et pet

No, it is more "like saying" : " Since the latest interglacial period began 10,000 years ago, there have been regular climate shifts causing periods of glacier growth or melt-back. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_glaciers_in_Glacier_National_Park_(U.S.)  Which is similar to me saying : what I see as an objective view that glaciers will continue to be glaciers, always in a state of flux , continuing to advance or recede in response to climate changes It was you, iNow, that made the ice cube "claim" : It was you that made that "claim", iNow. Refer to it as "rather ignorant" if you must. However, I refuse to say anything about it, other than that it was you, iNow, that made that "claim",

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_glaciers_in_Glacier_National_Park_(U.S.) List of glaciers in Glacier National Park (U.S.) There are at least 35 named glaciers in Glacier National Park (U.S.). At the end of the Little Ice Age about 1850, the area containing the national park had 150 glaciers. There are 25 active glaciers remaining in the park today. Since the latest interglacial period began 10,000 years ago, there have been regular climate shifts causing periods of glacier growth or melt-back. The glaciers are currently being studied to see the effect of global warming[1] It is estimated that if current warming trends continue, there will be no glaciers left in the park by 2030. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_glaciers_in_Glacier_National_Park_(U.S.) From the opening paragraph : " the end of the Little Ice Age about 1850...the latest interglacial period began 10,000 years ago...regular climate shifts causing periods of glacier growth or melt-back... " Then the estimate : "... if current warming trends continue, there will be no glaciers left in the park by 2030 " This was addressed in the OP : http://www.alt-market.com/articles/3796-glacier-national-park-quietly-removes-its-gone-by-2020-signs " May 30, 2019. St. Mary, Montana. Officials at Glacier National Park (GNP) have begun quietly removing and altering signs and government literature which told visitors that the Park’s glaciers were all expected to disappear by either 2020 or 2030. As recently as September 2018 the diorama displayed a sign saying GNP’s glaciers were expected to disappear completely by 2020. " http://www.alt-market.com/articles/3796-glacier-national-park-quietly-removes-its-gone-by-2020-signs Yes, glaciers melt and drain away, during interglacial periods : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interglacial "An interglacial period (or alternatively interglacial, interglaciation) is a geological interval of warmer global average temperature lasting thousands of years that separates consecutive glacial periods within an ice age. The current Holocene interglacial began at the end of the Pleistocene, about 11,700 years ago." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interglacial How long might this interglacial period last? https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-long-can-we-expect-present-interglacial-period-last?qt-news_science_products=0#qt-news_science_products " How long can we expect the present Interglacial period to last? No one knows for sure. In the Devils Hole, Nevada, paleoclimate record, the last four interglacials lasted over ~20,000 years with the warmest portion being a relatively stable period of 10,000 to 15,000 years duration. This is consistent with what is seen in the Vostok ice core from Antarctica and several records of sea level high stands. These data suggest that an equally long duration should be inferred for the current interglacial period as well. Work in progress on Devils Hole data for the period 60,000 to 5,000 years ago indicates that current interglacial temperature conditions may have already persisted for 17,000 years. Other workers have suggested that the current interglacial might last tens of thousands of years. " https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-long-can-we-expect-present-interglacial-period-last?qt-news_science_products=0#qt-news_science_products I still tend to lean toward what I see as an objective view that glaciers will continue to be glaciers, always in a state of flux , continuing to advance or recede in response to climate changes. I base this view on the Earths history of Glacial/Interglacial Cycles. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/abrupt-climate-change/Glacial-Interglacial Cycles " Glacial-Interglacial Cycles Large, continental ice sheets in the Northern Hemisphere have grown and retreated many times in the past. We call times with large ice sheets “glacial periods” (or ice ages) and times without large ice sheets “interglacial periods.” The most recent glacial period occurred between about 120,000 and 11,500 years ago. Since then, Earth has been in an interglacial period called the Holocene. Glacial periods are colder, dustier, and generally drier than interglacial periods. These glacial–interglacial cycles are apparent in many marine and terrestrial paleoclimate records from around the world. What causes glacial–interglacial cycles? Variations in Earth's orbit through time have changed the amount of solar radiation Earth receives in each season. Interglacial periods tend to happen during times of more intense summer solar radiation in the Northern Hemisphere. These glacial–interglacial cycles have waxed and waned throughout the Quaternary Period (the past 2.6 million years). Since the middle Quaternary, glacial–interglacial cycles have had a frequency of about 100,000 years (Lisiecki and Raymo 2005). In the solar radiation time series, cycles of this length (known as “eccentricity”) are present but are weaker than cycles lasting about 23,000 years (which are called “precession of the equinoxes”). " https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/abrupt-climate-change/Glacial-Interglacial Cycles Yes, zapatos, during Interglacial Periods, "sometimes" Glaciers turn into water and drain away. Then, during Glacial Periods, "sometimes" water turns into Ice and forms Glaciers. So, though still not a prediction, I tend to lean toward what I see as an objective view that glaciers will continue to be glaciers, always in a state of flux , continuing to advance or recede in response to climate changes.

