Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2017 June 2

= June 2 =

Can drones "shell" a target ?
describes just that ("...drones also shelled a number of ISIS targets..."). Is it a typo ? If a drone can shell a target, is this a ground robot, or are flying drones firing artillery shells ? StuRat (talk) 00:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * This is apparently a direct quote from the federal police, although as no source conveniently links or provides the verbatim original press release, I have no idea if this is a translation or what. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * That article refers to "missile shelling", so I am guessing that they misuse the term "shelled" to mean "fired a missile at". StuRat (talk) 02:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * This is more English usage than anything. I mean, a "bomb" is a closed container that explosive can rip apart, so people started specifying a "bombshell" to mean really, really, just the container, and then that came to mean a bomb, by which I mean an explosive.  ;)  The way I see it, so long as the drone released some object with a hard outer shell around it, personally I'll give them a pass.  But you should take it to Wiktionary or the language section or something if you want a reliable answer. ;) Wnt (talk) 12:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Anecdotally, when you are on the receiving end of bombardment, it is very hard to understand (let alone to correctly describe) what weapon payload is being deployed against you. A lot of news reports use the term "shelling" to describe any form of bombardment, whether it is artillery or air-delivery or even, sometimes, small-arms fire.
 * Here's one of the best academic treatments of the problem: a morphogenesis of the Beirut Green Line: Theoretical Approaches between Architecture and Geography.
 * War overrules civic laws, and its result is an iconisation of the urban tissue. War makes forms erode. Buildings loose their edges through erosion. Lasting gunfire gives rounded edges, soft, flesh-like shapes, but it very rarely produces structural collapses. Just like erosion due to acid rain, only faster. Forms withdraw and become pregnancies. Shells do not penetrate a wall, they barely touch it. The touch detonates the explosive inside the shell. The explosion creates an opening in the wall, and imprints a regular pattern radiating from the centre of the detonation, like an ornament, around the opening. After years of urban warfare the omnipresence of shell impacts take on mythical dimensions, and in the Balkan war they were named 'Roses of Sarajevo'. The seeds of the roses came with the wind, and the weapons, from Beirut.
 * Tragically, even when academic study helps us to understand shelling, it does not seem to help us prevent it from falling upon another capital city.
 * Nimur (talk) 17:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Terminology: "Payload" in plasmid
A plasmid will usually have certain components that make it possible to work with like an origin of replication and an antibiotic resistance gene. What do you call the stuff you put into the plasmid that you actually *really* care about? Is there a better term than "payload"? I would like a term that also covers things that are not being expressed from the plasmid (like "expression cassette") but includes things like DNA to be Sanger sequenced and homology donors used in genetic engineering. Thanks <3 --129.215.47.59 (talk) 10:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * "Insert" is a pretty generic term for this, and ill-defined enough to allow flexibility. Wnt (talk) 12:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think payload is a good term. What have you against it? Dmcq (talk) 12:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * My supervisor doesn't like it. --129.215.47.59 (talk) 18:23, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps you should ask your supervisor what word they would prefer. CodeTalker (talk) 19:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You may think payload is a good term, but it's not used in the field in this context. Therefore it's not a good term, as it will be confusing to readers. Agreed insert is the common term. Fgf10 (talk) 22:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree at a low level talking about the process 'insert' is the appropriate term. And definitely if you have a supervisor and are talking technically :) Dmcq (talk) 10:52, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Larsen Ice shelf
If the Larsen ice shelf breaks off, like they're saying could happen soon, could it create a tsunami?144.35.114.222 (talk) 14:42, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No. It is already floating.  The only effect of breakage would be to allow the ice to move, potentially creating an enormous iceberg. Looie496 (talk) 15:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, according to our article, "If all the ice that the Larsen C shelf currently holds back were to enter the sea, it is estimated that global waters would rise by 10 cm (3.9 in)". --Shantavira|feed me 15:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't make it very clear what it means by "holds back". I'll fix it.  Currently, if you go to the cited BBC News story it's clearer: "As it floats on the sea, the resulting iceberg from the shelf will not raise sea levels. But if the shelf breaks up even more, it could result in glaciers that flow off the land behind it to speed up their passage towards the ocean. This non-floating ice would have an impact on sea levels." So the reference is to a possible, gradual sea-level rise of 10 cm after the ice shelf breaks up. --69.159.63.238 (talk) 00:18, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


