Category: Science

A sudden rainstorm, here at home

The power of water.

Last Saturday evening, the 5th September, 2026, we had a violent and sudden rainstorm. In twenty-four minutes 0.85” of rain fell. Luckily there was no damage.

On Thursday, The Conversation published a post about the potential dangers of hiking in canyons when storms hit,

ooOOoo

Hiking canyons can quickly turn deadly when storms hit – what you should know before going in

Mangled construction equipment is partially buried in boulders on the canyon floor.
Mud and debris, including a mangled piece of construction equipment, remain after a flash flood in Grand Canyon National Park on Aug. 31, 2026. Katherine Hensel/National Park Service via AP

Anner Paldor, University of Tennessee

Hiking a picturesque valley or climbing a craggy gorge are some of the most exhilarating experiences in nature. As a geologist, I have hiked and climbed some of the most intense terrains in the world, including in the Andes, Middle Eastern deserts, the Balkans and the Appalachians.

I am particularly drawn to canyons that provide beautiful windows into the rock record and the geologic history of a place. However, these narrow valleys can quickly become extremely dangerous when water pours in.

At Grand Canyon National Park in Arizona, at least two hikers died and a third was missing after powerful monsoon storms sent a deluge into one of the narrowest parts of the canyon on Aug. 29, 2026. Two of the survivors who were rescued described seeing the water quickly rise over the trail as they clung to a ledge, fearing they might never see their families again.

People stand on the rim of the Grand Canyon as a storm moves through.
A storm moves into the Grand Canyon. AP Photo/John Locher

So, how do you balance a love for outdoor activity with managing this risk and hike canyons safely?

Why canyons are prone to flash floods

To understand the dynamics of a flash flood, it helps to start with the geomorphologic aspect – understanding the landforms and how they change over time.

In canyons and arroyos – steep gullies common to the Southwest – flash flooding can occur even when the heavy rainfall happens great distances away. A person can be hiking under clear skies in the canyon and not be aware that heavy rain falling upstream or even outside of the canyon means a disaster is unfolding.

The steep gradients and narrow passageways that define these landscapes channel the water, sending vast amounts of it rushing downstream. Under these conditions, water can rise quickly in the narrow space of a canyon.

Timelapse images of the radar shows strong storms upstream and over Bright Angel Canyon ahead of the flood.
Time-lapse radar shows the storms moving over the regions of the Grand Canyon where the flood hit, near Phantom Ranch. Anner Paldor; Iowa Environmental Mesonet

The Grand Canyon flood involved heavy downpours in the heart of monsoon season. The intensity of the rainfall matters in a canyon. Even in arid regions, which generally get low amounts of rain annually, heavy rainfall within a short period of time can create devastating floods.

In 2018, a flash flood in Israel’s Tzafit Canyon – an environment similar to the part of the Grand Canyon where the 2026 flood occurred – claimed the lives of 10 recent high school graduates who were hiking in the canyon.

I grew up in that region and had hiked there many times, and I remember thinking about the incomprehensible suddenness: One moment you are appreciating the breathtaking views of the desert, and within minutes you are fighting a torrent of water you never imagined in such an arid place. A year’s worth of rain fell near the canyon that day.

The hydrogeologic aspect

How well the ground absorbs water also affects flood dynamics. Soils that are highly porous and permeable can transmit water easily vertically into the ground.

However, in arid regions such as Arizona and the Negev Desert, where Tzafit Canyon lies, the dry ground tends to form hardened crusts that make it harder for the water to sink in. That exacerbates surface flooding.

Two people wait on a rocky canyon floor for a helicopter in the distance.
Dozens of people were evacuated by helicopter from the canyon after the flood. Katherine Hensel/National Park Service via AP

What’s more, the lack of vegetation in dry and rocky environments means that water can flow more rapidly down slopes.

What should hikers do to stay safe?

As an avid hiker, I value the beauty of nature and geology that canyons offer, and I believe in enjoying them. However, it is important to understand the risks and to prepare before hiking, climbing or backpacking in these areas.

Carefully study your environment before going in, so you know the risks and the escape routes that will let you get to safety in the event of a flash flood.

An elevation map of the area where the flood happened shows the steepness
An elevation map of the Grand Canyon shows how narrow and steep it is, with 1,500-meter drop over an area less than 5 miles. The white dot shows the location where people were rescued from the flood on Aug. 29, 2026. Anner Paldor; Data Basin, using ESRI, Census Bureau, NOAA, National Ocean Service, National Geodetic Survey, USGS, TomTom, CC BY

Gear up properly. Prepare for your trip so you have the equipment you need. Make sure you have a flashlight with extra batteries, a whistle to signal first responders, and extra clothes in case you get wet. If you know you will be hiking in high-risk water zones, you may consider an inflatable personal flotation device.

Talk to park rangers before going in so you know the current conditions and so someone knows where you’re going.

Always be aware of the weather – not just above you but upstream. Clear skies can be deceptive. An added challenge is that cellular service is often shaky in deep canyons and remote areas. Check the weather forecast before you go down a canyon, not just for the specific location, but also for the surrounding area. The National Weather Service provides warnings of flash floods and other extreme weather events.

When you are in a canyon, a good general guideline is to try to stay as high as possible and to be alert to the sound of an incoming flood. One person described the rush of water in the Grand Canyon sounding like a freight train.

If heavy rain starts, use extra caution and seek higher ground. Be aware that the timing of floods can vary widely – scientists analyzed 74,814 flash flood events in the U.S. and found the average duration was around 3½ hours, but some persisted for more than 48 hours. A flood can start quickly and strand people for long periods of time. Muddy water or debris in a normally clear stream are two signs of flooding developing. Rising water or the distant sound of rushing water is another clear warning to get to safety fast.

There are always risks in nature, but that does not mean you should avoid being out in nature. Planning ahead and hiking with caution and awareness can help you enjoy the beautiful outdoors and come back home safely.

Anner Paldor, Professor of Hydrogeology, University of Tennessee

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

ooOOoo

There are a number of excellent tips in this article. The one that stood out for me was making sure that the park rangers know where you are going.

Life Beyond Planet Earth

Yet more stories.

It seems as though many articles are exploring life beyond Earth at the moment.

Here is an article from The Conversation.

