Technology, Science and the Environment.

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

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. 

Tbh I'll welcome that debate in a decade or two, because it will mean that we still have a workable civilisation in which such a debate can happen.

 

Those are the stakes, after all.

[yorkie1999]

5 hours 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.

Bet it's not an independant report. Chinese manufacturing is driven by government subsidies and investment schemes that allow business to produce millions of items that just end up on scrapheaps, but allow the government to show they're doing their bit for the world.

 

https://insideevs.com/news/672926/china-abandoned-electric-car-graveyard-byd-geely/

Edited 29 June 2023 by yorkie1999

[leicsmac]

11 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

Bet it's not an independant report. Chinese manufacturing is driven by government subsidies and investment schemes that allow business to produce millions of items that just end up on scrapheaps, but allow the government to show they're doing their bit for the world.

 

https://insideevs.com/news/672926/china-abandoned-electric-car-graveyard-byd-geely/

The report is by a US-based NGO of 15 years with a good track record and a funding model that doesn't go anywhere near China (or indeed, anyone else with skin in the game). If it can't be trusted, then I'm not sure what report from what organisation can.

 

The second sentence is a non-sequitur that has nothing to do with China building energy infrastructure at a rapid pace.

 

And, as per above, looking down our collective noses at the "yellow peril" isn't going to save us or them or anyone else on this one.

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-66058976

 

"Humans are well known as super predators but for the first time scientists have put a figure on it.

We exploit around a third of all wild animals for food, medicines or to keep as pets, putting almost half at risk of extinction, they say."

 

I wonder if any other single species has been solely responsible for a mass extinction event before?

[Sparrowhawk]

4 hours ago, leicsmac said:

I wonder if any other single species has been solely responsible for a mass extinction event before?

Almost certainly not.

 

(Probably not many species have ever been hell-bent on  causing their own extinction, either...)

[SpacedX]

27 minutes ago, Sparrowhawk said:

(Probably not many species have ever been hell-bent on  causing their own extinction, either...)

Definitely not a a small woodland bird of prey in the family Accipitridae. 

[leicsmac]

26 minutes ago, Sparrowhawk said:

Almost certainly not.

 

(Probably not many species have ever been hell-bent on  causing their own extinction, either...)

This is an interesting talking point, I reckon.

 

My take is there is a lot of species that seem hellbent on causing their own extinction in exactly the same way it seems humans are - by thinking only in terms of the next street over and the next couple of days and the next meal. Keep thinking like that and something that was unplanned and unprepared for - whether it's another species, some kind of environmental change or simply a natural disaster - will come along and royally mess things up.

 

Of course, the difference between humans and everything else is that (we think) humans are the only species with the cognitive capacity to really fvcking know better.

[Sparrowhawk]

37 minutes ago, Line-X said:

Definitely not a a small woodland bird of prey in the family Accipitridae. 

Small?

SMALL?

 

Humph.

[Sparrowhawk]

3 hours ago, leicsmac said:

This is an interesting talking point, I reckon.

 

My take is there is a lot of species that seem hellbent on causing their own extinction in exactly the same way it seems humans are - by thinking only in terms of the next street over and the next couple of days and the next meal. Keep thinking like that and something that was unplanned and unprepared for - whether it's another species, some kind of environmental change or simply a natural disaster - will come along and royally mess things up.

 

Of course, the difference between humans and everything else is that (we think) humans are the only species with the cognitive capacity to really fvcking know better.

Yeah - other species might do it to themselves, but with them it's accidental.

With what we know, the only logical conclusion is we're doing it deliberately.

[SpacedX]

2 hours ago, Sparrowhawk said:

Yeah - other species might do it to themselves, but with them it's accidental.

With what we know, the only logical conclusion is we're doing it deliberately.

https://www.british-birdsongs.uk/sparrowhawk/

[SpacedX]

 

As much as I'm excited about the research opportunities availed by this venture, I'm under no illusions regarding the fact that the entire project is predicated on the highly questionable folly that is 'space tourism' and the potential commercial exploitation/profit from this. Virgin Galactic are no Ocean Gate, but although superbly executed in terms of design and expertise the possibility of another loss of vehicle and its occupants is frighteningly real. It would be daft to suggest that civilians should not be sent into space, after all, NASA is a civil space agency and Neil Armstrong himself was the first civilian that they sent into space (Gemini 8). For all the hype, Virgin Galactic does not really go into space - and the risks are too great. The apogee of this flight was 52 miles, 275,591ft - which is not even conventionally regarded as 'space' at all. Although the boundary is arbitrary, most regulatory agencies (including the United Nations) accept the FAI's Kármán line definition which is 62 miles (54 nautical miles). US Armed Forces definition of the border with space is indeed 50 miles, so may pilots of the X-15 earned their astronauts wings. However flight 91 piloted by Joseph Walker reached 62 miles in altitude in 1963 at Mach 5.68 - (although the fastest speed recorded was Mach 6.70). The X-15 could have gone much faster and higher, but that was not its objective. 