 * If the thing is going to float off and melt anyway, why let it go to waste? Break it into the largest towable piece and tow it to southern California or North Africa. See The Guardian for a modern discussion of iceberg towing. You would need powerful ships for months, nets to keep it together, strong tow ropes, and a place to harvest the melting ice at the destination. Difficult, but the benefits might exceed the costs. We live in an era when some discuss mining asteroids, and this seems more straighforward. Maybe tow it to an intermediate location where the icemelt could be collected in tankers and transported to a parched nation. Edison (talk) 22:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Is it indeed forbidden to clean a rabies wound with alcohol?
I've listen to a lecture of a Russian doctor who said that it is forbidden to clean a rabies wound with alcholol ("spirt") as a first treatment, he added that it is possible to disinfect the wound with the alcohol just after a well cleaning with water and soap, he explained that the alcohol not only not help to remove the virus but it is helps it to enter... Well, my question firstly is it is correct or acceptable in the medical world or just a personal opinion or caprice of this doctor (as sometimes it happens...). I started to hesitate his things especially after I saw WHO instructions (p. 4) for treatment: "Wounds should be washed and flushed immediately with soap and water for 10–15 minutes. If soap is not  available,  flush  with  water  alone.  This  is the most effective first-aid treatment against rabies. Wounds should be cleaned thoroughly with 70% alcohol/ethanol or povidone-iodine, if available". But it is not certain because if you look at the order you'll see that first of all it's water and soap and later alcohol, but it's not necessary that the order is matter. It is a matter of interpretation of course. 93.126.88.30 (talk) 17:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * We are not allowed to give medical advice here, and this question is explicitly asking for a medical advice. Sorry. Dr Dima (talk) 17:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it is not asking for medical advice. "I've just been bitten by a rabid dog; what should I do?" would be a request for medical advice. --Trovatore (talk) 20:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not a medical advice for me or for someone else. it is a matter of scientific criticism (or "peer review"). If it is a medical advice then we should delete the article of rabbies which has an entire section just about the treatment (see here). Now, is it possible just to say things and not ask about them? or what is the difference between this section and my question here while both talking generally? 93.126.88.30 (talk) 18:02, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If you can improve the article then please do so. Medical articles are covered by special guidelines and rrquire a higher level of care than other articles. We can't do peer review, just follow the sources according to their weight. What the WHO says has weight in this context. I can't see your problem, you seem to be construing the WHO advice as being some sort of cryptic code where one can apply logical computation to try and derive something silly rather than something straightforward to be done. What is your problem with 'immediate' and 'this is the most effective'? Dmcq (talk) 19:23, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Answer coming up here :)  . Count Iblis (talk) 20:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

