How satellite data has proven climate change is a climate crisis

[Admin]

In the fight against climate change, satellite data is an extremely valuable resource.

How satellite data has proven climate change is a climate crisis : Read more

 

[LijeBaley]

The problem remains the public’s reticence to accept the solutions. Oil and coal interests are still resisting change because those promised high paying green jobs haven’t materialized yet. All those years of fear mongering by anti-nuclear activists have stuck in the public’s mind so building or restarting nuclear plants is still fiercely opposed even though those former critics now admit nuclear is one major solution to the climate crisis. Microsoft wants to restart one of the infamous Three Mile Island reactors. Let’s see how that is received. Massive solar and windmill farms are often resisted too.

We have met the enemy and he is us.

 

[Richard Gordon]

"This past summer was the hottest summer since about the year 1880" I guess global warming is cyclic.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

It isn't just a matter of "the public accepting the solutions".

There is a lot of work that needs to be done on infrastructure before those solutions are even available to the whole public. If we could magically wave a wand and put electric cars in the homes of everybody in the U.S., in place of their cars with internal combustion engines, we would crash the electric grid when they tried to charge them. Even if we magically enhanced the grid to deal with the loads, we would find that we don't have the storage capacity to hold the generation from solar power during the day to use at night to charge electric vehicles, so we would end up using fossil fuels (and nuclear where that has not already been decommissioned).

We are making progress in some parts of the world, but a lot of that new infrastructure needs to be further developed to be more effective, reliable, efficient and affordable. I once looked at what it would take for me to install solar and batteries to be able to just charge a Tesla every night after using it hard during the day. The answer at the time was over $100,000. And it would not last forever, the batteries in the home system and the Tesla would need replacing in roughly 10 years, and the solar cells in something like 10 to 20 years, IF they were not storm-damaged during that period of time.

Prices for those things are coming down. And, the idea of being able to have a home that can be independent of the grid instead of just selling excess power during the day and importing power at night is catching on with the suburban public, if not the regulatory agencies and the power companies (yet?). But, that really is not an option for most city dwellers.

Despite all the rosy predictions of cost savings and job growth, the fact of the matter is that it is going to cost real people real money to change over our infrastructure to a "green" system. Most of the fighting is going to be about who has to pay for what. "Tax the rich" is a popular concept, but a quick look at the total wealth of "the rich" tells the truth that even that is a tiny fraction of the needed total investment. There is some economic trickery used as bait, where initial investments are subsidized for early adopters and the subsidies are hidden in the affordability analyses. But, some of those subsidies are currently coming to an end, such as the regulations forcing the electric companies to pay for excess residential solar generation at prices much higher than they would pay for the same amount of power from other commercial producers at the same time of day. And, if the government gives everybody a "tax break" on a new electric car, it will need to raise taxes on everybody (or increase the deficit and make our children and their children pay for it, plus the huge interest penalties, too).

So, we really need to be much smarter about how to engineer the transition process.

Getting back to how satellites can help with that - we really need to be able to see where pollutants are being emitted, not just where they end up, if we want to be able to focus on the biggest impactors. And we need to be able to measure total global effects in a uniform manner to gauge progress. That is what satellites can do for us.

 

[LeeF]

"This past summer was the hottest summer since about the year 1880" I guess global warming is cyclic.

No, that's when modern record keeping began. The last time it was this hot was 3-5 million years ago.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Leef, It was probably hotter a lot more recently than 3-5 million years ago.

There have been many cycles of glaciation and meltoff over the last 3 million years. Initially, the cycle was about 50,000 years between warm periods, but about 900,000 years ago, it changed to about 100,000 years per cycle.

During previous interglacial periods, sea levels sometimes rose more than they have so far this cycle. During the last interglacial period about 100,000 years ago, sea level reached a peak 25 feet higher than it is now. I remember reading about a 65 foot higher peak sea level several cycles earlier. It is a good bet that there were some rather warm years back then, before we had record-keeping humans. And single years are probably not discernable in the geological record with the accuracy needed to make year-to year comparisons with the present.

