JoeSchmuckatelli

Subsurface microbes the most likely. We have tons of extremophiles - even in rock

Speaking of Mars and the search for wa-wa... https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/16/world/exomars-water-mars-grand-canyon-scn/index.html (Canals indeed)

At what point in the study of maths does one run into tensors and tensor fields? I obviously never went that far - but I'm reading about them . Just wondering where I would have heard of them had I stuck to the sciences rather than having fun arguing with people in coffee shops.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/tropical-forest-recovery-ecosystem Trees grow back

Those early 20's Tree Octopus hats were the berries. Especially on a dish like that. Only a maroon would let a pal buy one for his moll.

"This is research at the fringe of science: not necessarily wrong but spiced with a large pinch of optimism." That's a great line! (-from the article)

Wen hop?

Lava rocks, not sedimentary. https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/15/world/perseverance-rover-mars-findings-scn/index.html Reading this, I'm moving away from 'Mars was once a life sustaining planet' towards 'it never really had a chance'. There is a line in there to the effect that the surface Percy drives across is not the bottom of the original crater. Yet the rocks they are finding are igneous rather than the sedimentary they were hoping to find. There are indicators that the igneous rock has interacted with water in the past - and some adjacent features look like sedimentary deposits... But it is not like the bottom of a long term lake.

Water conservation plan looks to reverse Lake Mead's historic decline (nbcnews.com)

Now you know what waiting for Webb feels like. (KSP2 mirrors reality!)

I hear you. Up next French Potato farmers storm the launch pad protesting unfair imports from Guiana

What is a good site to learn about entry level telescopes? My Intrepid 11 yo is interested - so I would like something decent but not overly expensive or complex

I've gone back through my posts... and there is some merit to this critique. I'll work on my tone.

USS Portland - my onetime home away from home!

I appreciate your taking the time to write this. I really do. I also appreciate your posting links and information - even (and perhaps especially) if only to refute the stuff I write. I read through all of it and learn from it. Now, you did drop a 'Brandolini' on me, which I don't think is apt.* Were I to choose an appellation for me in this context it would be heterodox.** Mike, apparently, would label me heretic or worse. (However, Mike - I do appreciate your linking the video above!) So in these pages, I've tried to lay out - at times - why I don't accept the orthodox view (to the extent that orthodoxy requires acceptance that the worst is happening and virtually inevitable, or more charitably, not accept that the acceleration models are 100% correct and that all land-locked ice is going to flood into the oceans in a matter of decades). Readers might notice that my sources are not Fox News-esque, but rather actual science papers or other respected sources referencing studies. I would hope that lends a bit of credence to my skepticism of the 'worst case scenario' position that a lot of media likes to indulge in. SunlitZelkova tries to explain that tactic as 'we are not getting through to some people, we need to be louder'. I've also explained why I think that's not working. I'll go further with a political example: shouting at a Trump supporter that they're stupid and he's stupid and bad does not change their opinion - it solidifies it. The same is true of the Climate Denier. Words are a weird thing - and a Climate Skeptic should be recognizably distinct from a Climate Denier (skeptics can be educated and swayed) - and both should be recognizably distinct from someone who recognizes anthropogenic pollution is adversely affecting the planet - but who does not quite accept the most alarming interpretations of the data and prognosticating models derived therefrom. Thus, one would hope that I'm not lumped in with the outright climate deniers, and accept that an anti-pollution focus is a valid heterodox point of view for someone concerned about the health of the one planet we live on... even if I don't accept the runaway acceleration predicted by some models that the orthodox seem enamored with. ... Now - you sent me down my own rabbit hole (although, to be fair, I'm in this hole a lot) with this: I started digging around into what the IceSat-2 data is showing. From what I gather, it's largely preliminary and not yet conclusive. They do, in the interim "Brief Communication" linked above state that atmospheric forcing isn't quite what many expected: https://tc.copernicus.org/preprints/tc-2021-181/tc-2021-181.pdf This certainly does not imply that atmospheric forcing is not affecting the glaciers (double negative, sorry)... but it reads as a caution against presumption. Its one of the reasons I like the science: professionals are really working hard in this arena - and are careful themselves to try to report what the data shows and interpret from there... rather than find data to support what they 'already know'. The thing is that Climate is a really complex topic and sometimes the affirmative assumption made 5 years ago based on available data is not always supported by data acquired more recently. Sometimes researchers do find more data supporting being alarmed... and sometimes they find data saying 'hey, I'm not sure we are looking at this correctly'. As I've explained several times - this is why I'm pollution focused rather than future-harm model focused. * As I understand it, Brandolini presumes the perpetrator is intentionally slinging BS - and using no, or only tenuous and easy sources with little to no actual, factual or in this case scientific support for their assertions. Were I dumping alt-right, or 'Q' or conspiracy nonsense - you would be absolutely correct in applying that label. ** https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Heterodoxy#Non-religious_use Of note here: the Heterodox Christian would still call himself a Christian - even if the Orthodox would deny him his faith. So too, here, I'm pointing out that while I am not a Climate Denier or Skeptic... I'm not Orthodox, either. So if you gotta call me something: Heterodox would work - but Brandolini? Troll? I'd like to think those terms inapt.

