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
20 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

 

Really makes me think - I've never properly travelled, done plenty of countries in Europe and a couple of trips to USA/South America.

 

All this stuff is disappearing, so I really ought to pack in work for a bit and get around the world to see it while I can. All too aware that that is the kind of thing which isn't helping at all though (plus I have so far lacked the balls to do the first part of that plan).

Don't buy into neo-Luddite strawmen, either by those who spout it or by those who weaponise it as a way to discredit the entire green movement.

 

We don't need to give up the good things in this world in order to survive as a civilisation. We just need to change how we carry them out.

  • Like 1
WigstonWanderer

WigstonWanderer

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-60815547

 

"This is madness. Addiction to fossil fuels is mutually assured destruction."

 

Yep. With the added irony that as the additional strain on resources caused by climate change causes bigger fall-outs between leading nations, it may well be "mutually assured destruction" that finishes what the Earth started.

Alternatively, perhaps the current higher prices of fossil fuels will encourage the uptake of alternatives.

  • Like 1
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Alternatively, perhaps the current higher prices of fossil fuels will encourage the uptake of alternatives.

Hopefully so.

 

We wait and see.

blabyboy

blabyboy

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Only half of the story though. The other half is that high fossil fuel prices will make greener alternatives comparatively cheaper to consumers and power generating companies, encouraging a switch.

That is true. However, a lot of the alternative green research is being done by the same oil extraction companies and peripheral services which stand to gain from the price increase and that already have the infrastructure in place. The increase in volume to pump is a no brainer to continue with predictable outcomes versus unknown future deliverables.

 

Another effect closer to your point is that we will see increases in green generated power to just below the value of gas/chemical means, so it remains cheaper but extracts more profit from the end consumer.

Strokes

Strokes

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, blabyboy said:

That is true. However, a lot of the alternative green research is being done by the same oil extraction companies and peripheral services which stand to gain from the price increase and that already have the infrastructure in place. The increase in volume to pump is a no brainer to continue with predictable outcomes versus unknown future deliverables.

 

Another effect closer to your point is that we will see increases in green generated power to just below the value of gas/chemical means, so it remains cheaper but extracts more profit from the end consumer.

This is why the government needs to set the green agenda, too many people stand to profit from fossil fuel shortages.

This transition over could have been smooth but they consistently have been in the pockets of the energy companies.

  • Like 1
fox_up_north

fox_up_north

Posted
Posted

Out of interest - has anyone on here had solar installed and has it been beneficial? I'm looking to get them done and not particularly interested in moving home. Also south/SW facing with nothing blocking the light.

 

Quotes I'm getting around £4,500 for 6-7 panels. I feel it's all a bit null and void without a battery, though, which pushes up the cost to £7000. 

 

Is that money better spent on other things?

Crinklyfox

Crinklyfox

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, fox_up_north said:

Out of interest - has anyone on here had solar installed and has it been beneficial? I'm looking to get them done and not particularly interested in moving home. Also south/SW facing with nothing blocking the light.

 

Quotes I'm getting around £4,500 for 6-7 panels. I feel it's all a bit null and void without a battery, though, which pushes up the cost to £7000. 

 

Is that money better spent on other things?

I haven't had them installed at home but I was Chairman of our local bowls club when we decided to have them installed about five years ago.  Our Treasurer had done a few sums based on expected savings and reckoned it was in the best long term interests of the club.

 

So far the savings we have achieved have been far below those anticipated.  Plus our insurance now requires an annual inspection of the panels by a qualified person, we can't do it ourselves, which is an additional cost.  I don't know when, if ever, we will recover the outlay through savings on our electricity bill.  I certainly wouldn't do the same again.

leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted

As per the cost of living thread, these green energy solutions need to be made affordable to get people to buy into them, but for the sake of the future even if they're not they need to happen anyway.

String fellow

String fellow

Posted
Posted (edited)

Here's perhaps a good example of a useless scientific discovery. If you're in space, and spin a wing nut rapidly off a fixed bolt, it will keeping spinning once free, then flip itself over by 180 degrees, then flip itself back to its original orientation, and so on, whilst continuing to spin. It's known as the Dzhanibekov effect and explained mathematically, using Euler's equations of motion, by the Intermediate Axis theorem aka the Tennis Racket theorem. When tossed upwards, a tennis racket will invariably flip sideways through 180 degrees. 

https://www.sciencealert.com/watch-wtf-is-going-on-with-this-object-spinning-in-zero-gravity

Edited by String fellow
  • Like 1
SpacedX

SpacedX

Posted
Posted
On 26/03/2022 at 11:48, leicsmac said:

277309335_519016222918758_22412437443666

 

The difficulties of science communication.

And the difficulties of having a coronavirus thread on a football forum. 

leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted

A useful resource here.

 

"Long post.
 
Human beings are interesting in a “makes me want to tear my hair out” kinda way. Most people love science until it picks on their pet belief system. Most people love science until scientific consensus says something they don’t quite like.
Most people love science until the double “c” word is uttered: Climate Change. Global warming being the cause, climate change being the result.
 
