We're Blowin' it

Droughts will get worse, and there's a good probability we'll see a double/triple/fourple whammy of drought-then-flood-then-drought cycling in fairly quick succession.

We've fouled the nest, we may not be able to stop the worst of the consequences for having fouled the nest, which means that taking it all together, we're on track for the human species to go extinct sooner than we'd hoped.

Global soil moisture in ‘permanent’ decline due to climate change

A new study warns that global declines in soil moisture in the 21st century could mark a “permanent” shift in the world’s water cycle.

Combining data from satellites, sea level measurements and observations of “polar motion”, the research shows how soil moisture levels have decreased since the year 2000.

The findings, published in Science, suggest the decline is primarily driven by an increasingly thirsty atmosphere as global temperatures rise, as well as shifts in rainfall patterns.

Consequently, the researchers warn the observed changes are likely to be “permanent” if current warming trends continue.

An accompanying perspective article says the study provides “robust evidence” of an “irreversible shift” in terrestrial water sources under climate change.

The drying out of soil “increases the severity and frequency” of major droughts, with consequences for humans, ecosystems and agriculture, explains Dr Benjamin Cook, an interdisciplinary Earth system scientist working at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University, who was not involved in the research.

He tells Carbon Brief:

“Droughts are one of the most impactful, expensive natural hazards out there, because they are typically persistent and long lasting. Everything needs water – ecosystems need water, agriculture needs water. People need water. If you don’t have enough water – you’re in trouble.”

Drying soil

Every year, around 6tn tonnes of water cycles through Earth’s land surface. When rain falls on land it gets held up in soil, wetlands, groundwater, lakes and reservoirs on its journey back to the oceans.

Soil moisture forms a critical part of the Earth’s system, helping to irrigate soil, cycle nutrients and regulate the climate.

The amount of water contained in the soil is sensitive to a range of factors, including changes in rainfall, evaporation, vegetation and climate – as well as human activity, such as intensive agriculture.

The research points to a “gradual decline” in soil moisture levels in the 21st century, kickstarted by a period of “sharp depletion” in the three years over 2000-02.

Specifically, the researchers find the depletion of soil moisture resulted in a total loss of 1,614bn tonnes (gigatonnes, or Gt) of water over 2000-02 and then 1,009Gt between 2002 and 2016.

(For context, ice loss in Greenland resulted in 900Gt of water loss over 2002-06.)

Soil moisture has not recovered as of 2021, according to the research, and is unlikely to pick up under present climate conditions.

Joint-lead author Prof Dongryeol Ryu, professor of hydrology and remote sensing at the University of Melbourne, explains to Carbon Brief:

“We observed a stepwise decline [in soil moisture] twice in the past two decades, interspersed within a continuously declining trend in soil moisture. We haven’t seen this trend earlier, so that is why this is very concerning.”

Ryu explains the decision to analyse changes to soil moisture on a global scale meant the researchers could confirm trends difficult to see in smaller geographic datasets:

“The unique thing we found through analysing these larger-scale measures is that – even if we have seen widely fluctuating ups and downs in precipitation and increasing temperature – the total water contained in the soil, as soil moisture and groundwater, has been declining gradually from around the beginning of this century.“

The maps below illustrate soil moisture changes in 2003-07 and 2008-12 against a 1995-99 baseline, as estimated by the ERA5-Land reanalysis dataset. The areas marked on the map in brown saw a drop in soil moisture and the areas marked in blue an increase in soil moisture.

The top map shows soil moisture depletion across large regions in eastern and central Asia, central Africa and North and South America over 2003-07. The lower map shows that “replenishment” in the years that followed occurred in relatively small parts of South America, India, Australia and North America.

Climate change

Ryu says the researchers “suspect that increasing temperature played an important role” in the decline in terrestrial water storage and soil moisture in the 21st century.

The study points to two factors driving gradual depletion of soil moisture over the last quarter century: fluctuations to rainfall patterns and increasing “evaporative demand”.

Evaporative demand refers to the atmosphere’s “thirst” for water, or how much moisture it can take from the land, vegetation and surface water.

Studies have highlighted how global evaporative demand has been increasing over the last two decades globally, impacting water availability, hurting crops and causing drought.

The new study notes that “increasing evaporative demand driven by a warming climate” suggests a “more consistent and widespread trend toward drying as temperatures rise”.

Ryu says the “very unusual” drop in water moisture observed over 2000-02 could be attributed to low levels of rainfall globally, which coincided with the “period when evaporative demand started increasing”.

Another – less pronounced – period of rapid soil moisture decline seen over 2015-16 can be attributed to droughts triggered by the 2014-16 El Niño event, Ryu notes.

