Photon at October 29, 2018 at 10:07 PM

Rumpole at October 29, 2018 at 8:08 PM

So what about farms that don't have creeks running through them ?

I found myself asking the same question. 

Rumpole at October 30, 2018 at 4:34 PM

Very disturbing report.

More than half the world's vertebrates have disappeared since 1970; WWF sounds warning

https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2018-10-30/wwf-species-loss-living-planet/10434956

Tardis001 at October 30, 2018 at 4:44 PM

Rumpole at October 30, 2018 at 4:34 PM

Very disturbing report.

More than half the world's vertebrates have disappeared since 1970; WWF sounds warning

https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2018-10-30/wwf-species-loss-living-planet/10434956

Not saying it's false, but that's a big call. WE simply don't know how abundant most animal species are, so I don't know how they could have reached that conclusion.

A couple of data sources were quoted,

"It looks at population trends from over 4,000 species and is based on data from the Zoological Society of London and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) red list, among other sources."

so I guess we need to look at that data and how they came by the numbers.

Rumpole at October 30, 2018 at 5:38 PM

Tardis001 at October 30, 2018 at 4:44 PM

Rumpole at October 30, 2018 at 4:34 PM

Very disturbing report.

More than half the world's vertebrates have disappeared since 1970; WWF sounds warning

https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2018-10-30/wwf-species-loss-living-planet/10434956

Not saying it's false, but that's a big call. WE simply don't know how abundant most animal species are, so I don't know how they could have reached that conclusion.

A couple of data sources were quoted,

"It looks at population trends from over 4,000 species and is based on data from the Zoological Society of London and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) red list, among other sources."

so I guess we need to look at that data and how they came by the numbers.

The study was based on 4,000 species.  There are an estimated 69,276 species of vertebrates in the world. So the WWF study focused on a very small subset of vertebrates (5.7%). We simply don't know what's happening with the other species because not much is known about them.

Tardis001 at October 30, 2018 at 6:07 PM

Rumpole at October 30, 2018 at 5:38 PM

Tardis001 at October 30, 2018 at 4:44 PM

Rumpole at October 30, 2018 at 4:34 PM

Very disturbing report.

More than half the world's vertebrates have disappeared since 1970; WWF sounds warning

https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2018-10-30/wwf-species-loss-living-planet/10434956

Not saying it's false, but that's a big call. WE simply don't know how abundant most animal species are, so I don't know how they could have reached that conclusion.

A couple of data sources were quoted,

"It looks at population trends from over 4,000 species and is based on data from the Zoological Society of London and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) red list, among other sources."

so I guess we need to look at that data and how they came by the numbers.

The study was based on 4,000 species.  There are an estimated 69,276 species of vertebrates in the world. So the WWF study focused on a very small subset of vertebrates (5.7%). We simply don't know what's happening with the other species because not much is known about them.

Fair point, but on the basis of the 4,000 species studied, are their conclusions valid ?

Research in the national interest or interference in academic freedom ?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-31/nobel-prize-winner-criticises-research-funding-overhaul/10450504

Rumpole at October 30, 2018 at 7:12 PM

Tardis001 at October 30, 2018 at 6:07 PM

Rumpole at October 30, 2018 at 5:38 PM

Tardis001 at October 30, 2018 at 4:44 PM

Rumpole at October 30, 2018 at 4:34 PM

Very disturbing report.

More than half the world's vertebrates have disappeared since 1970; WWF sounds warning

https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2018-10-30/wwf-species-loss-living-planet/10434956

Not saying it's false, but that's a big call. WE simply don't know how abundant most animal species are, so I don't know how they could have reached that conclusion.

A couple of data sources were quoted,

"It looks at population trends from over 4,000 species and is based on data from the Zoological Society of London and the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) red list, among other sources."

so I guess we need to look at that data and how they came by the numbers.

The study was based on 4,000 species.  There are an estimated 69,276 species of vertebrates in the world. So the WWF study focused on a very small subset of vertebrates (5.7%). We simply don't know what's happening with the other species because not much is known about them.

Fair point, but on the basis of the 4,000 species studied, are their conclusions valid ?

Tardis001 at October 30, 2018 at 4:40 PM

Photon at October 29, 2018 at 10:07 PM

Rumpole at October 29, 2018 at 8:08 PM

So what about farms that don't have creeks running through them ?

I found myself asking the same question. 

You can still revegetate part of the farm by planting locally-native trees and bushes. Tree and bush canopies help keep the soil surface cooler and helps prevent evaporative water loss. Also, deep root systems take water from the water table, once the trees are removed the water table rises to the surface and evaporates, drying out the soil.