Have a read.

ooOOoo

Many space missions are searching for life beyond Earth – but are we prepared for the fallout if they succeed?

An illustration of floating round microbes
Several space missions are searching for extraterrestrial life, which could come in the form of microbes. ClaudioVentrella/iStock via Getty Images Plus

Margaret E. Kosal, Georgia Institute of Technology; Dayana Alagirova, Georgia Institute of Technology, and Karryl Kim Sagun Trajano, Nanyang Technological University

Microbes from space have fueled the plots of science fiction mainstays like “Project Hail Mary” and “The Andromeda Strain.” But with more space missions launching each year, finding extraterrestrial life in a microbial form is becoming more plausible. What will the response be back here on Earth if – or when – scientists discover extraterrestrial microbes? Will the international policy and security communities be prepared for the fallout?

When you hear about extraterrestrial life, your mind may go to intelligent life, like the kind present in a lot of Hollywood science fiction. But even the confirmation of microbial life that originated somewhere other than on Earth – which is much more likely – would be a paradigm-shifting event. Thinking about what these consequences might look like early on can help nations and the international community prepare.

Our team is interested in this question. We’re made up of a full professor of international affairs, who earned a Ph.D. in chemistry, and whose expertise is on how emerging science and technologies could affect global conflict and cooperation, as well as an emerging scholar in space policy and security and an expert on social and political implications of frontier technologies, such as AI, space, quantum and energy sources.

Multiple Mars landers have identified large amounts of frozen and liquid water, essential for life, on the red planet. Samples retrieved by Japan’s Hayabusa2 spacecraft from a near-Earth asteroid revealed the presence of uracil, part of RNA, which is a building block of life. Uncrewed space probes like NASA’s Europa Clipper and the European Space Agency’s Jupiter Icy Moons Explorer are on their way to conduct detailed reconnaissance of the planet’s moons and to investigate whether they have conditions suitable for life. https://www.youtube.com/embed/3HN_zx4JJfM?wmode=transparent&start=0 Scientists are searching for life in space using what they know about life on Earth. But what will happen if or when they find something?

Along with data from the James Webb Space Telescope and future missions targeting Saturn’s icy moon Enceladus, the likelihood of discovering extraterrestrial microbial life has increased substantially.

A governance challenge

The discovery of microbial life would expose significant gaps in international governance related to space.

While there are some existing international agreements, including the Outer Space Treaty, that provide space law guidelines, these are ill-equipped to address the complexities posed by extraterrestrial biology.

The Outer Space Treaty, established in 1967, dictates that countries should use outer space peacefully. It also states that no single nation may claim ownership or exert sovereignty over parts of outer space or celestial bodies such as the Moon.

A semicircle-shaped room full of people sitting at tables.
The U.N. Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space is one of the few existing pathways for the governance of space. United States Mission to International Organizations in Vienna, CC BY-NC-ND

However, it doesn’t have much to say about who can own extraterrestrial organisms or what to do about biosecurity risks. It doesn’t have direction for who can use, preserve or destroy living things, such as bacteria or fungi, that may be discovered in space.

Historical analogies and future pathways

While people have yet to discover extraterrestrial life of any kind, there are some major geopolitical events that can help researchers understand what the consequences might look like.

While the space race of the 1950s and ’60s led to exploration of the Moon, it was driven by a Cold War power struggle between two nations back on Earth. Instead of coming together to explore space, both countries experienced a renewed sense of nationalism. They used the new discoveries that came from the space race to invest in their military capabilities.

On the other hand, researchers can look at how states respond to asteroid threats. Since an asteroid could pose a truly existential threat from space, preventing the worst-case scenario requires cooperation and thinking ahead.

Astronomers have built a global, collaborative network to monitor for and sound the alarm about any potential threats. This network has shown that nations can put aside terrestrial rivalries to work together if they perceive something from space as a truly existential threat.

The International Space Station is another example showing how nations that are competing great powers on Earth work together to cooperate in space. Countries have collaborated to solve issues on the International Space Station that have specific, short-term and clearly identified goals.

The International Space Station, which is a metal structure with solar panels coming off it, floating above Earth
The ISS is an example of countries cooperating in space research. NASA/Roscosmos

These examples show a range of possible reactions to the discovery of space microbes. The situation could renew space races between competing countries and lead to militarization, or it could create unprecedented cooperation.

Potential outcomes

We’ve identified three main possible outcomes to the discovery of microbial extraterrestrial life.

First, there’s a cooperative outcome, reminiscent of the asteroid threat network or the International Space Station. Here, nations collaborate to regulate research, share data, protect the planet or advance specific interests they share.

This pathway isn’t inherently benign or malignant. It could entail expanding the roles of international organizations or creating new legal instruments.

Second there’s a competitive outcome, characterized by strategic rivalry between countries. Like in the space race, nations could fight to be technologically superior. They might try to monopolize access to the extraterrestrial microbes or to leverage biological discoveries from the microbes for their own economic or military advantage.

Scientific breakthroughs derived from extraterrestrial organisms could lead to innovations in medicine, agriculture, energy and beyond. However, the organisms could also be weaponized, intentionally or otherwise, which would amplify biosecurity risks. In this sense, the discovery of microbial life could create a new form of technological competition, one that merges space exploration with biological research and development.

The increasing role of private companies, such as SpaceX, complicates this dynamic. These companies receive contracts from the government, blurring the lines between commercial civilian and strategic activities.

For example, around 60% of all satellites currently orbiting the Earth belong to SpaceX’s Starlink subsidiary. The company can – and has – chosen to block access selectively, in alignment with its political priorities. When commercial interests and national priorities diverge, who has access versus who is denied access can be uncertain.

A rocket moving upwards off a launchpad, with a streak of flame and a plume of smoke coming off it.
A SpaceX rocket launches a load of Starlink satellites into orbit around Earth. AP Photo/John Raoux

Research around biopiracy may come into play. Biopiracy is a term that applies to two primary issues: the patenting of indigenous knowledge or the patenting of natural resources, such as microbes, for profit. The Budapest Treaty prohibits claiming ownership of a naturally occurring microbe on Earth, but there’s no equivalent for microbes in space.

Third is an isolationist outcome, in which states could sever their involvement in international cooperation due to biosecurity concerns or political distrust. The potential for unknown biological risks, however minimal, could trigger precautionary restrictions on data sharing, which limits international collaboration.

