Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Donald Trump wants to shut off an orbiting space camera that monitors climate change

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Donald Trump wants to shut off an orbiting space camera that monitors climate change

    NASA have this camera in space that monitors climate on earth... providing evidence that climate change is real...

    Trump solution is to defund the project so science can't provide more evidence that might go against his political agenda...

    A classy piece of work, that Trump is...

    https://qz.com/934141/donald-trump-w...limate-change/

  • #2
    Quick question, why should we care about "climate change"? I ask for a couple of reasons. 1. It won't end life on Earth. Merely life as we know it. 2. If our primitive ancestors can survive an Ice Age, I'm sure we can too. 3. It's not going to be particularly devastating for another, what.... 400 - 700 years? We'll be colonizing other planets, particularly Mars, within the next 100. Also, according to NASA "So even if we stopped emitting all greenhouse gases today, global warming and climate change will continue to affect future generations. In this way, humanity is “committed” to some level of climate change." Meaning, we're already too late to stop it. So, plan B, colonization seems like a real good idea to me. So, wouldn't it be better to divert funds towards that goal? (Not saying that's what Trump's doing, just asking a question.)

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by JamesNunya View Post
      Quick question, why should we care about "climate change"? I ask for a couple of reasons. 1. It won't end life on Earth. Merely life as we know it. 2. If our primitive ancestors can survive an Ice Age, I'm sure we can too. 3. It's not going to be particularly devastating for another, what.... 400 - 700 years? We'll be colonizing other planets, particularly Mars, within the next 100. Also, according to NASA "So even if we stopped emitting all greenhouse gases today, global warming and climate change will continue to affect future generations. In this way, humanity is “committed” to some level of climate change." Meaning, we're already too late to stop it. So, plan B, colonization seems like a real good idea to me. So, wouldn't it be better to divert funds towards that goal? (Not saying that's what Trump's doing, just asking a question.)
      I was pointing out the fact that trump is sabotaging scientific research that produce evidence that go against his political agenda...

      To your questions:

      1. Very likely we are goign to be the ones gone. If you don't care, I don't care neither...

      2. Barely survived it... but even so... civilization, and the majority of the population will be gone.

      3. Making Mars habitable for humans will be more difficult to archive than to try to preserve earth habitable for humans... around 50 years ago, they all dreamed that we was going to live on the moon... how is that one going? Why you think the Mars one is going to work? No that it can't be done... dream big... we can terraform a whole planet to our needs... but, then again... we already have one that we are struggling to keep on going... so...

      Comment


      • #4
        Personally I reckon industrialisation, greenhouse gases and unrecoverable thermal runaway are probably the answer to the Fermi Paradox.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by JamesNunya View Post
          Quick question, why should we care about "climate change"?
          We should to the degree we care about the life we live.

          1. It won't end life on Earth. Merely life as we know it.
          Xacly. See above.

          2. If our primitive ancestors can survive an Ice Age, I'm sure we can too.
          - 'Surviving' is a low ambition
          - 'We' = a fraction of the present population = mass death

          3. It's not going to be particularly devastating for another, what.... 400 - 700 years?
          Disagree.
          I couldn't speak to any "catastrophic", "tipping point", apocalyptic Boiling of the Seas scenario, but the Boiling of the Frog is happening as we speak.
          I think it's kinda funny how the US is the leading AGW denier, all the while they barely have time to deny AGW between being hit by one hurricane worse than the other .
          At present, the change manifests as local, small-scale degrading - some soil or ocean front erosion here, some crop failure due to either draught or flood there,
          land and sea ice disappearing almost as fast as animal and insect species ... when the bees go, there goes our food, when the marine algae go, there goes our oxygen ...
          Not all in one go, but a steadily rising scarcity of goods.
          But perhaps your words won't be proven untrue - that, however, depends entirely on your interpretation of "particularly devastating", I'm afraid.

          We'll be colonizing other planets, particularly Mars, within the next 100.
          Unless humanity collectively reaches some form of adulthood that allows us to husband the resources of Tellus sensibly, we'll just be exporting our old problems.

          Also, according to NASA "So even if we stopped emitting all greenhouse gases today, global warming and climate change will continue to affect future generations. In this way, humanity is “committed” to some level of climate change." Meaning, we're already too late to stop it.
          So, your car is about to crash into a group of pedestrians.
          Do you stamp on the breaks to minimize impact?
          Do you _not_ break, since it is "already too late to stop"?
          Do you step on the gas, because you're "already committed" to hit them?

          I'm no fan of eco-nazis, but them being idjits is no reason to mirror them.

          So, plan B, colonization seems like a real good idea to me.
          Yeeaaahhh .....
          But it's not the only good idea out there.

          So, wouldn't it be better to divert funds towards that goal?
          One the four huge questions regarding AGW: What to do?
          Which other measure would you contrast it to?


