!ifrickinglovescience I'm too lazy to effortpost today but "AMOC" is short for Atlantic meridional overturning circulation. And here's the wikipedia article along a gross simplification for dramatards

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_meridional_overturning_circulation

Ever wondered how come that England has a mild climate despite being located at the same latitude as the Alberta Province in Canada?

AMOC is the reason, the Gulf Stream which is part of the system to be more precise

If AMOC and the Gulf Stream shut down then London is going to get the same harsh winters as Calgary gets . It will also affect the global hydrological cycle.

The last IPCC report of 2022 said there are no reasons to believe AMOC will collapse this century, even though it is slowing down. The reason for it is the melting of the ice sheets. Global warming melts the ice and ads freshwater to the oceans along with extra heat which de-stabilizes the currents.

However since last year there have been 5 papers claiming AMOC collapse will happen in a few decades. The doomsday paper by James Hansen predicts a 4.8C climate sensitivity and AMOC collapse at some point between 2025 and 2100.

Now /r/climatechange discusses a new dutch paper but they're not having it.

The results are…very worrying to say the least. I will be far more worried if this get verified by other research or from other models. Plus I am naturally skeptical of studies that go straight to the popular press before going through peer review.

It has been identified in an earlier study from danish scientists too. One of the most disastrous tipping points one could think of !!

!physics and !chemistry, I have a question for you guys at academia. Not to discredit hardworking scientists but just asking, how common is it for some soyentists to publish attention-seeking papers?

As I stated when someone else posted this article a few days ago, the AMOC Is collapsing currently.

If you don't have a plan for a way out by 2030, you're stupid. Plain and simple.

What's your plan for 2030 dramatards?

The earth has amazing coping mechanisms. An AMOC collapse that increase arctic ice and freezes the shit out of the northern hemisphere seems like the planet striking back to gain some balance. George Carlin put it well, "The planet will be fine, it's the people that are fricked"

Doomer redditors don't understand that AMOC collapse will not cool the planet, it will merely cause a regional cooling and redirect heat while the warming thread won't stop. Also, George Carlin quoters should be shot

Unpublished research; not yet peer reviewed, anyone with the skills and time to do so isn't here, but in academia. Follow up with the research in a year or whatever. Could very likely be a mistake in his math. This is why we bother with falsifiability and institutional disconfirmation. One scientist makes a claim, everyone else in his peer group tries to find fault. If it isn't disproven, they may be on to something.

Honestly, I know this is a bad take but I'm just enjoying the years left that I can.

No kids, doing the shit I feel fulfilled by. Do what I can to affect positive change but... yeah. Convincing 8 billion other people with the culture war, identity politic, science down-playing, Christo fascist rhetroic is very hard. And I made an oath as a kid that we would sing at every assembly.

"The Earth is my home, I promise to keep it, healthy and beautiful. I will love the land, the air and the water." etc etc.

Getting older just kills the naivety of youth.

NO, NOT THE RACIST FASCISTS KILLING THE EARTH

A concerned asked the same question

https://old.reddit.com/r/climatechange/comments/1ekjesl/do_you_think_amoc_will_collapse_what_would_be_the/

I love how we all can be doomed very soon and our politicians are barely doing anything that could realistically prevent it lmfao

I'm not convinced wether our politicians would be able to do something about it, even if they'd try.

This challenge has become totally global, as well as quite „class-warfarish".

We as populations could put pressure on our governments, of course, but it would require another level of unanimity.

!historychads !engineering very educational

>According to the lawsuit, the Titan "dropped weights" about 90 minutes into its dive, indicating the team had aborted or attempted to abort the dive.

We interpret this feature as a blueshifted spectral line produced by the annihilation of electron-positron pairs

I'm not sure if you've been keeping up with Rock Paper Scissors but the author really wrote himself into a corner here. Right now Scissors is challenging Paper and we're honestly expected to believe Scissors has a chance? Scissors is honestly such a fricking fraud. They talk so much shit about his "sharp cutting edge" and "stainless steel" but he has literally won zero of his matches so far, only reaching a stalemate against other scissors.

In his fight with Rock two chapters ago we literally saw his butt get no-diffed. For those who don't know, Rock just stood there and Scissors tried to attack his weak point, but the attack did literally nothing. Like literally nothing, in fact we're told that Scissors managed to hurt HIMSELF even though he was trying to target Rock's weak point. He was literally crippled and unable to cut anymore after his encounter with Rock. Scissors is outscaled so hard it isn't even funny.

