Technology, Science and the Environment.

[yorkie1999]

5 minutes ago, Line-X said:

Given the fact that you made it, not really. It was however inaccurate. 

Once again you're going off on a tangent about the inaccurcies of statements when it's pretty much irrelevant to the point being made, which is what more can we actually do.

[SpacedX]

21 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

Once again you're going off on a tangent about the inaccurcies of statements when it's pretty much irrelevant to the point being made, which is what more can we actually do.

Once again? - The irony is as excruciating as it is amusing. Your statement itself was inaccurate and irrelevant to the point made. No matter though. 

 

The tangent was all yours. CFCs are related to ozone depletion, but you did inadvertently and unintentionally raise a rather 'potent' point, that the propellants that substitute in spray cans may also be damaging to the environment. 

Edited 14 June 2023 by Line-X

[yorkie1999]

3 minutes ago, Line-X said:

Once again? - The irony is as excruciating as it is amusing. Your statement itself was inaccurate and irrelevant to the point made. No matter though. 

 

The tangent was all yours. CFCs are related to ozone depletion, but you did inadvertently and unintentionally raise a rather 'potent' point, that the propellants that substitute in spray cans may also be damaging to the environment. 

Irony? It's rather ironic that you have any comment to make on damage to the environment.

[SpacedX]

16 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

Irony? It's rather ironic that you have any comment to make on damage to the environment.

I'd be intrigued to learn why. 

[yorkie1999]

11 minutes ago, Line-X said:

I'd be intrigued to learn why. 

Well, decating your bike ain't exactly contributing to your grandkids future is it.

[SpacedX]

6 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

Well, decating your bike ain't exactly contributing to your grandkids future is it.

Absolutely - and thanks for clarifying what I thought that you were referring to. There are very few positives from an environmental point of view, but is has favoured mpg. That doesn't justify it, but then, the very notion of owning a vehicle solely for pleasure and consuming a hydrocarbon fuel is a ethical dilemma which you may well have also heard me address which may also be why you know that the cat has been removed in the first place. I do try to offset and change my life choices. That doesn't justify it - I could change my habits in addition to retaining a catalytic convertor on the bike but I do limit its usage. As I've said before, long term, I'm not sure I can justify ownership of one, which is a shame - particularly since I loath cars and being stuck in traffic. The bike at least does not sit stationary in traffic. 

[yorkie1999]

14 minutes ago, Line-X said:

Absolutely - and thanks for clarifying what I thought that you were referring to. There are very few positives from an environmental point of view, but is has favoured mpg. That doesn't justify it, but then, the very notion of owning a vehicle solely for pleasure and consuming a hydrocarbon fuel is a ethical dilemma which you may well have also heard me address which may also be why you know that the cat has been removed in the first place. I do try to offset and change my life choices. That doesn't justify it - I could change my habits in addition to retaining a catalytic convertor on the bike but I do limit its usage. As I've said before, long term, I'm not sure I can justify ownership of one, which is a shame - particularly since I loath cars and being stuck in traffic. The bike at least does not sit stationary in traffic. 

That’s interesting, cos I replaced the exhaust on my bike, therefore  decating it, as well as sticking a power commander on simply so it went quicker and sounded better.

[Guest Kopfkino]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Personally I am pretty damn confident that the current high temperatures (especially because those temperatures are not from a single day, but from a week or more forecast) have everything to do with a consistent global average temperature increase that will be catastrophic within the next few decades (indirectly for the UK, directly for other places), but of course we'll only know that for sure when the month is over.

 

I'd agree that going on about the consequences alone isn't helpful or healthy as it implies powerlessness, but then I've not done that either.

Sorry but that is a bit daft. The current warmth might have been made more likely by a changing climate but it isn’t because of it, it’s because of the weather. And that is a key difference if you value intellectual accuracy.

 

Without commenting on the merits of the arguments ,It is one of the more amusing climate change discussions that occurs all the time

‘Denier’ when it’s cold for 2 weeks in December: ‘look climate change isn’t real cos it’s really cold

‘Enthusiast’: ‘it’s just wrather’

 

Enthusiast when it’s hot or rains a lot: ‘climate change’

 

Anyway more interestingly imo, the 13th June was the only day of summer to never have had 30C in the UK until yesterday.

