Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
davieG

Technology, Science and the Environment.

By davieG, in General Chat

Recommended Posts

leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Sideshow Faes said:

When the energy profits levy was implemented specific tax relief for oil and gas investment was included, which was not the case for renewables.

 

But this is a distraction tactic.

 

Renewables are cheaper. Countries elsewhere have proven they can be used now. There are no good argument against.

Not least because if the world doesn't take them on quickly, at best there will be a horrible cost in resources, infrastructure and lives, and at worst we'll be left with an "economy" which will be based around bottlecaps for the few remaining viable tins of beans.

SpacedX

SpacedX

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

All fair points, apart from the unnecessary snide dig in the middle

If you are referring to my reference to your supposition and conjecture, it wasn't snide in the slightest, and that certainly wasn't my intention. It's true, as your post is ample testimony to.

 

2 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

but you haven't understood the point about hurricanes - or I haven't made it clearly enough.

 

Several years ago some people trying to get us worked up about global warming pointed to the increased number of hurricanes that happened over a two or three year period, saying this is a sign of global warning.  Maybe they convinced some people.  But then over the next few years, the number of hurricanes was lower than average, which gives global warming deniers the easy option of saying "you were wrong, the increase in hurricanes was not a sign of global warming".  

 

It may well have been though - and when was this precisely?  I'm sure if you are able to cite your sources it will be immediately evident that they did not unequivocally state that "this is a sign of global warming". They may well have postulated that to be the case. Are you sure that it wasn't simply sensationalism in the media which may have had its basis from one paper/journal publication? What do you mean by "some people"? Also, there are complex mechanisms involved in hurricane formation. Many of the quieter hurricane seasons coincided with either a developing or ongoing El Niño. This periodic warming of the eastern Pacific Ocean near the equator tends to produce higher wind shear in the Caribbean Sea and adjacent areas of the Atlantic Basin. Wind shear shreds tropical systems in their infancy. Long-term, global temperature rise will indeed influence the prevalence and the intensity of hurricanes, but that does not mean that there will not be anomalous years. If such a proclamation was made then who by? As I explained, detractors - mainly the same ones that don't understand the difference between weather and climate - will always look for deviations without actually understanding their cause. 

 

3 hours ago, Sideshow Faes said:

It's incredible how some people have such a strong opinion and feeling of being right about subjects where they clearly have little or no knowledge.

That's the internet age for you. May I suggest that you avoid the covid thread like an STD. 

Edited by Line-X
Trumpet

Trumpet

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

The Indian Chandrayaan-3 lands successfully near the lunar South Pole.

 

Congratulations to all involved. Hopefully we might find water ice there.

I’d hoped they’d have sent a naan up with it.


 

Could’ve been the first naan on the moon.

  • Haha 2
SpacedX

SpacedX

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, leicsmac said:

The Indian Chandrayaan-3 lands successfully near the lunar South Pole.

 

Congratulations to all involved. Hopefully we might find water ice there.

Some perspective - this has been achieved on half the budget that Christopher Nolan spent on Interstellar and $5 million less than Manchester United paid for Harry Maguire. And yet, this is geopolitically huge for India. Now Vikram is safely on the surface we await the deployment of Pragyaan and as you say, the search for water ice which is the lunar south pole is suspected to be replete with. 

SpacedX

SpacedX

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, leicsmac said:

It's about time.

 

It would have been nice to not have such shortsighted idiocy that it had to happen in the first place.

Agree.

 

There has been a deficit in UK research funding for years. Quality-related (QR) funding, which forms the bedrock of research revenue for universities, had fallen 12.8% in real terms since 2010 there have long been calls for the government to commit to increasing QR funding each year by at least the rate of inflation. Given the importance of research and innovation to the knowledge based economy (which Universities UK estimate could be worth up to £95b annually to our economy), in 2019 universities in England received £2.2 billion in the 2019 - 2020 academic year to support their research. The additional funding at the heart of the modern industrial strategy, was intended to give universities more capacity to invest in the “people, partnerships and infrastructure that are essential for delivering cutting-edge research that brings real-world benefits" in the fragile post-brexit landscape. But then covid happened which decimated funding and collaboration. 

 

Soap box deployed...