Ryu says the study findings indicate that soil moisture can no longer bounce back from a dry year, as it has in the past:

“It used to be that when precipitation goes up again, we recover water in the soil. But because of this increasing evaporative demand, once we have strong El Niño years – which lead to much less rainfall for a year or two – it seems that we are not recovering the water fully because of increasing evaporative demand. Because of that – even if we have a wet year following dry years – the water in the soil doesn’t seem to recover.”

Cross-validation

Measuring changes in global soil moisture has historically presented a challenge to scientists, given the lack of comprehensive and direct observations of water in soil.

The researchers attempt to reduce this uncertainty by corroborating the ERA5-Land reanalysis dataset from the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) with three geophysical measurement datasets.

ERA5’s land surface modelling system uses meteorological and other input data to estimate water within the upper few metres of the soil.

These figures were compared with data collected by the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) mission – a joint satellite mission between NASA and the German Aerospace Center.

Running since 2002, the GRACE mission tracks changes to the Earth’s gravity by collecting data on groundwater depletion, ice sheet loss and sea level rise. These observations have revealed a persistent loss of water from land to the ocean.

The scientists also cross-reference the ERA5 reanalysis data with a century-old dataset that measures fluctuations in the rotation of the Earth as the distribution of mass on the planet changes.

(The redistribution of ice and water, such as melting ice sheets and depleting groundwater, causes the planet to wobble as it spins and its axis to shift slightly. This is known as “polar motion”.)

The third set of measurements the scientists use is global mean sea level height, which is collected by satellites.

To extract soil moisture changes from this set of data, the researchers subtracted other components of sea level rise from the overall total – including Greenland ice melt, Antarctica ice melt, the impact of increasing sea surface temperature (which expands water volume) and the contribution of groundwater.

This process of elimination left researchers with an estimate of the contribution of soil moisture to global sea level rise.

The study notes that both the sea surface height and polar motion observations “support the conclusion that the abrupt change in soil moisture is genuine”.

Ryu says using global average sea level rise and “Earth wobble” to track water redistribution on land is the “main innovation” applied in the paper.

He adds the value of “reverse engineering” the ERA5 dataset is to understand how to enhance land surface modelling in the future:

“By explaining all the contributing factors to this measurement, you can understand the process. And if you understand the process, you can actually predict what’s going to happen in the future if any of these factors change in a certain manner.”

NASA’s Dr Cook says the “corroborating evidence” supplied by the paper offers a “really strong case that there has been a large-scale decline in soil moisture in recent decades”.

However, he says the relatively short reference period of the study means that identifying the cause of the decline is less clear cut:

“Whether [the decline] is permanent or not is much more uncertain…On these timescales, internal natural variability can be really, really strong. Attributing this decline to something specific – either climate change or internal variability – is much much more difficult.”

Sea level rise

A notable finding in the study’s sea level rise analysis is that terrestrial water storage may have been the dominant driver of sea level rise in the early 21st century.

Specifically, the paper notes that the decline in terrestrial water storage over 2000-02 – when soil moisture plummeted – led to global average sea level rise of almost 2mm annually.

The researchers note this rate of sea level rise is “unprecedented” and “significantly higher” than the rate of sea level rise attributed to Greenland ice mass loss, which they note is approximately 0.8mm a year.

Prof Reed Maxwell, a professor at the High Meadows Environmental Institute at Princeton University, who was also not involved in the study, says the researchers’ efforts to compare soil moisture with other global water stores was “novel” and “opens the door to future study of a more holistic global water balance”.

‘Creeping disaster’

The paper notes that land surface and hydrological models require “substantial improvement” to accurately simulate changes in soil moisture in changing climate.

Current models do not factor the impacts of agricultural intensification, nor the ongoing “greening” of semi-arid regions – both of which “may contribute” to a further decline in soil moisture, it states.

Writing in a perspectives article published in Science, Prof Luis Samaniego from the department of computational hydrosystems at the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research says that it is “essential” that next-generation models incorporate human-caused influences such as farming, large dams and irrigation systems.

The study posits that the “innovative methods” for estimating changes in global soil moisture presented in the study provide opportunities to “improve the present state of modelling at global and continental scales”.

More broadly, advances in scientific understanding of changes to soil moisture can help improve the world’s preparedness for drought.

Drought is often described as a “creeping disaster” – because by the time it is identified, it is usually already well under way,

Paper author Ryu explains:

“Unlike a flood and heatwaves, drought comes very very slowly – and has prolonged and delayed consequences. We better be prepared earlier than later, because once drought comes you can expect a long period of consequences.”

Dr Shou Wang, associate professor at the Hydroclimate Extremes Lab and the Hong Kong Polytechnic University, who was not involved in the study, says the research findings are “crucial” for advancing understanding of the “potential drivers and dynamics” of “unprecedented hydrological extremes in a warming climate”. He tells Carbon Brief:

“This is breakthrough work that uncovers the drivers of hydrological regime changes, which are leading to unprecedented hydrological extremes such as compound and consecutive drought-flood events.”

