The quote was "Usually the changes have been gradual such that life had time to adjust. Humans especially may be sucker-punched by relatively rapid change"
The sucker punch will be the change in global climate (the word "may" indicates were talking about a future event), caused by rapid increase from 280 to 410 ppm, and showing no signs of slowing down.
The cooling period between 1940-1970 was most likely due to increased pollution from sulphur and nitrous oxides. Then we started using low-sulphur fuels, installing catalytic converters on cars, and scrubbers on power plants to clean all that up. All those regulations helped clean the air, but also allowed more sunlight to hit the planet.
As a EU resident, I don't mind if companies are choosing to block EU if they can't comply with privacy rules. I'd rather not do business with those companies.
The numbers I mentioned (1.1 to 4.45) are Curry et al's ECS (table 1, top row), just like the 2.1 to 4.4 range from IPCC. Not that much different, except Curry's have a bit wider error bar at the bottom end of the range.
And blockchain is typically the kind of technology that can do decentralized ownership tracking - so no infrastructure but a distributed ledger.
Most likely point of failure is the local internet connection at the venue, not the server. And if you're worried about the server, it's easy enough to get a few extra servers from cloud providers, plus some redundant network access. That should be more reliable than depending on anonymous parties pitching in on maintaining a distributed ledger.
Do you understand the concept of a cryptographically verified ledger, verified by a distributed network, not a central point of failure?
Yes, I do. I understand that the safety against malicious rewrite is based on total proof-of-work from the entire distributed network. Now, tell me, what will be the total size of the distributed network that is going to run these ticket sales ? For example, how many graphics cards will you donate to running your part of this network ?
Ice doesn't melt under pressure when temperature is below -25 C or so, but it will start to flow (think glaciers), which comes down to the same problem.
According to the article, there's a chance that some pockets of blue ice have older samples, but there's no easy method of finding them, because it all depends on the exact flow patterns.
Might be a fine procedure but they are going to have to do the work of proving that it is safe
Obviously. That's the standard procedure for all the risks involved with the rocket, and this has been well known to everybody involved since the beginning.
To argue that astronauts should just shut up and strap in without appropriate investigation of the risks they are taking is a dumb way to run a space program
That's why nobody is doing that. Teams from SpaceX, NASA, FAA, and USAF, have been working for months trying to understand the details of the explosion. As a result, they've modified their fuel loading procedure, and proposed longer term updates to their oxygen tank design.
If it isn't then that's unfortunate but they'll have to figure something else out
Or NASA finds another rocket to take their astronauts. Or we just keep them on the ground.
The ratio between CO2 and the rest of the atmosphere (mostly O2 and N2) is irrelevant. What matter is the absolute amount of CO2 between the Earth's surface and outer space.
Try going outside and looking at the sun directly. Now look through a sheet of paper. On the path from the sun to your eyes, what's the ratio of molecules between paper and air ?
If SpaceX is using unsafe fueling procedures then you redesign the fueling procedures until they are safe.
Sure, you also need to weigh other factors. Late fueling is a deliberate design decision that offers higher efficiency. A rocket involves many trade-offs between safety and efficiency. If you'd maximize safety in every case, it wouldn't be able to lift off.
It's not to say SpaceX cannot use this procedure but rather that they will have to do some work to prove that is reasonably safe compared to known proven methods
They have extensively studied the cause of the explosion, and have made modifications to minimize the risk of it happening again. NASA will have to decide whether that's sufficient.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I know that life expectancy has gone up. The puzzling bit is why you are bringing it up in a discussion about CO2.
What has been the sucker punch?
The sentence "Humans especially may be sucker-punched by relatively rapid change" does not refer to something that has already happened.
You need to work on your reading comprehension.
I don't answer any calls on my landline that I don't recognize. That happens a few times per week.
I don't see the connection to climate change.
Right. Neither did the increase in life expectancy. So, it's kinda puzzling why you were waiting for the numbers to turn around.
The quote was "Usually the changes have been gradual such that life had time to adjust. Humans especially may be sucker-punched by relatively rapid change"
The sucker punch will be the change in global climate (the word "may" indicates were talking about a future event), caused by rapid increase from 280 to 410 ppm, and showing no signs of slowing down.
What happens when we went from 400 to 410?
Who cares ? You brought that up.
The cooling period between 1940-1970 was most likely due to increased pollution from sulphur and nitrous oxides. Then we started using low-sulphur fuels, installing catalytic converters on cars, and scrubbers on power plants to clean all that up. All those regulations helped clean the air, but also allowed more sunlight to hit the planet.
