Steep angle entry. It basically almost slams head on into the atmosphere. All that velocity is turned into a big bada boom.

Crap. I wanted to like this video.
Unfortunately this starts with bad information and gets worse...claiming Yellowstone is the largest super volcano....but Yellowstone's biggest eruption was 2,800 km3 almost 9000000 years ago.... Toba in Sumatra erupted 13,200 km3 only 75000 years ago. The most recent Yellowstone eruption was around 640000 years ago and only 1000km3.
Even Taupo ejected 1170km3 in that last super eruption, far more than Yellowstone's most recent.

Where did they get the idea that an ash cloud would spread in every direction evenly?! It's just wrong. The ash cloud would be blown East by upper atmospheric winds...eventually circling the globe but not expanding to the West very far....just like previous eruptions did.

They mention America going abroad to get food in such an event, then go on to mention global dimming, temperature drops, and sulfur contamination damaging crops...but don't put the two together. In such an event, no country on earth could feed it's own population, much less have a surplus to sell to the worst hit area, America. In 1815, the year without a summer caused world wide famine, epidemics, and a halt to shipping because winter ice packs remained through the summer in many places, and crop failures and epidemics continued for years afterwards. That eruption was only 160–213km3 and there were under 1 billion people to feed on the planet.
A large Yellowstone eruption would be 4-10 times that size, with effects being worse and lasting longer, and there are around 8 times as many mouths to feed.
The largest eruption we know of was nearly 100 times the size of Tambora in 1815....and wasn't Yellowstone.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supervolcano

Edit: let's not forget the disruption to airlines for possibly years and interference with satellite signals like we've never experienced....and what does that sulphur do to an already acidic ocean?

I want to know his sources, because they don't jibe with historical records.

Nice additional info from APOTD:

The Russian Soyuz-FG rocket was launched in November 2018 from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan, carrying a Progress MS-10 (also 71P) module to bring needed supplies to the ISS. Highlights in the 90-second video (condensing about 15-minutes) include city lights and clouds visible on the Earth on the lower left, blue and gold bands of atmospheric airglow running diagonally across the center, and distant stars on the upper right that set behind the Earth. A lower stage can be seen falling back to Earth as the robotic supply ship fires its thrusters and begins to close on the ISS, a space laboratory that celebrated its 20th anniversary in 2018.

This is a nicer version of the *related=https://videosift.com/video/Breathtaking-rocket-launch-as-seen-from-the-ISS

Trick with those, just never investigate. If you reach a conclusion, there's no more room to lie.

Wait, forget i said that.

--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------


"been fed wild falsehoods. Because he was angry he lost an election

"There is no question, none, that president Trump is responsible for provoking and the events of the day. No question about it

"The people that stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their president

"Having that belief was a foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo of false statements, conspiracy theories, and reckless hyperbole which the defeated president continued shouting into the largest megaphone on Earth.

"[He] manufactured an entire atmosphere of looming catastrophe. Increasingly wild myths about a reverse landslide election

"And I am voting to acquit
-Mitch McConnell

https://youtu.be/yxRMoqNnfvw

So this is a bit incorrect. Teller-Ulam devices (aka: huge fucking nukes like the Tsar Bomba) are three-stage or more weapons. The first stage, the "atom bomb", is the initiator. The second stage is where a normal hydrogen bomb gets its "oomph" from. After a third stage is added, things get very scary very quickly:
" Each stage can be 10-100 times the size of the previous stage. The 50 Mt bomb mentioned above was a three stage weapon."
Edward Teller proposed a (theoretical) T-U bomb that would be in the gigaton range, but reasoned it was impractical because it'd blow off a huge part of the atmosphere into space.
Fun bonus fact! The actual amount of plutonium that achieved pure fission in the Hiroshima explosion was roughly the size of a grain of rice. E=MC^2 is a hell of a thing!

relevant XKCD: https://xkcd.com/2359/
"There is growing evidence that the atmosphere of venus contains... molecules"

Your video, Something re-enters the atmosphere over Texas., has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

No....with a "but".

I was disturbed in the 70's about how people were changing the planet, but didn't yet understand the climate portion of that issue would be the most disastrous. (In my defense I was under 10).

I became concerned in the 90's-2000's when the scientific conclusions became overwhelmingly certain that CO² and other greenhouse gasses were destroying the atmosphere we relied on.

My concern quickly turned to anger at the realisation that people as a group were more inclined to argue over minutiae and ignorant theories and money rather than tackle the apocalyptic problem.

Soon that was mixed with depression at the realisation that it was too late even if we gave up CO² and methane today because the climate is slow to react and we had passed the point of no return and were actually still accelerating towards the cliff and arguing over the correct radio station for flying.

Today I'm at acceptance that humans will destroy the biosphere and likely themselves in the process, and have to be content with the knowledge that I didn't make it much worse (or at least made an educated effort to not make it worse), I likely won't live to see mass famine and water wars where I live, and didn't put anyone else in the horrific position of having to live through the worst. (No kids).

Feel better? ;-)

I find his movies extremely compelling visually, characters and acting are usually superb but they tend to have terrible stories and character arcs.

His movies seem to be more about the setting and the atmosphere than anything else which works to some extent but leaves you wanting in a lot of cases.