Tonight's Tonight

Nerds Rule

Tell me again - what's Elon for? What is he doing for us?

I mean, I realize we're taking a multi point approach - different companies doing different things - but other than some pretty impressive successes 15 years ago, they don't seem to be producing tangible results - just some splashy publicity stunts. So what're we getting for our money?

Just asking - Elon's running around playing Mr Efficiency Expert, looking under everybody else's skirt. We pay him billions every year, and I'd like to know: What exactly is he delivering?

Where are Elon's bullet points?

This is what I'm talking about:

Private Lunar Lander Blue Ghost Aces Moon Touchdown with a Special Delivery for NASA

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. — A private lunar lander carrying a drill, vacuum and other experiments for NASA touched down on the moon Sunday, the latest in a string of companies looking to kickstart business on Earth's celestial neighbor ahead of astronaut missions.

Firefly Aerospace’s Blue Ghost lander descended from lunar orbit on autopilot, aiming for the slopes of an ancient volcanic dome in an impact basin on the moon’s northeastern edge of the near side.

Confirmation of successful touchdown came from the company's Mission Control outside Austin, Texas, following the action some 225,000 miles (360,000 kilometers) away.

“You all stuck the landing. We’re on the moon,” Firefly’s Will Coogan, chief engineer for the lander, reported.

An upright and stable landing makes Firefly — a startup founded a decade ago — the first private outfit to put a spacecraft on the moon without crashing or falling over. Even countries have faltered, with only five claiming success: Russia, the U.S., China, India and Japan.

A half hour after landing, Blue Ghost started to send back pictures from the surface, the first one a selfie somewhat obscured by the sun's glare. The second shot included the home planet, a blue dot glimmering in the blackness of space.

Two other companies’ landers are hot on Blue Ghost’s heels, with the next one expected to join it on the moon later this week.

Blue Ghost — named after a rare U.S. species of fireflies — had its size and shape going for it. The squat four-legged lander stands 6-foot-6 (2 meters) tall and 11 feet (3.5 meters) wide, providing extra stability, according to the company.

Launched in mid-January from Florida, the lander carried 10 experiments to the moon for NASA. The space agency paid $101 million for the delivery, plus $44 million for the science and tech on board. It’s the third mission under NASA’s commercial lunar delivery program, intended to ignite a lunar economy of competing private businesses while scouting around before astronauts show up later this decade.

Firefly’s Ray Allensworth said the lander skipped over hazards including boulders to land safely. Allensworth said the team continued to analyze the data to figure out the lander's exact position, but all indications suggest it landed within the 328-foot (100-meter) target zone in Mare Crisium.

The demos should get two weeks of run time, before lunar daytime ends and the lander shuts down.

It carried a vacuum to suck up moon dirt for analysis and a drill to measure temperature as deep as 10 feet (3 meters) below the surface. Also on board: a device for eliminating abrasive lunar dust — a scourge for NASA’s long-ago Apollo moonwalkers, who got it caked all over their spacesuits and equipment.

On its way to the moon, Blue Ghost beamed back exquisite pictures of the home planet. The lander continued to stun once in orbit around the moon, with detailed shots of the moon's gray pockmarked surface. At the same time, an on-board receiver tracked and acquired signals from the U.S. GPS and European Galileo constellations, an encouraging step forward in navigation for future explorers.

The landing set the stage for a fresh crush of visitors angling for a piece of lunar business.

Another lander — a tall and skinny 15-footer (4 meters tall) built and operated by Houston-based Intuitive Machines — is due to land on the moon Thursday. It’s aiming for the bottom of the moon, just 100 miles (160 kilometers) from the south pole. That’s closer to the pole than the company got last year with its first lander, which broke a leg and tipped over.

Despite the tumble, Intuitive Machines' lander put the U.S. back on the moon for the first time since NASA astronauts closed out the Apollo program in 1972.

A third lander from the Japanese company ispace is still three months from landing. It shared a rocket ride with Blue Ghost from Cape Canaveral on Jan. 15, taking a longer, windier route. Like Intuitive Machines, ispace is also attempting to land on the moon for the second time. Its first lander crashed in 2023.

The moon is littered with wreckage not only from ispace, but dozens of other failed attempts over the decades.

NASA wants to keep up a pace of two private lunar landers a year, realizing some missions will fail, said the space agency's top science officer Nicky Fox.

“It really does open up a whole new way for us to get more science to space and to the moon," Fox said.

Unlike NASA’s successful Apollo moon landings that had billions of dollars behind them and ace astronauts at the helm, private companies operate on a limited budget with robotic craft that must land on their own, said Firefly CEO Jason Kim.

Kim said everything went like clockwork.

“We got some moon dust on our boots," Kim said.

