Technology, Science and the Environment.

[Jon the Hat]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Not quickly enough. And unlike the other ones in this survey, those aren't a matter of individual choice only affecting the individual (mostly, anyway).

Indeed, we come back to the fact that unless China and India move quickly it will never be fast enough.

[leicsmac]

Just now, Jon the Hat said:

Indeed, we come back to the fact that unless China and India move quickly it will never be fast enough.

The Chinese, in terms of scale, are doing bigger things than anyone else. Far bigger.

The Indians do need to catch up.

 

But in any case, as I've said before, I'm not interested in the the responsibility of individual nations on this one, it's a nationalistic distraction that is used far too often and I will reject it every time it is used. This is a global problem, with global consequences, and global responsibility.

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-65120327

 

Well, it's all good news right now, isn't it?

[grobyfox1990]

20 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-65120327

 

Well, it's all good news right now, isn't it?

Old news tho isn’t it. Similar to my post above, we know all of this, countless ‘studies’ on repeat rehashing the same message. Great for the people getting paid to regurgitate the same message over and over again.

 

I wonder if the producers of these circuitous studies have a responsibility, or atleast a KPI, to affect public policy/decision making. Otherwise it’s all quite pointless and a waste of money 

[The Bear]

58 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Old news tho isn’t it. Similar to my post above, we know all of this, countless ‘studies’ on repeat rehashing the same message. Great for the people getting paid to regurgitate the same message over and over again.

 

I wonder if the producers of these circuitous studies have a responsibility, or atleast a KPI, to affect public policy/decision making. Otherwise it’s all quite pointless and a waste of money 

No this particular study is new news with regards the specific ocean currents. It's obviously part of a wider repeating message on climate control and the effects it will have. 

 

It's incredibly important for the scientific community to keep doing these studies and releasing the findings into the media, as public opinion and pressure is the only thing lawmakers and governments might listen to these days. 

[grobyfox1990]

18 minutes ago, The Bear said:

No this particular study is new news with regards the specific ocean currents. It's obviously part of a wider repeating message on climate control and the effects it will have. 

 

It's incredibly important for the scientific community to keep doing these studies and releasing the findings into the media, as public opinion and pressure is the only thing lawmakers and governments might listen to these days. 

Fair point on it specifically being new news. On the importance point I am really not sure about that at all. If it takes 'the community' decades to change opinion, it's not important at all. It is a complete waste of time and money. We do not have decades. They need KPIs or target metrics to check they are changing policy and affecting material policy change via their studies, which they might have already, not sure.

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Old news tho isn’t it. Similar to my post above, we know all of this, countless ‘studies’ on repeat rehashing the same message. Great for the people getting paid to regurgitate the same message over and over again.

 

I wonder if the producers of these circuitous studies have a responsibility, or atleast a KPI, to affect public policy/decision making. Otherwise it’s all quite pointless and a waste of money 

Quite apart from what The Bear said above regarding new information, I would also say:

 

The people involved know both the problem and the solution. They also know that the power to implement those solutions sadly does not lie with them, so all they can do is contnue to inform and recommend.

 

Believe me, there are times when I wished they had much more power.

 

NB. Of course, should things go to hell in a handbasket, they have their own part to play in terms of responsibility too, and I include myself in that also.

[grobyfox1990]

8 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Quite apart from what The Bear said above regarding new information, I would also say:

 

The people involved know both the problem and the solution. They also know that the power to implement those solutions sadly does not lie with them, so all they can do is contnue to inform and recommend.

 

Believe me, there are times when I wished they had much more power.

 

NB. Of course, should things go to hell in a handbasket, they have their own part to play in terms of responsibility too, and I include myself in that also.

So exactly what I am alluding at, 'the community' knows the problem and the solution, but when it comes to actually doing something the excuses flow - 'nah mate don't have the power mate nothing we can do mate' - so there is no point in the continuous studies. Learn how to convince those in power, do something, anything.

 

Everyone has KPIs in their jobs, no one should be able to go around producing vanity projects and taking the moral high ground for decades whilst affecting no material action.

 

In terms of your NB point I have no idea what your job is, but 'the community' has a hell of a responsibility if the world goes to hell, not just a part! If as you say, they know the problem and the solution. The obvious comeback will be 'well why the hell didn't you do anything material about it you absolute berk!!!!!'

