search results matching tag: Asteroid

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (138)     Sift Talk (2)     Blogs (13)     Comments (242)   

How The Dinosaurs Actually Died

newtboy says...

“Witnesses”? 😂 I have some questions for them.

There’s actually more evidence the asteroid wasn’t the major dinosaur killer…the KT boundary layer, created by the asteroid dust and charcoal from global fires is NOT full of dinosaur bones. If one event killed 75% of species and 95% of all biomass, that geological layer would be absolutely full of fossils, but it’s not…it’s nearly empty, but the layers preceding it show a steady decline in animal populations long before the final death blow.

Yellowstone, the American super volcano, is overdue for a similarly disastrous eruption.
Our grasp of volcanology is far too tenuous to claim we would have a million years of warning before a similar major eruption. We might get no warning at all. Surprise eruptions aren’t abnormal even with all our monitoring…and the strength of eruptions is almost always a surprise.

The acidification of the ocean that preceded the other climate-caused extinction events is occurring today. Once diatoms and plankton can no longer create their exoskeletons the ocean food web dissolves, then the land food web dissolves, then clouds of hydrogen gas start erupting from the deep ocean when bacteria consume the billions of tons of dead ocean life, further poisoning the oceans and atmosphere. Yes, that will likely take hundreds or even thousands of years to play out, but the food webs are already falling apart from other pressures before the plankton even fails. Interesting unprecedented times are ahead.

Apophis and You - Neil deGrasse Tyson

newtboy says...

From a 2021 European Space Agency report- New observations of asteroid Apophis – thought to pose a slight risk of impacting Earth in 2068 – rule out any chance of impact for at least a century. After 17 years of observations and orbit analysis, ESA is removing the enormous asteroid from its Risk List.

newtboy (Member Profile)

BSR (Member Profile)

22 Problems Solved in 2022

eric3579 says...

1) 1:48 NASA nails asteroid

2) 3:03 US joins Kigali amendment

3) 4:05 purportedly extinct species make comeback

4) 5:11 malaria vaccine progresses through trials

5) 6:33 lyme disease vaccine nearing market return

6) 8:04 US soccer teams strike monumental deal

7) 8:58 free lunches programs expand

8 ) 10:04 Europe standardizing charging ports

9) 11:02 US ev tipping point hit this year

10) 12:13 plan created for plugging orphan wells

11) 13:28 Canada pilots prescriptions for outdoors time

12) 14:18 military suicides see decline

13) 15:26 HIV vaccines progressing through trials

14) 16:18 art museums solve funding issue

15) 17:08 battery swap technology spreading

16) 18:22 ethereum achieves major efficiency gain

17) 19:42 MLB figures out authentication

18) 20:54 Klamath river set for return

19) 22:03 Intel launches deepfake detector

20) 22:47 solution for removing pfa's found

21) 24:16 US States ban slavery

22) 25:42 nuclear fusion breakthrough

NASA DART spacecraft moment of impact

BSR says...

The camera view from the Dart spacecraft

NASA’s DART spacecraft is destined for a head-on collision with an asteroid in the very first test of our planetary defence system.

Why GM Says Its Ultium Batteries Will Lead To EV Dominance

spawnflagger says...

I think Tesla does some innovative stuff - like using the worlds largest metallic moulds (built by some Italian company if I recall, which make those exclusively for Tesla). But ultimately Elon is a "hype man", and most of his promises have fallen flat (check out Thunderf00t's youtube channel - he debunks many scammy startups as well as Elon's claims, using high school chemistry and physics).

I do applaud Tesla for opening additional factories in Germany and China so quickly, but exponential growth (for any EV maker) is impossible - there's simply not enough easy-to-mine lithium in the world. (Maybe Elon is planning to mine some asteroids instead of going to Mars? who knows)

The GM battery tech isn't exciting or sexy, but it is a means to building a more affordable EV. Ford is already shipping F-150 Lightning (assuming its not affected by the same contactor recall as the Mach-E). Rivian has been (slowly) shipping trucks.
Where's the CyberTruck? I bet even the electric Silverado will start shipping before the CyberTruck.

CIA - The American governments terroist organization

noims (Member Profile)

What if We Nuke a City?

vil says...

Lets get all countries to organize their institutions in such a way that idealistic moral imperatives and vows are binding. No cheating, not even lying. Ever. Yes you too, Saddam. And Vladimir. And Pooh too. I mean Xi Jinping. I am sure if we ask them all nicely or sign a petition or demonstrate in front of the Indian and Pakistani embassies 24/7 surely they will come around.

If we disarm now, how do we divert that asteroid when we need to?

Grreta Thunberg's Speech to World Leaders at UN

vil says...

Great argument about temperatures. Now have one about nation-state economies and government systems.

Its less like what can we do about asteroids, more like what can we realistically do to help the people in Ukraine or Hong-Kong.