Countries may lose or gain allies as they grapple with whether the microbe could cause harm to humans or the environment, or be developed into a biological weapon.

Emerging technologies will also shape these outcomes. Artificial intelligence and machine learning are already integral to scientific research. Scientists use them to process astronomical data and identify potential biosignatures. Nanotechnology and advances in the life sciences and engineering could allow researchers to study, modify or exploit extraterrestrial microbes, if they’re given access to them.

Countries will have to prepare not only for the scientific implications of discovery but also for its societal and political reverberations. The politicization of scientific discoveries from the microbes could complicate or change how countries respond domestically and at the international scale. Misinformation about the microbes could shape policy and public response.

Preparing for the unprecedented

The discovery of extraterrestrial microbial life would not merely mark a scientific milestone. It would be a geopolitical event.

Rather than attempting to predict a singular outcome, policymakers could adopt scenario-based planning approaches in the meantime to anticipate and prepare for a range of possibilities. In these approaches, participants explore multiple futures through structured activities similar to professional or military wargaming or path games, in which they explore multiple outcomes systematically to test strategies, to plan and to analyze potential outcomes under realistic uncertainty.

In our view, the question is not whether humanity will discover life beyond Earth, but whether it is prepared for the consequences when it does.

Margaret E. Kosal, Associate Professor of International Affairs, Georgia Institute of Technology; Dayana Alagirova, Ph.D. Student in the Sam Nunn School of International Affairs, Georgia Institute of Technology, and Karryl Kim Sagun Trajano, Research Fellow for Future Issues and Technology, Nanyang Technological University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

ooOOoo

It states that the discovery of extraterrestrial life would be a ‘geopolitical event’.

I should say so. I would expect the news worldwide would be focussed on this happening!

These academics mentioned above are, I presume, not the only scientists engaged in this.

It would be a fabulous discovery, and I wonder if it will happen before I die!

Cosmology

“That the universe is odd is a given. But it may soon become less odd than it was.”

This quote was in The Economist of August 29th, 2026. It was in the Science & technology section.

I did not understand it but that didn’t stop me from being fascinated by the article.

Then, coincidentally, yesterday Patrice Ayme posted another similarly-themed post. I have his permission to reproduce that post. Again I did not understand it. 😉

ooOOoo

RELATIVITY FASTER THAN LIGHT

FTL FROM REDUCING THE DOMAIN OF DEFINITION OF THE LORENTZ TRANSFORMATION

Abstract: Quantum Entanglement has been experimentally demonstrated with utmost certainty to go Faster Than Light, FTL. FTL is NOT signalling (yet!) However, the two notions are extremely close. Special Relativity is conventionally said to exclude Faster-Than-Light signaling because Lorentz transformations can reverse the temporal order of spacelike-separated events. We readjust that notion to make it Entanglement and FTL signaling compatible. 

For an explicit FTL signal with (u=2c), a perfectly ordinary Lorentz transformation indeed assigns a negative reception time in a sufficiently rapidly moving inertial frame.
But this does not demonstrate that physical time travel occurs; it demonstrates that coordinate-time ordering is frame-dependent for spacelike intervals.

The essay argues that the real assumption requiring examination is not the mathematics of the Lorentz transformation, but its unrestricted physical interpretation.
If FTL influences exist, they need not be required to possess the same relativistic transformation properties as ordinary subluminal processes (and they should not as they potentially come from completely different physics)..

The proposed solution is to introduce a preferred Cosmic Manifest Frame (CMF), identified approximately by the Cosmological Microwave Background, CMB, in which FTL propagation and causal ordering are physically defined.
Other inertial frames may assign negative coordinate times to the same FTL process, but those coordinates do not represent reversed physical causality.
Lorentz symmetry is thereby retained as an effective symmetry for domains where it has been experimentally validated, and theoretically deduced, while it is denied fundamental universality.
SQPR adopts precisely such a preferred causal structure, with nonlocal quantum influences propagating at a finite superluminal speed such as TAU (>>>>> c).
The proposal thus attempts to separate the mathematical freedom of spacetime coordinates from the physical ordering of causes and effects.

***

We consider first a concrete numerical example of a specific superluminal speed to make the conventional argument found in Special Relativity textbooks (which we think is erroneous) completely explicit.

The standard argument against Faster Than Light SIGNALING goes as follows:

“Given Special Relativity, SR, if you allow faster‑than‑light signaling, then the Lorentz transformation between inertial frames implies that some observers will see the signal arrive before it is sent. With two such FTL signals, you can construct a closed causal loop, i.e. a form of ‘time travel’ that violates causality.” 

We will show that the “closed causal loop” construction is superfluous to make this (erroneous) argument work. The traditional argument can be made more compact, no need for a loop. This irony is significant, because the existence of a sharper (erroneous) argument against FTL from SR shows that the physicists who pretend to have demonstrated that FTL is impossible from SR have not bothered to find the sharpest argument, possibly indicating that they find the subject unappetizing… Or could it be that they were afraid to be cut by the sharpness of the argument, because, as it turns out, the argument doesn’t even need a causal loop? … It’s that basic…

First let’s give a concrete example. Let the Faster than Light (FTL) signal speed be u = 2c. And let the speed of S’ relative to S be .6c. And the separation L be two light second (twice Earth-Moon). Computation shows that, BLINDLY using the Lorentz transformation, the FTL signal is received in S’ at MINUS .25 second. In other words, time travel.

We argue that this is absurd, and caused by a misuse of the Lorentz transformation by overextending its domain of definition over the spacelike subset of Poincaré spacetime. (Poincaré discovered and used Poincaré spacetime and its metric months or years before those who plagiarized him. In particular Poincaré found the full Lorentz Transformation, LT, using the most general argument; this is important because, in spite of his success using it, clearly Poincaré took Poincaré spacetime with a grain of salt; the present essay explains a plausible reason why; there is another; later, following Poincaré once again, Einstein confessed he didn’t like Poincaré spacetime… Make no mistake: Poincaré’s argument about getting LT from Poincaré spacetime was entirely mathematically correct; what was not done is the physical restriction we undertake below).

Recapitulation in the general case:

We set the frame S and S’ such that their space and time origin coincide x = x’ = t = t’ = 0. That’s event A. Event B is at (L,T) in S, such that L/T = u, superluminal: u > c.

