Technology, Science and the Environment.

[leicsmac]

As an aside, this is yet another circumstance of how economic systems built on competition and short-term gain aren't actually a good thing in this matter - if it suits the short term material interest of an individual or group to fvck with such a process, they clearly will and it has a clearly detrimental effect both present and future, in a lot of different ways.

[Zear0]

12 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

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.

Just to clarify, I'm not suggesting the commercial interests I've seen (and represented) are at all using these resources to fund "junk/innacurate" findings, just that they're taking up a dispproportionate amount of university research capacity.  I don't doubt it happenes as if you generally submit a question and get an answer.  If you're clever with the question, you can be fairly sure on the answer you'd want (show me the yearly average temperature rises between 1880 and 1975 et voila, climate change is a myth!).  

 

My point was more that due to financial constraints on these establishments means they'll spend more time working with commercial, and therefore, opaque research results than independent research on things such as climate, environmental or humanities research.  As an example, we once booked out an entire materials department to undertaken testing on a material in a specific environment that was of only any use to ourselves.  Uttery useless results for everyone, brilliant for us.  To add to that, they bit our hand off for that work (£££).

 

*Edit*

 

Suppose I need a solution, not a moan.  Mandate a fixed proportion of research capacity to university lead projects and whack the costs onto the private funding being provided.  It's small beer to them and completely tax deductable against profits.

Edited 15 June 2023 by Zear0

[leicsmac]

19 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

Just to clarify, I'm not suggesting the commercial interests I've seen (and represented) are at all using these resources to fund "junk/innacurate" findings, just that they're taking up a dispproportionate amount of university research capacity.  I don't doubt it happenes as if you generally submit a question and get an answer.  If you're clever with the question, you can be fairly sure on the answer you'd want (show me the yearly average temperature rises between 1880 and 1975 et voila, climate change is a myth!).  

 

My point was more that due to financial constraints on these establishments means they'll spend more time working with commercial, and therefore, opaque research results than independent research on things such as climate, environmental or humanities research.  As an example, we once booked out an entire materials department to undertaken testing on a material in a specific environment that was of only any use to ourselves.  Uttery useless results for everyone, brilliant for us.  To add to that, they bit our hand off for that work (£££).

 

*Edit*

 

Suppose I need a solution, not a moan.  Mandate a fixed proportion of research capacity to university lead projects and whack the costs onto the private funding being provided.  It's small beer to them and completely tax deductable against profits.

I'll be honest, I take a rather more cynical line on this one and think that, coupling what I've been told here with what I already know, that the bolded does happen in more than a few cases for the benefit of commercial interests, and even if their look-in isn't directly nefarious they suck all the oxygen from the room in terms of funding in exactly the way you describe, which long-term leads to similar outcomes to direct bastardry anwyay.

 

Certainly agree with the idea of totally ring-fenced mandated research funding/capacity to universities, the more the better.

[SpacedX]

@grobyfox1990

 

I work in research capability and regard the following paper from 2020 as one of the definitive publications on the subject and hugely insightful. This is a hugely contentious issue internally which often pitches the Doctoral College at loggerheads with research centres and academics. 

 

https://researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41073-020-00092-1

 

This is also worth a read:

 

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2016/12/13/manipulating-the-peer-review-process-why-it-happens-and-how-it-might-be-prevented/

 

Remember peer reviewers should be bound to as series of ethical pledges and obligations and the onus lies upon the commercial/business world to enforce these, because as @leicsmac has intimated, the ultimate leveller is the science and an organisation will always be accountable. Optimistically, I'm confident that we no longer inhabit a world in which Phillip Morris could line the pockets of medics to endorse the health benefits of smoking. 

 

@Zear0

 

Excellent appraisals as usual and hugely informative. 

Edited 15 June 2023 by Line-X

[leicsmac]

Interesting find:

 

 

 

"Solution aversion: Denial of a problem because we don’t like the perceived solution.

Solution aversion is a common driver of science denial. It fuels motivated reasoning, helping us find “reasons” why a problem isn’t real. But a problem’s existence doesn’t depend on how we feel about a solution!