That doesn't mean we aren't eventually headed for global conditions similar to 3 to 5 million years ago, before the current (just ended?) cycles started. But, we are probably not yet out of the global conditions that have been experienced in previous warm periods. We may have already passed the point where we are unable to prevent getting back to the conditions that existed millions of years ago. It takes time for global temperatures to reach equilibrium when there is a change in net heating or cooling effects. There is no question that we are in a heating-up period at the moment.

 

[LeeF]

It isn't just a matter of "the public accepting the solutions".

There is a lot of work that needs to be done on infrastructure before those solutions are even available to the whole public. If we could magically wave a wand and put electric cars in the homes of everybody in the U.S., in place of their cars with internal combustion engines, we would crash the electric grid when they tried to charge them. Even if we magically enhanced the grid to deal with the loads, we would find that we don't have the storage capacity to hold the generation from solar power during the day to use at night to charge electric vehicles, so we would end up using fossil fuels (and nuclear where that has not already been decommissioned).

We are making progress in some parts of the world, but a lot of that new infrastructure needs to be further developed to be more effective, reliable, efficient and affordable. I once looked at what it would take for me to install solar and batteries to be able to just charge a Tesla every night after using it hard during the day. The answer at the time was over $100,000. And it would not last forever, the batteries in the home system and the Tesla would need replacing in roughly 10 years, and the solar cells in something like 10 to 20 years, IF they were not storm-damaged during that period of time.

Prices for those things are coming down. And, the idea of being able to have a home that can be independent of the grid instead of just selling excess power during the day and importing power at night is catching on with the suburban public, if not the regulatory agencies and the power companies (yet?). But, that really is not an option for most city dwellers.

Despite all the rosy predictions of cost savings and job growth, the fact of the matter is that it is going to cost real people real money to change over our infrastructure to a "green" system. Most of the fighting is going to be about who has to pay for what. "Tax the rich" is a popular concept, but a quick look at the total wealth of "the rich" tells the truth that even that is a tiny fraction of the needed total investment. There is some economic trickery used as bait, where initial investments are subsidized for early adopters and the subsidies are hidden in the affordability analyses. But, some of those subsidies are currently coming to an end, such as the regulations forcing the electric companies to pay for excess residential solar generation at prices much higher than they would pay for the same amount of power from other commercial producers at the same time of day. And, if the government gives everybody a "tax break" on a new electric car, it will need to raise taxes on everybody (or increase the deficit and make our children and their children pay for it, plus the huge interest penalties, too).

So, we really need to be much smarter about how to engineer the transition process.

Getting back to how satellites can help with that - we really need to be able to see where pollutants are being emitted, not just where they end up, if we want to be able to focus on the biggest impactors. And we need to be able to measure total global effects in a uniform manner to gauge progress. That is what satellites can do for us.

"If we could magically wave a wand and put electric cars in the homes of everybody in the U.S., in place of their cars with internal combustion engines, we would crash the electric grid when they tried to charge them."

That's not really true. There's now lots of evidence that the opposite should be the case, especially combined with energy efficiency and distributed generation.

With energy efficiency alone, I managed to reduce my primary energy use by 85% and the resultant loads can mostly be timed whenever I want them to occur mostly without batteries (just in vehicles), and 120% of the remainder is created on-site with solar on just one of my rooftops.

The advantages of electric vehicles of all sorts is you can choose to charge them when there is excess energy available and either not charge or feed energy back to the grid when there's a shortage. I charge when the solar on my roof is over-producing. I also pre-heat in the winter at the same time and also time my heating and water heating loads with the needs of the power grid.

Leef, It was probably hotter a lot more recently than 3-5 million years ago.

There have been many cycles of glaciation and meltoff over the last 3 million years. Initially, the cycle was about 50,000 years between warm periods, but about 900,000 years ago, it changed to about 100,000 years per cycle.

During previous interglacial periods, sea levels sometimes rose more than they have so far this cycle. During the last interglacial period about 100,000 years ago, sea level reached a peak 25 feet higher than it is now. I remember reading about a 65 foot higher peak sea level several cycles earlier. It is a good bet that there were some rather warm years back then, before we had record-keeping humans. And single years are probably not discernable in the geological record with the accuracy needed to make year-to year comparisons with the present.