You (or somebody with your exact IP address) asked this question here just a couple months ago: Reference desk/Archives/Science/2017 March 24. Did that not sufficiently answer your question?--William Thweatt TalkContribs 20:42, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * And as with the last one, "forbidden" has to be a bad translation. You can't "forbid" someone from doing something of that nature. But you can strongly recommend against it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:39, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note that of the sources I provided there, the Canadian OHS specificallys says to wash first. As for the WHO (and NHS, the Rabies Alliance page doesn't seem to be working and archive.org is also having problems), while they may not specifically say to wash first, it's difficult to do something immediately if you do something else first which you weren't ask to do before hand. In other words, you need a very weird definition of immediately for the claim to be made it's a "matter of intepretation". P.S. To ward off possible future dispute, obviously this only really applies to treatment of the wound. Clearly neither the WHO or NHS are telling you if you are bitten by a dog which appears to still be uncontrolled and a potential risk, you should go to the nearby hose and ignore the possible risk of being bitten again by the same dog.  P.P.S. There is the open question of what you should do in cases where you do happen to have disinfectant on hand for whatever reason but water is not readily available and may take many minutes, it seems unlikely the 30 seconds - 1 minute it takes to disinfect the wound is doing to make a significant difference in terms of time to the washing part 20 minutes later. IMO based on general current medical advice for cleaning wounds as mentioned in the previous discussions, it's probably still not advised. However since the sources mostly do specifically mention cleaning with a disinfectant after thorough washing, I'm not certain whether this is just outdated advice, or there's a specific reason it's recommended for animal bites where rabies may be a concern. It still seems unlikely though because even ignoring possible irritation, there would seem to be a risk of rubbing the virus into the open wound unless you're just pouring or soaking in the disinfectant would would seem to raise greater irritation risks.  Nil Einne (talk) 05:25, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. The issue -as mentioned in the previous time that I asked the question- is that his claim is that alcohol causes 2 things which support the enter of rabies: 1. Alcohol is a vasodilatator and it opens the vessels for the rabies entering. 2. Alcohol is a suppressor for the immune-system, and it may interrupt as well to the rabies to fight against it. What would WHO answer about that? 93.126.88.30 (talk) 11:45, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you try Google with questions like 'Is alcohol a vasodilator' and 'does alcohol suppress the immune system' and then check if the sources look reliable? There is no reason to require any answer be from WHO, I would have thought they would have just asked for best advice and circulated it to be checked by experts rather than particularly wanting reasons. Dmcq (talk) 21:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Cooking Climate Consensus Data: “97% of Scientists Affirm AGW" Debunked
I'm seeing this article, https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/15624-cooking-climate-consensus-data-97-of-scientists-affirm-agw-debunked, referenced on the Internet as if it were gospel. Is there any truth to it? I assume not, but I'm not an expert on global warming. Can anyone help me with a valid counter argument? Pealarther (talk) 18:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Your valid counter-argument should begin with: which publications constitute reliable sources on the topic of anthropogenic global warming?
 * For example, I consider several independent organizations to be reliable sources: the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change); the American Geophysical Union; the National Weather Service and its parent organization the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; and so on. These different groups represent widely different perspectives, and they each publish detailed technical reports and abbreviated short policy statements.
 * Absent from this list of reliable sources: internet bloggers, activists of any ilk, and, subsumed by those priors, the publication of The New American. Such sources are not, in my estimation, reliable sources on the very complicated scientific topic of climate.  That last one does not, in my mind, constitute a reliable primary source.  I won't waste my time to read what they say, irrespective of their policy position.  They are not a community of scientists and geophysicists; they are not a policy think-tank; at best, they are a second-tier source, and even to concede that much is to be generous to their publication.  So again - I won't waste my time reading what they say... because I can spend an equal quantity of minutes reading writings by authoritative, qualified groups of scientists.  When you woke up this morning, did you read the news from a source that actually matters?  What's stopping you?
 * If we can agree on who the authoritative and well-qualified sources of information are - then we can agree on their interpretations of facts and hypotheses. Until then, this grand debate about consensus is ultimately outside of the realm of scientific discussion.
 * Nimur (talk) 18:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * IPCC WG1 is outstanding. The rest is less so as it is not particularly geard for science.  The SPM's are the worst.  The WG1 paper is a 1000 pages with very clear demarcations of what is known and confidence of that knowledge.  The flip side is there are disciplines not directly called climatology that do research.  They steer clear of "climate" in their research because it's toxic.  The solar scientists and stratospheric chemistry scientist publish regularly with climate impact.  The AGU is certainly grappling with factions that haven't aired their undercurrents.  --DHeyward (talk) 04:17, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * But, even when there is disagreement or outright dissent among the contributors to such publications, the arguments are held to a high standard of decorum, not to mention high standards for admission of evidence and methodology. This is why, when I choose to inform myself about climate, I prefer such sources: not because they are always right, and certainly not because they always agree with my preferences and preconceptions - but because they are high-quality sources of information.  These publications are not debased with drivel, false claims, and polemicism.  Nimur (talk) 14:50, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * From Climate.gov:
 * "Are humans causing or contributing to global warming? Yes, human activities have increased the abundance of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere, which a large majority of climate scientists agree is the main reason for the 1.5°F (0.85°C) rise in average global temperature since 1880."
 * "How strong is the scientific evidence that Earth is warming and that humans are the main cause? There is overwhelming scientific evidence that Earth is warming and a preponderance of scientific evidence that human activities are the main cause."
 * These are the official positions of the United States Government, attributable to the scientists they employ. With respect to these facts, consensus is irrelevant: scientific evidence is not a democratic process.  The part that is democratic, in the United States, is that we must garner consensus among our lawmakers and government executives, whose roles are to make and execute policy.  We can only hope that their consensus is informed by fact - until the next election cycle, at which point "hope" will have nothing to do with it.
 * Nimur (talk) 19:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, very good work as usual. One problem OP and others may encounter: some people, climate change deniers in particular, will swear the IPCC is part of the United Nations conspiracy to enslave freedom-loving Americans, and as such is in no way a reliable source. We may know that argument is rubbish, and the IPCC is made up of world experts who would leap at the chance to disprove any spurious claims made by their peers. However, it can be very difficult to engage in a polite and civil discussion with such a person, who has basically left the path of reason. I say this only as fair warning to OP, who has now been provided with suitable counterargument, useless though it may be. See also Post-truth_politics. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:25, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Validity is POV (Point of view) and so it is completely pointless to argue with/about that towards Persons who are not willing to try out multiple Points of view and that is very likely the case especially when a tiny minority claims that a huge majority got it "all wrong".
 * So in such a case the much stronger argument would be to ask in general, which group is more likely right, assuming we are all equally smart enough (WP:AGF) to see true. --Kharon (talk) 00:28, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, the problem is that I'm dealing with climate change deniers. I have had some success debunking an article that misrepresented a study.  But overall I don't expect to really convert many of them.  In any case, since the source I was using was NASA, the counter-argument I came up with was to ask them if they also believe that NASA faked the moon landings or aliens crash landed in Roswell. No reply so far.  Pealarther (talk) 16:27, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Among the numerous, diverse world-views held by various people, we could consider post-modernist philosophers who reject structural logic and the scientific method at large. I enjoy reading, for example, the fictions of Jorge Luis Borges and the literature of Pablo Neruda.  Their labyrinthine worldview constructs, or deconstructs, fundamental tenets of scientific thought - such bases as internal consistency and logical consequence mean nothing in the context of their great literary works.
 * But this is the Science Desk. Definitionally, this is a gathering of a group of Wikipedia contributors who all accept and uphold the scientific method - we are all, at the core, fundamentally strict empiricists who value observation, hypothesis, experiment, and repeatability. We value this method as the most efficient way to understand our world.
 * When we encounter other people who understand our world differently, it is helpful to understand where the disagreement lies. Do they disagree on our observations?  On our hypotheses?  Or, do they disagree that our method is even valid?  If that latter part is true, then no amount of factual demonstration will ever convince them.
 * In ancient times, formal schooling spent almost half of the total time on the topic of rhetoric. This is the art of convincing other people.  In more recent times, schools spend a much smaller time - perhaps zero, in most American schools, on the study of rhetorical theory.  The students - even if they have exceptionally solid understanding of scientifc fact, and scientific method - are often ill-equipped to understand how to construct or refute an argument.  To our discredit, scientists are especially prone to the false belief that truthful facts are sufficient to win an argument.  Truth is neither necessary nor sufficient!  Sometimes - and these cases are norms, not exceptions! - arguments are won by force, or by threat, or by emotion, or by bribery, and so on.  If scientists fail to recognize these realities, they will be forever disadvantaged by their radical adherence to truth, fact, and method; and factually-wrong people will continue to win arguments.
 * Most of the time, wrong people win. E pur si muove.
 * Nimur (talk) 15:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

