[y66]

From An Ant With the Right Coat for 158-Degree Weather


A Sahara silver ant. Credit Norman Nan Shi and Nanfang Yu

Quote

Silver ants of the Sahara leave their underground nests for only 10 to 20 minutes a day, and they do it when the heat is peaking. The surface temperature can reach 158 degrees Fahrenheit.

The ant, just three-eighths of an inch long, survives because of a unique coat of hair that covers its body and cools it, researchers report in the journal Science.

The hairs, laid out in triangular cross sections, are highly reflective under visible and near-infrared light. The researchers also discovered that in the mid-infrared portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, the hairs dissipate heat through thermal radiation.

The hairs are critical to the ants’ survival, said Nanfang Yu, a physicist at Columbia University and one of the study’s authors.

“That hottest moment of the day is when they can find the largest quantity of dead insects,” Dr. Yu said. “Just a bit later, and those insects may be blown away by the wind or buried by the sand.”

In the extreme heat, the ants also can avoid predatory lizards.

The hair on the ants may inspire the development of paints and other materials that can be applied to cars or rooftops, Dr. Yu said.

The heat reflective paint and other materials idea sounds promising.

Perhaps the guys at Propecia will also figure out how to reverse-engineer silver ant hair.

[kenberg]

y66, on 2015-June-19, 05:09, said:

From An Ant With the Right Coat for 158-Degree Weather


A Sahara silver ant. Credit Norman Nan Shi and Nanfang Yu


The heat reflective paint and other materials idea sounds promising.

Perhaps the guys at Propecia will also figure out how to reverse-engineer silver ant hair.

Some good recipes for fried insects could also be of use.

[Winstonm]

If you listen to some people around here, the only problem these insects have is a lack of access to oil.

[hrothgar]

y66, on 2015-June-14, 07:32, said:

From Pope Francis to Explore Climate’s Effect on World’s Poor:


Just when you thought the Vatican was on it's last legs. I love this guy. He is a million times more interesting than anyone on Game of Thrones.

Here's the rub...

The Catholic Church has adopted an enormous number of positions that I consider absolutely wrong.
There is (essentially) no way that I would every change any of these positions based on the Pope's moral authority.

I find it hard to get worked up by an example where the Pope is pontificating about an area where I think he's right.
Yes, its fun to watch Santorum and Bush squirm. However, does anyone really expect them to change their position on anything?

[kenberg]

I changed my mind (about posting)

[billw55]

hrothgar, on 2015-June-19, 07:59, said:

However, does anyone really expect them to change their position on anything?

Once in a while. Rarely and slowly. Your point mostly stands.

kenberg, on 2015-June-19, 08:08, said:

I changed my mind (about posting)

Aha, Ken is faster than the Vatican.

[kenberg]

billw55, on 2015-June-19, 08:59, said:

Aha, Ken is faster than the Vatican.

I came to the unusual conclusion that since I know nothing about the Pope and nothing about global warming maybe I should shut up. But this is subject to change.

[y66]

hrothgar, on 2015-June-19, 07:59, said:

Here's the rub...

The Catholic Church has adopted an enormous number of positions that I consider absolutely wrong.
There is (essentially) no way that I would every change any of these positions based on the Pope's moral authority.

I find it hard to get worked up by an example where the Pope is pontificating about an area where I think he's right.
Yes, its fun to watch Santorum and Bush squirm. However, does anyone really expect them to change their position on anything?

One of my favorite lines from Beowulf is: "Behavior that's admired is the path to power among people everywhere". For me, this is where Pope Francis' moral authority comes from, not from his pontificacy. I think of him as a shrewd, charismatic leader, who happens to be a Jesuit pope with a chemistry degree and who has more followers than Facebook has active users. He can get a lot of people to pay attention to this for a week or two, maybe longer. If that results in a few hundred million conversations that would not have happened otherwise and shifts a few tens of millions of attitudes a degree or two away from complacency and denial, then yes, that could even change some behaviors. We shall see. Viva il papa!