 

This parabolic cannonball shot and rocket powered rollercoaster ride for paying customers is fraught with risk. Far more could have been accomplished backing the Virgin Orbit venture which ceased operations with following the major mission failure of LauncherOne earlier this year and the retraction of funding meaning the entire workforce was let go. The funding was very complex, but many regarded it as a far more worthwhile venture than the sensationalism of its parent company Virgin Galactic and the satisfaction of a billionaire's bucket list. 

 

 

Edited 1 July 2023 by Line-X

[dsr-burnley]

4 hours ago, Sparrowhawk said:

Yeah - other species might do it to themselves, but with them it's accidental.

With what we know, the only logical conclusion is we're doing it deliberately.

It is deliberate in a sense.  But what's the solution?  Other species, under normal circumstances, can't wipe each other out because when the food supply of the prey starts to run out, then the predators die of starvation or fail to rear their young which gives the prey time to recover.  Or there is a pandemic among the predators which kills a load of them off.

 

When our prey runs short, we don't die of starvation; we find more efficient ways of catching the prey or growing the food at the expenses of animals.  When we have pandemics, or for that matter all sorts of other illnesses like heart disease, cancer, measles, etc., we find ways to stop them killing us.  That is indeed deliberate.

 

When food was short and medicine was rare, the population bumbled along steadily.  When food is more plentiful and medicine keeps us alive longer and helps us procreate more, the population explodes.  When we reach a stage when we can give birth to 2 children and fully expect both to live to adulthood, then the population stabilises.

 

What's the solution to too many people?  Decimation?  Sterilisation?  Withdrawal of medical treatment?  If you want fewer people, you have to kill some of them.  No other answer.

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

It is deliberate in a sense.  But what's the solution?  Other species, under normal circumstances, can't wipe each other out because when the food supply of the prey starts to run out, then the predators die of starvation or fail to rear their young which gives the prey time to recover.  Or there is a pandemic among the predators which kills a load of them off.

 

When our prey runs short, we don't die of starvation; we find more efficient ways of catching the prey or growing the food at the expenses of animals.  When we have pandemics, or for that matter all sorts of other illnesses like heart disease, cancer, measles, etc., we find ways to stop them killing us.  That is indeed deliberate.

 

When food was short and medicine was rare, the population bumbled along steadily.  When food is more plentiful and medicine keeps us alive longer and helps us procreate more, the population explodes.  When we reach a stage when we can give birth to 2 children and fully expect both to live to adulthood, then the population stabilises.

 

What's the solution to too many people?  Decimation?  Sterilisation?  Withdrawal of medical treatment?  If you want fewer people, you have to kill some of them.  No other answer.

And that point is the solution in itself.

 

The global population is already slowing in terms of growth and I'm reasonably sure that given tech advancement and human ingenuity it would be possible for this Earth to support 10-11 billion people sustainably. If not...well, I guess we'll keep going until nature forces our hand there.

 

In any case, the point here isn't that we're driving ourselves to extinction through some kind of Malthusian incident involving population numbers, it's that we are ignoring anything not in our line of sight both spatially and temporally which has allowed for the abrupt (as opposed to gradual population decline) extinction of so many species in the past. The danger isn't some kind of slow crash caused by overpopulation, it's things (or a combination of things) much more sudden and much more drastic.

 

 

[Sparrowhawk]

5 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

What's the solution to too many people?

No expert me, but I don't think there are too many people.

We just don't produce stuff well enough or share it properly, and we keep on doing all the stuff that will mean we all end up dead.

[SpacedX]

https://physicsworld.com/a/european-space-agency-launches-euclid-dark-energy-mission/

 

Far more enthralling than Virgin Galactic, The ESA Euclid telescope was successfully launched today by a Space X Falcon 9 from the Cape and will observe billions of galaxies during its six-year survey of the sky, measuring their positions and configurations going back 10 billion years which is more than 70 percent of cosmic history.

All this and the ambitious goal of helping astronomers and cosmologists learn about the properties and role of dark matter and dark energy, which are thought to comprise about 95 percent of the Universe.

