JoeSchmuckatelli

Of interest: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/blogs/national-museum-of-natural-history/2018/03/23/heres-how-scientists-reconstruct-earths-past-climates/ (Smithsonian overview of how ancient temperatures are estimated)

And several people addressed it. FWIW - I'm not sure he claimed the data was faked, but rather that the interpretation was loose "... statistical noise floor..." etc. (which was also addressed/refuted ). Several folks offered data and sources - but he declined to do so and bowed out of the discussion... So it was time to move on.

Given that Texas and the coast of anywhere can be quite windy - and that stacking SS20 is likely to require cm precision (if not mm) - how big of a launch window /authority do they need to not only get the two ships mated, but also launch on a relatively stale day? "The average hourly wind speed in Galveston is essentially constant during November, remaining within 0.2 miles per hour of 11.7 miles per hour throughout. For reference, on December 25, the windiest day of the year, the daily average wind speed is 12.2 miles per hour, while on August 15, the calmest day of the year, the daily average wind speed is 8.4 miles per hour.". https://weatherspark.com/m/9621/11/Average-Weather-in-November-in-Galveston-Texas-United-States See reference above - what is the scrub wind speed for stacking / launch?

What do you think the stasis field is for?

@SunlitZelkova - your caution to me about tone is noted - thanks! As mentioned previously - I fully support voluntary changes in habits towards the goal of reducing the pollution of the planet. Like someone claiming to be vegan for the purpose of reducing cow farts, or living off the grid and biking everywhere because of coal and petrochemical exhaust in electrical generation. While that's a blatant ad absurdum example a small few do make those choices. What I really like to see is how a sufficient number of people are taking the issue seriously enough to create broad markets for things that used to be niche - like electric vehicles, home solar, wind farms and a growing acceptance for nuclear power, to name a few. It's these broad demands for less polluting products that are having a real impact on the choices of governments and industry. FWIW - I have not had the opportunity, here, to attack the extreme arguments of the deniers... Because we haven't seen any. Mostly we have people who generally agree on the problem, yet quibble about the interpretation of the data and the degree of response required.

https://sciencenorway.no/climate-geology-ice-age/what-actually-started-the-little-ice-age/1759318 Found this interesting - not directly about what we've been discussing, but not irrelevant, either (one theory about the little ice age) Also this about previous ice ages https://sciencenorway.no/geology-ice-age/scientists-are-seeing-ice-age-beginnings-for-very-first-time/1756240 Correct. The GS and Atlantic Current is the primary heat transport from the warm waters of the Caribbean to Europe and a big part of why Europe from Ireland to the continent are so temperate https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_Stream https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Current The fear is that a massive release of fresh water can disrupt the flow - perhaps resulting in another little ice age

The earth has gone through some big changes over its history. https://earth.org/data_visualization/a-brief-history-of-co2/ While CO2 gets a lot of play - methane and others are also actors. I know some people say that we 'know' what is going on and that prediction models are accurate - but there is some cause for doubt, mostly because it is an insanely complex system and none of the individual processes are fully understood. Despite this I believe the information and forecasting are worth paying attention to as they are the best guess as to what the potentials can be. My quibble aside - I look at the problem differently. To me it does not matter whether the prediction is correct and we are heading towards a self extinction event (as the most extreme theories hold)... The question is much simpler: * are we polluting? (Yes) * are there adverse consequences from that pollution? (Yes) * can we do better? (Yes) Cleaning up our home is worth doing, and doing now because we live here. (The caution I offered earlier is based on the question you asked above and other similar - when someone says 'rising CO2 will cause a runaway cycle that will kill us all' they have to explain away life on Earth thriving under much higher CO2 levels in the past... It just kinda gets too complicated and puts their assertions and proposed solutions at risk of sounding absurd) My method is much simpler