Rumpole at October 30, 2018 at 7:26 PM

Research in the national interest or interference in academic freedom ?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-31/nobel-prize-winner-criticises-research-funding-overhaul/10450504

This will result in:

1.  Deterring academics from applying for research grants in fear that there will be political intervention.

2.  Researchers marketing the importance of their research in an exaggerated way when applying for grants.

3.  Haemorhaging of researchers from Australian universities.

There are many fundamental research projects which at first do not appear to have any practical value, but whose results and techniques have led to great breakthroughs.  Who would have thought, for instance, that a simple study of the types of microbes in the human gut would eventually result in a Nobel Prize-winning cure for stomach ulcers and the subsequent discovery of the link between gut microbial balance and moods?

This is yet another kick in the guts to academics.  It's sending he message that politicians don't trust academics to do the right type of research. It has to be research that is currently political astute to do, not something that advances our understanding of the world.

Tardis001 at October 30, 2018 at 8:44 PM

Rumpole at October 30, 2018 at 7:26 PM

Research in the national interest or interference in academic freedom ?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-31/nobel-prize-winner-criticises-research-funding-overhaul/10450504

This will result in:

1.  Deterring academics from applying for research grants in fear that there will be political intervention.

2.  Researchers marketing the importance of their research in an exaggerated way when applying for grants.

3.  Haemorhaging of researchers from Australian universities.

There are many fundamental research projects which at first do not appear to have any practical value, but whose results and techniques have led to great breakthroughs.  Who would have thought, for instance, that a simple study of the types of microbes in the human gut would eventually result in a Nobel Prize-winning cure for stomach ulcers and the subsequent discovery of the link between gut microbial balance and moods?

This is yet another kick in the guts to academics.  It's sending he message that politicians don't trust academics to do the right type of research. It has to be research that is currently political astute to do, not something that advances our understanding of the world.

On the other hand the taxpayer can't fund everything and you have to draw a line somewhere.

Whether a non science educated Minister is capable of putting the line in the right place is the question especially if the research bears on their ideological beliefs like climate change or the environment.

I'd prefer that the Chief Scientist or a panel of scientists made those decisions

Rumpole at October 31, 2018 at 1:14 AM

On the other hand the taxpayer can't fund everything and you have to draw a line somewhere.

Whether a non science educated Minister is capable of putting the line in the right place is the question especially if the research bears on their ideological beliefs like climate change or the environment.

I'd prefer that the Chief Scientist or a panel of scientists made those decisions

I agree entirely with Gussy's comments.

The project proposals vetoed by the Education Minister had already been peer-reviewed. The funds were already there and the Australian Research Council agreed that these projects were worthy of funding from the limited pot of money that was available.  Only about 10% of applications submitted to the ARC each year are successful in being funded, so for the researchers to learn that their projects were regarded to be among the top tier of applications by the research community, only to have the Minister pull the pin, would have been gut-wrenching.

NASA's Kepler telescope retires after more than nine years searching for alien worlds

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-31/nasa-kepler-telescope-retires/10450748

Shoe box satellites head to Mars.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2018-11-02/nasas-marco-cubesats-on-a-history-making-race-to-mars/10419266

Rumpole at October 31, 2018 at 4:49 AM

NASA's Kepler telescope retires after more than nine years searching for alien worlds

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-31/nasa-kepler-telescope-retires/10450748

" Kepler found 2,681 planets beyond our solar system "

It deserves a rest after all that hard work.  

Seriously if NASA still had a functioning Space Shuttle would they be able to refuel Kepler ?  

 

Photon at November 1, 2018 at 10:04 PM

Rumpole at October 31, 2018 at 4:49 AM

NASA's Kepler telescope retires after more than nine years searching for alien worlds

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-31/nasa-kepler-telescope-retires/10450748

" Kepler found 2,681 planets beyond our solar system "

It deserves a rest after all that hard work.  

Seriously if NASA still had a functioning Space Shuttle would they be able to refuel Kepler ?  

 

No they wouldn't.

Kepler doesn't orbit the earth, it orbits the sun and is about 150 million km from earth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler_(spacecraft)

Snowy hydro dumps coal power in favour of wind and solar for pumping water.

 

Another kick in the guts for coal companies.

 

https://www.smh.com.au/business/the...-solar-to-pump-its-water-20181101-p50dh0.html

 

 

Helicopters on Mars

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-12/nasa-to-send-space-helicopter-to-mars/9754430

Rumpole at November 2, 2018 at 12:49 AM

Snowy hydro dumps coal power in favour of wind and solar for pumping water.

 

Another kick in the guts for coal companies.

 

https://www.smh.com.au/business/the...-solar-to-pump-its-water-20181101-p50dh0.html

 

 

The right wing shock jocks won't like it.

Tuff Titty Boys !

Rumpole at November 4, 2018 at 7:22 PM

Helicopters on Mars

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-12/nasa-to-send-space-helicopter-to-mars/9754430

Sounds like a good idear to me.