, that’s complete darkness. It’s not just “can’t see your hand in front of your face”. It’s the absolute and complete absence of light. That’s total darkness.
Yeah, we played paintball even, but stopped because one guy ran straight off like a 6 foot mini cliff. A couple of us were chasing him and he just disappeared. Was freaky as shit like that scene from LotRs.
Lol, yup, that sounds right. I did that once, although it was only like 3 or 4 feet, and I didn’t like it one bit. Is was a sinkhole or something too, because it was cliff all around, and I had to find a spot to climb out. I didn’t visit that area again.
I forget where I heard about the sailing thing now. That would be a 1 on the Bortle dark sky scale, though.
i found i did indeed need to have hands out because i can’t see much at all in deep country at night on a new moon. maybe i just don’t have great night vision.
That’s why there’s “blue light filters” on electronics these days. That wavelength isnt included with moonlight/starlight… maybe on a big full moon there’s be some.
And why people prefer soft yellowish lights when relaxing and not the bright ass LEDs.
Full darkness is most certainly a thing and is more of a thing then light…light is artificial. Remove the sun…what do you get, full darkness. Light is added, darkness isn’t.
Same with heat…everything is cold unless heat is added.
Cold and full dark are forever, heat and light are techcially temporary.
“Full darkness” isn’t even a real thing in nature.
And
It’s not like climbing into a cupboard, shutting the door, and sealing all the cracks with duct tape.
So I thought it was pretty clear I meant that to get “full darkness” where you really can’t see, requires extra steps to intentionally make it happen. Just that for the vast majority of human evolution, we weren’t really capable of it, and would have no reason to even try.
The experience of people working the night shift, who use blackout curtains to sleep during the day, would disagree.
But that’s for a relatively highly regimented sleep cycle. If you slept and worked completely at your leisure, you might end up with one shorter sleep period at night, and one even shorter nap during the day. And without any day-night cycle at all, some people naturally adopt cycles of varying lengths.
The experience of people working the night shift, who use blackout curtains to sleep during the day, would disagree.
Wow, I didn’t know my own experience disagreed with me…
Or that during my childhood when my dad was swing shift, he was apparently a freak of nature too…
But that’s for a relatively highly regimented sleep cycle. If you slept and worked completely at your leisure, you might end up with one shorter sleep period at night, and one even shorter nap during the day. And without any day-night cycle at all, some people naturally adopt cycles of varying lengths.
Again, human variation is a big thing.
But an individual will change their sleep schedule as they age, which is another supporting point for what I’m saying.
Evolutionary biologists hypothesis that it was so out of an entire tribe of early hominds, at least some members were likely to be awake. It wasn’t an inate guard duty rotation. But kids and middle age went to bed early, teens went to bed super late, and by then the elderly were waking up.
If something happened, someone screamed and everyone woke up. And the fires stayed lit all night.
This is untrue - we have explicitly evolved to sleep in the dark. Sleeping in the light is a learned behavior that’s more or less an exploitation of a loophole in the circadian clock
The intensity and the wavelength of light influence entrainment.[2] Dim light can affect entrainment relative to darkness.[15] Brighter light is more effective than dim light.[12] In humans, a lower intensity short wavelength (blue/violet) light appears to be equally effective as a higher intensity of white light.[11]
Yes, but your wikipedia link doesn’t prove that animals are only sensitive to blue light, only that they are more sensitive to blue light. That is a very well-documented phenomenon. But there is plenty of evidence that red light can entrain circadian rhythms as well, dating well back to the 80’s. There has even been a study that identified different mechanisms of entrainment to low-wavelength and high-wavelength light in bacteria, which you can find below. My point is that it is very scientifically irresponsible, and in fact, blatantly wrong, to claim that humans are sensitive only to particular wavelengths of light, when in fact humans and other animals are sensitive to all wavelengths of visible light.
Beyond that, I don’t necessarily know why you seem to be claiming that the intensity of the ambient light does not matter for photic entrainment, when this is a highly documented and, in fact, highly studied phenomenon in the circadian field. Yes, the moon reflects light, but this is dim enough that mammalian SCN’s can interpret the difference between that and the full daylight. See below for some papers that look into light intensity and their effects on entrainment.
You can never, ever get a net gain from self cannibalism of any kind. Digesting takes energy, and you’re also having to heal/replace whatever it is you’re eating.
Besides, the amount of blood that will come from a pulled tooth isn’t enough to do anything useful. You wouldn’t even gain minutes from it if the source was external.
AFAIK it ends up on the ground, and in the ground water. Which means that it could contaminate drinking water if it’s not treated properly. It will enter rivers and lakes, and snow and everywhere else that water gets.
Yup. Raindrops originate from water vapor collecting around a particle in the air. When the rain falls, it pulls those air pollutants to the ground, where they either enter the ground or run down to rivers, lakes, or the ocean.