Today's Nerdy Thing

The Ort Cloud

• We don't really know what it looks like
• It takes light from the sun 8 minutes to get to Earth
• It takes light from the sun about a month to get to Neptune
• It takes light from the sun about a year and a half to get outside the Ort Cloud

Biology

"It's a scientific fact that humans come in only two varieties,

and they are: XX for female, and XY for male."

except ...

• You can be born appearing female, but have a 5-alpha reductase deficiency which can cause you to grow a penis at about age 12
• You can be born legally male with an XY chromosome, but if your body is insensitive to androgens, you will appear female
• You can be born legally male, with an XY chromosome, and have a penis and testes - and a uterus and fallopian tubes
• You can be born legally male, with an XY chromosome, but if that chromosome is missing the SRY gene, you'll develop a female body
• You can be born legally female with an XX chromosome, but if one of those Xs has an SRY gene, you'll develop a male body
• You can be born legally female, with an XX chromosome plus a Y chromosome, and you'll develop a male body
• You can be born legally female, with an XX chromosome, but if your adrenal gland doesn't produce enough cortisol, you'll develop a male body
• You can be born with both XX and XY chromosomes - Chimerism - and watch Nancy Grace's head explode

So the next time you think about using biology to cover your ignorance and bigotry, remember that humans come in lots of different models with lots of different options, and maybe you could stop wasting everybody's time trying to smash-fit people into your little "M or F" checkboxes.

hat tip = Dr Janet Dean via FB

Today's Nerdy Thing

Sea Level

Sea level rise is accelerating.

In the last 30 years, we've seen sea levels rise about 4 inches.

In the next 30 years, it's likely to go up another 12 inches.

Science Is Pro-Kamala

Vote for Kamala Harris to Support Science, Health and the Environment

Kamala Harris has plans to improve health, boost the economy and mitigate climate change. Donald Trump has threats and a dangerous record

Opinion

In the November election, the U.S. faces two futures. In one, the new president offers the country better prospects, relying on science, solid evidence and the willingness to learn from experience. She pushes policies that boost good jobs nationwide by embracing technology and clean energy. She supports education, public health and reproductive rights. She treats the climate crisis as the emergency it is and seeks to mitigate its catastrophic storms, fires and droughts.

In the other future, the new president endangers public health and safety and rejects evidence, preferring instead nonsensical conspiracy fantasies. He ignores the climate crisis in favor of more pollution. He requires that federal officials show personal loyalty to him rather than upholding U.S. laws. He fills positions in federal science and other agencies with unqualified ideologues. He goads people into hate and division, and he inspires extremists at state and local levels to pass laws that disrupt education and make it harder to earn a living.

Only one of these futures will improve the fate of this country and the world. That is why, for only the second time in our magazine’s 179-year history, the editors of Scientific American are endorsing a candidate for president. That person is Kamala Harris.

Before making this endorsement, we evaluated Harris’s record as a U.S. senator and as vice president under Joe Biden, as well as policy proposals she’s made as a presidential candidate. Her opponent, Donald Trump, who was president from 2017 to 2021, also has a record—a disastrous one. Let’s compare.

Health Care

The Biden-Harris administration shored up the popular Affordable Care Act (ACA), giving more people access to health insurance through subsidies. During Harris’s September 10 debate with Trump, she said one of her goals as president would be to expand it. Scores of studies have shown that people with insurance stay healthier and live longer because they can afford to see doctors for preventive and acute care. Harris supports expansion of Medicaid, the U.S. health-care program for low-income people. States that have expanded this program have seen health gains in their populations, whereas states that continue to restrict eligibility have not. To pay for Medicare, the health insurance program primarily for older Americans, Harris supports a tax increase on people who earn $400,000 or more a year. And the Biden-Harris administration succeeded in passing the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which caps the costs of several expensive drugs, including insulin, for Medicare enrollees. Harris’s vice presidential pick, Tim Walz, signed into law a prohibition against excessive price hikes on generic drugs as governor of Minnesota.

When in office, Trump proposed cuts to Medicare and Medicaid (Congress, to its credit, refused to enact them.) He also pushed for a work requirement as a condition for Medicaid eligibility, making it harder for people to qualify for the program. As a candidate, both in 2016 and this year, he pledged to repeal the ACA, but it’s not clear what he would replace it with. When prodded during the September debate, he said, “I have concepts of a plan” but didn’t elaborate. Like Harris, however, he has voiced concern about drug prices, and in 2020 he signed an executive order designed to lower prices of drugs covered by Medicare.

The COVID pandemic has been the greatest test of the American health-care system in modern history. Harris was vice president of an administration that boosted widespread distribution of COVID vaccines and created a program for free mail-order COVID tests. Wastewater surveillance for viruses has improved, allowing public health officials to respond more quickly when levels are high. Bird flu now poses a new threat, highlighting the importance of the Biden-Harris administration’s Office of Pandemic Preparedness and Response Policy.