Instead, if you don’t like a solution, don’t deny the problem. Find a solution you can accept."

 

That's been seen an awful lot recently, either through outright denial of the problem or acceptance of it but no acceptance of any solution presented, instead rejecting them all (which pretty much amounts to the same thing).

[leicsmac]

https://phys.org/news/2023-06-june-temperatures-briefly-key-climate.html

 

Worldwide temperatures briefly exceeded a key warming threshold earlier this month, a hint of heat and its harms to come, scientists worry.

 

The mercury has since dipped again, but experts say the short surge marked a new global heat record for June and indicates more extremes ahead as the planet enters an El Niño phase that could last years.

Researchers at the European Union's Copernicus Climate Change Service said Thursday that the start of June saw global surface air temperatures rise 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels for the first time. That is the threshold governments said they would try to stay within at a 2015 summit in Paris.

 

... "As a climate scientist I feel like I am watching a global train wreck in slow motion. It's quite frustrating," said University of Victoria's Andrew Weaver".

 

....the feeling of pretty much anyone familiar with the situation.

[Grebfromgrebland]

Nothing is going to change unless governments take action.

 

Apart from Costa Rica I can't think of another government taking meaningful steps.

 

In other words things will get a lot worse unless there's a global consensus.  Unfortunately the only global consensus is to put our pedal to the metal on consumerism and consumption.  We will literally shop ourselves into oblivion.

 

The super rich will be fine however. 

[leicsmac]

12 minutes ago, Grebfromgrebland said:

Nothing is going to change unless governments take action.

 

Apart from Costa Rica I can't think of another government taking meaningful steps.

 

In other words things will get a lot worse unless there's a global consensus.  Unfortunately the only global consensus is to put our pedal to the metal on consumerism and consumption.  We will literally shop ourselves into oblivion.

 

The super rich will be fine however. 

I wouldn't be that totally cynical - action is being taken, it's just not enough and not timely enough to prevent nasty outcomes right now.

 

If things do go massively Pete Tong, the super rich will be as screwed as everyone else when they find out automation can't replace the myriad of human connections necessary to maintain the luxury they were so accustomed to.

[Grebfromgrebland]

I'm sorry to be so pessimistic but until we stop chasing revert higher GDP, profits and unregulated capitalism we will not change our trajectory.

 

But who here is really willing to change their entire away of life?

 

https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/exclusive-shell-pivots-back-oil-123103856.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly90LmNvLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAG6Dm_nE2DglGMCv2fFuhqkeO6le5QVf75E6ehtIX6Yi_1vJIqAikk3B5rbQcAsEGcP80rwCkYFUAWVJerJDGTTCuwjeomdEU4ttopr5oLbvGBKcG85qrlT47Brj-Z0iZ-5IsIQWEFhhwMoBrO8Iv7hVrbB2nzwY0Zk2LfPH8dbd

 

Edited 17 June 2023 by Grebfromgrebland

[leicsmac]

5 hours ago, Grebfromgrebland said:

I'm sorry to be so pessimistic but until we stop chasing revert higher GDP, profits and unregulated capitalism we will not change our trajectory.

 

But who here is really willing to change their entire away of life?

 

https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/exclusive-shell-pivots-back-oil-123103856.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly90LmNvLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAG6Dm_nE2DglGMCv2fFuhqkeO6le5QVf75E6ehtIX6Yi_1vJIqAikk3B5rbQcAsEGcP80rwCkYFUAWVJerJDGTTCuwjeomdEU4ttopr5oLbvGBKcG85qrlT47Brj-Z0iZ-5IsIQWEFhhwMoBrO8Iv7hVrbB2nzwY0Zk2LfPH8dbd

 

I don't disagree about consumerism. However...I still think there is time to apply the solutions in a way that will at least not hurt as much as it otherwise would.

 

Really don't want to accept the death and suffering of a truly huge amount of people as a done deal.