Greta is a marketing tool. Her science and tears may be genuine, she may not realize it, but she is a marketing tool in the hands of adults around her.

Grreta Thunberg's Speech to World Leaders at UN

newtboy says...

@bcglorf Here's a tome for you....


It's certainly not (the only way). Converting to green energy sources stimulates the economy, it doesn't bankrupt it, and it makes it more efficient in the future thanks to lower energy costs. My solar system paid for itself in 8 years, giving me an expected 12 years of free electricity and hot water. Right wingers would tell you it will never pay for itself....utter bullshit.

Every gap in our knowledge I've ever seen that we have filled with data has made the estimates worse. Every one. Every IPCC report has raised the severity and shrunk the timeframe from the last report....but you stand on the last one that they admit was optimistic and incomplete by miles as if it's the final word and a gold standard. It just isn't. They themselves admit this.

The odds of catastrophic climate change is 100% in the next 0 years for many who have already died or been displaced by rising seas or famine or disease or lack of water or...... and that goes for all humanity in the next 50 because those who survive displacement will be refugees on the rest's doorsteps. Don't be ridiculous. If we found an asteroid guaranteed to hit in the next 50-100 years, and any possible solutions take a minimum of 50 years to implement with no surprises, and only then assuming we solve the myriad of technical issues we haven't solved in the last 100 years of trying and only if we can put the resources needed into a solution, not considering the constantly worsening barrage of smaller asteroids and the effects on resources and civilisation, we would put all our resources into solutions. That's where I think we are, except we still have many claiming there's no asteroid coming and those that already hit are fake news....including those in the highest offices making the decisions.

Every IPCC report has vastly underestimated their projections, they tell you they are doing it, only including data they are certain of, not new measurements or functions. They do not fill in the gaps, they leave them empty. Gaps like methane melt that could soon be more of a factor than human CO2, and 100% out of our control.

The AR5 report is so terrible, it was lambasted from day one as being incredibly naive and optimistic, and for not including what was then new data. Since its release, those complaints have been proven to be correct, in 5 years since its release ice melt rates have accelerated 60 years by their model. I wouldn't put a whit of confidence in it, it was terrible then, near criminally bad today. I'll take NOAA's estimates based on much newer science and guess that they, like nearly all others in the past, also don't know everything and are also likely underestimating wildly. Even the IPCC AR5 report includes the possibility of 3 ft rise by 2100 under their worst case (raised another 10% in this 2019 report, and expected to rise again by 2021, their next report), and their worst case models show less heat and melting than we are measuring already and doesn't include natural feedbacks because they can't model them accurately yet so just left them out (but noted they will have a large effect, but it's not quantitative yet so not included). Long and short, their worst case scenario is likely optimistic as reality already outpaces their worst case models.

Again, the economy benefits from new energy production in multiple ways. Exxon is not the global economy.

It took 100 years for the impact of our pollution to be felt by most (some still ignore it today). Even the short term features like methane take 25+ years to run their cycles, so what we do today takes that long to start working.

If people continue to drag their feet and challenge the science with supposition, insisting the best case scenario of optimistic studies are the worst we should plan for, we're doomed....and what they're doing is actually worse than that. The power plants built or under construction today put us much higher than 1.5 degree rise by 2100 with their expected emissions without ever building 1 more, and we're building more. Without fantastic scientific breakthroughs that may never come, breakthroughs your plan relies on for our survival, what we've already built puts us beyond the IPCC worst case in their operational lifetimes.

There's a problem with that...I'm good with using real science to identify them without political obstruction and confusion, the difference being we need to be prepared for decisive action once they're identified. So far, we have plans to develop those actions, but that's it. In the event of a "surprise" asteroid, we're done. We just hope they're rare.
This one, however, is an asteroid that is guaranteed to hit if we do nothing, some say hit in 30 years, some say 80. Only morons say it won't hit at all, do nothing.
Climate change is an asteroid/comet in our orbit that WILL hit earth. We are already being hit by ejecta from it's coma causing disasters for millions. You suggest we don't start building a defense until we are certain of it's exact tonnage and the date it will crash to earth because it's expensive and our data incomplete. That plan leaves us too late to change the trajectory. The IPCC said we need to deploy our system in 8-10 years to have a 30-60% chance of changing the trajectory under perfect conditions....you seem to say "wait, that's expensive, let's give it some time and ignore that deadline". I say even just a continent killer is bad enough to do whatever it takes to stop, because it's cheaper with less loss of life and infinitely less suffering than a 'wait and see exactly when it will kill us, we might have space elevators in 10 years so it might only kill 1/2 of us and the rest might survive that cometary winter in space (yes at exponentially higher cost and loss of life and ecology than developing the system today, but that won't be on my dime so Fuck it).' attitude.