 

One of the many things that Brexit deprived us of was our participation in Horizons Europe, terminating our academics’ access to its gigantic funding pot preventing the UK from playing a leading role in directing the course of European science. We have been out of the the club, and not contributing for three years, which made the agreement on the latter even more problematic. The UK was locked out of Horizon in 2020 in a tit-for-tat dispute over the failure to implement the Northern Ireland protocol trade arrangements in the original Brexit withdrawal agreement. With these now resolved, earlier this year, during a visit to Vilnius Lithuania, the Prime Minister was questioned on the baffling length of time that we have taken to sign up. - particularly since the benefits to the global research community are so manifest. We have recently seen New Zealand enthusiastically seize the opportunity to join ffs! Sunak's response was that although our preference is to associate with the scheme, we need to be sure that is done in terms that work for the UK and are in its best interests and that the returns would justify the outlay. :frusty:. Well between 2007 and 2013, the UK contributed £4.3bn towards Horizon. In return we got £7bn in research funding, a £2.7bn excess that represented grants worth more than £300m a year for our scientists. Horizon Europe has put aside funds worth £85bn for 2021-27. It's estimated that the UK would miss out on economic growth up to £230b unless we increase support for our science. Data from the European Commission shows a huge drop in awards to British science programmes since 2019.Sir Paul Nurse, the Nobel laureate and head of the Francis Crick Institute in London recently opined - “everywhere where science and technology matter will be damaged if we don’t associate with Europe’s Horizon programme.” 

 

The UK represents just 0.9% of the global population, but off the top of my head accounts for something like  4% of researchers, 10% of downloads, 12% of citations and 16% of the world's most highly-cited journal articles recording the research undertaken. That is astonishing, but is in jeopardy. Membership of Horizons is crucial to maintaining our national standing. This, as you say Mac, is long overdue. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, SpacedX said:

Agree.

 

There has been a deficit in UK research funding for years. Quality-related (QR) funding, which forms the bedrock of research revenue for universities, had fallen 12.8% in real terms since 2010 there have long been calls for the government to commit to increasing QR funding each year by at least the rate of inflation. Given the importance of research and innovation to the knowledge based economy (which Universities UK estimate could be worth up to £95b annually to our economy), in 2019 universities in England received £2.2 billion in the 2019 - 2020 academic year to support their research. The additional funding at the heart of the modern industrial strategy, was intended to give universities more capacity to invest in the “people, partnerships and infrastructure that are essential for delivering cutting-edge research that brings real-world benefits" in the fragile post-brexit landscape. But then covid happened which decimated funding and collaboration. 

 

Soap box deployed...

 

One of the many things that Brexit deprived us of was our participation in Horizons Europe, terminating our academics’ access to its gigantic funding pot preventing the UK from playing a leading role in directing the course of European science. We have been out of the the club, and not contributing for three years, which made the agreement on the latter even more problematic. The UK was locked out of Horizon in 2020 in a tit-for-tat dispute over the failure to implement the Northern Ireland protocol trade arrangements in the original Brexit withdrawal agreement. With these now resolved, earlier this year, during a visit to Vilnius Lithuania, the Prime Minister was questioned on the baffling length of time that we have taken to sign up. - particularly since the benefits to the global research community are so manifest. We have recently seen New Zealand enthusiastically seize the opportunity to join ffs! Sunak's response was that although our preference is to associate with the scheme, we need to be sure that is done in terms that work for the UK and are in its best interests and that the returns would justify the outlay. :frusty:. Well between 2007 and 2013, the UK contributed £4.3bn towards Horizon. In return we got £7bn in research funding, a £2.7bn excess that represented grants worth more than £300m a year for our scientists. Horizon Europe has put aside funds worth £85bn for 2021-27. It's estimated that the UK would miss out on economic growth up to £230b unless we increase support for our science. Data from the European Commission shows a huge drop in awards to British science programmes since 2019.Sir Paul Nurse, the Nobel laureate and head of the Francis Crick Institute in London recently opined - “everywhere where science and technology matter will be damaged if we don’t associate with Europe’s Horizon programme.” 

 

The UK represents just 0.9% of the global population, but off the top of my head accounts for something like  4% of researchers, 10% of downloads, 12% of citations and 16% of the world's most highly-cited journal articles recording the research undertaken. That is astonishing, but is in jeopardy. Membership of Horizons is crucial to maintaining our national standing. This, as you say Mac, is long overdue. 

Absolutely.

 

The problem is that way too many people, including those with power and influence, will either not see this or simply view it as unimportant despite all of the evidence to the contrary regarding scientific research and how important it is.

dsr-burnley

dsr-burnley

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 07/09/2023 at 13:51, SpacedX said:

Agree.