That doesn't mean we aren't eventually headed for global conditions similar to 3 to 5 million years ago, before the current (just ended?) cycles started. But, we are probably not yet out of the global conditions that have been experienced in previous warm periods. We may have already passed the point where we are unable to prevent getting back to the conditions that existed millions of years ago. It takes time for global temperatures to reach equilibrium when there is a change in net heating or cooling effects. There is no question that we are in a heating-up period at the moment.

There may (or may not) have been a couple of short-duration spikes at or slightly above our current level, but the last time is was consistently this hot was 3 million years ago.

 

[LeeF]

It isn't just a matter of "the public accepting the solutions".

There is a lot of work that needs to be done on infrastructure before those solutions are even available to the whole public. If we could magically wave a wand and put electric cars in the homes of everybody in the U.S., in place of their cars with internal combustion engines, we would crash the electric grid when they tried to charge them. Even if we magically enhanced the grid to deal with the loads, we would find that we don't have the storage capacity to hold the generation from solar power during the day to use at night to charge electric vehicles, so we would end up using fossil fuels (and nuclear where that has not already been decommissioned).

We are making progress in some parts of the world, but a lot of that new infrastructure needs to be further developed to be more effective, reliable, efficient and affordable. I once looked at what it would take for me to install solar and batteries to be able to just charge a Tesla every night after using it hard during the day. The answer at the time was over $100,000. And it would not last forever, the batteries in the home system and the Tesla would need replacing in roughly 10 years, and the solar cells in something like 10 to 20 years, IF they were not storm-damaged during that period of time.

Prices for those things are coming down. And, the idea of being able to have a home that can be independent of the grid instead of just selling excess power during the day and importing power at night is catching on with the suburban public, if not the regulatory agencies and the power companies (yet?). But, that really is not an option for most city dwellers.

Despite all the rosy predictions of cost savings and job growth, the fact of the matter is that it is going to cost real people real money to change over our infrastructure to a "green" system. Most of the fighting is going to be about who has to pay for what. "Tax the rich" is a popular concept, but a quick look at the total wealth of "the rich" tells the truth that even that is a tiny fraction of the needed total investment. There is some economic trickery used as bait, where initial investments are subsidized for early adopters and the subsidies are hidden in the affordability analyses. But, some of those subsidies are currently coming to an end, such as the regulations forcing the electric companies to pay for excess residential solar generation at prices much higher than they would pay for the same amount of power from other commercial producers at the same time of day. And, if the government gives everybody a "tax break" on a new electric car, it will need to raise taxes on everybody (or increase the deficit and make our children and their children pay for it, plus the huge interest penalties, too).

So, we really need to be much smarter about how to engineer the transition process.

Getting back to how satellites can help with that - we really need to be able to see where pollutants are being emitted, not just where they end up, if we want to be able to focus on the biggest impactors. And we need to be able to measure total global effects in a uniform manner to gauge progress. That is what satellites can do for us.

Over a 25 or so year period, I cut my energy use to zero and my net cost was negative by over $100,000. If you make the transition intelligently, it can save, rather than cost money.

 

[Atlan0001]

Why not wipe out the human species and the rest of the species will live in perfect harmony with a perfectly harmonious environment in the universe! Or, just wipe out the [would be free] of the human species and the rest of the human species live like perfect slave workers to the perfect slave state.

Or pay the price to colonize and expand out to the Space Frontier letting the would be free of the human species go free of a slave Utopia Earth!

There is such a thing as a singularly internally diverse and contrary species, the ultimately complex and chaotic apex of the species pyramid species (all the various species of life merging into an incompatible single body of specie for spatial purpose), . . . needing Space Frontier . . . else nature trying for breakout with a new if there be still time for such a carrier-transport species and breakout. Only the lower orders of life do not branch out -- ever warring to branch out to get out of the box -- into the space frontier evolution of the mind! Utopian 'One World-ism' is a death wish for the higher orders of species because all it takes to destroy it is evolution and revolution of the branching tree of life from it ("Give me liberty or give me death!" -- Patrick Henry) (....)!