[Zelandakh]

kenberg, on 2015-June-19, 14:31, said:

I came to the unusual conclusion that since I know nothing about the Pope and nothing about global warming maybe I should shut up. But this is subject to change.

It is better to remain silent and have people think you a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt. In truth I typically find your posts interesting even on subjects where you are not knowledgeable, so I daresay you would have had some good points on this topic too.

[PassedOut]

Opinion from the Guardian: Global warming is totally a lie liberals tell to distract us from their commie agendas

Quote

The planet doesn’t need saving. After all, it’s been around for almost 2,000 years. It was fine before you got here, and it’ll be fine after the apocalypse destroys most of humankind for the sins of homosexuality and shellfish consumption. God hates Shrimp Scampi, but He doesn’t seem to have a problem with littering. (Leviticus 10:10)

I wish people would stop incessantly asking, “Don’t we care what kind of planet we’re going to leave our children?” First of all, I’m pretty sure any child psychologist would agree that leaving a whole planet to a kid is an appalling idea.

[kenberg]

Zelandakh, on 2015-June-20, 04:59, said:

It is better to remain silent and have people think you a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt. In truth I typically find your posts interesting even on subjects where you are not knowledgeable, so I daresay you would have had some good points on this topic too.

Thanks for the encouragement. Part of my reluctance is the complexity of the issues. I don't want to discuss religion with the Pope. We wouldn't agree, leave it at that. Concern for the planet, and concern for the peoples of the world, is another matter.

It's my view that those who express concern for humanity out of religious conviction and those who do so simply from a belief that, approximately quoting the Pope, doing good is worth the effort, are not so different. In some fundamental way it is much more a matter of choice than it is of logic. In The Brothers K, Dostoyevsky explains that without God, everything is possible, rape and murder. True enough, but concern for others is also possible without God, and clearly rape and murder have been, and are, possible with God. So it comes down to choice.

We need to be as clear as we can, starting with ourselves. Consider the plight of the refugees. As I understand it there are some sixty million people classified as refuggees, or as asylum seekers, or as stateless, or some other variation. Basically they are not just homeless, they are on the run. I don't regard myself as evil or as unusually selfish, but I am not sure I am up for taking responsibility, even shared responsibility, for these sixty million people. We are not even doing all that well with the poor here in the US, who at least are not refugees or stateless. Regarding the environment, I drive a Honda Accord. It's not a gas guzzler, but it is not a Prius and I could use my bicycle more. (Actually the roads around here are not at all bike friendly so it mostly sits in the garage.)


I am up for saying that we should try to do good. But then I am comfortable Not rich, but comfortable. Doing a modest amount of good is not that much of a stretch. I have no plans to devote the last years of my life to living in such a modest manner as to earn the approval of the Pope.

Let's try to do good. I am for that. But we also all watch out for ourselves. Let's acknowledge that. Few of us expect (or deserve) beatification.

[Daniel1960]

kenberg, on 2015-June-20, 07:38, said:

Thanks for the encouragement. Part of my reluctance is the complexity of the issues. I don't want to discuss religion with the Pope. We wouldn't agree, leave it at that. Concern for the planet, and concern for the peoples of the world, is another matter.

It's my view that those who express concern for humanity out of religious conviction and those who do so simply from a belief that, approximately quoting the Pope, doing good is worth the effort, are not so different. In some fundamental way it is much more a matter of choice than it is of logic. In The Brothers K, Dostoyevsky explains that without God, everything is possible, rape and murder. True enough, but concern for others is also possible without God, and clearly rape and murder have been, and are, possible with God. So it comes down to choice.

We need to be as clear as we can, starting with ourselves. Consider the plight of the refugees. As I understand it there are some sixty million people classified as refuggees, or as asylum seekers, or as stateless, or some other variation. Basically they are not just homeless, they are on the run. I don't regard myself as evil or as unusually selfish, but I am not sure I am up for taking responsibility, even shared responsibility, for these sixty million people. We are not even doing all that well with the poor here in the US, who at least are not refugees or stateless. Regarding the environment, I drive a Honda Accord. It's not a gas guzzler, but it is not a Prius and I could use my bicycle more. (Actually the roads around here are not at all bike friendly so it mostly sits in the garage.)


