Ken Fabian

Needs much more precise alignments and timing than that to suggest 'deliberate' or 'artificial' to me. A couple of days before the Summer Solstice (Southern Hemisphere here) is not the same day ie not precise, and the closest it gets is nearly 2x the distance of Earth to the Sun (and never got closer to the sun than Earth) ie not close at all. Passing 'close' to the ecliptic is a consequence of the direction it came from, but again it is not that precise and that direction seems as likely as any other, ie coincidence. This object may have been traveling for billions of years, potentially for longer than Earth has existed as a planet; it would take extraordinary (prophetic) foresight and precision to aim such an object and time it's passage to coincide with this planet's solstice. As only the 3rd interstellar object detected any 'uniqueness' looks a consequence of small sample size. Very worthy of study but not so worthy of unfounded but imaginative speculations, no matter how much fun speculation can be.

Sometimes we don't need to run the numbers to have high confidence that something doesn't add up. Where is the extra energy coming from? Error seems much more likely than conservation of energy being wrong and you solving our energy/emissions/climate dilemma with your insights. When you have a working prototype and it does what you think it will and that is independently confirmed... you should submit the results to the leading physics journals. I'll look forward to the news about your Nobel Prize. There are attempts to use generators on rails as energy storage but the engineers correctly assume the energy going in will equal all the energy going out, which must include losses from inefficiencies. Which appear to be greater for this than we get using battery storage.

I am curious about the propensity and possibility for worlds evolving life naturally and how similar or different to life as we know it but I am not interested in the potential for human colonization. I think interstellar colonisation is an attractive fantasy - a good topic for imaginative fiction - but very not-realistic. It is not a reasonable goal or motivation, especially in the absence of the technological and economic capabilities needed. Even if we were close to the technological capabilities required for sending people there such a planet would have more attraction as something for people to study more directly - but not colonise. I think if we do achieve the technological and economic capability to send people to the worlds of other stars with enough equipment and resources to establish a colony we won't need planets to colonise for any species survival reasons. Artificial habitats in space, difficult as those are, seem more reasonable, offering greater potential, because they can be almost anywhere and be made with just right conditions inside for humans and biosystems that support human life. Assuming it is technologically and economically feasible to send people an exo-planet with life might rate a mission for studying and sampling using probes and rovers, from the safety and comfort of a space habita - but even uncrewed robotic missions seem extraordinarily difficult and expensive. The value of such a world will be diminished by attempting to colonise it even if not remaking the native biology (ie kill and replace or genetically modify) to be more human friendly. It seems rather primitive and short sighted to sacrifice that extraordinary scientific opportunity for such a self indulgent goal as conquest, terraforming and land ownership. I also suspect any planet with life will have a low probability of being biochemically compatible with terrestrial life. Even if it has an atmosphere roughly equivalent to Earth in Nitrogen, Oxygen, water vapour and etc (a product of life) it is optimistic to imagine humans could breathe unfiltered air safely; living biology is extraordinarily inventive when it comes to allergens, poisons, diseases and parasites. For most of Earth's living history this planet didn't have atmosphere humans could safely breathe. I expect it will be detection of bio-signatures that finds evidence of life beyond our solar system. We may yet find evidence of life within this solar system - and go on to determine if such life originated and was spread from Earth, emerged independently or is indicative of interstellar pan-spermia.

I usually try a hard 2 hand squeeze first, interlocking my fingers and squeezing with the heel of the palms to push the rim out of round. If that doesn't do it I do like Gordief does - punch a small hole in the lid to release the suction. Depending on contents I might put tape over the hole or transfer to another container.

This isn't something I foresee having widespread application. Whilst efficiency gains - using waste heat that would otherwise go to waste - are a significant element of decarbonising it is a stretch to call it 'clean, green'; that will depend on the sources of energy powering the data centre. Decarbonising the primary energy inputs needs to remain a priority. Ideally we want ever more energy efficient chips and data storage, ones that don't shed so much heat. Maintaining long running dependence on ongoing data centre inefficiency for the sake of the waste heat for other uses would be a mistake to my mind. Even district heating systems, that should be built with very long working life, will need to avoid dependence on waste industrial heat from sources that themselves need to transition to energy efficient low emissions alternatives.

The freedom to infringe the freedoms of others isn't the kind of freedom I aspire to. I currently enjoy a high degree of personal freedom, that I attribute to the presence of democratic governance and the rule of law. Those are far from perfect but not having them is worse. Some good points in comments. Poverty is not conducive to enjoying a sense of freedom and fixing either/both isn't a zero sum game - more like feedbacks that amplify each other.