[leicsmac]

38 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

So exactly what I am alluding at, 'the community' knows the problem and the solution, but when it comes to actually doing something the excuses flow - 'nah mate don't have the power mate nothing we can do mate' - so there is no point in the continuous studies. Learn how to convince those in power, do something, anything.

 

Everyone has KPIs in their jobs, no one should be able to go around producing vanity projects and taking the moral high ground for decades whilst affecting no material action.

 

In terms of your NB point I have no idea what your job is, but 'the community' has a hell of a responsibility if the world goes to hell, not just a part! If as you say, they know the problem and the solution. The obvious comeback will be 'well why the hell didn't you do anything material about it you absolute berk!!!!!'

What exactly would you like them to do, seize a nuclear launch centre, get the codes and hold the world to ransom unless they get their shit together? I mean, it would make for a superb story, but...

 

Honestly, I really think that you underestimate the power disparity that exists within society. Now, more "direct" approaches would be the way to get around that, but when that happens the same people will just write it off as people being violent for no good cause and disrupting society for no good cause too.

 

Show me, anyone involved, a legit and proven way for anyone involved to twist the levers of power in order to get things done as they need to be. And when you do, congratulations, you'll have saved the world and proven yourself smarter than pretty much the entirety of the climate science and SciComm corps.

[grobyfox1990]

12 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

What exactly would you like them to do, seize a nuclear launch centre, get the codes and hold the world to ransom unless they get their shit together? I mean, it would make for a superb story, but...

 

Honestly, I really think that you underestimate the power disparity that exists within society. Now, more "direct" approaches would be the way to get around that, but when that happens the same people will just write it off as people being violent for no good cause and disrupting society for no good cause too.

 

Show me, anyone involved, a legit and proven way for anyone involved to twist the levers of power in order to get things done as they need to be. And when you do, congratulations, you'll have saved the world and proven yourself smarter than pretty much the entirety of the climate science and SciComm corps.

I am sure you didn't mean it that way but a very flippant response which serves to shift responsibility onto others.  Too many people with the 'not my problem mate' attitude is what got us into this mess.

 

I know the power disparity that exists in the sustainability area, can't speak for others, but is is totally penetrable. The action my team has taken is: feed into the Skidmore review, Dasgupta review, green energy/finance review. Continuously and systemically lobby EU, UK Govt to eventually gain a seat on EFRAG and the TPT. Given evidence at cross-party select committees by doing countless hours of Gov work to prove our credentials. Joined an SEC working group to shape upcoming policy release. Observer on UK nature-based solutions working group. Become accredited Govt 'climate ambassadors.' Off the top of my head, all voluntary and unpaid work and 'not our job' but, you know.... the things we have to do to do our jobs, meet our KPIs and affect actual change.

 

Of course we could produce vanity project studies and get ourselves in the media alongside told-you-so doomsday projections, but apart from serving our own egos, what's the point? We are at the coalface of initiating and changing actual legislation, worldwide. If you think the only way to do that is by throwing green paint around, you have had more than 'a part' to play in the demise of the world.

Edited 30 March 2023 by grobyfox1990
pressed send too quick

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, grobyfox1990 said:

I am sure you didn't mean it that way but a very flippant response which serves to shift responsibility onto others.  Too many people with the 'not my problem mate' attitude is what got us into this mess.

 

I know the power disparity that exists in the sustainability area, can't speak for others, but is is totally penetrable. The action my team has taken is: feed into the Skidmore review, Dasgupta review, green energy/finance review. Continuously and systemically lobby EU, UK Govt to eventually gain a seat on EFRAG and the TPT. Given evidence at cross-party select committees by doing countless hours of Gov work to prove our credentials. Joined an SEC working group to shape upcoming policy release. Observer on UK nature-based solutions working group. Become accredited Govt 'climate ambassadors.' Off the top of my head, all voluntary and unpaid work and 'not our job' but, you know.... the things we have to do to do our jobs, meet our KPIs and affect actual change.

 

Of course we could produce vanity project studies and get ourselves in the media alongside told-you-so doomsday projections, but apart from serving our own egos, what's the point?

I was being rather facetious because the whole situation does frustrate me a bit and you have it wrong here; I'm acutely aware it *is* my problem when it comes to such communication if things should fail and it is something I, and a great deal of other people communicating science, despair of a solution that will work in the time needed because they simply cannot generate one.