 

There has been a deficit in UK research funding for years. Quality-related (QR) funding, which forms the bedrock of research revenue for universities, had fallen 12.8% in real terms since 2010 there have long been calls for the government to commit to increasing QR funding each year by at least the rate of inflation. Given the importance of research and innovation to the knowledge based economy (which Universities UK estimate could be worth up to £95b annually to our economy), in 2019 universities in England received £2.2 billion in the 2019 - 2020 academic year to support their research. The additional funding at the heart of the modern industrial strategy, was intended to give universities more capacity to invest in the “people, partnerships and infrastructure that are essential for delivering cutting-edge research that brings real-world benefits" in the fragile post-brexit landscape. But then covid happened which decimated funding and collaboration. 

 

Soap box deployed...

 

One of the many things that Brexit deprived us of was our participation in Horizons Europe, terminating our academics’ access to its gigantic funding pot preventing the UK from playing a leading role in directing the course of European science. We have been out of the the club, and not contributing for three years, which made the agreement on the latter even more problematic. The UK was locked out of Horizon in 2020 in a tit-for-tat dispute over the failure to implement the Northern Ireland protocol trade arrangements in the original Brexit withdrawal agreement. With these now resolved, earlier this year, during a visit to Vilnius Lithuania, the Prime Minister was questioned on the baffling length of time that we have taken to sign up. - particularly since the benefits to the global research community are so manifest. We have recently seen New Zealand enthusiastically seize the opportunity to join ffs! Sunak's response was that although our preference is to associate with the scheme, we need to be sure that is done in terms that work for the UK and are in its best interests and that the returns would justify the outlay. :frusty:. Well between 2007 and 2013, the UK contributed £4.3bn towards Horizon. In return we got £7bn in research funding, a £2.7bn excess that represented grants worth more than £300m a year for our scientists. Horizon Europe has put aside funds worth £85bn for 2021-27. It's estimated that the UK would miss out on economic growth up to £230b unless we increase support for our science. Data from the European Commission shows a huge drop in awards to British science programmes since 2019.Sir Paul Nurse, the Nobel laureate and head of the Francis Crick Institute in London recently opined - “everywhere where science and technology matter will be damaged if we don’t associate with Europe’s Horizon programme.” 

 

The UK represents just 0.9% of the global population, but off the top of my head accounts for something like  4% of researchers, 10% of downloads, 12% of citations and 16% of the world's most highly-cited journal articles recording the research undertaken. That is astonishing, but is in jeopardy. Membership of Horizons is crucial to maintaining our national standing. This, as you say Mac, is long overdue. 

I wonder if these scientists actually contribute anything to Horizon?  Obviously we're taking out vast shedloads of money from Horizon, and presumably always were, but surely there is some input as well?  Horizon isn't just a charity formed to help Britain get rich; its purpose is to provide mutual benefits from the sharing of knowledge.

 

As it stands, the UK has 17 universities in the world's top 100 and the Horizon programme has 13.  Combined, the new Horizon will have 30.  Is there any benefit to Horizon's global standing in more than doubling its number of top universities on the books, so to speak, or is the benefit all to the UK and Horizon has lost nothing by its posturing over Northern Ireland trade?

 

https://www.topuniversities.com/student-info/choosing-university/worlds-top-100-universities

 

Edited by dsr-burnley
SpacedX

SpacedX

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

I wonder if these scientists actually contribute anything to Horizon?  Obviously we're taking out vast shedloads of money from Horizon, and presumably always were, but surely there is some input as well?  Horizon isn't just a charity formed to help Britain get rich; its purpose is to provide mutual benefits from the sharing of knowledge.

The UK will contribute almost €2.6 billion per year on average for its participation to both Horizon Europe and the Copernicus Earth Observation Programme programme. We will not pay association fees for the period of exclusion from the arrangement. Also, the underperformance clause/automatic clawback first proposed in 2020 allows the U.K. to be  compensated should our scientists receive significantly less money than has been put into the programme.

 

Our researchers can now access and apply for grants from a vast source of funding that had been denied in addition to being able to to participate in Horizon Europe on the same terms as academics in EU member states and will again have the opportunity to lead consortia on collaborative research projects. For example, nearly two thirds of all cancer research in the UK over the last decade was funded by the EU. And of course the benefits of our participation are both mutual and reciprocal. EU researchers and institutions have been equally stymied by not being able to collaborate with the UK. Horizons is part of a greater worldwide network of researchers and innovators committed to tackling global challenges in climate, energy, mobility, digital, industry and space, health, and the ramifications of the pace of technological acceleration wrought upon society. Real world, applied research together with engendering knowledge sharing is the renewed mission of our institutions across the planet. Collaboration is key to this and essential for the vitality of science in the UK and elsewhere, whilst being conducive to new discoveries, innovation and the world economy. As explained, this is also an essential step in re-building and strengthening our global scientific standing.