@studiot The links are to interviews, so there is some reading or listening to find and get to the significant bits. That format may not be to everyone's taste but I found it informative. Unusual to get answers about emerging technologies from people doing them.

@studiot Thanks for the heads up. Yes, this is something I think has a lot of potential for cities and towns in climates that are less suited to air source heat pumps aka reverse cycle A/C. Wider application than that but warmer climates have other options with less up front costs. And there are air source types now that handle below freezing temperatures. A site that looks at the emerging possibilities, that I recommend is Volts Substack - https://www.volts.wtf/archive?sort=new - that does interviews with people involved in them, rather than the more usual press release with some (inexpert) commentary. David Roberts usually asks the questions that I want answered but often don't get asked. The boreholes in this case appear to tap into an aquifer and those have been a preferred option for borehole ground-source geothermal. Very good heat transfer, even potential for using the existing water as the working fluid, may not need very deep boreholes and potentially less of them than in dry ground and rock. In this case the boreholes are pre-existing, hopefully of a diameter suitable. It does sound like the aquifer is being warmed by the city above but not sure by what means. Groundwater inflows? An aquifer can be isolated or there could be continuous underground flows; if it has been gaining heat then it may be an isolated one or partially so. Which may in turn allow 'reversible' use, where summer cooling transfers heat to the underground water, which gives inter-seasonal energy storage. Where the water flows they don't provide storage per se, but have advantages like more constant temperature range. Some other variations I've encountered include the conversion of a city gas supply pipeline infrastructure, enhanced by industrial waste heat and added boreholes (without aquifer). https://www.volts.wtf/p/thermal-energy-networks-are-the-next The pipelines are not buried deep but are more like the pipes buried in trenches style, yet do appear to have reversibility, shedding heat into the ground when used for cooling as well as using the heat for homes and businesses. There is at least one US company doing retrofitted systems for larger city buildings with small drill rigs and continuous feed of one piece pipe lining. Some of their innovation is in building databases of underground conditions including mapping existing infrastructure to avoid; the advantage of that seems cumulative, ultimately allowing more accurate quoting of costs in place of the surcharges to cover unexpected conditions. https://www.volts.wtf/p/making-geothermal-heat-pumps-work Some improved drilling technology is a big part of that last example. For that other kind of geothermal - the sort intended for electricity production - we may see "millimetre microwave" deep drilling that overcomes some of the cost limitations of accessing heat enough to produce electricity at scale, potentially almost anywhere. Not a technology that gives advantage over conventional drilling at shallow depths - too much variability of ground geology there - but seems suitable for hard rock and at depths where the temperatures are a problem for conventional drilling. https://www.volts.wtf/p/super-deep-geothermal-drilling-with Note, I haven't re-read each of these interviews; I think I've got the correct ones.

@sethoflagos Perhaps not a point by point response but more like an attempt at explaining my thinking. I am unashamedly an RE optimist - one of the few aspects of the climate issue I do find cause to be optimistic about. To me it looks like RE with increased electrification is responsible for more emissions reductions - or at least reduced growth of emissions and getting nearer the necessary tipping point where FF use begins to decline and existing capacity displaced - than anything else.

The original use may have required a precise length/depth, thus the mounting 'knobs', that look like they would use grub screws to hold in place. And selling them on rather than sharpening would make sense. As pointed out in other comments the sharpening angles can be changed. The alloys used cannot; if a production drill in a demanding application then likely higher than usual quality alloy would explain their durability. Making them to replace when blunted (sold on after resharpening, not re-used) would make sense if length has to be precise. I am imagining a quite large regular chuck would be needed to hold them.

