Super short post.

Very simple.

Did you know that the sun (sol) is so massive that it contains 99.8% of all the mass in the solar system.

It's radiant energy supports nearly all life of Earth and it drives the climate and weather*

Core temperature 15,000,000 degrees and it's surface is about 6,000 degrees. That's pretty warm.

Source: NASA



* Take note IPCC.

Tags: sun, Solar, Sol

Ok. So there might well be a likelihood that Roland Emerich might be over egging the whole 2012 thing in order to score it large at the box office.

But it's true to say that there is quite a substantial number of stupid gullible nervous people who think that the ancient culture of the Maya might well have a better handle of the world, solar system and everything that is our common understanding today.

This is usually stated under the premise of their wide understanding of the solar year. But this is a mistake. Because the calendars of common use in Mayan civilisation were based around exactly 365 days. Making them LESS accurate than either the Julian or modern Gregorian calendar. Not MORE accurate as is commonly believed. So complicated is the nature of Mayan calendars, that a series of calendars run within each other to resolve such issues. The most recently highlighted of which is the so called "Long count" calendar.

Next up is the understanding of the Mayan interest, if not obsession with the nature of time and repetition. This has subsequently produced an obsessive response in media pundits. Now, I don't know about you... but I'm looking forward to Christmas, and the New Year and perhaps spring. All of which are, for Western cultures, similar cyclical events.

Even if you look at the myth of the end of the long count calendar, it's no way clear whether or not this is a good or bad thing. But it's clear that it's something that will affect the great and bountiful Mayan civilisation. Which is where we have a little problem with the prophesy. In that, quite frankly, there isn't a great and bountiful Mayan civilisation any more.

Sure, there are descendants of the Maya, but they neither inhabit the Mayan cities, nor believe the same gods nor share the same culture as the classical Mayan civilisation. In the same way as Italians are descended from the Roman empire...

So if there is no Mayan culture to be affected, just how accurate can this myth be. The fact is that Maya culture was already collapsing as early as the 8th the 9th century AD. The reasons for which are unclear. The basic camps are either societal collapse or environment pressures.

The fact is, the "myth" is in itself a "myth".

"Mainstream Mayanist scholars argue that the idea that the Long Count calendar "ends" in 2012 misrepresents Maya history. To the modern Maya, 2012 is largely irrelevant, and classic Maya sources on the subject are scarce and contradictory, suggesting that there was little if any universal agreement among them about what, if anything, the date might mean."

(Source: Wikipedia)

Next up we have the idea that the planets will align and will all point towards galactic central point.

First up, according to NASA, and I imagine they might know, there are NO planatery alignments for a few decades and as for galactic central point. Well, that happens EVERY DAMN YEAR!!!

As for the whole Nibiru / rogue planet concept. Well, apart from the fact it's got no scientific basis... we'd see the damn thing by now! Right now, in the sky with our naked eyes. But the thing is we don't. And there is a reason for that, it's not there.

What we have here are two conflicting predictions. One by a group of non-scientific people who wish to sell books, DVD's and cinema tickets. The other prediction is by scientist who have spent decades on a mixture of disciplines and know what they are talking about.

Sadly, I suspect it's the former who are going to get more and more attention as time goes on.

Tags: mayan, maya, 2012

Another tour de force of b*lls up from tonights "One Show".

Dan Snow did a little segment on duelling, detailing the duels of the mid to late 19th century.

During the usual blather up at the end of the piece he made a great point to say the "Duelling is actually still legal in Florida. So long as nobody gets hurt."

How wrong can any one man get. Florida made a state constitutional law AGAINST duelling in 1838. Article 6, Section 5 states that -

"No person shall be capable of holding, or of being elected to any post of honor, profit, trust, or emolument, civil or military, legislative, executive, or judicial, under the government of this State, who shall hereafter fight a duel, or send, or accept a challenge to fight a duel, the probable issue of which may be the death of the challenger, or challenged, or who shall be a second to either party, or who shall in any manner aid, or assist in such duel, or shall be knowingly the bearer of such challenge, or acceptance, whether the same occur, or be committed in or out of the State."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duel


So, only 100% wrong and 170 years out of date then. Nice one Dan!

Tags: One Show, duelling, florida, Dan Snow

According to the BBC news this evening, support for the war in Afghanistan is waining.