 

[Osbert]

Because of climate change, nuclear war and who knows what else, it's all over in 3797.

 

[Richard Mercer]

"All those years of fear mongering by anti-nuclear activists have stuck in the public’s mind so building or restarting nuclear plants is still fiercely opposed even though those former critics now admit nuclear is one m All those years of fear mongering by anti-nuclear activists have stuck in the public’s mind so building or restarting nuclear plants is still fiercely opposed even though those former critics now admit nuclear is one major solution to the climate crisis. Microsoft wants to restart one of the infamous Three Mile Island reactors. Let’s see how that is received. Massive solar and windmill farms are often resisted too.

Yes, Microsoft has put up $1.6 billion toward restarting one reactor at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania, to power their data centers. It will cost more than that.

On the other hand, Meta has contracted with Sage Geosystems to turn depleted gas wells into enhanced geothermal energy.
Sage was started by former Shell Oil workers, in Texas I think.
Well, there are about 100,000 depleted gas fracking wells in Pennsylvania alone. The drilling has already been done.
There are 27 states in America that have at least 5-10 thousand abandoned oil and gas wells,

Leef, It was probably hotter a lot more recently than 3-5 million years ago.

There have been many cycles of glaciation and meltoff over the last 3 million years. Initially, the cycle was about 50,000 years between warm periods, but about 900,000 years ago, it changed to about 100,000 years per cycle.

During previous interglacial periods, sea levels sometimes rose more than they have so far this cycle. During the last interglacial period about 100,000 years ago, sea level reached a peak 25 feet higher than it is now. I remember reading about a 65 foot higher peak sea level several cycles earlier. It is a good bet that there were some rather warm years back then, before we had record-keeping humans. And single years are probably not discernable in the geological record with the accuracy needed to make year-to year comparisons with the present.

That doesn't mean we aren't eventually headed for global conditions similar to 3 to 5 million years ago, before the current (just ended?) cycles started. But, we are probably not yet out of the global conditions that have been experienced in previous warm periods. We may have already passed the point where we are unable to prevent getting back to the conditions that existed millions of years ago. It takes time for global temperatures to reach equilibrium when there is a change in net heating or cooling effects. There is no question that we are in a heating-up period at the moment.

"If we could magically wave a wand and put electric cars in the homes of everybody in the U.S., in place of their cars with internal combustion engines, we would crash the electric grid when they tried to charge them."

That's not really true. There's now lots of evidence that the opposite should be the case, especially combined with energy efficiency and distributed generation.

With energy efficiency alone, I managed to reduce my primary energy use by 85% and the resultant loads can mostly be timed whenever I want them to occur mostly without batteries (just in vehicles), and 120% of the remainder is created on-site with solar on just one of my rooftops.

The advantages of electric vehicles of all sorts is you can choose to charge them when there is excess energy available and either not charge or feed energy back to the grid when there's a shortage. I charge when the solar on my roof is over-producing. I also pre-heat in the winter at the same time and also time my heating and water heating loads with the needs of the power grid.

There may (or may not) have been a couple of short-duration spikes at or slightly above our current level, but the last time is was consistently this hot was 3 million years ago.

"As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years.

In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly TEN TIMES FASTER than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming."
NASA Earth Observatory
----------------------------------------------------------------
This is from 2010. The warming since 1880 is now almost double, the 0.70C warming NASA was referring to.

 

[Richard Mercer]

"This past summer was the hottest summer since about the year 1880" I guess global warming is cyclic.

" I guess global warming is cyclic."
NOT THIS TIME.
According to NASA, the current warming is 10 times as fast as the warming that ends ice ages (glacial periods).

And here's why. Keep in mind that the greenhouse effect of CO2 has been known for 168 years and is much better understood now.

