It's official - NASA: August was the hottest month globally

Take yer pick:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b09d7a687f80dc

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/20/sc...2016.html?_r=0

http://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/28/

Razzymatazzy

On Tuesday, 13 September 2016 11:03:14 UTC-4, Razzmatazz wrote:
Take yer pick:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b09d7a687f80dc

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/20/sc...2016.html?_r=0

http://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/28/

Razzymatazzy

Spamming an amateur astronomy group with global warming propaganda while your poor customers wait YEARS for their telescopes. Priorities...

On Tuesday, 13 September 2016 18:48:01 UTC+2, RichA wrote:

Spamming an amateur astronomy group with global warming propaganda while your poor customers wait YEARS for their telescopes. Priorities...

a) Define "poor."

b) Record temperatures in Greenland. +8C above average since 1879. [137 years]

http://www.dmi.dk/nyheder/arkiv/nyhe...r-i-groenland/

Hottest September day in Denmark since 1947 [29.7C] 69 years.

http://www.dmi.dk/nyheder/arkiv/nyhe...rdag-i-69-aar/

On Tuesday, September 13, 2016 at 11:48:01 AM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
On Tuesday, 13 September 2016 11:03:14 UTC-4, Razzmatazz wrote:
Take yer pick:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b09d7a687f80dc

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/20/sc...2016.html?_r=0

http://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/28/

Razzymatazzy

Spamming an amateur astronomy group with global warming propaganda while your poor customers wait YEARS for their telescopes. Priorities...

I don't make or sell telescopes much anymore. No waiting lists for mounts ;^))

On Tuesday, September 13, 2016 at 11:12:33 AM UTC-6, Chris.B wrote:
On Tuesday, 13 September 2016 18:48:01 UTC+2, RichA wrote:

Spamming an amateur astronomy group with global warming propaganda while your
poor customers wait YEARS for their telescopes. Priorities...

a) Define "poor."

He is using the word in the sense of "unfortunate", therefore supplying a
threshold poverty level of income is not required to define it as he is using it.

John Savard

Razzmatazz wrote:
Take yer pick:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b09d7a687f80dc

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/20/sc...2016.html?_r=0

http://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/28/

Razzymatazzy




http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...er-day-8824430

On Tuesday, September 13, 2016 at 1:45:00 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
On Tuesday, September 13, 2016 at 11:12:33 AM UTC-6, Chris.B wrote:
On Tuesday, 13 September 2016 18:48:01 UTC+2, RichA wrote:

Spamming an amateur astronomy group with global warming propaganda while your
poor customers wait YEARS for their telescopes. Priorities...

a) Define "poor."

He is using the word in the sense of "unfortunate", therefore supplying a
threshold poverty level of income is not required to define it as he is using it.

John Savard

No, he's just spamming my message because he doesn't agree with it. It's not my message anyhow, it's NASA's message to the Earth community. Basically "wake up and smell the coffee".

Since transportation is a huge portion of the CO2 problem, I said years ago that there is a way for ordinary people to reduce their oil dependence. Electric propulsion fed by nuke, wind and solar would go a long way to mitigate or slow down the further accumulation of CO2. I think the nation is ready for more nuclear power using the latest technologies, but right now we are a divided nation and the oil companies are quite comfortable with this situation. Politicians don't know crap and won't listen to scientists.

I have driven an electric car now for 3 years and have yet to use any gasoline for my daily commute or my weekend shopping and bopping around trips. The car shows no signs of battery slowdown or exhaustion, producing more than enough miles per charge for all our family's needs. On the rare occasion that I need to go long distance out of town, the gas usage is quite minimal, producing 65 to 70 mpg for a 175 mile round trip.

Newer technologies are coming as outlined in several papers presented at conferences recently at MIT. It will soon be possible to travel 500+ miles between charge in a family sedan type vehicle. Batteries will use lithium, since that is the lightest of the active metals that can be used to store a charge (hydrogen is lighter but extremely difficult to make into a charge storage system). There is enough lithium in seawater to meet all storage needs on earth 1000 times over. I probably won't be around to see it to fruition, but the next couple generations will have exciting things to work with for sure.

By the way, the scientists and engineers most active in the battery field are Asian by and large, and I hope they do their work here in the US. I remember working on machine tool power systems back during Reagan administration and almost all papers on machine control were presented by Japanese and German engineers. Within a few years the world adopted the Japanese standards and we in the US were essentially left out of the machine tool business. I hope it doesn't happen to the electric propulsion industry.

Razzymatazzy