What is the time of B in S’? T’(B) is: (T – v L/cc)γ 

If the signal is FTL, L> cTL. Then there exists some subluminal v high enough such that:

(T− vL/cc) < 0…. Thus t’(B) < 0.

In other words the FTL signal is received at a negative time in S’ … thus before it is sent. 

This is my sharper version of the erroneous argument many physicists have made against FTL.

***

GRAND RETURN OF ABSOLUTE SPACE:

Solution to the riddle of the Lorentz Transformation creating events which have not happened yet: Reject the claim that all inertial frames are equivalent  In other words, as observed in Physical Reality, I mean the cosmos out there, there is a preferred frame in the universe, the one in which the CMB is at rest. (Mach and Newton would opine that this absolute space gives us some hope of explaining inertia. Einstein developed General Relativity in the hope of explaining inertia… He completely failed in that hope, but then we got GPS from GR…)

So postulate a special frame in which FTL is defined and causality is enforced. This is the path of SQPR.

In other frames, you might get “backwards in time” coordinates, but you declare that only the preferred frame’s ordering is physically meaningful.

This does not even abandon standard Special Relativity formally, and certainly not in practice (all the usual formulas are still effective, say for GPS, but one cannot extend the domain of the Lorentz Transformation over the space-like domain). SR has no difficulty representing spacelike intervals. 

What we reject formally is the additional assumption that an FTLphysical influence must transform exactly like an ordinary subluminal signal, with every inertial observer’s time coordinate having equal causal status. 

The Lorentz transformation is mathematically valid on spacetime, but its physical interpretation as a symmetry of every possible causal process need not be valid. Clearly when Poincaré published on June 5, 1905, the Lorentz Transformation as a rotation of Poincaré spacetime, he could not have guessed the EPR argument of 1935 of the demonstration of FTL by Aspect in 1982 (the latter proving that there are causal processes which are not confined by the speed of light; this outside of the domain of the Lorentz Transformation).

***

We can send (not yet controlled) information faster than light (Bell style experiments). Yes the orientation of the device at A has a real physical effect at B, even if the interval AB is spacelike. That has been amply proven theoretically and experimentally. 

We do not reject Poincaré spacetime… After all, it’s the geometrodynamics of light in the first approximation! But it’s just a first approximation; by the way, that seems to have been the point of view of his creator Henri Poincaré, that’s why he talked about the “ether” so much… Similarly Einstein admitted that, in General Relativity, the speed of light varies… The “ether” was a placeholder concept for the sort of hyperspace in which Physical Reality is embedded and that yours truly advocates for…

There are very deep math reasons for this; the math was not yet developed at the time but Poincaré, the world’s greatest topologist then, may have guessed them..

Instead we posit a preferred frame, the CMF, Cosmic Manifest Frame, as given by the CMB, the Cosmic Microwave Background. Call CMF by the letter S (for Stationary).

  • Causality is fundamentally defined.
  • FTL influences propagate with some speed u>c. In the case of SQPR one cosmic quantum collapse/entanglement speed is hypothesized: TAU. 
  • The Lorentz transformation is an effective symmetry only for certain classes of phenomena (e.g. electromagnetism), not a fundamental symmetry of all physics…. Just like light is not all of physics, and sure has little to say about the QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT machinery it is subjected to (see Aspect Nobel Prize winning FTL experiments). 

This is exactly the loophole that avoids the “FTL ⇒ time travel” argument.

By the way, this restriction of the Lorentz Transformation proposed here will no doubt do wonders to help avoiding causal time like loops around Black Holes…

As we are into grandiose semi poetic evocations, let’s go all the way. I have an entanglement-clock argument: which questions the elevation of coordinate time to fundamental physical time. In the present essay, I similarly question the elevation of Lorentz-frame equivalence to a universal causal principle.

That gives the essay a much deeper unifying thesis: coordinate transformations need not dictate physical causality. (Ironically that idea is nothing new: it led to the creation of Special and General Relativity; what’s new is to push it beyond the old epistemological frontiers, taking FTL and Entanglement seriously…)

Patrice Ayme

ooOOoo

Just because this entire post is beyond me, it does not mean that I should not publish it. Because there will be others, one hopes, that will understand the science and the mathematics. And the idea that ‘faster than light’ does exist is incredible.

Picture Parade Five Hundred and Thirty-Eight

The Lunar eclipse of August 28th.

oooo

oooo

oooo

It is so marvellous that these days all one has to do is to find a good sharing website and download the images!

That wildfire smoke

Where it has come from can make a real difference.

Previous to this week, I hadn’t really thought of wildfire smoke other than it being a nuisance, so long as it did not get too close to home.

However, a recent article on The Conversation changed my understanding, and I bet there are many others out there that will feel the same way as I do.

ooOOoo

From flames to haze, wildfire smoke transforms as it travels, and it can harm your health in different ways

A person walks along the river holding a phone. Buildings that are normally clearly visible disappear into the haze in New York City.
Wildfire smoke from Canadian fires has turned New York City’s sky a hazy orange several times in recent years. Angela Weiss/AFP via Getty Images

Michael A. Robinson, University of Colorado Boulder

As wildfire smoke plumes travel thousands of miles, sunlight and atmospheric chemistry bleach their color, strip away their campfire aroma and add them to the mix of urban smog.

Smoky skies plagued the East Coast and Midwest again in summer 2026, as wildfires hundreds of miles away forced people to cancel sports practices and run air conditioners around the clock.

Living in the western U.S., I am no stranger to this scene. Wildfires and the thick smoke they produce have become a fixture of summer life here. I also study wildfire smoke as an atmospheric chemist, in particular how the smoke evolves as it moves downwind from the flames to the communities where people breathe it.

To understand what’s in the smoke you might be breathing, you have to look at where it’s been.

A North America map shows how wildfire smoke spreads far from its origin, and stays dense for hundreds of miles.
Wildfire smoke is often too high in the atmosphere to be noticed, but when atmospheric conditions bring it close to the ground, people are left breathing unhealthy particles. Joshua Stevens/NASA Earth Observatory

When a forest burns, the wildfire emits large amounts of fine particulate matter, or PM2.5, along with nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds, or VOCs. The compounds and particles emitted by wildfires can harm human health, including the lungs, heart and organs, and include known carcinogens.