Waining? When was it ever high? I mean really... when was it universally acceptable?

It's getting the point where Childrens BBC news program Newsround is offering more honest appraisal to news.

Tags: Afghanistan, war, support

Gordon Murray, designer of the McLaren F1 and several other interesting cars has released his latest incarnation to the world.

Shown here in extreme prototype (picture courtesy of Autocar) it's an electric vehicle with a low top speed and a maximum range of approximately 60 miles.



Steve Cropley urges us to see how fantastic it is. But... sorry.. Hasn't anyone noticed.... it's a soddin milk float!?!

Tags: Gordon Murray, electric, car, T25, T27

Recent BBC headline reads "Species' extinction threat grows".

The article goes on the describe the pressures placed upon flora and fauna within the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, a list containing 47,677 species. Of the list of these "Threatened Species", some 17,291 are deemed to be "at serious risk".

It's a sad story, truly. But what is even sadder is how that raw data is then expanded to encompass ALL species of known mammals, amphibians, plants and invertebrates. When there is no evidense to suggest that this is the case. After all, it somewhat stands to reason that species added to the "Threatened Species" list are by their nature "at risk". That fact that only approximately a 1/3 of the species in the list is "at serious risk" surprises me. Exactly what criteria of being "threatened" are they working too? I digress.

From this an other recent stories you'd get the impression that in a few years there are going to be no creatures left on the planet. But to say this is something of a misleading statement on the part of conservatives, would be an understatement.

Now, before I start showing the evidence, I want to make something very clear. We should live in a efficient, none (or at least low) polluting way, that maximises energy efficiency. So we should have super efficient vehicles and/or public transport. Every house should employ solar for heating and power generation (it's free after all) and so forth. I think that's ideal.

However, having an education does provide me with the tools and interests to look into a story that otherwise reads like a Ronald Emmerich script. If you want to get a whole word prospective of biodiversity, it's necessary to take a longer view of things.

Below is a graph (taken from Wikipedia) showing the size and range of biodiversity on planet Earth over the last 550 million years.



I'm assuming you've noted it starts today on the left and goes back in time to the right.

The point being that at NO

Lets start with a premise. It has been widely reported in the media that all species on Earth are in decline. The blame is obvious, in their eyes. It's a combination of the direct effects of mans activities and (most likely man made) climate change.

Here are the top five animals, most often sited.

1. Elephants
2. Gorillas
3. Polar Bears
4. Tigers
5. Panda Bears

So, is it true. Has their been a sudden decline in animal species and are mans activities truly the major contributing factor

Lets take them individually and examine the facts.

Elephants (Afican for sake of argument)
Before the ivory trade threatened to destroy the noble beast of Africa, you might have been given the impression that Africa was so packed full of elephants that it was more of less packed to the seams. But clearly this wasn't ever the case.

Elephants require large amounts of resources to survive, in terms of both food and water. They also only give birth to a single offspring (as you'd imagine).



Phanereozic - Wikipedia.

Tags: biodiversity, ecosystem

You know, one of the most surprising things that hits me in the news these days is how it is reported that (man made) climate change is a "theory", which quite clearly it isn't.

More over, climate change is directly a result of 'rising' CO² is a theory, it is not either.

And these are not distinctions that are going un-missed within the scientific community, to which I can personally attest.

It's all down the difference between a conjecture, hypothesis and a theory.

Let me explain.

A conjecture is an open statement of question to the proved, test and/or otherwise examined. So I could put forward a conjecture that there an infinite number of prime numbers. This is clearly something that cannot be tested. But there are certain parameters and so forth we can put forward to support or dispute it. But the statement itself, the question if you like, that's a conjecture.

Next up on the scientific scale of certainty we have a hypothesis. Now a hypothesis is an explanation of proposition to explain or resolve something. This is something that can be essentially tested, in particularly, in the way it can be disputed. It can be either agreed with or proved false (at which point another hypothesis should be created.... more on this later). Essentially, a hypothesis is an educated guess.

Finally, we have a theory. A theory is a scientifically tested statement that gains huge support, either in terms of a scientific proof or considerable and widely accepted by the scientific community. I'm talking about there being universal appear of the reality that this particular description is both proven by results and/or demonstrates itself.

So... back the Climate Change and the concept that it is man made.