RealClimate claims the Curry states ~1 to ~2.5, so in that case they must be referencing TCR
Yes, they clearly explain that in the article. It's even written under the diagram.
Yet no data supports such a conclusion...
See Curry et al, table 1, top row. Range of 1.1 to 4.45 for ECS.
Which data set specifically ? I opened all the graphs on that page, but didn't see anything where 30's would be higher than modern times.
The global surface temp anomaly peaked at 0.21C in 1944, and peaked at 0.99C in 2016.
When those metrics start declining I'll worry
https://edition.cnn.com/2017/1...
The 1930's peak was local to the US.
Even more accurate: the heatwaves in the 1930's were mostly limited to the month of July, and only really severe in a small portion of the US.
You can experiment with global maps here: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gis...
Pick a range of years and months, and make a map.
If it's the half I didn't want anyway, that's perfectly fine.
Show a dataset (one that is not "adjusted" every year, and still leaves the actual heat peak back in the 1930s)
The 1930's peak was local to the US. We're talking about global temperatures.
As a EU resident, I don't mind if companies are choosing to block EU if they can't comply with privacy rules. I'd rather not do business with those companies.
You are mixing up the numbers for TCR and ECS.
The numbers I mentioned (1.1 to 4.45) are Curry et al's ECS (table 1, top row), just like the 2.1 to 4.4 range from IPCC. Not that much different, except Curry's have a bit wider error bar at the bottom end of the range.
So I'm trying to understand why going from 400 to 410 is a "sucker punch".
You must not be trying very hard if you're confusing respiratory effects with climate change.
And blockchain is typically the kind of technology that can do decentralized ownership tracking - so no infrastructure but a distributed ledger.
Most likely point of failure is the local internet connection at the venue, not the server. And if you're worried about the server, it's easy enough to get a few extra servers from cloud providers, plus some redundant network access. That should be more reliable than depending on anonymous parties pitching in on maintaining a distributed ledger.
Do you understand the concept of a cryptographically verified ledger, verified by a distributed network, not a central point of failure?
Yes, I do. I understand that the safety against malicious rewrite is based on total proof-of-work from the entire distributed network. Now, tell me, what will be the total size of the distributed network that is going to run these ticket sales ? For example, how many graphics cards will you donate to running your part of this network ?
SpaceX will hire their own astronauts and send them to space.
With blackjack and hookers.
Ice doesn't melt under pressure when temperature is below -25 C or so, but it will start to flow (think glaciers), which comes down to the same problem.
According to the article, there's a chance that some pockets of blue ice have older samples, but there's no easy method of finding them, because it all depends on the exact flow patterns.
Might be a fine procedure but they are going to have to do the work of proving that it is safe
Obviously. That's the standard procedure for all the risks involved with the rocket, and this has been well known to everybody involved since the beginning.
To argue that astronauts should just shut up and strap in without appropriate investigation of the risks they are taking is a dumb way to run a space program
That's why nobody is doing that. Teams from SpaceX, NASA, FAA, and USAF, have been working for months trying to understand the details of the explosion. As a result, they've modified their fuel loading procedure, and proposed longer term updates to their oxygen tank design.
If it isn't then that's unfortunate but they'll have to figure something else out
Or NASA finds another rocket to take their astronauts. Or we just keep them on the ground.
Yes 1 molecule out of 2500 molecules of air
The ratio between CO2 and the rest of the atmosphere (mostly O2 and N2) is irrelevant. What matter is the absolute amount of CO2 between the Earth's surface and outer space.
Try going outside and looking at the sun directly. Now look through a sheet of paper. On the path from the sun to your eyes, what's the ratio of molecules between paper and air ?
If SpaceX is using unsafe fueling procedures then you redesign the fueling procedures until they are safe.
Sure, you also need to weigh other factors. Late fueling is a deliberate design decision that offers higher efficiency. A rocket involves many trade-offs between safety and efficiency. If you'd maximize safety in every case, it wouldn't be able to lift off.
It's not to say SpaceX cannot use this procedure but rather that they will have to do some work to prove that is reasonably safe compared to known proven methods
They have extensively studied the cause of the explosion, and have made modifications to minimize the risk of it happening again. NASA will have to decide whether that's sufficient.
There is a difference between accepting a known risk and accepting an unnecessary risk.
Loading densified propellant is a known risk with calculated benefits.