How this potent mix of pollutants transforms over time and distance is a complex puzzle. At the NOAA Chemical Sciences Laboratory, our team tracks this behavior, from studying controlled fuel burns in the lab to flying research aircraft through wildfire smoke plumes. Understanding how wildfire smoke ages is essential for predicting its impacts on human health.

It all starts at the flame

The story of smoke begins with how the wildfire burns. High temperature wildfires behave very differently from cool, smoldering wildfires.

Hot, intense flames produce nitrogen oxides, which can harm a person’s respiratory system and contribute to the formation of secondary pollutants and reactive carbon compounds like aromatic hydrocarbons, which can increase the risk of certain cancers with long-term exposure. They also emit smaller amounts of nitrous acid, hydrogen cyanide and isocyanic acid, all of which can be toxic to humans.

Wildfire smoke rising in the distance under a blue sky, viewed from a plane.
Smoke from a wildfire lofts high into the air. As it moves, its chemical composition changes. Steven S. Brown

In contrast, lower-temperature smoldering wildfires release a different mix of compounds, but it is still enriched with toxic aromatic oxygenates and ammonia, which can irritate the respiratory system. This isn’t to say that these wildfire emissions are safer for human health, but rather that burning conditions dictate the chemical makeup of the smoke and its subsequent chemical fate.

Wildfires are rarely just one or the other; they are dynamic mixtures that shift throughout the day as air temperatures rise, humidity drops or evening thunderstorms roll in.

The inside of a small plane filled with racks of instruments and one passenger seat.
The Twin Otter research planes that National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientists use to study wildfire smoke are packed with instruments. Steven S. Brown

Once smoke leaves the flames, three main factors govern its journey: wind speed, atmospheric temperature and sunlight.

Think of a campfire. If you are sitting in the wrong spot, the prevailing wind blows smoke directly in your face. This horizontal movement is called advection. Small fires often don’t generate enough heat to loft their smoke high, meaning you can smell your neighbor’s campfire.

However, massive wildfires generate immense heat and powerful upward winds. This buoyancy acts like an elevator, lifting the smoke plume out of the planetary boundary layer and injecting it into the free troposphere, roughly 1.2 miles (2 kilometers) above the ground. Up there, high-altitude winds take over, transporting the smoke thousands of miles across the continent.

A large smoke plume rises high into the atmosphere
A large smoke plume rises high into the atmosphere. Michael A. Robinson

On occasion, wildfire plumes can generate their own weather, making smoke-laden pyrocumulonimbus clouds, which can inject large amounts of particles into the stratosphere.

How sunlight ‘ages’ the smoke

As smoke travels, it undergoes rapid physical and chemical changes.

First, the plume dilutes as cleaner background air mixes into it. Close to the fire, the smoke is dense and opaque. As it moves downwind, it spreads out and grows more diffuse.

Second, intense sunlight acts as a chemical engine. Solar ultraviolet photons break apart bonds in molecules, creating radicals, which oxidize VOCs. Nitrogen oxides play a key role in driving this chemistry.

Within just hours of being emitted, this mixture reacts to form ground-level ozone, which can irritate the lungs and is a key component of smog.

The wing of a research plane with the orange sky against the smoke plume and blue sky below behind it.
When the Sun shines through thick wildfire smoke, it turns the sky a dirty orange. Steven S. Brown

If smoke is lofted high, into cold free tropospheric air, the chemical aging process can temporarily freeze. The smoke can remain chemically fresh until the air parcel sinks closer to the surface, below about 1.25 miles (2 kilometers), where warmer temperatures can restart the chemical reactions.

When an aging smoke plume passes over a major city, it can mix with urban pollution, such as car exhaust. This interaction can rekindle chemical reactions, creating additional local ozone on top of the fine particulate matter emitted from the fire.

Why distant smoke smells and looks different

Have you ever noticed that long-distance wildfire smoke doesn’t smell like a campfire? There is a chemical reason for that.

The specific compounds responsible for the classic smoky aroma of a campfire – phenolic compounds like guaiacol and syringol – are highly reactive. Sunlight and the associated chemistry destroy them in a matter of hours. By the time the smoke has traveled across several states, the smoky smell is completely gone.

Sunlight also alters the color of the smoke through chemical bleaching of aerosols. Fresh smoke contains dark brown and black carbon particles that absorb light. Over several days of exposure to sunlight and oxidants, chemical reactions break down these dark compounds.

A lifeguard on a stand on a beach. The smoke is so thick, a sailboat is barely visible in the background.
A sailboat passing a lifeguard stand along Chicago’s Lake Michigan is obscured by Canadian wildfire smoke that blanketed the city on July 16, 2026. Scott Olson/Getty Images

The result?

Dark, light-absorbing particles turn into light-scattering particles, transforming dark, dense plumes into the milky white haze seen drifting across the eastern skies. These particles efficiently scatter the blue and green light while letting red and orange wavelengths pass through, creating the uncanny feeling of an all-day sunset.

The wildfire smoke inhaled hundreds of miles downwind is chemically distinct from the smoke that left the flames, but it remains a serious health threat and an area of active research. Consequently, smoke transport and its associated atmospheric chemistry represent a major North American air quality issue, one projected to intensify in the coming years.

Michael A. Robinson, Research Scientist in Atmospheric Chemistry, University of Colorado Boulder

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

ooOOoo

As you can see from the second image, the map of wildfire smoke, here in Oregon there has been substantial smoke, albeit because we live to the west of the Cascades, we have not been directly affected.

However, the summer of 2027 is predicted to be an even drier period than this year, and the potential for wildfires and the associated smoke is a problem that is not going away.

American academic research

How has the administration affected science funding.

Long been the envy of the world, recent events have affected big changes. In this article published by The Conversation the changes are explored.

ooOOoo

Self‑censorship, more stress, tougher recruiting – we asked US researchers how the Trump administration’s science policies have affected them

Lab coats on hooks outside a closed door to a lab
93% of surveyed researchers have negative opinions of federal science policies since January 2025. Cavan Images via Getty Images

Eric Welch, Arizona State University and Timothy P. Johnson, University of Illinois Chicago

The American academic research engine has long been the envy of the world. Generally well-funded, labs in the United States have been able to attract the best minds who generate breakthroughs and train the next generation workforce that powers the U.S. economy. But since the start of the second Trump administration in January 2025, new federal policies have destabilized the American scientific enterprise.