There’s a good 7+ days in a row later in June where the record day temperature is held by 1976, all above 30 - maybe that will change this year, maybe it won’t. This spell has only had 4 days in a row beating the day temperature (not actually sure Monday did in the end) and it won’t have continued today. Probably end up the second warmest June on record - after a miserable spring, much needed. I am down for this climate change malarkey if this is what it delivers (it’s half a joke, don’t shoot me)

 

 

 

[SpacedX]

11 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

That’s interesting, cos I replaced the exhaust on my bike, therefore  decating it, as well as sticking a power commander on simply so it went quicker and sounded better.

So did I - that's the rationale behind it. Actually, not so much to "go faster", but it does benefit throttle response and compliments the bench tune and the full aftermarket exhaust system. It also increases torque, but the thing pulls like a locomotive anyway. As a consequence of removing it, oddly, you can also see a decrease in mpg. Other than that, as I said, there are no positives for the environment whatsoever. 

Edited 14 June 2023 by Line-X

[SpacedX]

...The nitrous oxide kit isn't that responsible either. 

[yorkie1999]

43 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

Sorry but that is a bit daft. The current warmth might have been made more likely by a changing climate but it isn’t because of it, it’s because of the weather. And that is a key difference if you value intellectual accuracy.

 

Without commenting on the merits of the arguments ,It is one of the more amusing climate change discussions that occurs all the time

‘Denier’ when it’s cold for 2 weeks in December: ‘look climate change isn’t real cos it’s really cold

‘Enthusiast’: ‘it’s just wrather’

 

Enthusiast when it’s hot or rains a lot: ‘climate change’

 

Anyway more interestingly imo, the 13th June was the only day of summer to never have had 30C in the UK until yesterday.

There’s a good 7+ days in a row later in June where the record day temperature is held by 1976, all above 30 - maybe that will change this year, maybe it won’t. This spell has only had 4 days in a row beating the day temperature (not actually sure Monday did in the end) and it won’t have continued today. Probably end up the second warmest June on record - after a miserable spring, much needed. I am down for this climate change malarkey if this is what it delivers (it’s half a joke, don’t shoot me)

 

 

 

Doubt it, start of the summer holidays 1976 was the peak for kids going round setting fire to corn fields for a laugh, they've got tik tok to amuse themselves now.

[bmt]

I went to a talk from a world leading climate scientist yesterday and he had a graph of recorded sea temperatures and this year is jokely high above the 95% confidence interval. Like obscenely far above. Food for thought 

[yorkie1999]

11 minutes ago, bmt said:

I went to a talk from a world leading climate scientist yesterday and he had a graph of recorded sea temperatures and this year is jokely high above the 95% confidence interval. Like obscenely far above. Food for thought 

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230525-what-will-an-el-nino-in-2023-mean-for-you

[leicsmac]

8 hours ago, Kopfkino said:

Sorry but that is a bit daft. The current warmth might have been made more likely by a changing climate but it isn’t because of it, it’s because of the weather. And that is a key difference if you value intellectual accuracy.

 

Without commenting on the merits of the arguments ,It is one of the more amusing climate change discussions that occurs all the time

‘Denier’ when it’s cold for 2 weeks in December: ‘look climate change isn’t real cos it’s really cold

‘Enthusiast’: ‘it’s just wrather’

 

Enthusiast when it’s hot or rains a lot: ‘climate change’

 

Anyway more interestingly imo, the 13th June was the only day of summer to never have had 30C in the UK until yesterday.

There’s a good 7+ days in a row later in June where the record day temperature is held by 1976, all above 30 - maybe that will change this year, maybe it won’t. This spell has only had 4 days in a row beating the day temperature (not actually sure Monday did in the end) and it won’t have continued today. Probably end up the second warmest June on record - after a miserable spring, much needed. I am down for this climate change malarkey if this is what it delivers (it’s half a joke, don’t shoot me)

 

Climate and weather are inextricably linked as the change in climate is, in all likelihood, driving these more extreme weather events.

 

Is it a certainty that the current hotter weather conditions are down to an increased global average temperature and it's not some strange statistical anomaly? No, we can't be totally certain.

Is it a pretty damn sure thing that we should perhaps be considering as the most likely cause? Hell yes.

 

And WRT incidences of very cold weather: changes in global climate don't just mean hotter weather, they mean more extreme weather, whether that's hotter, colder, more rainy, stormy or whatever. It's not as simply as people believe regarding it just being warmer.