Can it be proved beyond doubt that man is the driving force behind climate change?

Well, it's PROVEN in the scientific records, both ice core and dendrochronology that the have been considerable variation in the Earth's climate within the most recent quaternary era. Extremes of both high and low temperatures have occurred as ice ages both advance and receed. No one single theory for ice ages exists at present and, but a number include both solar output, distances and atmospheric issues. Not to mention plate tektonics. One thing that is clearly not included is the idea that "man" is responsible.

As for the supporting evidence TO man made global warming. I'm afraid that despite suggestions to the contrary, the whole science understanding is that we don't have enough evidence to support the fact and the reality is that climate change theory is actually a climate change hypothesis (at best) and some would argue that it should be de-listed, as it were, down to conjecture.

Fact is that models proposed as evidence by the IPCC since it's original report have year on year failed to match those of predicted output. In fact, in recent reports the IPCC has had to admit that climate change may be taking a 10 (or 20 year, depending on source) year break as a result of changes to the output of the sun.

But wait... wasn't it the IPCC that downplayed the output of the sun as a reason for climate change. How very odd then that they should then leap on the idea of blaming solar activity for the lack of results.

The reality is that it's a lot worse than we imagine. Because effectively what the IPCC, the UK Met Office et al are saying is that OUR THEORY IS RIGHT and it's the weather and Sun that's got it wrong.

On a side note, a friend of mine was telling me about a Foreign and Commonwealth Office (open) meeting where David Miliband stated that "climate change was a fact". Well, he's not going to get an argument from me on that. Of course the climate changes... we are on a third bloody atmosphere as it is!

Anyway, when he was questioned on the subject of it not being a fact, it was theory he stated that "99.9% of ALL scientist know it's true". After half the audience laughed at his statement, clearly made up on the spot, he moved onto another subject quickly. The interesting thing is that when the transcript of the meeting hit the FCO intranet, the "99.9%" had been removed a totally different statement was posted in it's place. I've subsequently had this verified independently.

Now, clearly David Miliband was flustered by the sudden question on a subject I can appreciate he's not educated to answer (he studied Philosophy and Political Science), but it's a good example of the "make the stats on the spot" that helps support the who concept.

Look, my point is this. The climate changes... it ALWAYS has. Get over it.

Now any advances we can do towards efficiency, lowering polution and recycling what we use are ALL fantastic ideas. But we have to appreciate and understand what each causes.

Lets take the idea that if we all switch to electric cars it will be a "significant drop in polution".
1. The battery packs used in the cars require some of the most environmentally distructive mining on earth. Not to mention that carrying a stuffing great battery around when your not using it, as in hybrid cars, wastes more energy.

2. Where is this electricity coming from? I guess that would be power stations. So children, what's the most environmentally destructive process in the UK at present, in terms of CO²?

Anyone?.. I'll tell you... it's ENERGY GENERATION. Yep, that's right. It equates to nearly DOUBLE the amount of CO² pollution than road transport.

If we have to double the demand on the system, then it means we are going to have to increase our demand on the Energy Generation system. And it's not going to be filled by wave turbines and fluffy windmills. Not in the short term. No, coal only energy plants will need to operate at higher outputs... pushing the already high 37% towards 50-55%. Which means that it's WORSE environmentally to use an electric car.

So tell me this Mr Brown. Why are you not clamping down on the amount of CO² being produced by the coal power stations. By capturing just 50% of the CO² produced in Energy Production, we could SAVE as much CO² as road transport produces!

Tags: climate, climate change, Hypothesis

Very quick post today.

Argos have a number of promotion schemes for business. I've got one with Travelodge.

But here is something you might not know. Argos vouchers are better than using the points. It's that simple.

For example;

Sony PRS 505 S Reader is £224.99
In Argos points it is 2308 or £230.80

But more telling are iTunes vouchers.

iTunes £15 voucher is 208 points - £20.80
£25 vouchers are 308 - or £30.80 and
£50 voucher 558 - or £55.80

So why not just get the Argos vouchers at;
£5 Voucher = 50 points or £5
£10 Voucher = 10 or £10....

You get the idea. You can get £15 iTunes voucher FOR £15 and not the equivalent of £20.80... thus saving you £5.80 to spend on something else!

Tags: argos, award points, itunes, Sony