171–180 of 387 posts
Worth noting that EMIT wasn't funded for this purpose. It was greenlit to measure and track dust (arguably still for climate-related purposes, but still!). This is a relatively minor example of why funding space-based science is so important. We're still seeing "accidental benefits" of deploying technology there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not what people think. They don't care because it won't effect them.
That's clearly incorrect. 43% of Americans think global warming will pose a serious threat in their lifetime[1]. If they could just "vote with their dollars" then the US would have seen immense changes in renewable energy and EVs in the past 20 years. There are 3 factors: Market forces make it extremely difficult to create large change at the personal level. You can't crowdfund grid-scale renewables. Even if you have…
Several questions ask to contextualize this measurement. Here's a highly-cited paper in Nature (including some of the researchers quoted in the OP) that describes how an earlier survey of California methane emissions went: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1720-3 If I remember right, the state of CA asked for this survey. It was carried out by an instrument similar to that of the OP, but airborne, not on ISS…
Another example of why we need the 'regulation' that is so demonized.
'Regulation' is not a solution for countries that do not answer to the morals of the West, such as Turkmenistan, China, or Russia. Regulation should be demonized, for many situations it ends up being a hammer to a screw.
If things get really bad and these things are deemed bad for the planet, could a nation demand the facilities be shut down or else be destroyed by military strike?
This concept is so strange. I'm not sure what country you are from, but I'm going to assume the US. Would you think it was OK if another country destroyed something in America because they thought it was damaging the environment. How about if they tried to force you to change your ways because of the environmental damage you were doing? Because guess what? The US is seriously over represented in pollution. Destroying…
(No matter what it might look like while playing your video game.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Firstly, many poor countries are doing some of that. Look at China. China is far from a poor country... by some measurements they outpace even the US. > Secondly, the cost curves are decreasing for a reason This is true - however we also need to recognize the technology is not ready today. It might be tomorrow, but throwing everything out and going full-in on green tech today is foolhardy. Some prominent states in…
> This is true - however we also need to recognize the technology is not ready today. It might be tomorrow, but throwing everything out and going full-in on green tech today is foolhardy. It is ready today. Look at Denmark. It's more expensive than coal but it's cheaper if you factor in the externalities, and it's cheaper than nuclear. Therefore, it's ready. Also, your second sentence is a non-sequitur. If it really…
Developing nations do not care about your supposed externalities. Caring about these things is a luxury they cannot afford in the literal sense.
> and it's cheaper than nuclear.
This is almost entirely the fault of deliberately crushing regulation... but that's a political choice not a technical one.
> Therefore, it's ready
Hardly. Nobody as-of yet has developed a reasonably priced, long-lived and efficient means of storage. Without this missing key, all the wind farms in the world will not keep the lights on when the wind doesn't blow...
> This reasoning does not make sense.
You'd have burned them pretty badly if you compelled them to install solar even 10 years ago because of how inefficient it was compared to other cheaper means of energy production. Even in the past 10 years solar tech has come so very far... that is my point about it not being ready yet. We still have a long ways to go in renewables before they can realistically replace energy production in mandatory environments, ie. environments that don't have the luxury of trying out new expensive unproven tech and changing it as the technology develops.
Will be interesting to see how this capability unfolds. They’ve proven this can be done using an instrument not even designed for the task. A specialized instrument may be able to detect other greenhouse emissions. Imagine the kind of high resolution accountability that might be possible. But does the political will exist in the US to expose ourselves that way? Our political donors that way? Our country as one of the…
This is part of a long & still alive political agenda, which, best I can tell, attempts to bring apocalypse to this planet. There's money to be made now, & even the end of the world is not to stop that. Ignorance & fantastical belief outweigh reason & observation in much of the political world, & when in conflict defunding observability & evidence gathering has been alarmingly popular in a vast vast amount of said political world.
Heavens only knows how much more we'd know (and how much ealier) if this wasnt a mis-use of an instrument intended for other science, and instead an accepted & responsible & up-front role encompased in NASAs mission statement & their programme.
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/nasa-earth-removed-mission-...
> Together, the Turkmenistan sources release an estimated 111,000 pounds of methane gas per hour If this is happening all the time, then the number of global methane emissions due to human activity on this ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_emissions ) Wikipedia page can't be valid. Crazy how human negligence and greed might end humanity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know what state you're in, but California is really struggling with this at the moment. You can get green energy as-is (from your utility), but it's at a premium. Which means most don't opt-in for it. This is going on while the state already struggles to keep itself energized year round. The current state of green energy will only exasperate California's problems, since storage tech still has a lot of catchin…
Is the root cause of California's energy issue because they are shutting down non-green energy production?
No new hydro-electric dams in my lifetime. No new nuclear reactors (that I'm aware of at least) in my lifetime. Just either status-quo, or gobbles of unproven renewable tech that has yet to actually live up to expectations (affordable, always available renewable-power).
People like to throw around big numbers showing CA's increased production over the years... but they don't throw around storage capacity which is really what matters for renewables. There is no storage capacity to speak of...
Another example of why we need the 'regulation' that is so demonized.
Also, my gaseous emissions are protected by the First Amendment, so not even Twitter can stop them.