This is why I am having a hard time doing this over text. As @sevenperforce wrote earlier, this is easier over a beer. @mikegarrisonand @SunlitZelkova I do not disagree with either of you. Your criticism of my post is valid. I constantly struggle with the fact that it's easier to motivate people with fear and hyperbole than simple factual arguments. I understand this - but I don't like it. This forum however is a place where educated and inquisitive people come together. I've enjoyed the benefits of this in other arenas (like my physics and cosmology questions). While I'm not a scientist or engineer - my professional background required me to be able to take information from experts and translate it to non science minded people. Thus I'm keenly aware of the problem with communicating with the unsophisticated and know that if they smell BS... They are suspicious of any suggestions if the underlying problem is overstated. My pushback is against overstated alarm is based on a few things. First off - I firmly believe that the Earth and humanity are a heck of a lot more resilient than some are giving credit for. I also have faith that people who are given truth are willing to do monumental things to do the right thing. But I also know that if they think you are *fleecing* with them - they will resist you. There is a test in both the military and the law - the 'sniff test'. If something passes the sniff test it's probably true. If it doesn't - its probably false. Overstated alarm and calls for drastic action don't pass the sniff test. Recognizing that we have one planet and that wontonly polluting it is stupid does. Ultimately I'm supporting what you and @sevenperforceare saying - I'm just cautioning against being too dramatic about it

I'm going to quibble again. Because this is false. I tried to express this earlier and we agreed that you are not suggesting it is imminent - but there is a flavor to how these arguments are presented that are counterproductive. It's impossible to read that sentence without thinking you are being alarmist. I know you have thought more deeply about it than many, but I perceive a danger in overstating the problem. Just as I perceive a danger from overstating the solution - demanding 'drastic action' is counterproductive towards finding real and permanent solutions. Let's be frank. The situation could be a whole lot worse. It does not take much imagination to know this - but beyond that it is kind of (insulting is the wrong word - let's use ignoring ) ignoring the good things and efforts that people are making. I've mentioned personal choice as shifting demand - but let's look at the bogeyman. Take oil and gas. Easy to demonize in the whole 'climate change is going to kill us all' feedback loop... But I know quite a few people in the industry - and not one who twists his mustache and cackles as he knowingly poisons the world. Instead, they are caught in a balancing act of fulfilling a need, efficiently, profitably and as responsibly as possible. The problem is that the world has a voracious appetite for energy. There are many costs associated with this, and people who previously only wanted cheap and abundant are now saying that they do not want to bear all of the costs that made it economically cheap - we are paying attention to the hidden costs and putting value on more complex issues. Engineers and managers are reacting to the desires of the market and working to clean up their products. As mentioned previously - were your 'drastic action' the immediate global cessation of all use of petrochemicals - you have to know that the cost in human life would be catastrophic, not on a timescale of decades - but rather months. I presume that you recognize this. We don't need a drastic solution to a gradually occurring potentiality if it causes massive harm to people in the short term - we need a mature, reasoned, informed response to what is happening now in light of what we know and project could occur along with a concerted effort to transition off of polluting energy sources in favor of renewable, non polluting sources. This is actually happening. Except for the fact that it is not easy and there is no magic solution waiting in the wings. . .

No one knows. This is why it is so hard. Yet of all the processes, we can only influence one - so that's the one we should address. Logically, yes... But we don't have a good idea on how this actually works. Plus there is some concern that once sequestered in plants, what happens when they burn or decay? The other ecological problem is that some places are good for trees and others are not. Blanket tree planting in the wrong areas can have adverse ecological effects. Again - nothing is easy

A lot of truth here. I don't think that the distinction is well made or communicated well.

It's also why professional baseball players cannot hit a professional softball fast pitch.