 

9 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

As it stands, the UK has 17 universities in the world's top 100 and the Horizon programme has 13.  Combined, the new Horizon will have 30.  Is there any benefit to Horizon's global standing in more than doubling its number of top universities on the books, so to speak, or is the benefit all to the UK and Horizon has lost nothing by its posturing over Northern Ireland trade?

 

https://www.topuniversities.com/student-info/choosing-university/worlds-top-100-universities

 

You are overlooking the fact that this is not simply academics and institutions that will benefit from this, but industrial researchers that have long been at the heart of the scheme. Horizon Europe is open to all legal entities. This means that e.g. researchers, businesses, institutions, universities, associations, organisations established in an EU Member State or a country associated with Horizon Europe can participate and receive funding from the programme. Again, this is a reciprocative relationship/process across the scheme. 

 

 

 

SpacedX

SpacedX

Posted
Posted
12 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

But is this the sort of deal that is of mutual benefit to both the UK and the EU, or is it (as seems to be the implication) a good thing for the UK but makes little or no positive difference to the EU?

As explained, it is of huge mutual gain and in the reciprocal interest for both the UK and the EU whilst the beneficiaries from the impact of this renewed research collaboration are on a global scale. 

  • Like 2
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66786611

 

Nasa's James Webb Space Telescope may have discovered tentative evidence of a sign of life on a faraway planet. 

 

It may have detected a molecule called dimethyl sulphide (DMS). On Earth, at least, this is only produced by life. 

 

The researchers stress that the detection on the planet 120 light years away is "not robust" and more data is needed to confirm its presence. 

 

Researchers have also detected methane and CO2 in the planet's atmosphere.  Detection of these gases could mean the planet, named K2-18b, has a water ocean.

 

Interesting stuff.

 

I've said it before, but at this point I'd happily take a decent bet that there is at least simple life in a lot of places even in our local universe, and we'll find proof in the next fifty years.

  • Like 2
Zear0

Zear0

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66786611

 

Nasa's James Webb Space Telescope may have discovered tentative evidence of a sign of life on a faraway planet. 

 

It may have detected a molecule called dimethyl sulphide (DMS). On Earth, at least, this is only produced by life. 

 

The researchers stress that the detection on the planet 120 light years away is "not robust" and more data is needed to confirm its presence. 

 

Researchers have also detected methane and CO2 in the planet's atmosphere.  Detection of these gases could mean the planet, named K2-18b, has a water ocean.

 

Interesting stuff.

 

I've said it before, but at this point I'd happily take a decent bet that there is at least simple life in a lot of places even in our local universe, and we'll find proof in the next fifty years.

Curious as to what they'd need to detect for it to be irrefutable. 

leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

Curious as to what they'd need to detect for it to be irrefutable. 

Get a sample that provides observational  evidence of the life under a microscope would be the ultimate final test, I think.

 

But I think of a combination of chemical biosignatures similar to life on Earth (as opposed to just one or two different ones) would be enough to be reasonably sure.

  • 2 weeks later...
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted (edited)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66879093

 

Eight-year-old Aditi Shankar has become the first child in the UK to receive a special type of kidney transplant that does not require her to take long-term drugs to stop rejection of the organ.

 

Doctors at Great Ormond Street Hospital say the breakthrough was made possible by reprogramming her immune system before giving her the new kidney.

 

To do that, they used bone-marrow stem cells from the donor - Aditi's mother.

 

Another brilliant landmark in medical science. Imagine where we might be in a few decades.

Edited by leicsmac
  • Like 3
ALC Fox

ALC Fox

Posted
Posted
12 hours ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66879093

 

Eight-year-old Aditi Shankar has become the first child in the UK to receive a special type of kidney transplant that does not require her to take long-term drugs to stop rejection of the organ.

 

Doctors at Great Ormond Street Hospital say the breakthrough was made possible by reprogramming her immune system before giving her the new kidney.

 

To do that, they used bone-marrow stem cells from the donor - Aditi's mother.

 

Another brilliant landmark in medical science. Imagine where we might be in a few decades.

Absolutely magnificent 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...