 

The ideas you suggest are things that I'm sure a lot of people have already thought of and are doing...but is there any guarantee at all that they will add up to success in the time required?

 

As an addendum, being part of the solution is critical, but then so is highlighting the various problems as they come up, so I wouldn't be so quick to write off the work of those who do that.

[grobyfox1990]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

I was being rather facetious because the whole situation does frustrate me a bit and you have it wrong here; I'm acutely aware it *is* my problem when it comes to such communication if things should fail and it is something I, and a great deal of other people communicating science, despair of a solution that will work in the time needed because they simply cannot generate one.

 

The ideas you suggest are things that I'm sure a lot of people have already thought of and are doing...but is there any guarantee at all that they will add up to success in the time required?

 

As an addendum, being part of the solution is critical, but then so is highlighting the various problems as they come up, so I wouldn't be so quick to write off the work of those who do that.

Yeh sorry I have no idea who you are, so not a personal attack, certainly one on the 'community' who hog headlines and limelight whilst actively dodging the responsibility part.

 

You say - but is there any guarantee at all that they will add up to success in the time required? Again, it is pure responsibility dodging, 'might not work so let's not bother mate' is a terrible attitude.

 

Huge amounts of people in industry put in vast amounts of time to make meaningful change, and are getting there. Egotistical doomsdayers who pop up in the media with recycled predictions and then run off when it's time to do the grind of engaging and taking action is where my ire is. I'd love to be proven wrong with some examples.

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Yeh sorry I have no idea who you are, so not a personal attack, certainly one on the 'community' who hog headlines and limelight whilst actively dodging the responsibility part.

 

You say - but is there any guarantee at all that they will add up to success in the time required? Again, it is pure responsibility dodging, 'might not work so let's not bother mate' is a terrible attitude.

 

Huge amounts of people in industry put in vast amounts of time to make meaningful change, and are getting there. Egotistical doomsdayers who pop up in the media with recycled predictions and then run off when it's time to do the grind of engaging and taking action is where my ire is. I'd love to be proven wrong with some examples.

I'm sorry, but it is a legit question to ask and I wouldn't mind an answer.

 

I certainly agree that there needs to be work on solutions as well as problems, but it would be nice if rather than critique there were more concrete solutions suggested.

 

[grobyfox1990]

35 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I'm sorry, but it is a legit question to ask and I wouldn't mind an answer.

 

I certainly agree that there needs to be work on solutions as well as problems, but it would be nice if rather than critique there were more concrete solutions suggested.

 

Didn't realise it was a direct question sorry, my answer would be: we have complex and very sophisticated risk modelling and scenario analysis available that can predict chances of success. Pretty much all (decent) decision-making is done on this basis now. If any cohort is either not doing this analysis, or coming up with solutions that continuously fail the analysis, they need to leave their jobs.

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Didn't realise it was a direct question sorry, my answer would be: we have complex and very sophisticated risk modelling and scenario analysis available that can predict chances of success. Pretty much all (decent) decision-making is done on this basis now. If any cohort is either not doing this analysis, or coming up with solutions that continuously fail the analysis, they need to leave their jobs.

Thanks for the response. Can't say that I disagree, and believe me, the whole situation frustrates the hell out of me.

 

I do have an analogy that might apply for this discussion, though...

 

A long time heavy smoker goes to visit a doctor.

 

The doctor tells the smoker, unequivocally, that continuing smoking will stand a very large chance of fatal lung cancer. The doctor shows the smoker exactly why, and how, even gives them a rough timeline of when it may happen,  and then also shows the smoker the best ways to quit. It is presented in a clear a fashion as the doctor can possibly manage, but the smoker has no obligation to listen to the doctor.

 

The smoker goes home, and simply continues smoking. Lo and behold, a few years later, the smoker comes down with lung cancer and croaks shortly thereafter.

 

The question is... who is mostly responsible for the death? The smoker for ignoring the clear advice given and continuing to smoke? Or the doctor for not conveying the message clearly enough?

[grobyfox1990]

17 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Thanks for the response. Can't say that I disagree, and believe me, the whole situation frustrates the hell out of me.

 

I do have an analogy that might apply for this discussion, though...

 

A long time heavy smoker goes to visit a doctor.