Trump touted his pandemic efforts during his first debate with Harris, but in 2020 he encouraged resistance to basic public health measures, spread misinformation about treatments and suggested injections of bleach could cure the disease. By the end of that year about 350,000 people in the U.S. had died of COVID; the current national total is well over a million. Trump and his staff had one great success: Operation Warp Speed, which developed effective COVID vaccines extremely quickly. Remarkably, however, Trump plans billion-dollar budget cuts to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health, which started the COVID-vaccine research program. These steps are in line with the guidance of Project 2025, an extreme conservative blueprint for the next presidency drawn up by many former Trump staffers. He’s also talked about ending the Office of Pandemic Preparedness and Response Policy, calling it a pork project.

Reproductive Rights

Harris is a staunch supporter of reproductive rights. During the September debate, she spoke plainly about her desire to reinstate “the protections of Roe v. Wade” and added, “I think the American people believe that certain freedoms, in particular the freedom to make decisions about one’s own body, should not be made by the government.” She has vowed to improve access to abortion. She has defended the right to order the abortion pill mifepristone through the mail under authorization by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, even as MAGA Republican state officials have tried—so far unsuccessfully—to revoke those rights. As a U.S. senator, she co-sponsored a package of bills to reduce rising rates of maternal mortality. In August, Trump said he would vote against a ballot measure expanding access to abortions in Florida, where he lives. The current Florida “heartbeat” law makes most abortions illegal after six weeks of pregnancy, before many people even know they are pregnant.

Trump appointed the conservative U.S. Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe v. Wade, removing the constitutional right to a basic health-care procedure. He spreads misinformation about abortion—during the September debate, he said some states support abortion into the ninth month and beyond, calling it “execution after birth.” No state allows this. He also refused to answer the question of whether he would veto a federal abortion ban, saying Congress would never approve such a ban in the first place. He made no mention of an executive order and praised the Supreme Court, three justices of which he placed, for sending abortion back to states to decide. This ruling led to a patchwork of laws and entire sections of the country where abortion is dangerously limited.

Gun Safety

The Biden-Harris administration closed the gun-show loophole, which had allowed people to buy guns without a license. The evidence is clear that easy access to guns in the U.S. has increased the risk of suicides, murder and firearm accidents. Harris supports a program that temporarily removes guns from people deemed dangerous by a court.

Trump promised the National Rifle Association that he would get rid of all Biden-Harris gun measures. Even after Trump was injured and a supporter was killed in an attempted assassination, the former president remained silent on gun safety. His running mate, J. D. Vance, said the increased number of school shootings was an unhappy “fact of life” and the solution was stronger school security.

Environment and Climate

Harris said pointedly during the September debate that climate change was real. She would continue the responsible leadership shown by Biden, who has undertaken the most substantial climate action of any president. The Biden-Harris administration restored U.S. membership in the Paris Agreement on coping with climate change. Harris’s election would continue IRA tax credits for clean energy, as well as regulations to reduce power-plant emissions and coal use. This approach puts the country on course to spend the authorized billions of dollars for renewable energy that should cut U.S. carbon emissions in half by 2030. The IRA also includes a commitment to broadening electric vehicle technology.

Trump has said climate change is a hoax, and he dodged the question “What would you do to fight climate change?” during the September debate. He pulled the U.S. out of the Paris Agreement. Under his direction the Environmental Protection Agency and other federal agencies abandoned more than 100 environmental policies and rules, many designed to ensure clean air and water, restrict the dangers of toxic chemicals and protect wildlife. He has also tried to revoke funding for satellite-based climate-research projects.

Technology

The Biden-Harris administration’s 2023 Executive Order on Safe, Secure and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence requires that AI-based products be safe for consumers and national security. The CHIPS and Science Act invigorates the chipmaking industry and semiconductor research while growing the workforce. A new Trump administration would undo all of this work and quickly. Under the devious and divisive Project 2025 framework, technology safeguards on AI would be overturned. AI influences our criminal justice, labor and health-care systems. As is the rightful complaint now, there would be no knowing how these programs are developed, how they are tested or whether they even work.

The 2024 U.S. ballots are also about Congress and local officials—people who make decisions that affect our communities and families. Extremist state legislators in Ohio, for instance, have given politicians the right to revoke any rule from the state health department designed to limit the spread of contagious disease. Other states have passed similar measures. In education, many states now forbid lessons about racial bias. But research has shown such lessons reduce stereotypes and do not prompt schoolchildren to view one another negatively, regardless of their race. This is the kind of science MAGA politicians ignore, and such people do not deserve our votes.