The disruption generated by the Trump administration’s funding, DEI and visa policies has been well reported by the media. On an individual level, though, what do academic researchers think of all these changes and how have they been directly affected?

We are researchers affiliated with Arizona State University’s scientist opinion panel survey, known as SciOPS, a 5-year research program designed to monitor, understand and improve how scientists communicate with the public. We wanted to know more about the reality inside today’s universities as researchers grapple with Trump administration policies.

Along with our colleagues, we fielded a survey of randomly sampled members of the academic science community participating in the SciOPS panel. We obtained responses from 280 scientists from several fields, including biology, chemistry, civil and environmental engineering, computer and information science engineering, geography and public health from 131 universities.

Our results show dramatic, mostly negative, effects of federal policy changes on researchers, the research system and American competitiveness.

How research in US universities has changed

Any research enterprise thrives because of its ability to fund cutting-edge science and thus attract highly motivated, well-trained people. Since the second Trump administration took office in January 2025, just over half of the scientists in our survey report that their overall funding has declined.

Declines in federal funding have had knock-on effects. Around one-quarter of scientists reported that state and local and university internal funding have also declined. Another 9% reported that internal funding has increased, presumably as universities have provided emergency funds to researchers to support critical studies.

According to the scientists who responded to our survey, Trump administration policies have also affected the scientific workforce pipeline, hampering their ability to recruit internationally and domestically.

We hypothesize that these hiring issues can be related to visa and immigration policies, which make it difficult for international graduate students and postdocs to work in the U.S. or attend international conferences. Just over half of scientists in our survey reported that international students or postdocs have expressed concerns to them about deportation.

Concerns about longer-term career impacts are also to blame for trouble recruiting the next generation of researchers. Over 80% of surveyed scientists reported that graduate students or postdocs on their research team have increased concerns about future job prospects.

These impacts have taken a toll on scientists’ professional work environment and overall outlook. Over two-thirds reported more work-related stress and almost half reported increased workloads since January 2025. About half reported decreased work motivation.

How are scientists and engineers reacting?

We found scientists’ responses to be a mixture of resilience, acquiescence and considering an exit.

While many scientists said they were less motivated at work, most reported no change in their efforts to obtain federal research funding. Small proportions did report successfully increasing their efforts to obtain funding from non-federal sources.

Our survey also asked scientists whether they had taken any self-censoring actions since January 2025 due to concern over potential negative consequences for their work or career. Over half reported having reviewed or adjusted key words in research proposals, and almost half said they’d reframed research topics. Forty-three percent had also cautioned students or collaborators to be careful what they say publicly and more than a third had abandoned plans on one or more research topics.

Although scientists are adopting strategies to cope with the new challenges, nearly two-thirds of the scientists in our sample appear to be considering one or more other career options.

Scientists look to the long term

Scientists and engineers in our sample have strong opinions about the impacts of current U.S. science policy. A large majority (87%) believe the administration’s actions have influenced research priorities more than previous administrations. Most scientists in our survey had a negative opinion of the Trump administration’s overall changes to science policy.

Scientists in our sample believed that administration policies have had a negative effect on the future scientific workforce and the ability of scientists and engineers in the U.S. to produce breakthroughs and discoveries and contribute to national welfare.

Large majorities believe these policies have harmed public perceptions of the integrity of U.S. scientists (85%) and hurt public trust in science (84%).

Academic scientists’ reactions to the Trump administration’s changes to science policy are perhaps not surprising given the perceived level of threat these actions represent to the research community. What is less certain is whether the dramatic changes we are currently witnessing – cuts to grant funding, politicization of research, downsizing of federal agencies, restrictive immigration policies, attacks on the autonomy of higher education and more – are temporary or if they represent the initial phase of a transition to a new research environment with less federal support for American science.

Eric Welch, Professor and Director, Center for Science, Technology & Environmental Policy Studies, Arizona State University and Timothy P. Johnson, Professor Emeritus of Public Administration, University of Illinois Chicago

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

ooOOoo

The last paragraph contains the essence of the argument, as in a temporary change or the first phase of an environment with less federal support for science.

Only time will tell!

Picture Parade Five Hundred and Thirty-Six

Pictures of the 2026 Solar Eclipse.

Photo by Jongsun Lee

oooo

Photo by Mark Tegethoff

oooo

Photo by Jordon Conner

Just the three, but I thought they were the best.

The Scottish Crannog Centre

Sustainable Thinking through Time and Place.

Recently I listened to a programme on BBC Radio 4 about sustainable building. Then I saw that this item had been posted as a pdf and it was available to be shared. Here it is.

ooOOoo

By using materials that compost and breakdown into compounds that ecosystems can handle, we are in essence relearning from the people of the Iron Age. Our imprint on the land around us should not adversely affect those that come after.

The Scottish Crannog Centre has always been rooted in experimental archaeology. Oakbank Crannog, which was located on Loch Tay was excavated in the 1980s. During the late 1990s, a one-to-one reconstruction of Oakbank Crannog was built, four miles downstream at the original Scottish Crannog Centre site. The preservation at Oakbank was extraordinary, with the anaerobic conditions allowing many artefacts that would normally decay to survive intact.

In 2018, the organisation became an accredited museum, a fundamental step towards the ambitious desire to become a sector leading museum. With this change came the appreciation that our responsibilities would become broader and wider; our guardianship of the collection for future generations would need to improve and the responsibility to engage with communities would become more important.

Our vision is to be a national treasure loved by all, with social justice at its heart. This acts as our North star and is our guiding light, as Figure 1 highlights. Our mission is to bring the story of the crannog dwellers to life, through the use of our collection and community engagement. Our values of compassion, curiosity and respect help us to carry out this mission. This is seen in our activism, where leadership runs right through the organisation, where the right person in the right place is able to make the decision. We also acknowledge that the abundance is on the outside, and it is only by having strong partnerships with other people, organisations, and communities that the Centre can bring the collections to life.