Yes, our climate is changing, both as a part of Earth’s natural cycle and due to human contributions. Human contributions have sped up our climate changing and are causing it to change at higher levels than what has occurred in the past. lose their absolute shits over this. You’d think I had walked into a room and announced that we should all have sex with cactuses or something.
 
Scientific consensus for climate change, much like vaccination technology, evolution, the origin of the Universe and genetically modified food (amongst others), have been built upon - not by a bunch of scientists in a room agreeing with each other but from hundreds and thousands of studies, thousands and millions of hours of data collection from multiple disciplines spanning hundreds of years.
 
Scientific consensuses are like puzzles that have been constructed from data contributed from many different disciplines to produce the big picture we have in regards to scientific theories. Each piece representing the large contributions from different fields and disciplines of study. Rome wasn't built in a day and neither was the scientific knowledge we presently have.
 
Evolution, for example, has been constructed from the data presented by biology, palaeontology, biochemistry, geology and genetics (to name a few).Scientific consensus doesn't just support a theory - it is what has pieced the theory together into an explanation for a phenomena. Feel free to disagree with scientific consensus, but understand that you will need to support you disagreement with evidence. Understand that it isn’t just the theory itself you are disagreeing with, it is the findings from every different discipline that has contributed to the overall picture.
 
This also applies for climate change. Meteorology, geology, physics, chemistry, biology, geophysics, historical climatology, even paleontology and archaeological record have contributed to what we know of the early Earth’s climate vs now.
We have the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) the scientific and intergovernmental body working under the auspices of the United Nations. It was first established in 1988 by two United Nations organisations, the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme.
 
We also have (but not limited to): Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency (Aus), Office of Global Change (US), Met Office (UK), Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (Aus), Council on Environmental Quality (US), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (US), United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, APEC Climate Center (Korea), Center for Climate Systems Research, Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy (England), Centre for International Climate and Environmental Research (Norway), Energy Research Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences (Russia), Indian Network on Climate Change Assessment (India), Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies (Germany), Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (Austria), National Academy of Sciences (NAS), The Royal Society of the UK, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS).
I have even bothered to put NASA on the list. I haven’t finished listing down all of the government agencies, independent agencies, and organisations that are involved in climate research.
Each of the organisations have website, their publications and research are easily accessible. Go find their websites, click their links and read.
 
An introduction to the Greenhouse effect and has this impacts on climate change: http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/.../greenhouse_effect/01.shtml
There are two components in the greenhouse effect — a natural one caused by the amounts of greenhouse gases naturally found in the atmosphere — and a human-made one caused by the amounts of greenhouse gases that we add to the atmosphere as a result burning fossil fuels, deforestation, chlorofluorocarbons - to name a few. Greenhouse gases include water vapour (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), methane (CH4) and ozone (O3). (While methane is 23 times more effective and nitrous oxide is 296 times more effective than carbon dioxide, however we have more carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere than methane or nitrous oxide).
Greenhouse gases allow sunlight to enter the atmosphere and shine onto the Earth’s surface which is converted to heat, however they trap the heat that reflects back up into the atmosphere much like the glass walls of a greenhouse. This greenhouse effect keeps the Earth warm enough to sustain life.
 
In brief greenhouse gases are released in the atmosphere, not all of them stay in the atmosphere (an amount of CO2 will dissolve into the oceans), however due to the large amount of gases which are being released into the atmosphere, enough gas is staying within the atmosphere to cause an impact.
 
 
An everyday example of the greenhouse effect
 
If you open the door of a car that has been left parked in the sun for a couple of hours, you'll notice that the temperature inside the car is much warmer than the temperature outside. This is because the windows of the car allow the sunlight to enter. This light, once inside, is then partially converted into heat. However, these same windows do not allow the heat inside the car to pass through as easily as light, so some of this heat accumulates. The net effect is that more heat remains in than can come out, increasing the temperature inside the car (https://whatsyourimpact.org/greenhouse-effect).
 
The warming of the Earth’s atmosphere can cause a dramatic rise in sea level that will significantly impact to coastal communities. If the whole Greenland ice sheet melted, for example, this would lead to a global rise of 7 m (23 ft).(http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080416/full/452798a.html).
 
More energy in the atmosphere will lead to more active weather systems which has resulted in more frequent and more violent storms. Climate being the average weather in a place over many years - localised and long range climate changes have been impacted by the warming of the globe. Rainfall patterns have significantly changed, with floods in some places and droughts in others - this will impact crops (particularly in developing nations) and have an economic impact on the agricultural industry. Not just regular crops - coffee, tea, and chocolate.
 
Speaking of impact to food - Carbon dioxide dissolves in water by reacting to make H2CO3 (carbonic acid), causing great damage to fish, also to coral reefs (http://www.chemistry.wustl.edu/.../FreshWater/acidrain.html). Other impacts to ecosystems will arise as a result of glaciers melting and causing floods - vectors that spread tropical diseases (mainly mosquitoes) will begin to move into new areas, spreading disease which will impact lives and health care. Habit change or loss will impact on ecosystem - species migration is slow and some habit may disappear completely. Losing polar climates will impact of polar bears, for example.
Because the glaciers are melting, the planet cannot reflect as much solar radiation back into space, leading to more warming. As the northern permafrost melts, organic material will decompose and release methane, again leading to more warming. As the oceans warm, their ability to dissolve carbon dioxide decreases, and if the ocean temperatures rises passed a certain point the methane stored under pressure on the seafloor will vaporise, leading to more ****ing warming (http://e360.yale.edu/.../as_arctic_ocean_ice_disappears...)
 