Then we see Rock get taken out in one shot by Paper. Rock couldn't even react to it - paper just strangled him from every direction at once. The power creep in this series is frankly unreal, but anyway. Paper literally attacks from EVERY direction at once, not even bothering to target Rock's weak points and Rock just couldn't handle it and was completely overwhelmed. And mind you we're told that Paper can contain any piece of information in the world. How is Scissors supposed to damage Paper? Rock couldn't get through even though Paper literally exposed his entire body to attack.

So anyway I think this is gonna be the most disappointing and predictable fight in history.

Edit: What the frick. I was not expecting that to happen? I'm going to designate this as "Scissors post-tournament form" and scale his speed, durability and attack power higher than Paper.

Edit 2: How the heck did Scissors lose to Rock again? This author is fricking braindead. I swear this is why writers need to learn powerscaling.

High Pressure level in front of big stage, but only additions done

OR

Low Pressure level but insane number of complicated operations done compared to the first one

!math !r-slurs

!spacechads !ifrickinglovescience pic related is from Axiom Ax-3 launch.

Here's the crew from the Ax-4 mission. It's a private mission by Axiom Space jointly with SpaceX and they'll fly on a SpaceX Dragon capsule to the ISS for a 2-3 weeks stay. Former NASA astronaut Peggy Whitson works for Axiom and the other astronauts had their seats paid by their respective countries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_Mission_4

Commander Peggy Whitson (5th spaceflight)

representing ISRO will be the pilot @Sasanka_of_Gauda

Sławosz Uznańsk from representing POLSA/ESA as Mission Specialist 1

Tibor Kapu from representing HURNA as Mission Specialist 2

Inspired by another thread !ifrickinglovescience

What's your definition of "real science?" It's not clear what "real science" or even "the scientific method" refers to because the methods employed by scientists are actually quite heterogeneous. For example, is science all about "making testable predictions in advance of falsifying observations?" Well, what about astronomy and anatomy, where a lot of "science" is just... brute empiricism (also known as "just looking").

A lot of psychology is just looking. For example, developmental psychologists watch babies grow up and notice all sorts of interesting things and then just... write them down. For instance, did you know that 3 month old infants will look surprised when they see the law of object permanence violated? Apparently babies come into the world with some organization in advance of experience that allows them to grasp basic physical principles and build up expectations about how objects will behave based on their experiences.

I like what you pointed out that we just have to look sometimes, but it falls apart because of one simple reason... reproducibility. Does the heart always pump blood? Yes, unless the person is dead of course. About 5 liters apparently. This uniformity, this measurement, the near infinitel reproducibility of this observation I would say does make it real science.

What's the difference between you and everyone else who has just started learning about a topic and immediately thinks they know everything about it?

Plus, like, if you think the phrase 'the research suggests' is unscientific I am unsure as to what you think science actually is. You'll find that phrase in papers for every scientific discipline; it's a very scientific phrase. What is the problem here?

https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/82uefr/cmv_psychology_is_not_a_real_science_and_its/

https://old.reddit.com/r/AcademicPsychology/comments/gb0pql/what_are_the_common_arguments_against_psychology/

https://old.reddit.com/r/askpsychology/comments/wyut6j/why_is_psychology_not_seen_as_a_science_by_many/

I think psych as a field is still represented in media by therapy, which is super stigmatized and has an unfortunate history. It is irritating when other science people dismiss psych, because we literally use the same scientific method.

The hard science in Physics in the early stages is based on simple mathematical relationships such as F=ma . This is also easily shown via experiment to be true and is also shown to be correct astronomically throughout the universe.

The hard science in psychology is one of a more statistical nature and also must contain many assumptions. It is more difficult to understand to the layman.

!mathematics thoughts on that?

https://old.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/kz43n/dear_reddit_do_you_think_psychology_is_a_science/

I had PTSD. Shit is crazy. Mental illness and the treatments..therapy tactics and meds are very real. I had textbook PTSD and textbook treatment

What are thoughts dramanauts?

What is psychology?

- 117 votes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_supercomputing#Petascale_computing_in_the_21st_century

Supercomputer from 2004 (IBM Blue) could perform at 70.720 Tflops.

Geforce RTX 4090 can perform at 82.58 tflops of processing power.

Geforce RTX 4090 was released in 2022.

In 18 years we got tech that would take an entire room or two to fit it in and miniaturized it to fit within a desktop pc.

What we call the cutting edge in computing today should be accessible to your kid as a consumer level product by the time he or she is 18 years old.