 

Anyhow, I guess the overall point is that the seemingly lackadaisical attitude of those with power and a decent chunk of those who have voted them in across various democracies (perhaps that's harsh considering there is action being taken but the simple truth is we're not doing enough as a species at the present time to stop the rise and the consequences) on this matter both pisses me off and terrifies me in equal measure. It's Don't Look Up happening pretty much for real.

 

 

7 hours ago, yorkie1999 said:

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230525-what-will-an-el-nino-in-2023-mean-for-you

Which I'm sure will have been accounted for, seeing as el Nino is a pretty common and well-tracked historical phenomenon.

 

What's happening now isn't "business as usual" and it is hugely erroneous, to say nothing of damaging, to infer it is.

[leicsmac]

On an unrelated topic, found a very good science communication channel today:

 

https://www.youtube.com/@acollierastro

 

One of her videos, a good look at exobiology:

 

 

[grobyfox1990]

ESG data providers often give free or discounted licences to researchers to encourage the use of their data. But under the terms of some licensing agreements, data providers can insist on reviewing research before publication or even withhold permission to publish. This has a chilling effect on the questions and results that researchers focus on.

 

Facing this problem more and more, we rely on acedemics and nerds wearing glasses to further the industry because they are free of the commercial pressures we have, and have time to drill down into a topic. But more often than not these days, said nerds are producing 'peer reviewed' info that cannot be relied upon. 

[leicsmac]

21 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

ESG data providers often give free or discounted licences to researchers to encourage the use of their data. But under the terms of some licensing agreements, data providers can insist on reviewing research before publication or even withhold permission to publish. This has a chilling effect on the questions and results that researchers focus on.

 

Facing this problem more and more, we rely on acedemics and nerds wearing glasses to further the industry because they are free of the commercial pressures we have, and have time to drill down into a topic. But more often than not these days, said nerds are producing 'peer reviewed' info that cannot be relied upon. 

Can you be more specific on this?

[grobyfox1990]

5 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Can you be more specific on this?

Absolutely not given said commerciality, but in the ESG/sustainable finance space, 'peer reviewed' is becoming a bit of a joke, and has rightly been called out in the FT today. I wonder whether that's the case in other industries. 

[Zear0]

4 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Absolutely not given said commerciality, but in the ESG/sustainable finance space, 'peer reviewed' is becoming a bit of a joke, and has rightly been called out in the FT today. I wonder whether that's the case in other industries. 

Got a link? I've had a long standing gripe on the concept of independent peer reviews and curious what the article had. 

[grobyfox1990]

31 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

Got a link? I've had a long standing gripe on the concept of independent peer reviews and curious what the article had. 

https://www.ft.com/content/eee948a1-c70a-44f5-96f7-482ae13d5db0

[leicsmac]

44 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Absolutely not given said commerciality, but in the ESG/sustainable finance space, 'peer reviewed' is becoming a bit of a joke, and has rightly been called out in the FT today. I wonder whether that's the case in other industries. 

 

39 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

Got a link? I've had a long standing gripe on the concept of independent peer reviews and curious what the article had. 

That sounds rather disconcerting, considering that the scientific method of empiricism that is then peer reviewed and repeated is the best - and perhaps only - method we have of discerning fact and truth from the universe around us.

 

I would hope - and assume - that the issue in this case lies with the commercial interpretation of peer reviewed information rather than the process itself.

[Zear0]

46 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

https://www.ft.com/content/eee948a1-c70a-44f5-96f7-482ae13d5db0

I used to work as Head of R&T for a multinational and it's really interesting, but thinking on it unsurprising, that the commercial finance hand that "guided" research in engineering, physics and chemistry is the same within finance.  I remember one of the academic institutions that did work on our behalf said private sector funding for their research department practically made up the totality of their research.  I found this slightly disconcerting as firstly that's unsustainable, open to abuse and I'm also fairly sure goes against some requirements of their accreditiation.  That was a one off I'd point out.

 

I liked the summary of the article saying "difficult conversations with donors, sensitivity and transparency to protect free inquiry".  I don't disagree, but unfortunatly the universities are so utterly dependent on this work, I can see it getting more closed rather than open.

 

35 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

 

That sounds rather disconcerting, considering that the scientific method of empiricism that is then peer reviewed and repeated is the best - and perhaps only - method we have of discerning fact and truth from the universe around us.