At the top of the ballot, Harris does deserve our vote. She offers us a way forward lit by rationality and respect for all. Economically, the renewable-energy projects she supports will create new jobs in rural America. Her platform also increases tax deductions for new small businesses from $5,000 to $50,000, making it easier for them to turn a profit. Trump, a convicted felon who was also found liable of sexual abuse in a civil trial, offers a return to his dark fantasies and demagoguery, whether it’s denying the reality of climate change or the election results of 2020 that were confirmed by more than 60 court cases, including some that were overseen by judges whom he appointed.

One of two futures will materialize according to our choices in this election. Only one is a vote for reality and integrity. We urge you to vote for Kamala Harris.

More Nerdly Stuff

"Rising ape levels" may be my new touch stone for thinking about, and debating, all things ecological. That phrase alone made the whole 24 minutes worth my while.

And maybe, next time some deliberately ignorant yahoo starts in on "diversity", you could remind them that without diversity, the species is more likely to become inbred, which makes it more likely that the species will die out sooner than it should.

Or you could just go with Zappa:

Today's Nerd Thing

Tardigrades on the moon.

Listen Up, Nerds

Weapons, predatory behavior, and big expensive brains.

Arizona State Univ Center For Human Origins

Jess Thompson, PhD, Yale, is the kind of pro who knows her shit so well she can explain it in a way that makes it understandable to a dope like me. Which is a very good thing, because this kind of presentation is basically a combination progress report and sales pitch.

These efforts have to be funded, so she's showing the people who have ponied up the money so far, that spending more of their money on this stuff is worth it.

I think it is.

Smart Guys

I'm really glad there are people who volunteer to get the headaches that come from thinking this stuff through.

My head thanks you for your service, guys.

Electrifying The Hardhats

Progress is convincing the workin' guys that the cool new gear is all electric.

The fact that it's better for the future of their kids is, for now, secondary at best. What they care about right now - IMHO what they should care about - is whether or not the stuff works, and can it be a real benefit to them on the job?

SHIPPENSBURG, Pa. — On a 40-acre dirt and gravel lot, I climbed into the cabin of a 55,000-pound excavator. Construction crews use these hulking machines to dig trenches for laying pipes and wires or hollowing out building foundations. I took it out for a joyride.

10 steps you can take to lower your carbon footprint

When I switched on the motor, there was no ignition roar and no belch of diesel fumes from a tailpipe. This machine, powered by four batteries that each are big enough to run a small electric car, came to life silently.

The quiet didn’t last. The excavator’s giant treads trundled noisily over the gravel until I reached a good spot to dig. Then I grabbed hold of two joysticks and sank the bucket arm down into the dirt to scoop out as much earth as the claw could carry. I hit a big rock. The machine momentarily pitched forward, straining to loosen it from the ground — and then the electric motor heaved the boulder and a clod of dirt into the air in a puff of dust.

When they run on diesel, the biggest pieces of construction equipment can churn through 10 or more gallons of fuel per hour, emitting as much carbon and air pollution as several cars combined. Off-road equipment, including excavators, bulldozers, cranes and tractors, create about 3 percent of U.S. carbon emissions — roughly the same as the airline industry. Making these machines carbon-free would be almost as big a step toward halting climate change as taking all commercial planes out of the sky.

It won’t be easy. Electrifying off-road vehicles presents all the same challenges as replacing gas-powered cars with EVs, including worries about charging infrastructure, battery capacity and high upfront costs — plus the added challenge of digging, pushing and lifting heavy loads for hours at a time.

“They are more difficult because most of these vehicles don’t just propel themselves, they also do work,” said Kim Stelson, a mechanical engineering professor at the University of Minnesota who studies off-road vehicles. “But if we want to solve the overall problem [of climate change], we have to solve this one.”

Despite the obstacles, electric machines are slowly starting to show up at farms and construction sites. John Deere plans to sell more than 20 models of electric and hybrid construction equipment and tractors by 2026. Construction giants Caterpillar and Komatsu are developing electric excavators and wheel loaders. Volvo Construction Equipment, which made the excavator I was driving, sells seven electric models. “Almost all the major companies are working on electric solutions,” Stelson said.

How are electric and diesel machines different?

Volvo’s electric machines are very similar to its diesel machines, with the exception that their engines have been swapped out for batteries. The 55,000-pound electric excavator, for instance, has 264 kilowatt-hours of battery storage — the same as nine Mini Cooper EVs, or a little more than one electric Hummer.

I drove both the electric and diesel versions of the machine, and the differences between them mirrored the differences between EVs and gas-powered cars. The electric machine idled silently and its controls were slightly more responsive than the diesel one, since its electric motor can deliver power faster than a combustion engine — similar to the way an EV can accelerate faster than a gas-powered car. But both machines pulled dirt out of the ground with the same power.

You can see the similarities on display on the assembly line at Volvo Construction Equipment’s North American headquarters in Shippensburg. Similar hulking, half-formed chassis move down the lines for both types of vehicles. But, halfway through, a huge hook hanging from the ceiling will either lower an engine or a battery pack into the machine for workers to install.