I am up for saying that we should try to do good. But then I am comfortable Not rich, but comfortable. Doing a modest amount of good is not that much of a stretch. I have no plans to devote the last years of my life to living in such a modest manner as to earn the approval of the Pope.

Let's try to do good. I am for that. But we also all watch out for ourselves. Let's acknowledge that. Few of us expect (or deserve) beatification.

Yes, religious conviction is not a requirement for benevolence. However, any additional reason for performing acts of mercy or generosity, should be encouraged. I applaud you desire to do good, regardless of the underlying reasoning (I assume there is no self-serving involved). One person cannot save sixty million, maybe not even six. However if your efforts touch one person only, it will be worth the effort. It will probably affect much more, either directly or indirectly (as an example to others).

Most of the refugees are seeking political asylum. Our efforts are unlikely to help return them to their homeland or repatriate them elsewhere. We can help comfort and console them in the meantime. Whether you drive your Honda or peddle your bike, is unlikely to change the plight of the poor or refugees. Individually, I feel that we are inclined to help. Collectively, as governments, I am not so sure.

[kenberg]

Daniel1960, on 2015-June-21, 16:39, said:

Individually, I feel that we are inclined to help. Collectively, as governments, I am not so sure.

In many ways, I think that this is the rub. I think of myself as a sort of liberal, but actually I am not fond of labels. If Steve helps Joe, he probably has a fair assessment of what's what. Much less so when we do, or don't, decide as a nation to help a large number of refugees. I favor doing it, but I think it can be tricky to have it actually work out well.

Well, this is the global warming thread, but really it is at least somewhat related. The world has an ever expanding population. In theory we can, for the moment at least, accommodate this. But that's in theory. We seem to have a penchant for killing each other.

[Daniel1960]

PassedOut, on 2015-June-20, 07:36, said:

Opinion from the Guardian: Global warming is totally a lie liberals tell to distract us from their commie agendas

What we need to do is seperate the scientific warming from the political warming. There are those that will use every change in the weather to show that global warming is (not) happening. Neither the left nor the right seem to know much about the science behind the weather of the climate.

[Al_U_Card]

CATASTROPHIC global warming is the rub, of course, and our role in its appearance (if ever...). The WG parts of the IPCC ARs demonstrate that despite a certain agendized selectivity, their goal is hard to achieve but that doesn't stop them from exaggerating in the SPMs to "make it so".

eg

[WellSpyder]

Al, would you like to interpret some of your acronyms for those of us who don't follow the debate in quite as much detail as you do? What about those used to distinguish the different type of measures in the chart, for instance?

[Zelandakh]

WellSpyder, on 2015-June-23, 10:50, said:

Al, would you like to interpret some of your acronyms for those of us who don't follow the debate in quite as much detail as you do? What about those used to distinguish the different type of measures in the chart, for instance?

In the diagram, TCR is transient climate response and ECS is equilibrium climate sensitivity. From the post, WG is working group, IPCC is Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ARs are assessment reports and SPMs are summaries for policy makers.

[Al_U_Card]

Sorry for the shorthand. The upshot is that as science progresses, it refines and (re)defines the understanding of how things function. In the case of the effect of [CO2] (and GHG....errr greenhouse gases in general) on global temperatures, the more we find out, the smaller the danger from increasing emissions. This means less efficiency from all the carbon "price" schemes as well as putting the lie to all those scary scenarios "projected" by the climate models. The same models that have no skill on reproducing current global conditions, let alone a century from now.

[PassedOut]

Bloomberg Business has a neat graphic: What's Really Warming the World

[MrAce]

PassedOut, on 2015-June-25, 10:50, said:

Bloomberg Business has a neat graphic: What's Really Warming the World

Yeah, that explains very well. But most energy companies prefer the AI_U graphics for obvious reasons.