 

I would hope - and assume - that the issue in this case lies with the commercial interpretation of peer reviewed information rather than the process itself.

To be more specific, and it relates to what I wrote above, the vast majority of research that I have seen is being undertaken by academia on behalf of private enterprise and this is becoming more and more common.  There are commercial sensitivies associated with a lot of this work as they're generally doing this work to get a competitive edge and therefore won't fund it if the data/results are made public.  As university funding is becoming more and more squeezed, the variety of individuals peer reviewing documents becomes more constrained which I consider a threat to the quality of the reviews.  When I first left the corporate world, I was self-employed literally undertaking paid peer-reviewed assessments of research and documentation from companies (it's part of what my company does now).  The real value to this process was getting someone truly independent (no s**t) to do it, and when it becomes constrained to those in the sector the value is much less diminished.  

 

The other problem is that we also spent significantly more money on R&T into private "not-for-profit (ha!)" research organisations which will pop up and gobbles all the funding if the universities try to protect transparency of research.  We used to work with EPRI (who are brilliant) where it was a paid entry at the table.  Want some work doing?  Pay up, and depending how much you pay, dictates how much sway you have on the specific project.  Want the results?  Pay up.  Whilst this isn't really any different to a subscription of scientific jounals, we're taking £xxx,000 rather than £20 for journal subscription thus excluding any people with a passing curiosity.

 

I said this earlier, but the last point on "passing curiosity" is quite important to me.  In working with an extremely diverse range of academic disciplines, I can say with complete certainty that having peer reviewed work from people outside the "bubble" of the programme is extremely valuable but is what is at risk here.  I won't pretend to understand how university funding works, but the less money they have, the less of the genuinely independent and open work will be made available.  It doesn't seem incredible to me that universities will eventually be sidelined by research institutes as time goes by.  To be blunt too, one of the great joys is that phD/research assistants at universities are dead cheap (can vouch for that having been one) compared to the market rate which should keep them in the game for the foreseeable.

Edited 15 June 2023 by Zear0

[leicsmac]

18 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

I used to work as Head of R&T for a multinational and it's really interesting, but thinking on it unsurprising, that the commercial finance hand that "guided" research in engineering, physics and chemistry is the same within finance.  I remember one of the academic institutions that did work on our behalf said private sector funding for their research department practically made up the totality of their research.  I found this slightly disconcerting as firstly that's unsustainable, open to abuse and I'm also fairly sure goes against some requirements of their accreditiation.  That was a one off I'd point out.

 

I liked the summary of the article saying "difficult conversations with donors, sensitivity and transparency to protect free inquiry".  I don't disagree, but unfortunatly the universities are so utterly dependent on this work, I can see it getting more closed rather than open.

 

To be more specific, and it relates to what I wrote above, the vast majority of research that I have seen is being undertaken by academia on behalf of private enterprise and this is becoming more and more common.  There are commercial sensitivies associated with a lot of this work as they're generally doing this work to get a competitive edge and therefore won't fund it if the data/results are made public.  As university funding is becoming more and more squeezed, the variety of individuals peer reviewing documents becomes more constrained which I consider a threat to the quality of the reviews.  When I first left the corporate world, I was self-employed literally undertaking paid peer-reviewed assessments of research and documentation from companies (it's part of what my company does now).  The real value to this process was getting someone truly independent (no s**t) to do it, and when it becomes constrained to those in the sector the value is much less diminished.  

 

The other problem is that we also spent significantly more money on R&T into private "not-for-profit (ha!)" research organisations which will pop up and gobbles all the funding if the universities try to protect transparency of research.  We used to work with EPRI (who are brilliant) where it was a paid entry at the table.  Want some work doing?  Pay up, and depending how much you pay, dictates how much sway you have on the specific project.  Want the results?  Pay up.  Whilst this isn't really any different to a subscription of scientific jounals, we're taking £xxx,000 rather than £20 for journal subscription thus excluding any people with a passing curiosity.

 

I said this earlier, but the last point on "passing curiosity" is quite important to me.  In working with an extremely diverse range of academic disciplines, I can say with complete certainty that having peer reviewed work from people outside the "bubble" of the programme is extremely valuable but is what is at risk here.  I won't pretend to understand how university funding works, but the less money they have, the less of the genuinely independent and open work will be made available.  It doesn't seem incredible to me that universities will eventually be sidelined by research institutes as time goes by.  To be blunt too, one of the great joys is that phD/research assistants at universities are dead cheap (can vouch for that having been one) compared to the market rate which should keep them in the game for the foreseeable.