Nature caused CO2 increases over the last 450,000 years, from ice core data
80ppm increase -- took 50,000 years
110ppm increase -- 25,000 years
120ppm increase --- 20,000 years
60ppm increase --- 20,000 years
90ppm increase --- 15,000 years
100ppm increase --- 24,800 years
So, the fastest was a 90ppm increase over 15,000 years.
-------------
We increased CO2 that much in about 65 years.

Humans increased CO2 by 25ppm in the last 10 years
Humans increased CO2 by 45ppm in the last 20 years.
Humans increased CO2 by over 80ppm in the last 60 years
Humans increased CO2 by 100ppm in the last 70 years
Humans increased CO2 by 144ppm in the last 143 years

 

[Burt Reynolds]

In the fight against climate change, satellite data is an extremely valuable resource.

How satellite data has proven climate change is a climate crisis : Read more

Scrolled down to find a Harris presidential ad. Modern “journalism” is beyond corrupt and essentially useless in presenting objective reality. Man made climate change may be real, but the trust in what is communicated, and the method of doing so, has been irreparably tarnished. If you are expecting the federal government to save us, lust look no further than FEMA’s response in NC. Think electric cars are the solution? Take a peak at the power sources feeding our grid. “Green” is now a trillion dollar a year industry. Those invested, including the gov’t, will never let this cash register go. Climate models are notoriously bad, look it up. Climate is measured in hundreds of thousands of year, not centuries. If you think the accuracy of climate measurements then are remotely similar to what we have today, you’ve been fooled. Tell the whole story, if you truly care about the future. IF, and this is a big IF, what is laid out here is accurate, what’s the mitigation plan for the impending disasters? Which never seem to show up, look up impending ice age predictions from the 70’s. Or were those climate measurements somehow wrong? A laundry list of fortune tellers have mad a, well, a fortune.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

"If we could magically wave a wand and put electric cars in the homes of everybody in the U.S., in place of their cars with internal combustion engines, we would crash the electric grid when they tried to charge them."

That's not really true. There's now lots of evidence that the opposite should be the case, especially combined with energy efficiency and distributed generation.

It is really true right now, because we do not have " energy efficiency and distributed generation" currently in place. My point is that there needs to be a lot of infrastructure put in place, and that takes time and money.

And, if you saved $100,000 by putting in solar and energy storage over the last 25 years, you were definitely using subsidies. Most people do not even spend $100,000 for electricity from the power company in 25 years. Anyway, you said it took you 25 years, so how fast do you think it would be for everybody to do what you did? Consider that there are a limited number of installers, and 2 big ones just went bankrupt.

You say you charge your electric car during the day. How did you manage that and work at a location that is not your home? Without putting chargers into office parking areas and shopping areas, that is not something that most people can do. Good ideas, but not currently executed.

And, there is the matter of reliability under severe challenges. What happens to a city with 100% electric vehicles when NOAA says to evacuate because there is a category 5 hurricane coming? There is no time for lines at the chargers. And, solar panels on the roof may come down in wind. There will always be a case for some liquid fuels. Maybe we can make them in a "green" manner, but relying on battery powered vehicles for everything is not going to work with the technology we have now or expect to actually be available in the near to intermediate future. Right now, there are motor vehicles and aircraft using fossil fuels to rescue and get aid to hurricane Helene survivors, and they definitely don't have a way to recharge those emergency use vehicles with what was left after that storm.

 

[Classical Motion]

Who wants to depend on an electric ambulance or firetruck? And we will need new roads and bridges for the battery weight. A new road grid. Particulate tire material will fill the roads and your lungs. We will need new oil wells just for tires. Not to mention the mines and supply chains needed. Where will all the waste go?

No thought at all has been put into this insanity. While China and India built hundreds of coal plants.

And science is going to save us all. Who’s going to save us from science?

The largest incompetence in history.