This is the type of crap I'm talking about.https://www.facebook.com/mises.institute/photos/a.123255378934.100895.36496893934/10154920466978935/?type=3&theater Pealarther (talk) 18:33, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The problem is that "human activities have increased the abundance of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere, which a large majority of climate scientists agree is the main reason for the 1.5°F (0.85°C) rise in average global temperature since 1880." is a much weaker statement than it appears. Read carefully, if humans caused 0.5 deg c of that rise, then you's agree with that statement (0.5 being just over half of 0.85). Yet 0.5 degrees in response to half a logarithmic doubling of CO2 (280->400ppm) gives a climate sensitivity of 1.0 deg C/doubling, way below what the chicken littles need to grab headlines and research funds. Greglocock (talk) 01:09, 4 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Way below some made-up high threshold of degree change for anyone, especially scientists, to be worried or called chicken littles? Really? That is hardly an objective or enlightened way of looking at this problem with your obviously untenable hyperbole. As a counterexample to your dubious claim (that it takes more than one degree to grab headlines), we have had major headline grabbers such as One Degree of Warming Having Major Impact, Study Finds. published in Nature nine years ago and  ongoing.  Perhaps "it's just a flesh wound." --Modocc (talk) 13:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You seem to be confusing temperature change and climate sensitivity. is this deliberate? If the change due to AGW so far is 0.5 degrees C,and the sensitivity is 1 deg C/doubling, then to get another 1 deg c we'd have to burn 4 times as much fossil fuel as we already have since 1880 (making no allowance for negative feedback etc). That's not impossible, given the forecast for China's coal consumption, but it's not a given either. Greglocock (talk) 23:54, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You, in turn, have mistaken equilibrium climate sensitivity for transient climate response in your earlier comment. Our article Climate sensitivity gives a reasonably good explanation of the distinction. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:41, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * We are talking about a hundred years not thousands of years. No mistake. Greglocock (talk) 05:21, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, understood. When you used the words "climate sensitivity" you didn't actually mean climate sensitivity. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:57, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Read the papers themselves. Some have ridiculous standards. Here's the Cook paper. Note that a research that says "While the extent of human-induced globalwarming is inconclusive. . ." was considered as "no position" or "uncertain" (category 4b in the paper). Now that is not how the 97% is presented to lay people nor would statin it here in Wikipedia be considered a "no position" statement. That's the problem with these studies. According to Cook, et al, "While the extent of human-induced globalwarming is inconclusive. . ." is not a rejection of Climate Science. That's a statement most skeptics would love to have characterized as eing in the mainstream. --DHeyward (talk) 04:06, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