Thank you for that. It is how I feared/ assumed then, commercial interests leading to inaccurate/ junk findings rather than an issue with the research method itself.

 

Though that's a difficult circle to square, I think the solution to that is easier - and more obvious - than replacing the scientific method as the primary and by far best method of finding things out.

[grobyfox1990]

29 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

I used to work as Head of R&T for a multinational and it's really interesting, but thinking on it unsurprising, that the commercial finance hand that "guided" research in engineering, physics and chemistry is the same within finance.  I remember one of the academic institutions that did work on our behalf said private sector funding for their research department practically made up the totality of their research.  I found this slightly disconcerting as firstly that's unsustainable, open to abuse and I'm also fairly sure goes against some requirements of their accreditiation.  That was a one off I'd point out.

 

I liked the summary of the article saying "difficult conversations with donors, sensitivity and transparency to protect free inquiry".  I don't disagree, but unfortunatly the universities are so utterly dependent on this work, I can see it getting more closed rather than open.

 

To be more specific, and it relates to what I wrote above, the vast majority of research that I have seen is being undertaken by academia on behalf of private enterprise and this is becoming more and more common.  There are commercial sensitivies associated with a lot of this work as they're generally doing this work to get a competitive edge and therefore won't fund it if the data/results are made public.  As university funding is becoming more and more squeezed, the variety of individuals peer reviewing documents becomes more constrained which I consider a threat to the quality of the reviews.  When I first left the corporate world, I was self-employed literally undertaking paid peer-reviewed assessments of research and documentation from companies (it's part of what my company does now).  The real value to this process was getting someone truly independent (no s**t) to do it, and when it becomes constrained to those in the sector the value is much less diminished.  

 

The other problem is that we also spent significantly more money on R&T into private "not-for-profit (ha!)" research organisations which will pop up and gobbles all the funding if the universities try to protect transparency of research.  We used to work with EPRI (who are brilliant) where it was a paid entry at the table.  Want some work doing?  Pay up, and depending how much you pay, dictates how much sway you have on the specific project.  Want the results?  Pay up.  Whilst this isn't really any different to a subscription of scientific jounals, we're taking £xxx,000 rather than £20 for journal subscription thus excluding any people with a passing curiosity.

 

I said this earlier, but the last point on "passing curiosity" is quite important to me.  In working with an extremely diverse range of academic disciplines, I can say with complete certainty that having peer reviewed work from people outside the "bubble" of the programme is extremely valuable but is what is at risk here.  I won't pretend to understand how university funding works, but the less money they have, the less of the genuinely independent and open work will be made available.  It doesn't seem incredible to me that universities will eventually be sidelined by research institutes as time goes by.  To be blunt too, one of the great joys is that phD/research assistants at universities are dead cheap (can vouch for that having been one) compared to the market rate which should keep them in the game for the foreseeable.

Bloomin hell that is well summed up, I cannot see usernames unless quoted so may be wrong but I think that is the second time today you've summed up what I mean in better words. Yeh it is absolutely about commercial interests creeping in rather than the 'process' - but then everyone likes money so that is not surprising. I do not know much about the 'process' given what I do, but the industry relies on clever nerds having the time to lead us in the right direction, seemingly we cannot trust that anymore. 

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Bloomin hell that is well summed up, I cannot see usernames unless quoted so may be wrong but I think that is the second time today you've summed up what I mean in better words. Yeh it is absolutely about commercial interests creeping in rather than the 'process' - but then everyone likes money so that is not surprising. I do not know much about the 'process' given what I do, but the industry relies on clever nerds having the time to lead us in the right direction, seemingly we cannot trust that anymore. 

Yeah, it's not about the money per se, it's about the wrong kind of money; the type that comes with strings attached that then perverts the entire idea in the name of commercial interest.

 

Fund those clever nerds with reliable, ring-fenced and non-corrupt income, and then you won't have such problems with trust.

 

NB. Of course, these commercial interests are shooting themselves in the foot long term anyway because in matters of science such falsehoods are always found out in due course and are often incredibly costly. The laws of physics and the other laws derived from them can't be lied to.