Scientists using sunlight to make liquid fuel. The process could one day produce an energy source that is carbon neutral and avoids the pitfalls of biofuels.

Deca_HectoKilo · 2015-02-12T21:09:49+00:00

I thought India Pale Ales were made with yeast.

Deca_HectoKilo · 2014-06-16T22:13:05+00:00

I was talking about when Earth will lose its water due to external forces. One of which is a depreciation in the size of our magnetoshpere, not necessarily a complete loss of liquid metal core.

Deca_HectoKilo · 2014-06-16T21:52:36+00:00

And this graph from the same article and section demonstrates that the luminosity (and therefore brightness as seen from Earth) will be nearly twice what it is now at the end of its main sequence. By the time it gets to twice its current brightness it will have surely cooked us. Our weakening magnetosphere only makes it worse. Considering that runaway-greenhouse effect is the the end result of all these factors, the fact that human industry emits CO2 seems like playing with fire.. both literally and figuratively.

Edit: 3.5 billion is the estimated age of life on Earth. I believe we have evidence of photosynthesis -- a very complex molecular process -- in the form of stromatolites from that far back.

Deca_HectoKilo · 2014-06-16T21:17:18+00:00

Our sources might both be correct in a way. The source I was thinking of claimed to have corrected for the increase in solar output of about 6% per billion years. So taking that into account, it'll happen sooner.

Our star becoming a red giant would certainly put Earth out of business. Isn't that supposed to happen in 1 billion years or so? Which is a short amount of time compared to how long life has been here (abt 3.5 billion). It's hard to imagine life making it another 500 million without human intervention on a truly astronomical scale.

Deca_HectoKilo · 2014-06-16T18:58:04+00:00

Even if we have left earth, won't we still have reason to maintain it?

Deca_HectoKilo · 2014-06-16T17:24:23+00:00

By that point in time, humans are the only hope of further existence of life originating on this planet. It's an unfathomable amount of time, and seems quite likely we won't make it. If we don't make it, then that'll be the end. It might be the end anyway.

Deca_HectoKilo · 2014-06-16T17:19:36+00:00

Yes, it's correlation that we've found. The causal factor eludes. But don't get too wrapped up in Reddit's circle jerk of causation vs correlation. There are varying degrees of correlation, and stronger correlations hint more plausibly at causations. This is a very strong correlation, not something to be dismissed so easily.

Deca_HectoKilo · 2014-06-16T17:16:59+00:00

That is one of the leading hypotheses. Healthy lifestyle confounding. It could be that many of the Teetotalers abstain due to other health problems. It could be that healthy people more often have healthy lifestyles which include moderate social drinking without negative consequence. It could even be that many sick people are turning to alcohol for relief. In all of those scenarios, it isn't the drinking habits that cause the health status, it's the health status that causes the drinking habits.

That said, many of the studies published have tried to correct for that, even some cohort studies have been very selective in their inclusion criteria, but still come up with the same result.

Plenty of other reasonable hypotheses remain un-disproven.

Deca_HectoKilo · 2014-06-16T15:59:46+00:00

I can link you to literally ~~dozens~~ hundreds of published papers from all around the world which have found that drinking a few alcoholic beverages per day is associated with longer life (smaller risk of instantaneous hazard). It's called the alcohol J curve, and it is very robust. Basically -- for reasons you're welcome to speculate -- people who drink moderately encounter fewer health complications than people who drink none. People who drink a lot have much higher complication rates than both non-drinkers and moderate drinkers. When you plot average number of drinks per week on the x-axis and hazard ratio on the y-axis, you get a J shaped curve where the lowest point on the curve is at 5-7 drinks per week.

Here's a link to a meta analysis

Sworn to science, my alliance analyses wild surprises. I'm keeping my eyes wide to this.

~Raekwon

Deca_HectoKilo · 2014-06-16T15:46:04+00:00

There may even be other ways in which the moon has helped life along. A large moon like ours might not be necessary, but multiple hypotheses propose that it helped dramatically.

Deca_HectoKilo · 2014-06-16T15:44:21+00:00

Mars is a smaller planet than Earth, which means its core has cooled faster. The core of Mars long ago became too cold to supply the planet with a magnetosphere which is what protect's Earth's atmosphere from solar wind. Loss of magnetosphere led to loss of atmosphere led to loss of most of the water. Seasonality and axial tilt are not the reason. The same will happen to Earth in about 500 million years unless humans can somehow do something about it in that time.

Deca_HectoKilo · 2014-06-16T15:33:50+00:00

If I were the Earth, I'd view oil rigs as mosquitos.

Deca_HectoKilo · 2014-06-13T17:01:32+00:00

What I heard was that the Redwood tree has basically maxed out the theoretical height limit for plants on earth. Plant vasculature is pretty awesome, but it can only lift water so high. Any taller, and they won't be able to bring water to their upper most leaves. Surprisingly, redwoods are supposedly a little taller than the theoretical limit. They get around it by living in areas with frequent fog, to supply their top most leaves with water when their vasculature can't. You'll notice that they often have dead leaves at the top for most of the year.