The rain that is falling today doesn’t end up in drinking water for a good while, depending on where you are. In the meantime it gets filtered by the soil it flows through.
On top of that not everything that’s unhealthy to breathe is unhealthy to eat/drink. Think about coal dust for example, very bad for your lungs but also a common medicine against diarrhea when compressed into a pill.
Just to give some perspective and lift you up a bit ;)
The Higgs boson isn’t an atom like plutonium, it’s “further down”. I think of it in levels:
atoms, which are made up of
electrons “orbiting” the nucleus, the nucleus being made up of protons and neutrons. In turn, protons and neutrons are made up of
quarks
Quarks are a kind of elementary particle called fermions, which are at the same level as bosons (and electrons). Down here it’s all weird and quantum but in an oversimplified nutshell, it’s not so much that they physically exist as that in the maths* we can treat them as existing which makes it easier to think about.
of the physics models we use
I’m a computer scientist, not a real scientist, so I stand ready to be corrected by those more knowledgable.
edit: @SzethFriendOfNimi is more knowledgable and helped me fix this up a bit.
The fermions are particles with mass, an electron is already a fundamental fermion and not made up of quarks like protons and neutrons. The fundamental bosons (as far as I know) are particles that “handle” the interactions between other particles for instance gluons enable the strong force, while W and Z Bosons enable the weak force.
I believe the fundamental Higgs boson does occur in nature but likely immediately decays. (if I’m wrong I’d love to know how it actually enables certain interactions in nature)
Also I’m not studying quantum physics so I wouldn’t be surprised if someone needs to correct me. :)
Edit: clarified when fundamental fermions/bosons were meant.
Yup, should’ve clarified that I meant fundamental bosons, as any particle with integer spin is considered bosonic, while particles with half integer spin are fermionic, fundamental bosons alone still can’t make up matter though and protons/neutrons are fermionic.
One more is that some people in the Himalayas (Nepalese, Tibetans, etc.) have some pretty recent adaptations for living at extremely high altitudes where there’s less oxygen. This Wikipedia article has more examples of recent adaptations: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_human_evolution
Another interesting factoid is that Africa has more genetic diversity than the rest of the world. So, don’t sleep on the fact that that Homo sapiens spent more time radiating throughout Africa than radiating out of Africa.
Their fur is very dense, otter fur has more hairs per square inch than any other mammal, a million per square inch, like a hundred times what humans have. The oils excreted into their fur creates a hydrophobic layer that keeps the water on the outside. It’s in nowhere near shark skin (which exhibits incredibe hydrodynamics, like we’re studying it in labs to better improve aerodynamics of cars and planes, a single bite of food is enough to get a great white shark from California to Japan their skin is so efficient at moving through water), but it’s very good at keeping the water out and their movement efficient, their hair does not cause Resistance like human hair does. Our hair hangs out and gets water in it and creates drag, otter hair seals itself around the meat and creates a cylinder, keeping happy warm dry otter inside.
I got the treat of touching/petting a wild otter while it was sedated, it’s on of my top 10 experiences. It was not a happy camper when it woke up. It had to be in an ice bath while sedated otherwise it’s hair/fur coat would’ve caused it to overheat while being knocked out because it is incapable of homeostatic regulation while sedated. When it woke up it was a wild otter in an ice bath, lil (haha, huge actually) dude was pissed.
Huh, thanks for the detailed reply! I suspected some of them must have something extra going on to help their time in the water, but wouldn’t have thought this!
Were you able to feel how dry the otter was through the sealed fur, or was it sealed enough that you couldn’t really tell?
I’ve never felt one under water, nor did I try to go skin deep when I had my opportunity, but I would guess they’re pretty dry under there, I couldn’t say for sure though.
It probably wouldn’t make any difference in the appearance of the belly button, because eventually it work dry up and fall off, just like if you were to clamp and cut it. There are definite benefits to delaying the clamping of the cord. There is a lot of blood in the cord and placenta that is lost that could be auto transfused to the baby if the cord is left intact.
The main problem with leaving the cord and placenta intact is that there is a risk for infection or blood loss. Also it would look really gross in the baby pictures.
Your body IS being constantly pressurized by the atmosphere, and your various sphincters are used to that. Presuming the suit doesn’t pressurize your body beyond what it’s used to (at which point breathing would be difficult), there should be no unexpected anal excretions due to the suit.
But the pressure from the atmosphere applies to both sides of the sphincter, resulting in zero net pressure. Unless the suit actually does press against the outside of the sphincter like it does the rest of the body, I think OP’s concern about the suit squeezing you like a tube of toothpaste is valid.
Maybe the suit only applies a few PSI instead of the full 14.7, which it seems like one’s sphincters would be able to withstand.
I think it’s like a third of an atmosphere or something. Enough to comfortably achieve the same partial pressure of oxygen as normal Earth air, by providing it pure.
askscience
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.