 

The doctor tells the smoker, unequivocally, that continuing smoking will stand a very large chance of fatal lung cancer. The doctor shows the smoker exactly why, and how, even gives them a rough timeline of when it may happen,  and then also shows the smoker the best ways to quit. It is presented in a clear a fashion as the doctor can possibly manage, but the smoker has no obligation to listen to the doctor.

 

The smoker goes home, and simply continues smoking. Lo and behold, a few years later, the smoker comes down with lung cancer and croaks shortly thereafter.

 

The question is... who is mostly responsible for the death? The smoker for ignoring the clear advice given and continuing to smoke? Or the doctor for not conveying the message clearly enough?

Agreed, at a micro level (and being married to a doctor!!!) I of course agree each individual has made his own choice and ticked all the boxes in your example.

 

But I'm talking about at the macro level. I have no idea why smoking is so heavily taboo and banned everywhere, but was it because doctors/scientists/clever people banded together and heavily lobbied policymakers to ban it?? This is what I'm talking about re climate. The science community, much like my industry already has provably done, needs to organise itself to present a compelling and coherent argument, and produce results in solely changing policy. In my own eyes, I don't see that happening, I may be wrong and others may know examples of where it is.

 

Individuals can't really change anything (high-level) like in your example, big picture thinking, organisation and the grinding slog of work does.

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Agreed, at a micro level (and being married to a doctor!!!) I of course agree each individual has made his own choice and ticked all the boxes in your example.

 

But I'm talking about at the macro level. I have no idea why smoking is so heavily taboo and banned everywhere, but was it because doctors/scientists/clever people banded together and heavily lobbied policymakers to ban it?? This is what I'm talking about re climate. The science community, much like my industry already has provably done, needs to organise itself to present a compelling and coherent argument, and produce results in solely changing policy. In my own eyes, I don't see that happening, I may be wrong and others may know examples of where it is.

 

Individuals can't really change anything (high-level) like in your example, big picture thinking, organisation and the grinding slog of work does.

It's actually a good question as to why smoking became taboo very quickly - of course the link between it and lung cancer was heavily pointed out and lobbying involved, but I'm not sure that's the whole story. Would have to do some digging.

 

Again, I agree with your sentiments regarding organisation and presenting a compelling argument, but I would still wonder about exactly how presenting a more compelling argument than the ones that already exist is accomplished. Perhaps we just have to keep trying things until something works. But the clock is ticking and I'm pretty sure that while individuals cannot change anything, the powerful ones around can certainly continue to reinforce the status quo in this regard, if they wish.

[filbertway]

On 07/03/2023 at 04:06, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230306-just-how-loud-is-a-rocket-launch

 

TL;DR - it's fvcking loud.

 

And some rather cool physics.

I did not know decibels increased in order of magnitude. I found the below interesting

 

Quote

The difference between 160 and 200-odd decibels might not sound like a lot in the grand scheme of things, but it is.

“One hundred and seventy decibels would be equivalent to 10 aircraft engines. Two hundred would be 10,000 engines," said Kent Gee, leader author of the study and professor of physics at the Brigham Young University at the time. "Every 10 decibels is an order-of-magnitude increase."

 

[leicsmac]

11 minutes ago, filbertway said:

I did not know decibels increased in order of magnitude. I found the below interesting

 

 

Yep, it's the same as the magnitude system for measuring earthquakes.

 

For example, the devastating recent Turkey earthquake was a magnitude 7.8 which is pretty horrible, but for comparison the Boxing Day 2004 Earthquake in the Indian Ocean was magnitude 9.3 - a difference of 1.7 which equates to being 10^1.7 = 50.1 times as strong. So that one Indian Ocean quake was the same as 50 Turkey earthquakes in terms of strength.

 

 

[The Bear]

The alternative to not producing constant studies and updates on climate issues, is that they go quiet on it and everyone assumes its now ok, or not as bad as made out, and governments and deniers use that as an excuse to do nothing. 

 

I'd rather they kept banging the drum personally. Cost of scientific research is pittance compared to stuff such as military spending, so saying its a waste of money isn't an excuse IMO. 

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, The Bear said:

The alternative to not producing constant studies and updates on climate issues, is that they go quiet on it and everyone assumes its now ok, or not as bad as made out, and governments and deniers use that as an excuse to do nothing. 

 

I'd rather they kept banging the drum personally. Cost of scientific research is pittance compared to stuff such as military spending, so saying its a waste of money isn't an excuse IMO. 

There's that too. Keeping it front and centre in terms of both problem and solution is important.