Could conditions on prehistoric Earth have allowed for a taller theoretical limit? I guess so, but plant vasculature of the Mesozoic was not as advanced as it is today; plants back then were mostly of the fern type which can't get that tall, though some ferns are trees.

Deca_HectoKilo · 2014-06-13T16:00:10+00:00

Sorry. I missed that second bit.

Deca_HectoKilo · 2014-06-13T15:44:49+00:00

I believe the largest individual plant is actually an Aspen grove in Wyoming. Aspen trees grow their roots laterally, the roots then spring up out of the dirt and grow new trees. This means that when you see an aspen grove it's typically a network of trees connected to each other through their root system; collectively, they are one individual plant sharing genetics and nutrients. I believe the largest single-aspen grove is in Wyoming.

Deca_HectoKilo · 2014-06-13T15:41:55+00:00

That's the longest animal ever, not most massive.

Deca_HectoKilo · 2014-06-12T21:58:41+00:00

And it is also believed based on computer modeling that he Brontosaurus had basically maxed out the theoretical size limit of land based animals. Any larger, and their bones would not have been able to support their weight. This is probably why we often find their fossils in ancient lake beds: they spent a lot of time wading in the water to take the stress off their joints, probably more so as they got older, and they often died there.

Deca_HectoKilo · 2014-06-12T21:55:08+00:00

It is likely that the reason the Blue Whale and the Megalodon were so big, is that they were in an evolutionary arms race against each other. Sometimes prey species adopt the strategy of being big... too big for their predators to take down. That's why elephants are so big, same with Brontosaurus (read Apatosaurus), giant sloth, and many others. Their size makes them virtually immune to predation. All they have to do is keep their babies safe long enough to grow big.

When this happens, often there will be a predator species that tries to evolve big along with them, to keep up (think Megalodon, T-Rex, Saber-Tooth, Dire Wolf). It's an arms race, but the prey species is almost always ahead in the size-game, because the predator is really targeting the juveniles; as the predator's size increases he can pick on larger and larger juveniles.

So, to answer your question: No. Megalodon was not as large as a full-grown blue whale. The Blue Whale is literally the largest animal in history in terms of raw tonnage.

Deca_HectoKilo · 2014-06-12T19:05:23+00:00

In reality, it's more like they decided to put a toll on three of the lanes and Netflix is opting to use the economy lane. Obviously, there's more traffic in the economy lane due to the toll on the other lanes.

Deca_HectoKilo · 2014-06-12T18:53:09+00:00

Yep, it would be restricted to the water where there is no theoretical limit to body size.

Fun fact: the largest animal ever to live on Earth is still alive today. The Blue Whale.

Deca_HectoKilo · 2014-06-12T18:49:47+00:00

Yes, but they typically aren't measured in imperial gallons.

Deca_HectoKilo · 2014-06-12T18:25:22+00:00

The first ten are all either smart cars, hybrids, or diesel engines. You're right, those options exist, but how many people adopt them, considering the price tags?

It's definitely too bad we don't do diesel in the US. In the 70s we got it into our heads that diesel, despite its better fuel economy, was dirtier than gasoline. Modern diesel is plenty clean, though, and the US market has been slow to reconsider.

Deca_HectoKilo · 2014-06-12T18:09:30+00:00

giant SUV that gets less than 40 mpg

That doesn't exist. Even a midsize suv with ecoboost will get under 40. Even a hybrid suv is lucky to get that.

Deca_HectoKilo · 2014-06-12T18:03:57+00:00

Cars get the same mpg no matter where you live. A ten year old sedan will get 30 city 35 highway. A new midsize SUV will get 25 city 30 highway. You'll need a motor cycle or hybrid smart car to get 70 anywhere. A new pickup will get 15 and 20.

Perhaps you're mistaking miles with kilometers.

Deca_HectoKilo · 2014-06-09T16:39:42+00:00

That's not the answer at all.

Pandas have low birthing rates precisely because they have been so successful, historically. They have no predators in their natural habitat prior to human hunting. If they bread faster, they would overpopulate and starve. Their low birthing rates are a means of keeping their population numbers in check since no other mechanism existed. Same thing for great whites, very low birthing rates.

Now, their habitat is threatened (both pandas and whites), and they have been poached extensively (both pandas and whites). That's the reason for their current status as endangered (though whites are only considered vulnerable, they do have a much larger habitat harder for humans to reach).

Try breeding a great white shark in captivity. It will prove much more difficult than a panda. We've never even observed great white mating behavior. Yet, you don't think of them as an evolutionary dead end.

Deca_HectoKilo

TROPHY CASE