The human genome project, a project meant to get a complete sequence of the human genome, cost 2.7 billion dollars to complete. Today, human genome mapping costs are as low as 600 dollars in some cases.

https://3billion.io/blog/whole-genome-sequencing-price-and-trends-2024

https://biology.mit.edu/the-human-genome-project-turns-20-heres-how-it-altered-the-world/

In 21 years the price of genome sequencing for humans went down 4.5 million times.

Another case of the price of tech falling to consumer grade prices within one generation since the first version.

It puts into perspective exactly how fast technology is moving from a practical standpoint rather than a theoretical one. The most expensive tech out there today is going to be what the next generation would be carrying around as a consumer product, and this trend will continue, generation after generation.

The ISS ( fist segment launched in 1998 ) cost 150 billion USD to finish development. The Tiangong space station ( by China 2022 ) meanwhile cost only about 8.5 billion USD.

A 17.64X reduction in price in a 24 year timespan.

Conclusion:

The cost is going down and quality of tech products is going up 10-20X every generation. With the current scale of ongoing research into lab grown food, we might even expect a decline in the prices of food products over time, or at least an increase in their quality over time. The quality of consumer goods available to humans is increasing by a wide margin every generation. The only issue currently lies in solving continental scale and planet scale problems such as global warming, clean water access, global food supply chains, etc. With the population growth rate going down while at the same time tech advancement rates keep stable or accelerate, it is pretty much guaranteed that your children will have a higher quality of life than you as long as you are not poor or in the wrong place on the planet.

We are currently moving at rates where we should be able to solve all our problems faster than we create new problems. A continual improvement in quality of life.

The slowdown is most likely coming from two points:

1. If it ain't broke don't fix it attitude, where humans won't solve a problem until it is effecting too many people.

2. People so used to doubling or tripling of specs in the technological sphere that they are no longer focused enough on improving the efficiency of the software they build on top of the hardware.

We are two industrial revolutions away from living in a post scarcity everybody is provided for society.

Stay strong, just survive the next 40 years and it will all work out.

His new presentation of lifting the designs on the panel is a bit disorientating. I didn't like when he did that. I prefer cutting to overhead camera shots

My favorite one was the reloading cannon where he had to solve jamming

!ifrickinglovescience

To accompany our !ifrickinglovescience pings I just created ping linguistics and architecture. Feel free to join

Look at how awful these castings are. These pastaBIPOCs must've used beach sand

!spacechads !ifrickinglovescience

Are you guys excited for the Artemis program?

Artemis 2 is currently set for launch next year, in September.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_2

Artemis 3 and 4 are facing delays though, either because of lunar suits, the SpaceX HLS and for Artemis 4 the EUS will probably mean some extra delays as well.

I still think the Starship HLS architecture is overly complicated as it requires a dozen launches in order to fill the tanks, but the future Starship in orbit refueling tests should offer a glimpse of it's feasibility next year.

Also, reminder that Buzz Aldrin is still alive and he recently re-married.

Everyone enjoy the great IT heck day of July 19th 2024!!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Collins_(astronaut)

sorry bro

!ifrickinglovescience !physics !engineering

Pretty interesting story, I hadn't heard about it before. An explorer made a expedition to the North Pole using a heavily modified WWI era submarine. They made a lot of changes and additions to make it more suited for arctic exploration. It was pretty advanced for its time.

Every continent is at the lowest fertility rate it has ever been on so far. Besides Africa and Oceania all continents are below replacement fertility rate, and the two that are above replacement are still consistently on the decline. While there are cultures with a steady fertility rate, these are often below replacement and still decline after 2-3 decades to newest low.

South Korea managed to reach the lowest fertility rate at 0.72 and is still set for decline.

It is possible that for Humans the actual lowest low fertility rate might be pandas ( that is zero fertility rate ).

All realistic population projections have to account for the fact that lowest low fertility rate hasn't been reached so far.

So here are the realistic projections for global population and fertility:

1. Highest high - Fertility rates remain the same through the century as they are today. - 13.59 billion population in 2100 and rising.

2. Medium - Global population growth rate declines at a rate of 0.1% every 5 years. 10.13 billion population peak by 2069 before decline.

3. Low projection - Global population growth rate declines at a rate of 0.1% every 2-3 years. 9.05 billion population peak by 2046 followed by decline in global population.

Most likely scenario, global population peaks earlier than 2080 as projected by the UN, makes it no higher than 9.5 billion humans peak at most.

https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

Also I have no idea where the fertility rate actually increased in the past two years to explain the increase in population growth over the past two years.

As per macrotrends the fertility rate is rising in every country which sounds, incorrect to say the least.

!neolibs !antibharatiya !nooticers

On the link you can check fertility rates as well.