These changes paved the way and set the foundations for a redevelopment project. The small size of the existing site prevented expansion, and in the long term, the existing site was not sustainable. As a result, in June 2020, the Trust was successful in its application for Community Asset Transfer to buy a new site from Forestry Land Services. The site is located on the other side of the loch from the existing centre, a mile closer to the original Oakbank Crannog site. The proposals for the new centre, embedded within its social and environmental heritage, with co-curated displays and plans to create community-built crannogs, was so strong that the Trust was granted the land for the token sum of £1. This was followed by the securing of £2.3m of Scottish Government funding over two financial years for the delivery of the first phase of the development, supported by the vision of the Scottish Government that the Scottish Crannog Centre becomes a National Museum.

In June 2021, the iconic reconstruction of Oakbank Crannog was destroyed by fire. The outpouring of support from friends near and far was tremendous, and resulted in fundraising campaigns, offers of labour and raw materials, offers of professional services, and much more. Just as the people who lived in Oakbank Crannog 2500 years ago were almost surely grateful to be able to rebuild, we are thankful no one was hurt, we are thankful we have most of our belongings, and now we look forward to rebuilding a crannog once again. The fire meant that the move to the new Dalerb site had to be accelerated. The development was split into two phases and the first phase must now be fast-tracked. While the fire was devastating for all involved it gave us a unique opportunity to reassess our vision and look ahead to the future.

Our new aim is to become Scotland’s most sustainable museum, with a desire to move from sector leading to sector defining. We will do this by embracing the four areas of sustainability: economic, social, environmental, and human. These four areas have now been taken to the core of the Trust and incorporated into the four-branched model of the organisation. These branches are:

  1. A trusted Partner that organisations and individuals want to work alongside. A special Place people want to visit and support.
    2. A Place of choice to work and grow.
    3. A Place that belongs in, and cares for, its environment.

Each branch of the model does not represent a specific or single area of sustainability, even though some have a greater focus on a certain aspect. The branches entwine and combine with themselves to create a sustainable system that gives structure, whilst also allowing for flexibility. This also allows us to think both about short- and long-term sustainable goals as we move forward with our development plans. As we look to the future, sustainable thinking must become the norm. With the current climate emergency, there is a clear need for a change in the way we interact with our environment; but it also goes deeper and broader than that. It also must ensure that people are treated fairly, and they have the space to be who they are and are allowed to grow. To ensure that this is possible, financial stability must be considered but it should not be the sole driving factor in decision making.

We have already made some progress on our sustainable journey which is highlighted by:

  1. Becoming an accredited employer with the Real Living Wage Scotland initiative. Becoming a Disability Confident Employer and Leader.
  2. Implementing a digital-focused marketing system, shifting away from paper. Committing to the Young Person’s Guarantee framework.

Working with Universities through Interface, hosting 19 projects with students providing consultant work on going paperless with marketing, sustainable business models and branding.

Creation and delivery of an apprenticeship scheme, where young people can explore and gain experience of a wide range of crafts as well as learning life and career skills.

The new development will allow us to do more. Phase one of Dalerb will focus on moving the collection to its new home, expanding our capacity to deliver an exceptional visitor experience, and using the archaeological record to inform the construction of an Iron Age village, roundhouse, and crannog. With this move we have been able to consider the sustainable practices that the people from 2500 years ago would recognise themselves.

The museum’s ‘Ideas’ collection is a place that shows the skills and materials that will be needed in the construction of the Iron Age buildings. The way that the timbers that were used as uprights in Oakbank crannog show that there was a level of sophistication to their design, with the alder being placed in upside down to extend the life of the timbers. From this we can interpret that the people of Oakbank crannog had excellent woodworking skills. These skills would have been taught for each generation to be able to construct and maintain buildings of their own.

As part of our reconstruction, we will be emulating many of the same actions that the crannog dwellers of 2500 years would have practiced. The materials that we have source have come from as local as possible. The stone from Kenmore, the reed has come upriver from Errol and the timber from Drummond Hill.

We will also learn new skills and techniques while building that will use the resources to their fullest. Working with experts in thatching, dry-stone walling, and turf-roofing, we learn the skills needed to be able to repair and maintain the buildings. Alongside this our apprentices will also be developing their skills in green woodworking, allowing for that knowledge to carry on to a new generation.

We will also be engaging with communities during the construction, with 1000 fingerprints helping to create the new Centre . The Cross-Cut Co-op will be leading part of the build, a women’s woodworking co-operative. They will be working with volunteer groups from a variety of interests and backgrounds, helping to teach new skills and giving people the chance to try their hand at something new.

The nature of the materials that were used during the Iron Age do not survive well, outside of very specific conditions. This contrasts with modern day materials that take hundreds of years to degrade. By using materials that compost and breakdown into compounds that ecosystems can handle, we are in essence relearning from the people of the Iron Age. Our imprint on the land around us should not adversely affect those that come after.

Through all this work we still need to look towards the future and consider more ways that the Centre can embrace sustainable practices. With the skills that will have been developed from the build we will be able to teach more people how to thatch, stone-wall and work wood allowing these traditional skills to prosper.

We will also have the unique opportunity of producing our own resources for the site, with the creation of a coppice on Drummond Hill. This will give us a sustainable source of wood to use in the maintenance of the Iron Age structures. We will also start our own forest garden, using permaculture principles, that will allow us to supply our cafe with locally grown produce.

With all this we will also look at the more modern issues facing the museum. We will look at how to decarbonise transport links by working with partners, move towards a zero-waste site and explore the opportunities for the centre to generate its own electricity.

As a museum we are in the privileged position of inviting our visitors to see the belongings of the people who lived on the shores of Loch Tay 2500 years ago. When those visitors leave, we hope they gain an appreciation for not only the people but the skills and knowledge that they possessed. As we continue our sustainable journey, we will show everyone how sustainable ideas and practices can be incorporated into everyday life, allowing people to see sustainability in action and moving us all towards a fairer future.

ooOOoo

I appreciate that many people, especially those not born in the U.K., may find this article not of interest. Here are some pictures with more appearing on Sunday.

oooo

oooo

oooo

oooo

Nonsense on Stilts

The book by Massimo Pigliucci.

The subtitle of the book is “How to Tell Science from Bunk“

I am up to page 48 and I read something that is so obvious but had not occured to me before now. I have spoken to friends and they, too, had not realised this.