          M

          Comment


          • #6
            2. Barely survived it... but even so... civilization, and the majority of the population will be gone.
            I don't see that as a bad thing, necessarily. A reset for humanity. Culling of the weak and stupid. It would be good for our physical evolutionary process.

            Which other measure would you contrast it to?
            There are 2 main other ideas that I'm aware of. 1, Adapt. Ideally we (and by "we" I mean every nation on Earth, good luck with that) stop polluting, let the change happen and adapt to the new living conditions. 2. Fix. I can't remember the term for it but basically, terraform the Earth back to the way it was. There are methods we might be able to employ to suck the greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere as well as generate ozone for our ozone layer (to fill in those holes). The problem is, global warming has actually benefited some areas and the current geo-political climate is such that nothing can be done because, A, the science is too new and the effects of such actions aren't entirely known but would certainly impact the entire planet (and consequently, every nation) and, B, because of A any attempt to do so would need permission from every nation on Earth to proceed.

            On a national scale, neither one of those options is feasible. We either choke on the rest of the world's pollution, or go to war with them. Colonization, however, is feasible. Difficult, costly, time consuming, and somewhat uncertain. But again, on the national level, it remains the best and most likely option.

            Personally I reckon industrialisation, greenhouse gases and unrecoverable thermal runaway are probably the answer to the Fermi Paradox.
            Universe = 13.8b
            Earth = 4.5b

            Translate that into a human life span.
            Average life span for humans = 79y

            Math time.

            4.5 / 13.8 = 0.326 = 32.6%
            79 x 0.326 = 25.76

            Earth isn't a baby. It's a fully formed adult. What if the reason for no contact is they're not advanced enough and we will become the elders in the universe that young aliens will be looking for? Considering that heat death is expected to occur within the next 4 to 5 billion years, that would mean Earth would be around for half of the universe's existence. So while it is probable that there's other intelligent life out there, there's no certainty that it's more advanced than us. We may be the technological giants. I think everyone wants aliens to be more advanced than us and benign (the typical thought of aliens) because then we could utilize them as guides into our future. That would certainly be comforting and a quite the safety blanket, but what if we're the pioneers for other future alien civilizations?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by JamesNunya View Post
              I don't see that as a bad thing, necessarily. A reset for humanity. Culling of the weak and stupid. It would be good for our physical evolutionary process.
              Assuming that the ones that die are the weak and the stupid?

              Comment


              • #8
                Let's assume Trump thinks Climate Change is a hoax.

                Which is more likely?
                Trump might remove funding for this program because he's soooo committed to it being a hoax that he must foster a conspiracy to prevent the very evidence that might prove it's a hoax....
                or...
                Trump doesn't want the Federal government spending money on something that he believes (rightly or wrongly) won't benefit the American people?
                "...but when she goes off you, she will not just walk away, she will walk away with your fucking skin in a jar." ~~ DoctorRandomercam
                "The laws of man, they don't apply when blood gets in a woman's eye" - The Black Keys

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Mifune View Post
                  Let's assume Trump thinks Climate Change is a hoax.

                  Which is more likely?
                  Trump might remove funding for this program because he's soooo committed to it being a hoax that he must foster a conspiracy to prevent the very evidence that might prove it's a hoax....
                  or...
                  Trump doesn't want the Federal government spending money on something that he believes (rightly or wrongly) won't benefit the American people?
                  It cost a bit more than a million a year to run, and it give us useful information about the planet...

                  The thing is... if climate change is an hoax... then, this kind of research will provide the evidence for it... making it easier for Trump to debunk... right?

                  I am personally a bit skeptical about the whole climate change thing... I mean... some 25k years ago we was in an ice age... so saying that there have being some global warming is a fact...

                  The reasons behind it... I am not so clear about it... the planet does cycle through them... but then again... are we contributing for it to be hotter than what it should be? how they measure it?

                  Questions like that can be clear out with some research...

                  Or just call it fake news, do some propaganda number on it, and sabotage the research...

                  I mean we can know for sure, with evidence in hand... but Trump does not want this to happen... or as you suggest... he does not need any evidence because he already made up his mind... either way an insight in the mind of the man...

                  I don't have kids... I don't worry about our "future"... Trump have kids, and some of those kids have kids already... they are the ones that are going to suffer... if it turns out to be true...

                  Anyway... the main purpose of the station is not to make Trump looks like a fool... this is how they describe their mission:

                  "The Deep Space Climate Observatory, or DSCOVR, will maintain the nation's real-time solar wind monitoring capabilities
                  which are critical to the accuracy and lead time of NOAA's space weather alerts and forecasts. Without timely and accurate warnings, space weather events like the geomagnetic storms caused by changes in solar wind have the potential to disrupt nearly every major public infrastructure system, including power grids, telecommunications, aviation and GPS."
                  https://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/content/...te-observatory

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X