 

[Richard Mercer]

Scrolled down to find a Harris presidential ad. Modern “journalism” is beyond corrupt and essentially useless in presenting objective reality. Man made climate change may be real, but the trust in what is communicated, and the method of doing so, has been irreparably tarnished. If you are expecting the federal government to save us, lust look no further than FEMA’s response in NC. Think electric cars are the solution? Take a peak at the power sources feeding our grid. “Green” is now a trillion dollar a year industry. Those invested, including the gov’t, will never let this cash register go. Climate models are notoriously bad, look it up. Climate is measured in hundreds of thousands of year, not centuries. If you think the accuracy of climate measurements then are remotely similar to what we have today, you’ve been fooled. Tell the whole story, if you truly care about the future. IF, and this is a big IF, what is laid out here is accurate, what’s the mitigation plan for the impending disasters? Which never seem to show up, look up impending ice age predictions from the 70’s. Or were those climate measurements somehow wrong? A laundry list of fortune tellers have mad a, well, a fortune.

"look up impending ice age predictions from the 70’s."

Your comment is right out of the fossil fuels funded disinformation PR machine playbook.

There was never anything within a lightyear of consensus on global cooling in the 1970s. There were SIX TIMES as many studies on AGW from our CO2 emissions in that time frame. It was a popular magazine that hyped the "coming ice age" trope, not scientists.

A handful of scientists did 7 studies on what would happen if humans increased sulfur dioxide aerosols in the atmosphere Four Fold.
That never happened because pollution controls on vehicles and smokestacks started soon after. SO2 is a component of smog at ground level and causes acid rain. It's resident time in the atmosphere is about 2 years. CO2 resident time is measured in centuries, and methane about 12 years. SO2 is why volcanoes cause cooling, as it reflects sunlight back into space. Actually SO2 becomes sulfuric acid aerosols in the upper atmosphere. It oxidizes into CO2 and H2O

Compare 7 studies 50 years ago with over 12,000 studies used in the latest IPCC report, or the current total of over 90,000 studies on AGW. - an absurd argument.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Actually SO2 becomes sulfuric acid aerosols in the upper atmosphere. It oxidizes into CO2 and H2O

You should fix that. Obviously, the element sulfur does not disappear with a chemical reaction - SO2 has to change into some other molecule that includes sulfur.

 

[Richard Mercer]

"If you are expecting the federal government to save us, lust look no further than FEMA’s response in NC. "

Are there any lies you don't believe? Pretty much everything Trump says is a lie. NPR counted 162 false statement in his 64 minute press conference a few weeks ago. - two and a half false statements per minute
He and Elon Musk have made egregious lies about FEMA and hurricane Helene.
-----------------------------------------------
More Pushback on Rampant Helene Disinformation

Former President Donald Trump, far-right billionaire Elon Musk, and others alleged FEMA is unable to assist hurricane victims because the Biden administration gave the money to migrants. As Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post noted, not only is this false, it was Trump who, as president, redirected $155 million in disaster funds to building detention spaces and hearing locations for asylum seekers – and “in the middle of hurricane season.”

Marjorie Taylor Green doubles down on the “weather control” meme.

More Pushback on Rampant Helene Disinformation

Disinformation keeps ramping up. All of a piece with climate conspiracist BS. Serious consequences for responders on the ground, and possibly the election. We wondered where the AI would come in th…

thinc.blog

Musk and politicians like Trump spread baseless claims such as Fema blocking flights and confiscating supplies

Elon Musk, the owner of X and key Trump ally, claimed Fema was blocking flights trying to aid the area, calling it “belligerent government incompetence”

One myth amplified in the last few days suggests Fema is out of money because it has spent money on migrants instead, a claim that Trump and many of his allies have amplified. The story was on the cover of the New York Post.

Marjorie Taylor Greene, a sitting congresswoman, tweeted on Friday: “Yes they can control the weather. It’s ridiculous for anyone to lie and say it can’t be done.” She did not specify who “they” referred to. She had previously tweeted a map of the areas devastated by the hurricane overlaid with an electoral map to show which way these areas have voted.

Hurricane Helene conspiracy theories collide with election misinformation

Musk and politicians like Trump spread baseless claims such as Fema blocking flights and confiscating supplies

www.theguardian.com

 

[Richard Mercer]

You should fix that. Obviously, the element sulfur does not disappear with a chemical reaction - SO2 has to change into some other molecule that includes sulfur.