Grreta Thunberg's Speech to World Leaders at UN

bcglorf says...

@newtboy,

"bankrupting the global economy isn't the only way to plan for asteroids, now is it? What we have done is put some money towards developing solutions that could be implemented in time, with minor exceptions for super fast unknown asteroids we likely couldn't do much about if we did have a planetary defense system."

That's precisely my point though, bankrupting the global economy to reach negative net emissions tomorrow isn't the only way to plan for climate change either.

"the probability of disastrous climate change is near 100% if you take historic human behavior into account. For many it's already hit. It's only the severity and speed that are in question, and those estimates rise alarmingly with every bit of data we use to replace guesses in the equations.

And the odds of a catastrophic asteroid hit sometime in the future is near 100% too, it's just a question of how many millions of years Earth's luck holds out. Nor has every prediction or projection underestimated future warming so far, your flat wrong on that.

More to the point, the timing and severity of the changes we face is ABSOLUTELY relevant to the actions we need to take. Similarly, knowing the benefit of reducing our emissions by X% by a particular date is also extremely relevant to the actions we need to take. Unfortunately, it must be acknowledged that we have a lot of gaps and uncertainty in our knowledge on those points.

At minimum base level, we know changing global temperature on the whole will impact us negatively, that our CO2 emissions will make things warmer than they otherwise would be, and thus can easily conclude with certainty that the science dictates policies to reduce emissions are a good idea.

Now, you seem to be hell bent on demanding those policies take the shape of staring down the face of disaster 2-3 times worse than the IPCC AR5 reports absolute worst case scenario. I've got to tell you, that the uncertainties involved with that kind of prediction are too great to warrant an honest dictate that the facts support a need for economically devastating action being taken today. It's just not the case.

Even if green tech never takes over, if the next century sees us final solve fusion power and adoption of electric cars, we already get our emission outputs off the worst track scenario the IPCC projected in AR5. I honestly do believe that we will see non-fossil fuel electricity generation and electric cars as the norm in my lifetime, so I'm hopeful for a future that tracks better than the IPCC worst case. That doesn't mean we should do nothing, but it's more like we should take a similarly rational/practical approach to it like you see us doing with asteroids.

Grreta Thunberg's Speech to World Leaders at UN

newtboy says...

Ahhh....but bankrupting the global economy isn't the only way to plan for asteroids, now is it? What we have done is put some money towards developing solutions that could be implemented in time, with minor exceptions for super fast unknown asteroids we likely couldn't do much about if we did have a planetary defense system. What we haven't done is just say "It not certain we'll be hit, so wait until it's a certainty to make any preparations."

In this case, the probability of disastrous climate change is near 100% if you take historic human behavior into account. For many it's already hit. It's only the severity and speed that are in question, and those estimates rise alarmingly with every bit of data we use to replace guesses in the equations. We aren't just driving our Cadillac off the cliff, we're accelerating as if we hope to jump the canyon. Even Evil couldn't pull that off with a rocket.

bcglorf said:

@newtboy,
" Sane policy makers DO assume the absolute worst modeled outcome"

Here we disagree. When you have a high degree of unknowns in your modelling, you don't always just go off the worst case. Let me argue from the extreme to demonstrate that in principle.

If we are looking to mitigate the risk of an extinction level asteroid strike, we don't solely look at the worst case. The worst case is at a minimum assuming another KT extinction level asteroid out there on it's way to us. Space is big enough that it's still possible one is out there undetected on it's way here in our lifetimes. The probability of that may be low, but it's still a worst case not impossible outcome.

With that known worst case, should we bankrupt the global economy building either a defensive capability to detect and destroy/redirect it, or the capability to abandon the planet in our lifetimes because of this worst case risk?

The answer to me is of course not, you must ALSO take into account other variables like the probability of it happening, the unknowns in the equation that prevent us picturing the problem with full accuracy, and other factors.

Grreta Thunberg's Speech to World Leaders at UN

bcglorf says...

@newtboy,
" Sane policy makers DO assume the absolute worst modeled outcome"

Here we disagree. When you have a high degree of unknowns in your modelling, you don't always just go off the worst case. Let me argue from the extreme to demonstrate that in principle.

If we are looking to mitigate the risk of an extinction level asteroid strike, we don't solely look at the worst case. The worst case is at a minimum assuming another KT extinction level asteroid out there on it's way to us. Space is big enough that it's still possible one is out there undetected on it's way here in our lifetimes. The probability of that may be low, but it's still a worst case not impossible outcome.

With that known worst case, should we bankrupt the global economy building either a defensive capability to detect and destroy/redirect it, or the capability to abandon the planet in our lifetimes because of this worst case risk?

The answer to me is of course not, you must ALSO take into account other variables like the probability of it happening, the unknowns in the equation that prevent us picturing the problem with full accuracy, and other factors.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon