Fascinating (and a bit creepy). Researchers in Singapore control the leg movements and flight of large ‘cyborg’ beetles. This video from Motherboard.
I notice that NIWA, New Zealand’s National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, has a poster of Māori climate and weather indicators for download on its website. You can either grab the pdf or order a full-sized paid-for poster.
The weather (day-to-day state of the atmosphere, varying from minutes to weeks) predictors include:
The climate (synthesis of weather, averaged over longer periods from months to years) predictors include:
A good companion read for the poster is this piece on Te Ara, New Zealand’s encyclopedia, about Māori customs around weather and the creation stories of where wind, clouds, rain and storms come from.
The only weather predictor I remember from childhood is: Red sky at night, shepherd’s delight; red sky in the morning, shepherd’s warning, which the UK’s Met Office interprets thus:
The saying is most reliable when weather systems predominantly come from the west as they do in the UK [and New Zealand]… A red sky appears when dust and small particles are trapped in the atmosphere by high pressure. This scatters blue light and leaving only red light to give the sky its notable appearance.
A red sky at sunset means high pressure is moving in from the west so therefore the next day will usually be dry and pleasant. “Red sky in the morning, shepherds warning” means a red sky appears due to the high pressure weather system having already moved east meaning the good weather has passed, most likely making way for a wet and windy low pressure system.
When the dew is on the grass
Rain will never come to pass.
When grass is dry at morning light,
Look for rain before the night.
Why? If dew has time to form on the ground overnight, it means the night was clear without any clouds. Clear skies allow the earth to cool, and water to condense in the form of dew (or frost at cooler times of the year). If the night is cloudy, the clouds act as a heat barrier keeping the heat in and not allowing dew to form. This saying assumes that if the night skies are clear, the day following will also be cloud-free.
NIWA has a bunch of other posters for sale that depict, among other things, projected rainfall, what the seabed looks like around New Zealand, undersea volcanoes, and the country’s energy assets.
On a related note: If you’ve ever wondered how weather balloons are used in New Zealand, check out this post by Jacqui Bridges on the Met Service blog.
Five questions to ask experts when you’re evaluating scientific research for a news story. They come from the excellent Desk Guide for Covering Science, which is published by the Science Media Centre New Zealand and free to download.
This graphic on the scientific process, and when to report on it, is also in the Desk Guide for Covering Science.
6 Strong breeze – large branches in motion; whistling heard in telegraph wires; umbrellas used with difficulty
7 Moderate gale – inconvenience felt when walking against wind
8 Fresh gale – generally impedes progress
In the early 19th century, naval officers made regular weather observations, but there was no standard scale and so they could be very subjective – one man’s “stiff breeze” might be another’s “soft breeze”. Beaufort succeeded in standardizing the scale.
The initial scale of thirteen classes (zero to twelve) … related qualitative wind conditions to effects on the sails of a frigate … from “just sufficient to give steerage” to “that which no canvas sails could withstand”.
In 1916, to accommodate the growth of steam power, the descriptions were changed to how the sea, not the sails, behaved and extended to land observations. — Wikipedia
The NZ Met Service has a colourful poster of wind measurements describing the terms it uses in our forecasts today. The poster is free to download for personal use.
Some of the terminology has changed since 1947 – “whistling heard in telegraph wires” has become “whistling in wires” and “inconvenience felt when walking against wind” has become “impedes walking” – but otherwise much remains the same.
After 69 years, one of the longest-running laboratory investigations in the world has finally captured the fall of a drop of tar pitch on camera for the first time. A similar, better-known and older experiment in Australia missed filming its latest drop in 2000 because the camera was offline at the time.
Physicists have resurrected a particle that may have existed in the first hot moments after the Big Bang, reports Nature:
Arcanely called Zc(3900), it is the first confirmed particle made of four quarks, the building blocks of much of the Universe’s matter. Until now, observed particles made of quarks have contained only three quarks (such as protons and neutrons) or two quarks (such as the pions and kaons found in cosmic rays). Although no law of physics precludes larger congregations, finding a quartet expands the ways in which quarks can be snapped together to make exotic forms of matter.
The BESIII detector in China (pictured) is “one of two experiments to detect four-quark particles”. Read more here.
The idea was simple. We would culture the bacteria of people’s belly buttons to provide folks with a visual measure of the life on them, a reminder of the mysteries everywhere. Then we noticed something more serious. It might have been a good moment at which to turn back, but collectively our crew seems to lack that capacity so we stormed ahead, deeper into the squishy unknown.
We quickly found that peoples’ belly buttons differed in terms of which species live in them. They differed more than we expected. We were intrigued and so we decided to get a little more serious about our study. We teamed up with Noah Fierer (who I have still never actually met in person) to use molecular approaches to compile more complete lists of the species living in people’s belly buttons. This is when things got weirder. We expected that in employing this more complete method of sampling that the species in different belly buttons would become more similar from one belly button to the next (as we got a more complete sample of who was present in each). They got more different.
We began to more seriously wonder what explained the differences from one person to the next. We were finding hundreds and then thousands of species, many of which appear new to science. They included strange species, such as one species found on my body that appears to prefer to break down pesticides.
Read the rest of the post here.
See the study here.
The YourWildLife blog (Exploring the microdiversity that lives on us, in us and around us) is here.
LiveScience has a picture gallery of bacteria here.
A new study now suggests that bacteria may also have helped kick off one of the key events in evolution: the leap from one-celled organisms to many-celled organisms, a development that eventually led to all animals, including humans.
Published this month in the inaugural edition of the new online journal eLife, the study by University of California, Berkeley, and Harvard Medical School scientists involves choanoflagellates (aka “choanos”), the closest living relatives of animals. These microscopic, one-celled organisms sport a long tail or flagellum, tentacles for grabbing food and are members of the ocean’s plankton community. As our closest living relative, choanos offer critical insights into the biology of their last common ancestor with animals, a unicellular or colonial organism that lived and died over 650 million years ago.
“I would be surprised if bacteria did not influence animal origins, since most animals rely on signals from bacteria for some part of their biology,” King said. “The interaction between bacteria and choanos that we discovered is interesting for evolutionary reasons, for understanding how bacteria interact with other organisms in the oceans, and potentially for discovering mechanisms by which our commensal bacteria are signaling to us.”
Read the rest here.
THE PROBLEM WITH environmentalists, Lynn Margulis used to say, is that they think conservation has something to do with biological reality. A researcher who specialized in cells and microorganisms, Margulis was one of the most important biologists in the last half century—she literally helped to reorder the tree of life, convincing her colleagues that it did not consist of two kingdoms (plants and animals), but five or even six (plants, animals, fungi, protists, and two types of bacteria).
Until Margulis’s death last year, she lived in my town, and I would bump into her on the street from time to time. She knew I was interested in ecology, and she liked to needle me. Hey, Charles, she would call out, are you still all worked up about protecting endangered species?
Margulis was no apologist for unthinking destruction. Still, she couldn’t help regarding conservationists’ preoccupation with the fate of birds, mammals, and plants as evidence of their ignorance about the greatest source of evolutionary creativity: the microworld of bacteria, fungi, and protists. More than 90 percent of the living matter on earth consists of microorganisms and viruses, she liked to point out. Heck, the number of bacterial cells in our body is ten times more than the number of human cells!
Bacteria and protists can do things undreamed of by clumsy mammals like us: form giant supercolonies, reproduce either asexually or by swapping genes with others, routinely incorporate DNA from entirely unrelated species, merge into symbiotic beings—the list is as endless as it is amazing. Microorganisms have changed the face of the earth, crumbling stone and even giving rise to the oxygen we breathe. Compared to this power and diversity, Margulis liked to tell me, pandas and polar bears were biological epiphenomena—interesting and fun, perhaps, but not actuallysignificant.
Does that apply to human beings, too? I once asked her, feeling like someone whining to Copernicus about why he couldn’t move the earth a little closer to the center of the universe. Aren’t we specialat all?
This was just chitchat on the street, so I didn’t write anything down. But as I recall it, she answered that Homo sapiens actually might be interesting—for a mammal, anyway. For one thing, she said, we’re unusually successful.
Seeing my face brighten, she added: Of course, the fate of every successful species is to wipe itself out.
Read the rest here.