@sethoflagos - I'm not opposed to things that reduce emissions but I am unconvinced CCS is the best option or best use of resources. Or ultimately is a scalable option. This looks more like a pilot project to me, an investment in an experiment rather than in reliable emissions reductions - given CCS does not have good track record of delivering reliable results and even now more captured CO2 gets used for enhancing oil production than any other use. It risks an "oh, too bad, that didn't work as well as hoped" outcome that came tied to investing less in other options. I was thinking power plants burning wood pellet biofuels would be counted as low emissions and that, like most governments and affected businesses the UK's would not normally or willingly go above and beyond the minimum requried under international agreements (where their negotiators sought doing the least possible). If so count me surprised and amazed. Or confused. Are emissions from burning woodchips in the UK counted as UK emissions the same as if they were burning coal or gas? And the forest growth that produces woodchips gets counted as emissions reductions or offsets by the source nation? The producer nations will want the 'credits' for themselves, in their efforts to minimise their obligations. Carbon removal is certainly being promoted as a major emissions reduction option but looks primarily a keep on as we are with minimal change now and reduce atmospheric concentrations later option. Somehow later has to be paid for. With levies/carbon taxes they become financially dependent on continuing to make emissions - funding beyond that for atmospheric CDR looks problematic to me; the absolute quantities involved mean it needs to be an industry as large or larger than any other industry sector, to run for a long time into the future. I'd like to think we will do so despite the costs (which minimise the cumulative climate costs) but I am doubtful of it and see maximising growth of low emissions energy as better. Unwillingness to commit to major government expenditures on such things later - given they seek to avoid commitments now - seems likely. CO2 pipelines like that seem roughly equivalent in engineering terms to gas pipelines. That is not low cost or short life infrastructure and having spent that money, those doing it will be resistant to the low emissions options that obsolete them before their use by date. The running costs of power plants equipped for it have to include ongoing fuel supply as well as CO2 removal that seems likely to be as costly or more costly, which at best will be a lot less than 100% capture. Gas fields full of old boreholes may not have the geological integrity of pre-exploitation - this is an experiment, with long term results that are uncertain and probably unknown well beyond the time of the project. CCS will have running costs, including energy requirements. The weight of CO2 is very large and volumes large too, even if more dense than gas. The efficiencies will matter to assessing the effectiveness. If forest growth draw down persistently fails to equal the emissions, or combustion inefficiency results in post-use emissions that weren't counted we need to know that. Like I said it seems more about delaying and evading investment in low emissions energy than doing emissions reductions better. Some delaying - use of interim options - can make sense, to ease the transition ; I see businesses decarbonising and getting time (and government support) to do so as the alternative to having rising carbon pricing or ultimately climate liability imposed on them. @studiot I don't know how well other greenhouse/district heating options will do the job - ground source geothermal has a lot going for it but it takes significant foresight, planning and investment. Which is true of most elements of a transition to low emissions.

I am deeply dubious of the viability of CCS and have an overabundance of cynicism for schemes that seem intended for saving fossil fuels from global warming. 2 to 3 tons of CO2 for each ton of fuel (which seems an underestimate given production emissions are greater than what happens at end use combustion and that burning is inefficient but un-burned 'wastes' probably decompose later to produce more emissions), where the costs of dealing with the CO2 will almost certainly exceed the fuel costs and both CCS and fuel costs are ongoing? If the fuel is woodchips and CO2 drawdown by forest regrowth is the carbon capture and it is in balance (which is not necessarily the case) it would be zero emissions and the argument would surely be that doing CCS is superfluous - or else paid for by taxpayers as part of a wider CO2 drawdown program (which I am also deeply doubtful of). The amount of infrastructure investment and ongoing running costs (including significant energy requirements) seem very large. And there are opportunity costs - what could have been with the same resources. Right now it looks like investment in solar, wind and batteries get more for the same money than any other options - and most directly displaces the sources of emissions.

@Externet I think the basic idea does have enough merit to deserve a closer look - but does the underwater water motion in the opposite direction to the wave actually move "backwards" (in an absolute sense) or is it more a case of moves forward with the crest but closer to stationary in reverse? Engaging my brain a bit longer suggests it must move in reverse - net water motion = zero.

It looks like these are for a specific type of 'chuckless' drilling machine - normal cutting tips but how they are mounted is unusual. As a WAG I'd say for a production line drilling machine.

This would have earned a downvote from me, except the downvote option isn't working for me. It does get you reported to moderators for bigotry that comes across as hateful.

There is no urgency; the problem (if species and planets being 'mortal' is a problem) is so far in the future that attempts to address it now seem unlikely to have lasting significance. Surviving on Earth until then seems to be single the most important thing we can do to give humanity a long future and more than challenging enough to occupy our future 'building' efforts. What humans can do in the face of imminent extinction won't include moving the planet; SF may feature imagination unbounded but reality is a lot more constrained. Given rockets moving between inner solar system to outer solar system typically require more fuel/reaction mass than payload supplying more than an Earth mass of fuel seems insurmountable. Space habitats built out of asteroid/comet resources that do exist in great abundance - far easier to move (and can be designed for it) - seem a more credible 'life beyond Earth' scenario. And even that is only likely as an emergent outcome of large scale, long running profitable economic activities in space. Planned colonies/societies/economies in extreme conditions with 'lead us to immortality in the promised land' motivations don't inspire me or fill me with confidence.