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-65948544

 

"Some of the most intense marine heat increases on Earth have developed in seas around the UK and Ireland, the European Space Agency (Esa) says.  Water temperatures are as much as 3 to 4C above the average for this time of year in some areas, according to analysis by Esa and the Met Office."

 

This is fine.

[SpacedX]

Betelgeuse causing a stir again. I don't mean the Michael Keaton sequel, I mean exciting astronomers again - well some. Following the Great Dimming of last year caused by a stellar belch of gigantic proportions, the star's flatulence appears to have been quelled as it possibly gobbles up it's last remaining reserves of carbon. It's not known precisely what stage this has reached in its death throes, but a new paper (yet to be peer reviewed) Saio et.al from Tohoku University amongst other studies, which are just best fit models, (based upon pulsations and brightness), nonetheless indicate that not only is the star nearing the end of its life (from our frame of reference of course, since it is 642.5 light years away) and may be on the brink of going nova. Calculations indicate that its carbon reserves are may be somewhere between 17% and 0.5%. If this log plot is correct, then there is somewhere between 10 and 100 years before we witness Betelgeuse's spectacular collapse. If this blew today, the it would have actually happened around the time of the Peasants Revolt. The last supernova in our galaxy to be observed by the naked eye was Kepler's supernova in 1604, which would have occurred in 18,396BC - during the Neolithic Revolution. This would be visible during the day 

 

Once all the carbon is fused it burns into other elements, I believe I'm correct in saying - @Zear0 ? - the fusion process of neon, oxygen and silicon happens rapidly and exponentially, but when this runs out, no remaining potential fuel produces enough energy to support the star against gravity. The iron core collapses within minutes to form a solid neutron star - a neutrino soup - in which the inrush of surrounding gas rebounds against to form a supernova leaving a neutron star or a black hole (depending on the star). However, Betelgeuse might well be good for another few millennia, as another group of researchers, led by László Molnár from Konkoly Observatory in Hungary, have since countered this with their own findings indicating that in fact the star is in the earlier helium-burning stage of its lifecycle.

 

Astronomers agree that Betelgeuse will go supernova soon, but soon in astronomical terms could mean anytime in the next 10,000 to 100,000 years. If the star is in its carbon burning phase, as Saoi and his team predicts, then it could be much sooner, though it may still take several more centuries to exhaust the remaining carbon. Meanwhile, if the star is still in its helium burning phase, as Molnár postulates, then don't hold your breath.

 

When it does go, it'll be a chip on the shoulder for Orion. - Sorry.

 

.

[reporterpenguin]

1 hour ago, Line-X said:

Betelgeuse causing a stir again. I don't mean the Michael Keaton sequel, I mean exciting astronomers again - well some. Following the Great Dimming of last year caused by a stellar belch of gigantic proportions, the star's flatulence appears to have been quelled as it possibly gobbles up it's last remaining reserves of carbon. It's not known precisely what stage this has reached in its death throes, but a new paper (yet to be peer reviewed) Saio et.al from Tohoku University amongst other studies, which are just best fit models, (based upon pulsations and brightness), nonetheless indicate that not only is the star nearing the end of its life (from our frame of reference of course, since it is 642.5 light years away) and may be on the brink of going nova. Calculations indicate that its carbon reserves are may be somewhere between 17% and 0.5%. If this log plot is correct, then there is somewhere between 10 and 100 years before we witness Betelgeuse's spectacular collapse. If this blew today, the it would have actually happened around the time of the Peasants Revolt. The last supernova in our galaxy to be observed by the naked eye was Kepler's supernova in 1604, which would have occurred in 18,396BC - during the Neolithic Revolution. This would be visible during the day 

 

Once all the carbon is fused it burns into other elements, I believe I'm correct in saying - @Zear0 ? - the fusion process of neon, oxygen and silicon happens rapidly and exponentially, but when this runs out, no remaining potential fuel produces enough energy to support the star against gravity. The iron core collapses within minutes to form a solid neutron star - a neutrino soup - in which the inrush of surrounding gas rebounds against to form a supernova leaving a neutron star or a black hole (depending on the star). However, Betelgeuse might well be good for another few millennia, as another group of researchers, led by László Molnár from Konkoly Observatory in Hungary, have since countered this with their own findings indicating that in fact the star is in the earlier helium-burning stage of its lifecycle.

