science and natural history

All the threads I started are in the topic called environment. I just thought that people interested in science would be interested in the environment. If that is not the case with grans then it is very sad indeed.

PS where are all these "science & natural history" posts then??
Suggest "string theory"

Thought that this post was beginning to tick along nicely until it too was hijacked! Perhaps those posting before the takeover bid started on 8 June simply thought 'Here we go again' and gave up, knowing what was coming next!

Following a browse round the site I came across an 'environment' topic which the gransnet clever people have suggested might incorporate all these climate change posts. Climate contrarianism? However it does not seem to be attracting many posts. Wonder why?

I love science, did 3 at A level. I think that we are not too good at general science education in the UK. I also love the natural world & feel very blessed living in the countryside.
I may be a bit thick, but it seems to me that the debate about climate change & whether we are in a "natural cycle" etc. is an academic one (in all senses).

It is just common sense to look after the planet (including humans) as best we can. When I clean my kitchen I am not thinking about academic debates on bacteria & which disinfectants kill them - I am using common sense.

So with climate change, the ozone layer etc.etc. Academic study is important, should be properly financed and researched. Whilst that is going on, let us be as careful as we can with natural resources.

I agree Jackyann: we should look after the planet because it is our home and the home of our future descendents. I too would like to see a greater interest in science. I often envy the Germans, because their logical language makes science feel much more accessible. For instance, their word for hydrogen is something like 'water stuff'. Scientific words we use in English are usually far less obvious, being from Greek or Latin.

I'm glad one of my sons and his fiancee both have science degrees - this should help my future grandchildren

This link is to a glorious picture of stormy weather on Saturn. It's really worth a look: wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/08/giant-storm-on-saturn-has-massive-lightning-activity-caught-on-tape/

An interesting article about the Met Office (link below) covering some of its history. The section I quote below made me smile. It would appear that the esteemed Met does not think solar sunspots are merely "a distraction".

"scientists at the Met Office and elsewhere are beginning to understand the effect of the 11-year solar cycle on climate. When sunspots and other solar activity are at a minimum, the effect is similar to that of El Niño: more easterly winds and cold winter weather for Britain.
“We now believe that [the solar cycle] accounts for 50 per cent of the variability from year to year,” says Scaife. With solar physicists predicting a long-term reduction in the intensity of the solar cycle – and possibly its complete disappearance for a few decades, as happened during the so-called Maunder Minimum from 1645 to 1715 – this could be an ominous signal for icy winters ahead"

www.ft.com/cms/s/2/35145bee-9d38-11e0-997d-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz1RacNghPj

Correct me if I am wrong, but was it not proven a while ago that cloudiness varies according to how many atomic particles are present? .... I hate to think that all my efforts to reduce my carbon emissions are actually a waste of time, and the effect of greenhouses gases are minimal, well much less than we are made to believe?

Is that you Baggy?

Jangly, I think we can safely say it is the one and only

Love you Bagsy

helshea and jangly,

Well posted baggy,very very interesting reading

I thought this thread was Anyone interested in the Sciences' and I am.
Always have been since grammar school.
This thread is now about Climate Change and looking after the planet. The planet will look after itself. it does not need us and will survive us. We just have to try and find a way to keep the planet hospitable to us and the rest of living creatures.There is a lot of research going on and the news which we get is often not related to facts but is thought to be Newsworthy i.e. makes people frightened.

We are using the internet and that uses up more energy than any amount of flights or lorries or anything which we think there should be less of.
So from now on less googling - to save the planet!

I quite agree with the first part of your post Charlotta, but want to query your statement about the internet.
I thought (and as I am building an energy efficient house, have been looking at this stuff) that computers used minimal energy. I suppose that as we use computers a lot, and fly rarely, it may add up.
Maybe we should rate items by their usefulness per energy unit!

We always watch the Royal Society Xmas lectures on the TV. They did one on computers a couple of years ago and I found it so helpful.
When I did Alevel physics we thought ourselves so lucky to have the use of a calculator: the size of an old-fashioned type-writer, it sat in the secretary's office and we would go in with all our figures written down, type them in, and a piece of paper, like a till receipt, printed out the results for us!

The computer I saw on TV somewhere was the main Google computer in the USA(?)which seemed like some sort of huge, humming electricity centre, where Google is based. It said it was so enormous that Google itself requires so much energy just to keep going. There are other search machines which use less but Google seems now ready to rule the world. In comparison Murdoch is only a minor player - but that is another thread.

You were lucky I did my physics without a calculator, but at least the in chemistry the elements had simple numbers.

yeh well there is a difference between annual variability and long term trends.
There is a difference in a long term trend of global warming and the effect this might have on various local weather patterns.
One thing is sure it is a bad idea for a couple of generations to gobble up all the fossil fuels so greedily and leave none left for our descendants. And yes some people will argue that there is lots left. In places like the Arctic where the local environment will be trashed by the industry. Or in shales - but the technology is very iffy.
I am still convinced by the following "big picture":
The natural cycle circulates a certain amount of carbon every year. Imagine it as water running from a tap into a bath and then out of the plughole. For the last 200 years we have been adding more and more water to the bath (i.e. carbon to the atmosphere). But the plughole has not got bigger. In fact, with deforestation and desertification it has probably got a bit smaller. There is nowhere for all this carbon to go. The only 2 options are 1. taken up by photosynthesising plants and 2. dissolving in the oceans and making them a bit more acidic. Neither of these can give us a bigger plughold. So CO2 in the atmosphere will be raised and will stay raised. And in the ancient past, there were times when CO2 was high - the world responded by getting warmer - the poles were steamy and warm and covered in tree ferns and dinosaurs - and sea levels were a lot higher. "Gaia" if she was a person doesn't give a toss whether humans are here or not. What's a few low lying countries when you are working in billions of years?
But yes, this thread is now about the environment...

Back to basics - how come spiders don't get tangled up in their webs?

Good morning Helshea. I wonder if we have any arachnologists in gransnet.I'm sure i remember reading about this subject in the past.
My favourite science story of the week was that Uk scientists have found a way to build workable "scaffolds" for stem cell transplant technology. They used a polymer to make a mould of a man's windpipe. Then put it in a bath of his stem cells. Very quickly they had a new windpipe for him that would not cause rejection. The op was quite simple and was done in scandinavia. They have been working towards this for a while - it is a huge breakthrough. very exciting

DH was writing software to generate spider webs for and academic study when I first knew him. I understand that some of the forces in spider webs have been applied to modern building techniques and design. I think spiders don't get tangled in their webs partly because they can eat and recycle any silk that isn't where they want it, but it's also because they are simply brilliant at their job, both building and then using their webs. The ones that didn't do so well went extinct in nature's usual way of dealing with what doesn't work.

Yeh - the one that got tangled up wouldn't last very long would it.

Thanks for the input - and we have now moved back to topic which is good!

I find it fascinating watching a spider roll up it's prey in the web. I was amazed to see one trapping a wasp, I thought wasps were safe from predators.

Does anyone know why a duck's quack does not have an echo? I'm sure one of you smart gransnetters will have the answer.

How do we know it doesn't have an echo?