No - that's a alarm and low end potential, not a hard fact, and frankly unlikely to occur. Sources? You are absolutely safe. Have you looked at the 'rising sea level maps' I linked above? ... I really suggest reading deeper into the science and proposed remedies. Here's a good place to start https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/ Re: ocean rise - *Global sea level has risen by about 8 inches since reliable record keeping began in 1880. It is projected to rise another 1 to 8 feet by 2100. This is the result of added water from melting land ice and the expansion of seawater as it warms" On temperatures - "The IPCC predicts that increases in global mean temperature of less than 1.8 to 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit (1 to 3 degrees Celsius) above 1990 levels will produce beneficial impacts in some regions and harmful ones in others" As you read through - you should get the sense that this is a serious challenge facing Earth's population - but not a cause for panic. Allow me to add this - take a gander at the event known as The Little Ice Age - a regional climactic shift that ended in the late 1800s. We don't know what caused it. There are several possible explanations, and it is likely that all added to the whole, but it's simply not understood. The 'sea rise since 1880' scare needs to be looked at in context - arguably more freshwater than normal was sequestered by continental ice during the period. The people who are concerned about our wanton pollution are not wrong - but in some cases the alarms are maybe being overstated.

That challenge is the biggest problem I've read re CO2 scrubbing is the follow on carbon sequestration issue - once you have captured it... Where does it go? I've seen proposals for everything from making rocks to pumping it into oceanic mud / crusts. Nothing is ever easy

Absolutely agree - and public pressure is, along with regulation, causing a change in the behavior of corporations. We need to keep up that pressure.

So... you have adequately stated the 'full panic mode' argument. Have you considered the impact of what you've written - beyond the vague hope of curtailed climate change? Have you thought about how such policies would impact non-Western developing nations? Were it possible for you to Thanos-snap all fossil product burning across the planet, do you recognize that the result will be: This is part of what I meant when I wrote 'climate is hard.' Beyond the difficulty of knowing what part of the total climate picture is natural vs man made - every possible solution we can imagine requires sacrifice in one way or another. Un-industrializing could be even more dangerous to billions of people than continuing (medicine, food production, clean water etc etc etc all are products of our success and contribute to the pollution). He likes to indulge in snark and sarcasm (which is one reason I enjoy his posts). 'Green' is used by corporations to dupe well intentioned consumers and raise prices. Case in point - Amazon, and etc like to claim that so much of their energy comes from 'renewable sources'. Start peeling that onion. Assume that they can capture solar off the warehouse roof... But know that is not enough. So where does the power for a 24 hour operation come from? The grid. How do you distinguish between the wind produced electricity and the coal produced electricity? (hint: you don't) Keep peeling. Eventually you will start asking questions like 'why Amazon is buying farms in Kentucky* and covering the arable land with solar panels?' *Kentucky enjoys approximately 189 days of sun per year Edit - 'dupe' is perhaps too strong a word. 'Pander' is more appropriate.

@Rakaydos is salt a greenhouse gas? And about the 'source'... I don't understand what you are asking. If we have a power plant and its exhaust is a source of CO2 emissions, if we then scrub the exhaust of CO2... What about the source?

Fair enough.

I can respect that. If you care to share your data and interpretation with me via private messaging, I'd be interested to see what you've got.

I agree with, and acknowledge this: however at the loud noise level of stuff thrown out there in this arena such nonsense finds its way into the public discourse - and this is what a lot of deniers react to: idiots who get other idiots all triggered. I fully accept any responsibility for inadvertently lumping your arguments in with this nonsense - and acknowledge you did not suggest this (nor did I interpret this from your writing). I'll acknowledge this as well - which is why I used the word 'dancing'. I was reacting to this: Perhaps I overstated my concern - please be assured it was well meant. That is too much. You did throw some stuff out there - and as the guy who's defended your right to do so... please don't go this route. This board is a legit 'science interested' board - if you've the data to show that the anthropogenic climate change interpretation is being overstated, I, at least, am interested in hearing you out.

I find it interesting that for stylistic purposes we paint fake windows on autonomous / remotely guided craft. Any indication on how CN is doing with their reusable attempts? BO and SX showed it could be done... but both had some spectacular failures along the way.