 

It will take around a month to reach the L2 Lagrange point and after three months of evaluation and calibration, Euclid should be ready to start its operational science mission in the Autumn.

 

Apparently, Engineers performed additional checks to ensure Euclid’s sensitive optics and telescope made of silicon carbide which combine the properties of metal and ceramics, could withstand the stronger vibrations of SpaceX’s rocket which was negotiated following the unavailability of a Soyuz - for obvious reasons. From what I've gleaned, SpaceX charged the ESA about $70 million to launch Euclid, which is about $5 million above the standard commercial “list price” for a dedicated Falcon 9 launch. Why? it incurs extra costs for SpaceX to meet the stringent cleanliness requirements for launch of such a telescope. A grain of dust or a piece of hair contamination in the telescope’s optics could ruin the mission. 

 

As was the case of the JWT it's now all anticipation and waiting as the initial data and images are announced later this year. 

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-66064838

 

"The shipping industry is under growing pressure to dramatically curb planet-warming emissions from smokestacks at a meeting in London this week.

Maritime transport emits as much CO2 in a year as Germany but is the biggest global sector without a goal for cutting emissions to "net zero"."

A part of the problem that has been mentioned a few times here and does need looking at.

 

[Sparrowhawk]

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-us/press-office/news/weather-and-climate/2023/fingerprints-of-climate-change-on-june-temperature-records

 

Apparently June was the hottest on record in the UK...

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, Sparrowhawk said:

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-us/press-office/news/weather-and-climate/2023/fingerprints-of-climate-change-on-june-temperature-records

 

Apparently June was the hottest on record in the UK...

 

On 14/06/2023 at 22:03, Otis said:

Well you are comparing apples and oranges.

You are correct in stating June averages 18-20c . Today is one day, you would need to wait until June is over to compare June 2023 with historical averages. 

 

Catastrophizing every individual event is neither helpful or healthy. Resulting in the message you are trying to send getting lost in the continual noise of non-events.

And so now we know.

[The Bear]

Wildlife experts have said that fish and small insects etc are dying earlier this year because the rivers and surrounding areas just don't have any time to recover from the weather extremes. It's one extreme event after another (respectively speaking for Britain). Wettest ever spring, hottest June, driest ever, etc. Spring was colder and wetter than normal, and then we get baked with a heatwave. Those extremes mean creatures can't cope. 

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, The Bear said:

Wildlife experts have said that fish and small insects etc are dying earlier this year because the rivers and surrounding areas just don't have any time to recover from the weather extremes. It's one extreme event after another (respectively speaking for Britain). Wettest ever spring, hottest June, driest ever, etc. Spring was colder and wetter than normal, and then we get baked with a heatwave. Those extremes mean creatures can't cope. 

And this is the thing that sadly quite a few people don't or won't get - increasing global temperatures forcing climate change won't just result in hotter weather on average, it will result in more extremes of weather of many types. This will have a lot of unpleasant effects, causing trouble to various animal ecosystems being a big one.

[leicsmac]

On 13/12/2022 at 21:40, ithuriel said:

Sounds like a great museum, park, thingy? 

If the science to some is like this, well, imagine what the environment is like.

On this topic, a more recent couple of finds:

 

 

(Giraffes are actually one of the single best proofs of evolution as opposed to intelligent design. Each one has a nerve that goes around a ligament in its chest near its heart that travels all the way up its neck and then back down again where it meets its destination a few inches from where it started.)

 

 

To be honest, I guess I can't blame them. If you accept evolution is valid then you have a really hard time justifying the idea of original sin, and you're left with Deism which is kinda hard to use as a cudgel for theocratic policy that thinks far more about the "next" world than this one.

 

[nnfox]

On 03/07/2023 at 16:16, Sparrowhawk said:

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-us/press-office/news/weather-and-climate/2023/fingerprints-of-climate-change-on-june-temperature-records

 

Apparently June was the hottest on record in the UK...

And Monday just gone was the hottest global day recorded.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66104822

 

We hear about local weather records being broken quite regularly, but this is the first time I have seen a stat like this.

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, nnfox said:

And Monday just gone was the hottest global day recorded.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66104822

 

We hear about local weather records being broken quite regularly, but this is the first time I have seen a stat like this.

I fear it will not be the last time that record is broken in the near future.

[Daggers]

 

[Sparrowhawk]

10 hours ago, leicsmac said:

I fear it will not be the last time that record is broken in the near future.

And - Tuesday has beaten Monday as the globally hottest day ever...

Did you think the future would be quite that near?