Interesting.
Why can't we use hydrogen balloons to put instruments at the right levels above earth, I wonder?
Do they think the static fluctuations, including the rifts, can be attributed to the almost total lack of atmosphere, or the lack of magnetic field on MARS, or something else?
Maybe I should read the NASA release.....nope, no answers there, only a near verbatim transcript of the narration.
*quality scientific discoveries

A good, even *quality idea....for 40+ years ago.

It took 100+ years to mortally wound the ocean by 1000 cuts. A bandaid on one wound is not going to turn it around, and we almost certainly aren't going to do it anyway. Countries that don't buy into the plan will simply harvest most of the fish left by those who do. This only works in small scale preserves that are guarded against poaching, often by a military.

Fish stocks are disappearing at an alarming rate, many going extinct. For those species, it's too late, and they are numerous, and they are largely the fish humans prefer. Many others are in such decline fishing for them is already off limits or severely curtailed, like commercial salmon, abalone, and crab fishing in California. Even those actions have failed to revive their populations year after year.

Diatoms, phytoplankton, and other similar biotas are at the limit of acidity and temperature they can tolerate, and they are the base of the ocean food web, feeding most fish when they are fry or larvae. The gasses in the atmosphere today will push diatoms over that precipice with a massive ocean extinction following soon afterwards, and we continue to add more greenhouse gases than we added yesterday every day.

Then there's habitat loss, coral reefs and kelp forests are both being decimated by temperature rise and acidification. Together they are food and habitat for 25%-50% of all ocean fish and shellfish.

Less over harvesting of the ocean is a good idea, but pretending it alone can save the oceans is pure fantasy. The ocean has absorbed as much as 90+% of the excess heat from global warming, causing oceanic heat waves that destroy habitats both directly and indirectly. There is NO plan that solves that problem, it's well beyond our capabilities under the best conditions with worldwide maximum efforts.

Just sayin'.

How do you solve something that's going apeshit in another country? For starters, in the case of Ukraine and Crimea, we keep our obligations we agreed to and support them with the U.S. military from day one when Russia invaded Crimea, and again in Ukraine proper. Had we done that as we specifically and unambiguously agreed to do when they gave up their nukes in return, the "civil war" (that's clearly a foreign invasion) wouldn't have occurred. That's an Obama administration failure, one that seriously harmed our international standing and trustworthiness, imo. If we had just put 100 Marines on the borders, Russia wouldn't have risked WW3 to invade either country.
My point is human political or boundary issues are nothing compared to intentionally reengineering the makeup of the atmosphere and getting enough cooperation to implement the desired (required) changes.

If she changes policy in the west, that will impact the East....and South. What America does is more often than not mirrored, especially when we're successful.
Her impact is more for the public than governments. Sway enough of the public, get them to vote on your issue, and politics will evolve at light speed.

Her delivery is exactly what's needed. An angry, educated young woman (they called me young man at 14, so don't balk), being unpleasant about having her future stolen makes exponentially more impact to the audience she targets than a thousand dry, factual, statistic rich talks by scientists. (Those are a dime a dozen today) Kids telling their parents that when the shit hits the fan, the kids are tossing them in the swollen river, not supporting them through their old age, is exactly the kick in the face many need. Kids of today will blame adults of today for the future they live in. Adults of today clearly don't consider that enough.

Something is better than nothing, she's demanding something. She's 16, do you expect her to have all the answers? (Some feasible solutions would be nice) She's well ahead of the curve just understanding the severity of the problem. I'm sure if we listened to all her speeches she gives some suggestions of action we could take to move in the right direction, but I doubt any one person has answers that solve every major effect of climate change, much less all the secondary and tertiary effects. I certainly don't expect her, at that age, to do more than demand those in power take it seriously and find solutions....and act. Chastising a major polluter who walked away from the weak, insufficient Paris agreement is a good start if it works, but I agree it's only barely a start.

You should consider it, she got millions to March for her cause worldwide. Even if she is a willing tool for some adults, it's clear more adults are tools for her. Consider, she isn't talking to kids, she's talking to adults, and some at least are listening to her, not her parents.

Personally it disturbs me that emotional delivery like this is required for many to even consider the issue beyond "what does my political party say on this issue, that's what I say too." I wish scientific issues like climate change were immune to politics, propaganda, and emotion, but they aren't. That's why we're hosed imo, humans are too willing to be deceived if the lie is more pleasant than reality, and denying there's a problem or need for change is quite pleasant to lazy Americans, far easier than facing facts and implementing difficult solutions....until it's not at least, by which time it's far too late.

what's been killed? The atmosphere!

Tags for this video have been changed from 'crown, atmospheric, regicide, theme, deep' to 'crown, atmospheric, regicide, theme, deep, Felix Colgrave' - edited by eric3579

Interesting suggestion.

I believe that with 1/10 the population, near today's per capita resource usage would be sustainable....although there would be a necessary time period with net zero or better emissions required to return the atmosphere to "normal" before runaway greenhouse effects and feedbacks turn earth into Venus 2.0. After that, there is an amount of emission the planet can absorb, so resource usage need not be curtailed excessively, but it wouldn't hurt.

I'm all for the lottery system if everyone draws straws, no exceptions except those willing to just move to the reservation voluntarily.
Even a lottery system simply for procreation would do wonders, but remembering the outrage at China for just allowing one child per couple, I doubt that would fly either. Also, it does leave the possibility that the lucky procreators might all be imbecilic morons incapable of following/continuing the plan...we don't want to become a species that is dumber than our pets....or do we?

I think the priorities should be reversed too, what's best for life on earth first, humanity second.