The electric machines are catching on slowly. Of the 60,000 pieces of construction equipment Volvo delivered to customers last year, 895 were electric according to the company’s annual report. The company said it aims to offer electric versions of more than a third of its models by 2030.

Where might you spot electric construction equipment?

Electric machines are good for a particular kind of job site. The machines need a place to charge — which could be the same level 1, 2 or 3 chargers that EVs plug into in buildings, parking lots or charging stations. And ideally, they wouldn’t have to move heavy loads for very long shifts.

“If you have a 24-hour, round-the-clock type of [work schedule], battery electrics aren’t very practical because you can’t stop to plug in for the four or five hours that it would take to recharge it,” said Ray Gallant, vice president of sustainability and productivity services at Volvo Construction Equipment.

Volvo says it often sells or leases electric machines for job sites where it pays to limit noise and air pollution. The Toronto Zoo used one of the company’s machines to avoid upsetting animals while repairing their enclosures. Cemeteries have bought excavators to quietly dig graves without disturbing mourners. Construction crews working on busy city streets use the machines to avoid annoying the neighbors or polluting their air.

At the Molly Pitcher dairy farm five miles down the road from Volvo Construction Equipment, farmers use an electric wheel loader to move feed, clean out barn floors and help lift and maintain pumps. The farmers say it’s better for the cattle to be around quieter machinery. Plus, they can charge the battery for free because the farm generates its own electricity using a device that converts manure into power.

“The more I can use that electricity, the more profitable we are,” said Keith Jones, the farm owner.

On other job sites where electric vehicles aren’t practical, construction crews can cut their emissions by running their machines on greener fuels, such as renewable diesel made from crops or used cooking oil. California now requires all off-road equipment to run on renewable diesel.

“There, you’re getting up to a 70 percent carbon benefit relative to running a diesel fuel, so that could be a really key intermediate step,” said Tom Durbin, a faculty researcher at the Center for Environmental Research and Technology at the University of California, Riverside.

One day, crews could upgrade to machines that run on pure hydrogen, a fuel that creates zero carbon emissions — but those mainly exist as prototypes today.

Hot Air

“It all started with an enquiry from a nurse,” Dr Karl Kruszelnicki told listeners to his science phone-in show on the Triple J radio station in Brisbane. “She wanted to know whether she was contaminating the operating theatre she worked in by quietly farting in the sterile environment during operations, and I realised that I didn't know. But I was determined to find out.”

Dr Kruszelnicki then described the method by which he had established whether human flatus was germ-laden, or merely malodorous. “I contacted Luke Tennent, a microbiologist in Canberra, and together we devised an experiment. He asked a colleague to break wind directly onto two Petri dishes from a distance of 5 centimetres, first fully clothed, then with his trousers down. Then he observed what happened. Overnight, the second Petri dish sprouted visible lumps of two types of bacteria that are usually found only in the gut and on the skin. But the flatus which had passed through clothing caused no bacteria to sprout, which suggests that clothing acts as a filter.

“Our deduction is that the enteric zone in the second Petri dish was caused by the flatus itself, and the splatter ring around that was caused by the sheer velocity of the fart, which blew skin bacteria from the cheeks and blasted it onto the dish. 

It seems, therefore, that flatus can cause infection if the emitter is naked, but not if he or she is clothed. But the results of the experiment should not be considered alarming, because neither type of bacterium is harmful. In fact, they're similar to the ‘friendly’ bacteria found in yoghurt.

“Our final conclusion? Don't fart naked near food. All right, it's not rocket science. But then again, maybe it is?”

On The Roiling Of America

It would give me a warm fuzzy prideful feeling deep down in my heart to watch Fauci look straight into the camera and say, "Here I am, assholes - come and get me."

Obviously, this could rile up those assholes and trigger a whole new spate of threatening or violent actions.

But I'm enough of a cautious optimist to believe there are far more good people in this country than there are the kind of assholes who go around dropping death threats on valued, respected leaders.

So I think lots of those good people would be willing to stand up and defend a guy like Dr Fauci, and beat back the MAGA assholes who just can't manage not to act like they never outgrew their tendencies to behave like the raging morons they were in middle school.

God how I hate those fuckin' guys.

Today I Learned

Ten years ago, corn stalks were 13 feet tall.

Now they're about 5 feet - and each plant is putting out 3 times as many kernels.

3x

Hacking the genome of corn (aka: they GMO'd that motherfucker), makes for a plant that can put more of its energy into producing the food instead of making the stuff we can't eat.

Today's Nerd Thing

No need to mark your calendars just yet, but we're homing in on it.

I got to watch live on TV in 1969 when Armstrong and Aldrin landed the first time.