The universetoday article cites https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20190523/ which is : " NASA News & Feature Releases New Studies Increase Confidence in NASA's Measure of Earth's Temperature Posted May 23, 2019 A new assessment of NASA's record of global temperatures revealed that the agency's estimate of Earth's long-term temperature rise in recent decades is accurate to within less than a tenth of a degree Fahrenheit, providing confidence that past and future research is correctly capturing rising surface temperatures. " https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20190523/ iflscience cites the same : https://www.iflscience.com/environment/nasas-global-temperature-measurements-are-now-accurate-to-a-staggering-degree/ " NASA's Global Temperature Measurements Are Now Accurate To A Staggering Degree Researchers have improved the uncertain temperature measurements conducted by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) to incredible precision. As reported in Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres, the GISS Surface Temperature (GISTEMP) measurements’ uncertainty has shrunk to just 0.05°C (0.09°F) for data collected in recent decades and to 0.15°C (0.27°F) for measurements taken 140 years ago, when the records began. " https://www.iflscience.com/environment/nasas-global-temperature-measurements-are-now-accurate-to-a-staggering-degree/ ------------------ The full .pdf of the Confidential manuscript submitted to JGR-Atmospheres can be viewed at this link : https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2018JD029522?referrer_access_token=e-qrSTkjxxuK6-ChAc6jhsOuACxIJX3yJRZRu4P4erv2Vv4GlToQ-tlD0FQx1b5F0U96-0e0NleQaIeT5ORs8HAFrr3XaN5hvmrg7PgUKvAczG303b46ZfjF3jqDxkZrUP89NXTr6qwCGmX5XhYAKA%3D%3D " Improvements in the uncertainty model in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies Surface Temperature (GISTEMP) analysis Nathan J. L. Lenssen , Gavin A. Schmidt, James E. Hansen, Matthew J. Menne, Avraham Persin, Reto Ruedy, Daniel Zyss NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, New York, USA Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions, Columbia University Earth Institute, New York, New York, USA SciSpace LLC, New York, New York, USA Key Points : • A total uncertainty analysis for GISTEMP is presented for the first time • Uncertainty in global mean surface temperature is roughly 0.05◦ C in recent decades increasing to 0.15◦C in the 19th Century. • Annual mean uncertainties are small relative to the long term trend. • The warmest year on record (so far) was 2016 with 86% confidence Abstract We outline a new and improved uncertainty analysis for the Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) Surface Temperature product version 4 (GISTEMP v4). Historical spatial variations in surface temperature anomalies are derived from historical weather stationdata and ocean data from ships, buoys and other sensors. Uncertainties arise from measurement uncertainty, changes in spatial coverage of the station record, and systematic biases due to technology shifts and land cover changes. Previously published uncertainty estimates for GISTEMP included only the effect of incomplete station coverage. Here, we update this term using currently available spatial distributions of source data, state-of-the-art reanalyses and incorporate independently derived estimates for ocean data processing, station homogenization and other structural biases. The resulting 95% uncertainties are near 0.05◦C in the global annual mean for the last 50 years, and increase going back further in time reaching 0.15◦C in 1880. In addition, we quantify the benefits and inherent uncertainty due to the GISTEMP inter polation and averaging method. We use the total uncertainties to estimate the probability for each record year in the GISTEMP to actually be the true record year (to that date), and conclude with 86% likelihood that 2016 was indeed the hottest year of the instrumental period (so far). " https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2018JD029522?referrer_access_token=e-qrSTkjxxuK6-ChAc6jhsOuACxIJX3yJRZRu4P4erv2Vv4GlToQ-tlD0FQx1b5F0U96-0e0NleQaIeT5ORs8HAFrr3XaN5hvmrg7PgUKvAczG303b46ZfjF3jqDxkZrUP89NXTr6qwCGmX5XhYAKA%3D%3D To me, it seems like the manuscript is more about the accuracy of measurements of surface temperatures not the accuracy of previous predictions. But, it would probably best to read it for yourself, to see how you interpret the manuscript. Thanks, John Cuthber for the interesting input.