Removing and excluding grazing livestock in previously forested areas seems like the least effort way to get more forests. Where deforestation was relatively recent there will be seed stored in soils and some wind borne, animal borne or other vectors result in seeding, otherwise mass seeding and planting will become necessary. It is unlikely to be enough to restore what deforestation (including from livestock grazing) preceded it and the resultant ecosystem will be species poor in comparison to pre-deforestation. A lot of the deforestation goes back a long way and preceded industrialisation. Agriculture will only give up land where improved productivity allows reduced land requirements; agricultural productivity is critical to expanding re-forestation. Given the needs of agriculture I remain doubtful enough suitable land will be freed up for total biomass to grow beyond pre-deforestation levels and do not think any sustainable increase in total global biomass that is less than that should count as offsetting ongoing emissions. It is one thing to have plants draw down lots of CO2, another to have that continue indefinitely without topping out. Another thing again to cost effectively store/sequester biomass carbon (via permanent burial?) - which biomass could otherwise be biofuel. Where biomass does get burned or otherwise used it is almost certainly going to return carbon to the atmosphere - what emissions reductions bio-fuels can give over fossil fuels counts for the displacing the fossil fuel emissions but won't reduce atmospheric concentrations.

We may be unable to change the fanatics' minds but it is probably a good thing that they know what they believe is not universally believed and why we disagree. If that makes us an enemy of their faith/ideology in their eyes it is useful to know that. Where their fanaticism comes with belief that 'promoting and defending The Faith' trumps society's laws - where insist their beliefs should be society's laws and seek to confine the holding of societies Offices of responsibility and power to those who share their 'belief' - it is useful for them to know we do not think their beliefs put them above the law and they will face opposition and legal action.

@arc Are you attempting to explain away global warming without the greenhouse gases or other human influences? Any expectation that you have done so in your presentation here seems naive. Gavin Schmidt quotes are out of date - saying 2023-24 is unexplained is out of date. Studies have been done since then that suggest it maybe shouldn't have been so surprising. Hindsight is like that. I'm fairly sure 1997-98 and 2015-16 seemed unexpected and inexplicable at the time too. An el Nino ENSO state, above average extra-tropical heat, in part from reduction in NH tropospheric sulfate aerosol cooling (less pollution from cleaner shipping fuels) and some reduced cloud cover (in part from less of those aerosols). And the continued accumulation of global warming since the last record breaking year explain it. The big Tonga eruption did less than expected. The aerosol cooling is not a good thing, especially not when tied to ongoing fossil fuel burning and CO2 emissions - it masks the full extent of how changed the climate system already is and whilst that cooling effect stops when the fuel burning stops the warming from raised CO2 persists. Emerging studies are showing acceleration in the underlying rate of global warming - in hindsight looking like the underlying rate of warming had already increased in the decade leading up to 2023. but was not incorporated into expectations. Acceleration of global warming isn't unexpected - the opposite - just hard to identify at close range. If you are hoping for a point by point response to your post... not me. We know what the drivers of climate change are and it isn't changes to solar magnetic energy. 2023-24 was a surprise at the time but not so much of one in hindsight. My own view is the science based understanding of Earth's climate system is a jewel in the crown of human achievement; that we appear to have largely squandered decades of the priceless window of opportunity that climate science has given us - opportunity to decarbonise our ways - wasn't and isn't the fault of climate scientists or their communication. Governments commissioned the science agencies and studies in order those in Office make informed, appropriate policy decisions. Perhaps naively I think those holding such Offices have duties of care; the reality of extreme negligence, with malice aforethought, is deeply dismaying

@exchemist I seem to recall suggesting precursor chemical rich meteorites impacting in shallow seas and near hydro thermal vents might be significant to abiogenesis in another thread - but I'm struggling to find my older content in this version of the forum. Whilst that occurred to me independently I think it seems kinda obvious - over hundreds of billions of years such coincidences become more likely than not to happen.

Sounds unsurprising to me. Already existing air and water borne micro-organisms (and macroscopic ones too) will very rapidly re-colonise a disturbed environment. A meteorite creating a hydro-thermal vent system where none previously existed is more interesting but wouldn't there would have to be hot rocks or magma there? An existing aquifer but no surface vents? Would the existing underground water have life in it? I am imagining shattering of rock strata that allows water to flow where it hadn't before, releasing and extending existing aquifers (which may have inflows of life-contaminated water from elsewhere) or perhaps a crater would be a catchment for rain that carries microorganisms down the vents, even creating a new aquifer where none had existed in hot rock.