 

Astronomers agree that Betelgeuse will go supernova soon, but soon in astronomical terms could mean anytime in the next 10,000 to 100,000 years. If the star is in its carbon burning phase, as Saoi and his team predicts, then it could be much sooner, though it may still take several more centuries to exhaust the remaining carbon. Meanwhile, if the star is still in its helium burning phase, as Molnár postulates, then don't hold your breath.

 

When it does go, it'll be a chip on the shoulder for Orion. - Sorry.

 

.

That's a pretty excellent summary.

 

My background is more in modelling spectra, but I know enough to say that however good their data and analysis is, any conclusions are just informed guesses. It takes so long for what's happening in the core to propagate to the surface and the light to travel to us it's hard to make any definitive statement about what stage it's actually at. As you said once the helium burning phase is over the shell burning of heavier elements occurs for ever shorter durations, by the time it gets to silicon burning that can only be sustained for a matter of days at most. 

Personally I doubt we're likely to see it go supernova in our lifetimes, though it is certainly possible. I'd expect we'd see little in terms of rapid change in visible characteristics in its final days, the first we'll know of the supernova is the influx of neutrinos in the hours before the light reached us. 

 

It'd be amazing to see, I really hope Saio et al. are right and we are years away rather than centuries or millennia.

[Zear0]

4 hours ago, Line-X said:

Betelgeuse causing a stir again. I don't mean the Michael Keaton sequel, I mean exciting astronomers again - well some. Following the Great Dimming of last year caused by a stellar belch of gigantic proportions, the star's flatulence appears to have been quelled as it possibly gobbles up it's last remaining reserves of carbon. It's not known precisely what stage this has reached in its death throes, but a new paper (yet to be peer reviewed) Saio et.al from Tohoku University amongst other studies, which are just best fit models, (based upon pulsations and brightness), nonetheless indicate that not only is the star nearing the end of its life (from our frame of reference of course, since it is 642.5 light years away) and may be on the brink of going nova. Calculations indicate that its carbon reserves are may be somewhere between 17% and 0.5%. If this log plot is correct, then there is somewhere between 10 and 100 years before we witness Betelgeuse's spectacular collapse. If this blew today, the it would have actually happened around the time of the Peasants Revolt. The last supernova in our galaxy to be observed by the naked eye was Kepler's supernova in 1604, which would have occurred in 18,396BC - during the Neolithic Revolution. This would be visible during the day 

 

Once all the carbon is fused it burns into other elements, I believe I'm correct in saying - @Zear0 ? - the fusion process of neon, oxygen and silicon happens rapidly and exponentially, but when this runs out, no remaining potential fuel produces enough energy to support the star against gravity. The iron core collapses within minutes to form a solid neutron star - a neutrino soup - in which the inrush of surrounding gas rebounds against to form a supernova leaving a neutron star or a black hole (depending on the star). However, Betelgeuse might well be good for another few millennia, as another group of researchers, led by László Molnár from Konkoly Observatory in Hungary, have since countered this with their own findings indicating that in fact the star is in the earlier helium-burning stage of its lifecycle.

 

Astronomers agree that Betelgeuse will go supernova soon, but soon in astronomical terms could mean anytime in the next 10,000 to 100,000 years. If the star is in its carbon burning phase, as Saoi and his team predicts, then it could be much sooner, though it may still take several more centuries to exhaust the remaining carbon. Meanwhile, if the star is still in its helium burning phase, as Molnár postulates, then don't hold your breath.

 

When it does go, it'll be a chip on the shoulder for Orion. - Sorry.

 

.

I've spent my professional and academic career being baffled and confused by the physicists, let's not bring any more confusion to FT! 

 

Great read though. Really will be an incredible thing to observe/study when it happens. 