[SpacedX]

18 minutes ago, filbertway said:

I did not know decibels increased in order of magnitude. I found the below interesting

Correct. Every 10 dB is actually an order of magnitude more noise. So a 160 dB sound is ten times louder than a 150 dB sound. Decibels are measured logarithmically which is a way of measuring exponential (or rapid) increases. Every increase of 10 dB on the decibel scale is equal to a 10-fold increase in sound pressure level. Once you get to a certain level - 194 dB - the low-pressure regions are completely empty in the absence of molecules and technically, the sound can’t get ‘louder’ than that because being a vacuum they can't get lower, so the amplitude of the wave is capped. A sound is produced when air molecules are vibrated back and forth, producing a wave of alternating higher pressure and lower pressure regions.If there is more energy in the noise source, the air molecules are just pushed along as opposed to moving back and forth, and the soundwave has turned into a shockwave. 

 

Going back to the Saturn V, the distinctive “crackling” is caused by the sound waves compressing the air they’re traveling through to maximum allowed by physics - and the actual sound of the launch has been calculated to be in excess of 200dBs. There's a great clip of coverage of Apollo 4, the first unmanned test flight of the Saturn V in which veteran CBS reporter Walter Cronkite and his producer had to put their hands on their trailer's observation window to stop it from shattering as ceiling tiles rained down from above. Cronkite considered Apollo 4 to be the most terrifying space mission he covered.

 

 

[filbertway]

5 minutes ago, Line-X said:

Correct. Every 10 dB is actually an order of magnitude more noise. So a 160 dB sound is ten times louder than a 150 dB sound. Decibels are measured logarithmically which is a way of measuring exponential (or rapid) increases. Every increase of 10 dB on the decibel scale is equal to a 10-fold increase in sound pressure level. Once you get to a certain level - 194 dB - the low-pressure regions are completely empty in the absence of molecules and technically, the sound can’t get ‘louder’ than that because being a vacuum they can't get lower, so the amplitude of the wave is capped. A sound is produced when air molecules are vibrated back and forth, producing a wave of alternating higher pressure and lower pressure regions.If there is more energy in the noise source, the air molecules are just pushed along as opposed to moving back and forth, and the soundwave has turned into a shockwave. 

 

Going back to the Saturn V, the distinctive “crackling” is caused by the sound waves compressing the air they’re traveling through to maximum allowed by physics - and the actual sound of the launch has been calculated to be in excess of 200dBs. There's a great clip of coverage of Apollo 4, the first unmanned test flight of the Saturn V in which veteran CBS reporter Walter Cronkite and his producer had to put their hands on their trailer's observation window to stop it from shattering as ceiling tiles rained down from above. Cronkite considered Apollo 4 to be the most terrifying space mission he covered.

 

 

So once you hit 194dB, any increases basically force the air molecules to move rather than vibrate, which is why you get the shock waves?

 

This is me trying to parse your scientific explanation into something I can understand

 

 

 

[SpacedX]

52 minutes ago, filbertway said:

So once you hit 194dB, any increases basically force the air molecules to move rather than vibrate, which is why you get the shock waves?

 

This is me trying to parse your scientific explanation into something I can understand

 

 

 

Shock waves are formed when a pressure front moves at supersonic speeds and then pushes on the surrounding air. At a given point, the fluctuations in air pressure are so large that the low pressure regions hit zero pressure - a vacuum. In the Earth's atmosphere, this limit is at about 194 decibels. Any louder, and the sound is no longer just passing through the air, it’s actually propelling the air along with it which creates a pressurised burst of moving air that we term as a shock wave.

[grobyfox1990]

2 hours ago, The Bear said:

The alternative to not producing constant studies and updates on climate issues, is that they go quiet on it and everyone assumes its now ok, or not as bad as made out, and governments and deniers use that as an excuse to do nothing. 

 

I'd rather they kept banging the drum personally. Cost of scientific research is pittance compared to stuff such as military spending, so saying its a waste of money isn't an excuse IMO. 

To me the alternative is pointing out the reams of damn hard work that is going into changing the status-quo, and why this is a positive for you.

 

We've been told enough times how disastrous climate change is and how IT IS ALL YOUR FAULT and not much has changed. It doesn't matter if it costs a pittance or not, if it is producing no tangible benefits (not sure this is true tbf) that pittance can be spent better elsewhere.