Namely, that the fact that “…. a variation on the old latitudinal hypothesis ….. explains a major causal factor explaining the rise of more successful civilizations in Euroasia, say, than in sub-Saharan Africa or on the American continent, is that Euroasia expands along an East-West axis.“

This East-West expansion provides greater opportunity for the invention of agriculture and the domestication of, say, the horse. Simply because feed crops are easier to grow owing to the smaller change in weather patterns. Unlike, the North-South expansion, where there is the problem of having to adjust to different weather towards the North or towards the South.

Here is the book from Amazon.

Version 1.0.0

It is a very interesting book.

The wildfire smoke

A useful article from The Conversation.

When I first read this article, I thought everyone will be aware, such is the awareness of wildfire smoke in so many places, and media.

Then I realised that this was wrong, and if only one or two people benefit from the advice then it should be republished. The original was on The Conversation.

ooOOoo

Yes, breathing wildfire smoke can harm your health – here’s what you can do to protect yourself

A woman rides a bike through city air tinted orange by wildfire smoke. Neither she nor a woman walking in the background is wearing a protective mask.
Heavy wildfire smoke from Canada’s forests turn skies orange in Toronto and across parts of the U.S. in July 2026. Steve Russell/Toronto Star via Getty Images

Colleen E. Reid, University of Colorado Boulder

Wildfire smoke from fires burning in Canada and northern Minnesota has been pouring across the Great Lakes and northeastern U.S. states, turning skies an eerie shade of orange. In the West, smoke has also been spreading into communities in Colorado and neighboring states as more wildfires burn in hot, dry conditions in July 2026.

University of Colorado environmental health researcher Colleen Reid explains what’s in that smoke and why breathing it is a health concern everyone should be aware of.

What is in wildfire smoke?

Wildfire smoke is a complex mixture that includes nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and particulate matter. When homes or buildings also burn, they can release an even more toxic stew of chemicals from burning electronics, furniture, plastics, paints and much more.

What you see when you see a smoke plume or when the air is hazy with wildfire smoke are the tiny particles that are too small to fall to the ground right away with gravity.

These particles, which scientists call particulate matter, are very small – we measure them in microns. When you breathe them in, they can harm your health. The smaller the particles, the deeper they can get into your lungs and body.

Map shows heavy smoke and low air quality across the Great Lakes Region and into the Northeast
EPA air quality monitors show high risks from smoke in many parts of the Great Lakes and northeastern U.S. on July 15, 2026. Reds are considered very unhealthy levels. Purples are either extremely unhealthy for light purple or hazardous for areas in maroon. AirNow Fire and Smoke Map

You may have heard the term PM2.5. It means particles that are 2.5 microns or smaller in diameter, many times smaller than the width of a human hair. High concentrations of these particles in the air during wildfire smoke episodes are what trigger air quality alerts.

Has wildfire smoke been increasing recently, and why?

Yes, wildfires have become more frequent and more intense just in the past couple of decades, and when wildfires become more frequent and intense, so does the smoke.

Scientists have found that wildfires are becoming more frequent due to a variety of factors that include increases in fire weather – hot, dry, windy conditions that fuel the spread of fires due to climate change – as well as other natural and human factors. The reasons for the increases in wildfires vary in different parts of the world.

Other studies have found that wildfire smoke makes up an increasing portion of the PM2.5 in the air in the U.S., and in many areas it is offsetting the decreases in air pollution that the U.S. has gained through regulations of industrial and vehicle emissions under the Clean Air Act.

How could wildfire smoke affect my health?

Some effects of breathing wildfire smoke include shortness of breath, coughing, itchy or watery eyes, headaches, rashes and itchiness. But smoke can cause more serious harm. Numerous epidemiological studies have shown that hospitalizations and emergency department visits for asthma and other respiratory diseases increase during wildfire smoke events.

After you breathe in the particles, they cause inflammation and oxidative stress, and they can move into the blood and spread throughout the body, affecting other organ systems.

People stand in a field as a smoke plume turns the sky orange and then dark.
The height of a smoke plume, like this one from Colorado’s Aspen Acres fire near Pueblo on July 1, 2026, affects the amount of particles and chemicals people on the ground are exposed to. But generally, if you can smell smoke, you’re breathing it in. Michael Ciaglo/Getty Images

Breathing wildfire smoke has been associated with higher risk of preterm births and other issues during pregnancy, and potentially cardiovascular problems such as heart attacks and strokes, although the evidence for these effects are more mixed.

The longer-term health effects of wildfire smoke are less clear, but it is a growing area of research.

Where can I learn more about wildfire smoke risks where I live?

The first thing to do to protect yourself from wildfire smoke is to know how bad the smoke is and how long it is going to last.

One great place to get information for where you live on current wildfire smoke is fire.airnow.gov. You can zoom in on the map to where you live and find color-coded circles reflecting data from both U.S. EPA air-quality monitors and PurpleAir sensors that people have put in their homes.

The colors show the level of PM2.5 at that location and suggest the associated health risk.

To find out how wildfire smoke is expected to change over time in North America, you can look at maps from FireSmoke Canada and the U.S. Interagency Wildland Fire Air Quality Response Program.

What can I do to protect myself and my family from wildfire smoke?

First of all, depending on the level of the air quality index where you are, there are different recommendations. When wildfire smoke reaches unhealthy levels, stay indoors as much as possible, with doors and windows shut to keep the wildfire smoke out.

If you have an air cleaner, use it, but check the filter, as filters can fill up quickly. Similarly, check the filter on your home HVAC system and replace it if needed.

If you have to go outside, consider wearing a well-fitting N95, KN95 or KF94 mask. These masks can protect you from inhaling particles in the air around you. Looser masks, such as surgical masks, mostly protect others from what you breathe out instead. They do not have a tight seal around your mouth, and when you breathe in, the air with all of the particles can find its way around the sides of the mask.

Having a tight fit of the mask to your face is important so that when you breathe, the air is going through the mask and capturing the smoke particles rather than letting them into your body where they cause harm.

If your home is leaky and you can see haze inside, consider going to a public space, such as a library or mall, with a good HVAC system. Some municipalities have designated clean air spaces where anyone can go.

Colleen E. Reid, Associate Professor of Geography, University of Colorado Boulder

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

ooOOoo

Thank you, Colleen, and thank you The Conversation. Lots of good advice.