[leicsmac]

4 hours ago, Line-X said:

Betelgeuse causing a stir again. I don't mean the Michael Keaton sequel, I mean exciting astronomers again - well some. Following the Great Dimming of last year caused by a stellar belch of gigantic proportions, the star's flatulence appears to have been quelled as it possibly gobbles up it's last remaining reserves of carbon. It's not known precisely what stage this has reached in its death throes, but a new paper (yet to be peer reviewed) Saio et.al from Tohoku University amongst other studies, which are just best fit models, (based upon pulsations and brightness), nonetheless indicate that not only is the star nearing the end of its life (from our frame of reference of course, since it is 642.5 light years away) and may be on the brink of going nova. Calculations indicate that its carbon reserves are may be somewhere between 17% and 0.5%. If this log plot is correct, then there is somewhere between 10 and 100 years before we witness Betelgeuse's spectacular collapse. If this blew today, the it would have actually happened around the time of the Peasants Revolt. The last supernova in our galaxy to be observed by the naked eye was Kepler's supernova in 1604, which would have occurred in 18,396BC - during the Neolithic Revolution. This would be visible during the day 

 

Once all the carbon is fused it burns into other elements, I believe I'm correct in saying - @Zear0 ? - the fusion process of neon, oxygen and silicon happens rapidly and exponentially, but when this runs out, no remaining potential fuel produces enough energy to support the star against gravity. The iron core collapses within minutes to form a solid neutron star - a neutrino soup - in which the inrush of surrounding gas rebounds against to form a supernova leaving a neutron star or a black hole (depending on the star). However, Betelgeuse might well be good for another few millennia, as another group of researchers, led by László Molnár from Konkoly Observatory in Hungary, have since countered this with their own findings indicating that in fact the star is in the earlier helium-burning stage of its lifecycle.

 

Astronomers agree that Betelgeuse will go supernova soon, but soon in astronomical terms could mean anytime in the next 10,000 to 100,000 years. If the star is in its carbon burning phase, as Saoi and his team predicts, then it could be much sooner, though it may still take several more centuries to exhaust the remaining carbon. Meanwhile, if the star is still in its helium burning phase, as Molnár postulates, then don't hold your breath.

 

When it does go, it'll be a chip on the shoulder for Orion. - Sorry.

 

.

It's always been a candidate to go "soon" (in astronomical terms), it would be deeply interesting if it were to happen much sooner, eg. within a human lifetime. I also wonder if we could be sure about what type of collapse it will experience - neutron star or black hole, or we can't be sure between the two? I'll have to do more reading.

[SpacedX]

7 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

It's always been a candidate to go "soon" (in astronomical terms), it would be deeply interesting if it were to happen much sooner, eg. within a human lifetime. I also wonder if we could be sure about what type of collapse it will experience - neutron star or black hole, or we can't be sure between the two? I'll have to do more reading.

I think that the jury remains out on that. From what I have read, it depends upon how much material remains in the central region after the supernova. If the remains are less than 2-3 solar masses then Betelgeuse will become a neutron star and will appear as a pulsar from our frame of reference. If the core remnants from the explosion exceed 3 solar masses then black hole formation is possible. From what I gather, most astronomers favour the possibility of the former as opposed to the latter but there is currently no means of predicting exactly what would be the final fate of Betelgeuse until it actually explodes. Perhaps @reporterpenguin could shine more light on the subject? (pun intended). 

[reporterpenguin]

29 minutes ago, Line-X said:

I think that the jury remains out on that. From what I have read, it depends upon how much material remains in the central region after the supernova. If the remains are less than 2-3 solar masses then Betelgeuse will become a neutron star and will appear as a pulsar from our frame of reference. If the core remnants from the explosion exceed 3 solar masses then black hole formation is possible. From what I gather, most astronomers favour the possibility of the former as opposed to the latter but there is currently no means of predicting exactly what would be the final fate of Betelgeuse until it actually explodes. Perhaps @reporterpenguin could shine more light on the subject? (pun intended). 