If it's any help, this article in The Conversation explains where the 97% figure comes from. Turns out there's been at least 7 studies that estimate the proportion of climate scientists, or the proportion of papers they publish, that accept anthropogenic global warming. Four of those studies separately estimated the proportion to be 97%. The others came up with 91%, 93% and 100%. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 04:25, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

If beans were stuffed up one's nose, then will there be brain injury or choking?
If beans were literally stuffed up one's nose, then will that result in brain injury or choking or both? 140.254.70.33 (talk) 19:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * This overview is a good place to start. There are many others, too.  Just search the literature for "foreign body in nasal passages" or "nasal foreign body". --Dr Dima (talk) 19:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for providing the formal term. 140.254.70.33 (talk) 19:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Or ... you could try it and see what happens. 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:0:0:0:2 (talk) 21:20, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Manually, probably not, unless you really tried. With a device akin to a nail gun, probably yes. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:37, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Asteroids and dwarf planets graphics and animations
Is there a websites that shows the graphics or animations of asteroids such as the three types of asteroids, the distributions of asteroids like Apollo, the trojans and the orbits and info of dwarf planets? Donmust90 (talk) 23:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 23:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Maybe check out https://eyes.nasa.gov/ and download the nice app they offer there. Its very good. --Kharon (talk) 00:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Distributions of asteroids into three types
Is it possible that the asteroids of Apollo, Aten, and Amor can be divided into or fall into the three types of asteroids: S-Type, M-Type, and C-Type? Donmust90 (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2017 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


 * No. Both 1866 Sisyphus (Apollo) and 433 Eros (Amor) are S-type, for example. HenryFlower 07:43, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


 * There are a lot more asteroid spectral types and asteroid families in the solar system too if you want to go down into details. At the coarsest they could be split into "metal" and "not metal". Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:02, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Just like meteorites. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)