So, Insert_Name prophetically warned about the clamps way back in May.* Of course, the clamp issue did raise its ugly head and threaten Webb. But where was the warning about cabling? *

tc-2021-181.pdf (copernicus.org) ICESat-2 reveals seasonal thickness change patterns of Greenland Ice Sheet outlet glaciers for the first time

At first I forgot to look at the date stamp on this and was alarmed; now I see it was prophetic.

I'll respond to the ninja edit as well: Please do look back through these pages. I've laid out my observations and concerns throughout. Specifically, to the immediate post you are referencing (and yes through snark) I pointed out exactly what I was talking about; not the amount of ice, but rather and specifically the reporter's writing: This is the part of the article I criticized. I even cited an 'edu' site showing why I find that type of overstatement... how did I put it? oh yeah,

Without ever providing links, or quotes or articles supporting my thinking. Yep, that's me.

18 looks like a dent and 17 a crease - likely optical illusion, but first glance?

I wonder about that... (although, before we get started, let me acknowledge my 'scenario' won't happen for 'a very long time'). I think humans are way more 'experiential' than we like to admit. In popular Sci-Fi there's two tropes of colonization of other worlds: the advanced and intrepid 'venture forth into the unknown'/ mid-1800's American-analog of the rugged individualist who braves the wild in search of his freedom... and the other American analog of the Pilgrims/Mormons, unhappy with not being free to persecute non-believers to their heart's content (or being persecuted by non believers) venture into the unknown to establish their own Zion away from the rest of humanity. In the second case: I can see them trying to force, initially, an earth-derived mythology onto their new reality. But in the first case - I see those folks as being much more flexible in attuning themselves to their new environment... making their calendar correspond to their daily reality. Humans on a planet that takes (I edited my post above to reflect this) 482 twenty-seven hour days to orbit its star will have what feel like 4 month long seasons. Both groups are going to have to wrestle with that - because after a couple of generations, the 'new normal' will have nothing in common with Earth... But their experiences will inevitably inform their decision making. The 'second' as you point out is important... it's a heartbeat. Sixty seconds being a minute makes sense: easy to draw a circle with, and break up into quadrants. Might as well also have sixty minutes be an hour. Same reasons. A 'day' is easy. Its the full period of light and dark experienced on the planet. Who cares how many hours it is? 24 works on Earth - and is also easily broken into quadrants... but that's not nearly as necessary. Probably be some wrangling at this point as to whether an hour needs to be more than 60 minutes to make 27 hours = 24, but I doubt it. But when it comes to months? The orbit will dictate 4 seasons on a habitable human world. Do we keep the names we know - and make each month of a 12 month calendar longer to account for the 482 days? You've got 120 day seasons instead of 90 - so do you have 40 day months... Or do we add one month with a new name to each season and have 16 30-ish day months? I think you are talking Mars or some other local rock. I'm talking about the currently unknown, idyllic, human habitable planet w/o sapient residents that we will find in SciFi years from now.

I agree that orbital or even Mars colonies would be essentially tied to the terrestrial clocks and calendar systems - because inside a contained environment they are merely outposts of our own civilization... Little different from a boat. Everything already runs off UTC... So will the orbital colonial / Mars or Europa habitats. But you plunk down a whole lot of people able to run around outside and experience winter, summer, sunrise and sunset on a different planet? Very quickly they are going to become attuned to their environment and UTC /Earth calendar will seem anachronistic and inappropriate

Grin I'm not at all skeptical about the concept that we are polluting the only home we have - and that doing so without restraint is stupid. I am a bit skeptical about some of the prognostication - especially those that are the most alarming, worst case scenario driven. There is an element of doomscrolling to a lot of the public facing media pieces that I don't find mirrored in the actual published science articles. I've also been pretty open that the way to reach the skeptical is not to keep hammering away at the 'worst case scenario is factual and inevitable' rhetoric. ... I guess reasoned thinking doesn't get as many clicks as certain doom.