You’re right, there’s not a definitive answer to what will remain after the supernova, but a neutron star is the more likely. The mass ejected during the explosion is unlikely to leave enough mass behind to gravitationally collapse. 
 

This is why I prefer theoretical work, you know the initial conditions! Betelgeuse, despite being “close”, has such unpredictable behaviour many evolutionary models can fit the data and put it at wildly different stages. It also doesn’t help that it has a tendency to burp out clumps* of material that obscure our view like what happened during the apparent dimming a few years ago…

 

*Clumps is one of those words that sounds like it shouldn’t be the proper scientific term, but actually is! How clumps affect spectra is what my PhD study was on. 

[leicsmac]

 

A little space news.

 

It is pretty remarkable that SpaceX have made launching and then landing first stages of rockets almost as routine as flying airplanes these days. In a pretty short timeframe, too.

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-66043485

 

Wind and solar power are booming in China and may help limit global carbon emissions far faster than expected, according to a new study.  Solar panel installations alone are growing at a pace that would increase global capacity by 85% by 2025.  The report says the country's green energy targets for 2030 look set to be exceeded five years ahead of schedule. 

 

But coal plants are also increasing, partly as backup for all the new wind and solar farms, the authors say.

 

The Chinese are rising to the challenge. Not perhaps as much as could be done, but they are. Other parties must follow suit.

[Zear0]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-66043485

 

Wind and solar power are booming in China and may help limit global carbon emissions far faster than expected, according to a new study.  Solar panel installations alone are growing at a pace that would increase global capacity by 85% by 2025.  The report says the country's green energy targets for 2030 look set to be exceeded five years ahead of schedule. 

 

But coal plants are also increasing, partly as backup for all the new wind and solar farms, the authors say.

 

The Chinese are rising to the challenge. Not perhaps as much as could be done, but they are. Other parties must follow suit.

*Inserts casually racist remark about why we don't need to bother in the UK because the Chinese aren't doing anything about renewables*

[grobyfox1990]

16 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

*Inserts casually racist remark about why we don't need to bother in the UK because the Chinese aren't doing anything about renewables*

Haha that's proper fox news. The Chinese cornered this market and most of Africa because they can smell the $$$$$

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Zear0 said:

*Inserts casually racist remark about why we don't need to bother in the UK because the Chinese aren't doing anything about renewables*

Or something to do with the UK not having to do anything and go all free rider because "we're not that big" or somesuch.

 

44 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

Haha that's proper fox news. The Chinese cornered this market and most of Africa because they can smell the $$$$$

That and possibly because they play the long game better than other players.

 

NB. Unfortunately the above viewpoint on the Chinese is common enough to be a political point, so it is noteworthy, even if it is a fox news talking point.

[Innovindil]

1 hour ago, Zear0 said:

*Inserts casually racist remark about why we don't need to bother in the UK because the Chinese aren't doing anything about renewables*

Seems a bit of an unnecessary comment imo. As far as I can see, UK emissions have been falling for a few years bar the anomaly that was the end of the lock downs. Meanwhile despite the China wankfest there's are still increasing. 

 

 

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Innovindil said:

Seems a bit of an unnecessary comment imo. As far as I can see, UK emissions have been falling for a few years bar the anomaly that was the end of the lock downs. Meanwhile despite the China wankfest there's are still increasing. 

 

 

There's still far too much fobbing off of a global problem with global responsibility on the Chinese, though.

 

Edit: and the other big players too.

Edited 29 June 2023 by leicsmac

[grobyfox1990]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

Or something to do with the UK not having to do anything and go all free rider because "we're not that big" or somesuch.

 

That and possibly because they play the long game better than other players.

 

NB. Unfortunately the above viewpoint on the Chinese is common enough to be a political point, so it is noteworthy, even if it is a fox news talking point.

Yeh exactly, long game = $$$ and control. We were all so taken aback and shocked when our reliance on Russian crude money came and bit us on the backside. In a decade or so time it will be the same story with Chinese renewable energy.