God willin' and the crick don't rise I'll get to watch it happen again.

Humans are going back to the Moon to stay, but when that will be is becoming less clear

A 2019 Time magazine cover portrayed four astronauts running towards the Moon. Pictured alongside the headline “The Next Space Race”, one of the astronauts carried an American flag, one carried a Chinese flag and the other two belonged to space companies owned by billionaires: Elon Musk’s SpaceX and Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin.

Until recently, it seemed as if the US and SpaceX were set to win this race to return to the Moon with Nasa’s Artemis programme. But a number of setbacks have called that into question. And Blue Origin, China and other countries and companies are continuing their own lunar efforts.

On January 9 2024, Nasa announced that it was delaying the Artemis 2 mission, the first crewed flight of the Space Launch System (SLS) and the Orion capsule – the vehicles built to send astronauts back to deep space. The flight would slip from late 2024 to no earlier than September 2025. This was due to some safety issues that need to be fixed on Orion.

Consequently, Artemis 3, which is supposed to involve the first crewed lunar landing since 1972, will take place no earlier than September 2026. Artemis 3 is to use SpaceX’s Starship orbiter as the lander for two crew members. This mission is set to put the first woman and the first person of colour on the lunar surface.

A non-American crew member could also walk on the Moon by 2030, highlighting the fact that Nasa has involved international partners in the Artemis venture. Up until now, just 12 humans have set foot on the Moon. All of them have been male and all have been American.

However, the Starship orbiter, crucial to these aims, has experienced problems. A second test launch for the rocketship-like orbiter atop its huge booster rocket back in November 2023, was spectacularly destroyed eight minutes and six seconds after lift off.

It will have to be ready to go by 2026. But, before then, SpaceX will have to demonstrate that it can refuel in orbit and then land Starship on the Moon without crew.

At the same time, however, Blue Origin is also working on a lander, called Blue Moon. Blue Moon is due to be used as the Moon landing craft for the Artemis 5 and 6 missions in 2029 and 2030.

Time will tell which lander can actually be ready for use first. But competition is always a good stimulator, and it could accelerate achievements.

Commercial companies supporting Nasa in the Artemis program will have to put a lot of attention into what to do and when. The lives of crew members are at stake here, so missions have to proceed in a safe and sustainable manner.

As with Apollo, Nasa is also trying to use the program to inspire the next generation of scientists, engineers and mathematicians. Baby boomers like myself are very proud to be “Apollo kids” who were inspired to study scientific subjects by those momentous achievements – particularly the first steps on another world, viewed through black and white TVs in July 1969.

International competition

China is also preparing itself, together with several other countries including Russia, to develop a lunar base for humans, called the International Lunar Research Station (ILRS). Beijing and its partners will include also private sectors players and governmental and non-governmental organisations, with an organisational scheme which is a first.

The Chinese program’s first human missions to the lunar surface are expected by 2030. Among the sites where they want to land is the Moon’s south pole. Nasa also wants to land here, but few of Beijing’s choices are in overlap with the locations selected for Artemis.

The south pole is a target for both the US and China because countries want to extract the water ice that’s hidden in craters there. This water could be used for life support at lunar bases and to make rocket fuel, helping bring down the cost of space exploration.

Space programs are never on time, and postponements are normal. Space agencies are more cautious nowadays, even more than before, because few tragedies we experienced in the past are obliging them to think very carefully before launching humans in space.

Safety of the crew is mandatory, and it must be always the first priority. So, if this is the reason why we have to wait a bit more before few human beings, after decades, will walk again on the Moon, I’m happy to wait for it.

Going to space has never been easy, as demonstrated by several uncrewed missions to the Moon over the last 12 months – both governmental and commercial – which didn’t make it. But perhaps it’s better we fail now while we are preparing for the new phase of humanity’s history.

The Moon will soon experience human beings on its surface again, working and living on a regular basis. But when humans go back there, this time it will be to stay.

Today's Nerd Thing

Does it come as some kinda news that the whole alpha-macho MAGA-bro thing turns out to have been based on a myth? Does that surprise anybody?

Today's Nerdy Thing

 –ˉˉˉ Supersonic

Today's Debunkment

Milo Rossi walks us thru the frightening world of Moral Neutrality that is the internet.

Ever hear of The Bosnian Pyramids? No? Good - they don't exist. But a YouTube video pimping the idea to gullible rubes has been viewed 30,000,000 times.

30 Million

Starting at about 12:00

It can be relatively easy for a charismatic shit-talker to convince you of something that's utter bullshit, because he can speak in terms of the absolute.

Scientists are trained never to go too far beyond the 95% certainty threshold, because the next round of discovery could totally vacate their entire thesis.

So a huckster can give us that supreme confidence most of us need so we can feel comfortable in our presumptions, while a reasonable person has to leave room for doubt - which makes us feel less than fully secure.