Good note. I hadn't meant that interpretation! I perceive an analogy to smoking. My wife and I remember a time when smoking was ubiquitous, and how our kids cannot possibly imagine what it was like back then. Decades of 'you are going to die' were contested by 'ain't nuthin wrong with smoking' in the public discourse. There was a lot of pushback by farmers and the tobacco industry to any legislative changes - and yet legislative and regulatory changes did occur, because of public support. I recall the absolute shock and anger when smoking was no longer allowed in government buildings. Initially, regulation did not seem to have any real effect on how many people smoked, however... instead it seemed to just serve to inconvenience those who chose to still smoke. In the early 2000s, something began to change. Public - I don't want to say 'opinion' - but rather choice happened. The younger generation (read: Millennials) did not seem to be as interested in cigarettes as a part of their socialization as we Gen X and previous generations had... the habit fell out of favor. (Did not disappear, mind you, but just wasn't as common). GenX youth also grew older, had kids and quit. It just started to fade away. Fast forward to today, and my middle-schoolers are shocked when someone is caught vaping - no one actually smokes. (Funny story: my wife's friends, who do still smoke, came over one night after my then 4 y.o. had gone to sleep and tossed their used butts in our firepit. The kid, who at the time was a legit Rooster, busted into our room at sunrise to alert us that our backyard had been invaded by 'Hobos'... because only 'hobos' smoked.) (Her friends have been known as hobos ever since!) Long ago, I was frustrated with the 'public service' anti-smoking campaigns of the time, because instead of truth, they just went with 'scare'. Demonizing nicotine as if it has no possible benefits. I felt at the time that they should at least be honest - but 'scare' apparently works. Some of these were actually kind of funny, like "Splode" from Truth.org. Take a moment to watch, if you've not seen it before. While I don't think this was effective on its own, it was definitely a part of a relentless public relations campaign... and it worked. Public habits changed. Much as America and the world was addicted to cheap cigarettes, the world is currently addicted to cheap and easy energy. The campaigns alerting people to the hidden costs are having an effect. And just as I resented the well intentioned mis-information being presented by those who wanted to save people from themselves with the smoking issue... I am critical of people who over-sell the potential effects of climate change ("if left unchecked, this horrible thing will happen, and soon"). Despite this, I have to acknowledge that fear does work. ... Lets be honest. Just like smokers, we need to change our habits to avoid killing ourselves or our children. But we are going to give up something along the way. We should acknowledge that. I remember fondly many great evenings sitting around a fire with my friends and I having a few drinks and smoking and telling stories. Were we slowly killing ourselves? Yes we were. Was there also an intangible benefit to what we were doing? Of course. But in the long run, did one outweigh the other? Yep. If and when we get off this 'cheap energy' trip we are on - we are going to give up something else as well. The thing we need to do is help people who do enjoy today's easy power to understand that small changes in their habits can have a big impact on their health, and the wellbeing of themselves, their neighbors and children. Acknowledge the loss of ease - and remind them that it will be okay.

https://coast.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/tools/slr.html Worst case scenario: Los Angeles hardly affected. Miami becomes a tropical Venice (or abandoned). Most of the US is fine - its the low lying coastal areas that are at risk. Note: most people live near the coasts. So - very little impact on rocket production. Also note - this would not be a 'run from it' event but rather a 'my grandpa remembers when the coast used to be over there' situation Edit - here's a more direct link https://coast.noaa.gov/slr/

We should - and yet if history teaches us anything, we have notoriously short memories and keep making the mistakes of our ancestors

I think that - at least among the developed nations - people are taking the issue seriously. It may not be evident by sweeping legislative or regulatory reform... But it is evident in people's behavior - which is a huge shift. People's interest in electric cars, use of public transit, recycling and efforts to cut emissions are higher than ever. It can be argued that it's not enough... But the change is happening. In recent decades China accused the West of pushing climate and emissions reform on developing nations as a pretext for maintaining the status quo and keeping them down. Yet there are indicators that both official policy and public opinion in China and other developing nations are shifting to require lower emissions. That latter part - domestic public opinion - is the only way nations change. People are waking up to the problem - and regardless of whether they think climate change is caused by sunspots or non existent, I think a lot of people agree with the concept of 'we have one Earth... Let's take care of it' Still - there are many who are only focused on what's in their short term interest, profit or comfort. They'll always be here. But the rise in interest of personal responsibility and buying from responsible companies is having an impact