Are you sensing a theme here?
 
Even if you don't accept the scientific consensus on climate change - are you really that invested in fossil fuels which cause pollution and impact on our health, that you would rather stick your finger in your ears than do something about it?
Well then get your shit together, get it all together and put it in a backpack, all your shit, so it's together. And if you gotta take it somewhere, take it somewhere, you know, take it to the shit store and sell it, or put it in the shit museum. I don't care what you do, you just gotta get it together.
 
Get your shit together.
 
The research falls into several independently studied, but physically related, lines of evidence:
1. Simple chemistry – carbon dioxide (CO2) and the Greenhouse Effect: https://history.aip.org/climate/co2.htm
2. Basic accounting of what we burn, and therefore how much CO2 we emit (data collection beginning in 1970s): https://www.eia.gov/about/legislative_timeline.php
3. Measuring CO2 in the atmosphere and trapped in ice to find that it is increasing and that the levels are higher than anything we’ve seen in hundreds of thousands of years (measurements beginning in 1950s): http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/keeling_curve
4. Chemical analysis of the atmospheric CO2 that reveals the increase is coming from burning fossil fuels: http://www.realclimate.org/.../how-do-we-know-that.../
6. Monitoring climate conditions to find that recent warming of the Earth is correlated to and follows rising CO2 emissions (research beginning in 1930s): http://www.ipcc.ch/publication.../ar4/wg1/en/figure-1-3.html
7. Ruling out natural factors that can influence climate like the sun and ocean cycles (research beginning in 1830s)
9. Consensus among scientists who consider all previous lines of evidence and make their own conclusions (polling beginning in 1990s): http://iopscience.iop.org/.../10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
More links:
More links to papers here: https
Impact on weather events:
The Climate Council in my country has even issued a publication providing information on how climate change impacts on weather: http://www.climatecouncil.org.au/.../1b331044fb03fd0997c4...
The IPCC also has every assessment report, and special report they have completed accessible here for free: https://www.ipcc.ch/.../publications_and_data_reports...
"Assessment Reports: These are published materials composed of the full scientific and technical assessment of climate change, generally in three volumes, one for each of the Working Groups of the IPCC, together with their Summaries for Policymakers, plus a Synthesis Report
Special Reports: These are materials that provide an assessment of a specific issue and generally follow the same structure as a volume of an Assessment Report"
  • Like 1
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Otis said:

No one is reading that.

TL;DR - If we continue as we are civilisation is screwed, there is next to no dissent *whatsoever* from those who are studying the topic, and to sort it out we need fundamental changes in the way we generate energy.

 

Want to do your bit? Lobby your MP/ government.

 

4 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Check out @leicsmacwith the tough love. :P

 

Unpleasant news needs government led exit plans and 5k off a 15k cost is selling this still abstract danger to very few

I'll be honest, this is relatively tame compared to some analyses I've heard - or even considered.

 

Certainly agree that government needs to incentivise, but that has zero bearing on the danger itself, only on whether or not it will fvck us up royally.

Otis

Otis

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

If we continue as we are civilisation is screwed, there is next to no dissent *whatsoever* from those who are studying the topic, and to sort it out we need fundamental changes in the way we generate energy.

 

Want to do your bit? Lobby your MP/ government.

Yeah you keep saying. I remember being told the same thing 30 years ago but we're still here.

Energy created by renewables is increasing year on year and will more than likely continue to increase as technology advances. But stopping oil, coal and gas tomorrow isn't the answer,  as renewables aren't up to speed and sending a letter to your mp is going to change the fact.

leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Otis said:

Yeah you keep saying. I remember being told the same thing 30 years ago but we're still here.

Energy created by renewables is increasing year on year and will more than likely continue to increase as technology advances. But stopping oil, coal and gas tomorrow isn't the answer,  as renewables aren't up to speed and sending a letter to your mp is going to change the fact.

... and the global average temperature has increased ever more sharply over those last 30 years, hence the difference in meaning now. Effects are already being felt in various places around the world.

 

WRT the changes themselves, of course renewables aren't ready to take up the slack yet, but firstly I'm not suggesting we just pull the plug (rather a phased transfer over the next 20-30 years), and secondly I'm not advocating for renewables alone. Additional public pressure, rather than elected representatives sitting back and thinking everything is fine, along with their constituents, might make things happen a bit faster. It's certainly better than the approach some have that basically amounts to "well, we're all dead anyway".

Otis

Otis

Posted
Posted

The phased transfer is already happening. I don't see how lobbying MPs will speed up technological advances. We need to start building reliable energy sources ie. Nuclear. 

  • Like 1

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
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...