Showing scientists get something wrong doesn't mean all science is wrong, just that that specific thing is wrong. I think they need to provide examples of science being wrong that have not been challenged by scientists and faced correction rather than a history of poor science being challenged and corrected. The infectious agents (germs) example is especially weak; it didn't replace wrong science, it replaced miasma, humors, God's punishments, karma. ie superstition. Granting the possibility a widely held science based understanding could be wrong as a means to identify error is an error correction methodology but that kind of skepticism can only hold the possibility of 'wrong' as a hypothesis; it is not the same as knowing (demonstrating with evidence and reason) that it is wrong. There are areas of science where uncertainty is high and there are competing hypotheses - science as a work in progress. There are areas where there is no real uncertainty; the confidence is that high. But the very willingness to subject existing scientific understandings to challenge can be seen as lack of confidence, ie a state of perpetual uncertainty. Not that I think there is much successful arguing with religious devotees using evidence, logic and reason; they will be hard pressed to provide evidence the fundamental nature of the universe enables supernatural phenomena and will reject evidence, logic and reason that conflicts with their dogma. And their dogma may not allow admissions of 'wrong'.

They need to demonstrate the reality of their supernatural stuff - and/or of the universe having a fundamental nature that enables it. But don't expect such minds to be changed with evidence and reason. Examples of 'science was wrong' from nearly 2 centuries ago - haven't they got something more current? - are examples of scientific methods working. The disease example was not even a case of an existing science based understanding being shown to be incorrect - Miasma and Humors, God's punishments and Karma as causes were never science based. It took an improved and demonstrably more correct understanding for the previous incorrect 'knowledge' of how diseases work to be deemed wrong and abandoned. If they can show a specific science based understanding is incorrect then they can claim that one is incorrect; it doesn't work as a way to reject other unrelated things, let alone reject scientific methodologies entirely. Claiming the supernatural stuff 'proves' science is wrong is kinda weak when they can't demonstrate the supernatural stuff.

I was thinking that was a shallow dive and I'm not equipped with scuba... those waters run deep and aren't quite as cold as ice (apologies to JJ Cale fans). Warming Southern Ocean water appears to be the greatest driver of ice mass loss via under-melt of those ice shelves (the main cause of thinning) and subsequent loss of 'buttressing' increasing glacier outflows. Direct surface air temperature warming with surface melt flowing down to glacier base and 'lubricating' (lifting the ice base above the underlying ground - another variation of loss of buttressing - where ice flow is less impeded) - seems less of a factor there than for Greenland. The Arctic including Greenland does have much greater Surface Air Temperature rise than Antarctica - than anywhere else. Greenland will be getting under-melt of ice shelves in addition. Without diving as deep as this deserves - Antarctica is more isolated from the rest of the global climate system than anywhere else, not only because the Southern Hemisphere has more ocean and is warming a bit slower than Northern but from that huge surrounding buffer of Southern Ocean. From the linked Nature article it sounds like that loss of buttressing and raised glacial outflows is effectively irreversible even (if it were to occur) with persistent increase in snowfall; the lag between snowfall increase in the catchment and glacier outflows will be too long to affect the near term acceleration of outflows - and it will take a LOT more sustained snowfall to keep ahead of that. The possibility that warmer Antarctic air temperatures would result in greater snowfalls (and rising Antarctic ice mass) did seem a realistic possibility to earlier scientists but reality is not heading that direction. Some regions are indeed gaining ice mass but others are losing more. I still expect Antarctica to throw up some surprises.

There has been no overall 'accumulation at a steady pace', only a few years of rebound within a longer decline, that in very unlikely to persist. Antarctic ice mass has been declining at an average of around 140 Gigatonnes per year since Grace satellite measurement began in 2002. https://earth.gov/sealevel/rails/active_storage/blobs/redirect/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBc2dKIiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJibG9iX2lkIn19--cb8a3a0bbedbda841e308fad122db622593644ac/ais_gris_with_vel_i_200204-202311_2160p25.mp4?disposition=inline Yes there has been some rebound in ice mass since 2021 from some years of higher than average snowfalls. Ice mass loss is effectively the difference between snowfall and glacier discharge and there are a lot of factors in play.. Ice shelves are glacier/ice sheet discharge. There has been a trend of ice sheet thinning and loss of underpinning contact with seamounts, resulting in acceleration of ice flows from the loss of buttressing. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07049-0 Sea ice is frozen seawater and isn't a factor for sea level rise.