Or the sulfur falls out of the atmosphere by itself.
That it oxidizes into H2O and CO2 is what I have read. I will check on that again though.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Unfortunately, even NPR has turned out to be biased - just on "the other side".

If you really want to get a true picture, you need to read propaganda from all sides - and then think for yourself. That will show you what each side will not tell you, and allow you to see the differences in the emotion-laden words chosen to describe the same things that they will both mention.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Or the sulfur falls out of the atmosphere by itself.
That it oxidizes into H2O and CO2 is what I have read. I will check on that again though.

Actually, SO2 oxidizes to and combines with moisture to produce sulfuric acid - H2SO4. That is soluble in water and probably comes out of the atmosphere in rain, making the rain somewhat acidic. When in contact with metals in the air or on the ground, it reacts to make sulfate chemicals, which would probably be particulates in the air, and either settle or wash out to the ground.

 

[Atlan0001]

In articles such as this one, there is no zealous advocacy [with-in-the-article!] for colonizing and opening the Space Frontier as the only real answer! Thus, sorry to say, it becomes an article inherently advocating a totalitarian world state, a world imprisoning state, an Orwellian-permanent WAR state, whether such is openly mentioned and advocated or not by our website SPACE.COM!

 

[Richard Mercer]

Scrolled down to find a Harris presidential ad. Modern “journalism” is beyond corrupt and essentially useless in presenting objective reality. Man made climate change may be real, but the trust in what is communicated, and the method of doing so, has been irreparably tarnished. If you are expecting the federal government to save us, lust look no further than FEMA’s response in NC. Think electric cars are the solution? Take a peak at the power sources feeding our grid. “Green” is now a trillion dollar a year industry. Those invested, including the gov’t, will never let this cash register go. Climate models are notoriously bad, look it up. Climate is measured in hundreds of thousands of year, not centuries. If you think the accuracy of climate measurements then are remotely similar to what we have today, you’ve been fooled. Tell the whole story, if you truly care about the future. IF, and this is a big IF, what is laid out here is accurate, what’s the mitigation plan for the impending disasters? Which never seem to show up, look up impending ice age predictions from the 70’s. Or were those climate measurements somehow wrong? A laundry list of fortune tellers have mad a, well, a fortune.

" Climate models are notoriously bad"
FALSE - more disinformation from bad actors.
------------------------
Evaluating the Performance of Past Climate Model Projections

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019GL085378?utm_medium=email&utm_source=substack

 

[Richard Mercer]

" Climate models are notoriously bad"
FALSE - more disinformation from bad actors.
------------------------
Evaluating the Performance of Past Climate Model Projections

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019GL085378?utm_medium=email&utm_source=substack

Global Climate Models have successfully predicted:

That the globe would warm, and about how fast, and about how much.

That the troposphere would warm and the stratosphere would cool.

That nighttime temperatures would increase more than daytime temperatures.

That winter temperatures would increase more than summer temperatures.

Polar amplification (greater temperature increase as you move toward the poles).

That the Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic.

The magnitude (0.3 K) and duration (two years) of the cooling from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.

They made a retrodiction for Last Glacial Maximum
sea surface temperatures which was inconsistent with
the paleo evidence, and better paleo evidence showed the models were right.

They predicted a trend significantly different and differently signed from UAH satellite temperatures, and then a bug was found in the satellite data.

The amount of water vapor feedback due to ENSO.

The response of southern ocean winds to the ozone hole.

The expansion of the Hadley cells.

The poleward movement of storm tracks.

The rising of the tropopause and the effective radiating altitude.

The clear sky super greenhouse effect from increased water vapor in the tropics.

The near constancy of relative humidity on global average.

That coastal upwelling of ocean water would increase.
------

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Atlan0001, expanding human habitation into space is not going to solve the problem of overpopulation on Earth. It would not be possible to send people off to other places faster than the population on Earth is increasing, even if there was somewhere big enough to send them.

So, let's not avoid the issue with impossible dreams and blame on others for not implementing them.