Agreed, Good news. Cannot disagree about the author's subjective description, either. But, to be honest, there has been no shortage of 'hysterical' claims from all sides of that issue. As far as predictions - no shortage of those either! And, again, some of those could also subjectively be perceived as 'hysterical'. Though not a prediction, I tend to lean toward what I see as an objective view that glaciers will continue to be glaciers, always in a state of flux , continuing to advance or recede in response to climate changes.

Maybe recycling Plastic to produce Diesel/Jet Fuel could help. It is not a panacea but it may help keep more land for growing Food and helps to get rid of a Nasty Waste Problem, too! https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/06/190603151554.htm " Science News from research organizations Plastic water bottles may one day fly people cross-country Research group has found a way to turn plastic waste products into jet fuel Date: June 3, 2019 Source: Washington State University Summary: Researchers have melted plastic waste at high temperature with activated carbon, a processed carbon with increased surface area, to produce jet fuel. Share: FULL STORY A research group led by Washington State University scientists has found a way to turn daily plastic waste products into jet fuel. In a new paper published in the journal Applied Energy, WSU's Hanwu Lei and colleagues melted plastic waste at high temperature with activated carbon, a processed carbon with increased surface area, to produce jet fuel. "Waste plastic is a huge problem worldwide," said Lei, an associate professor in WSU's Department of Biological System Engineering. "This is a very good, and relatively simple, way to recycle these plastics." How it works In the experiment, Lei and colleagues tested low-density polyethylene and mixed a variety of waste plastic products, like water bottles, milk bottles, and plastic bags, and ground them down to around three millimeters, or about the size of a grain of rice. The plastic granules were then placed on top of activated carbon in a tube reactor at a high temperature, ranging from 430 degree Celsius to 571 degrees Celsius. That's 806 to 1,060 Fahrenheit. The carbon is a catalyst, or a substance that speeds up a chemical reaction without being consumed by the reaction. "Plastic is hard to break down," Lei said. "You have to add a catalyst to help break the chemical bonds. There is a lot of hydrogen in plastics, which is a key component in fuel." Once the carbon catalyst has done its work, it can be separated out and re-used on the next batch of waste plastic conversion. The catalyst can also be regenerated after losing its activity. After testing several different catalysts at different temperatures, the best result they had produced a mixture of 85 percent jet fuel and 15 percent diesel fuel. Environmental impact According to the Environmental Protection Agency, landfills in the U.S. received 26 million tons of plastic in 2015, the most recent year statistics are available. China has recently stopped accepting plastic recycling from the U.S. and Canada. Conservative estimates by scientists say that at least 4.8 million tons of plastic enters the ocean each year worldwide. Not only would this new process reduce that waste, very little of what is produced is wasted. "We can recover almost 100 percent of the energy from the plastic we tested," Lei said. "The fuel is very good quality, and the byproduct gasses produced are high quality and useful as well." He also said the method for this process is easily scalable. It could work at a large facility or even on farms, where farmers could turn plastic waste into diesel. "You have to separate the resulting product to get jet fuel," Lei said. "If you don't separate it, then it's all diesel fuel." This work was funded by the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Competitive Grant no. 2014-38502-22598, 2016-67021-24533, 2018-67009-27904 from the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, United States Department of Agriculture. " https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/06/190603151554.htm

Came across this : http://www.alt-market.com/articles/3796-glacier-national-park-quietly-removes-its-gone-by-2020-signs , thought it might be of interest to some. Glacier National Park Quietly Removes Its ‘Gone by 2020’ Signs Sunday, 09 June 2019 17:15 Roger I. Roots This article was written by Roger I. Roots May 30, 2019. St. Mary, Montana. Officials at Glacier National Park (GNP) have begun quietly removing and altering signs and government literature which told visitors that the Park’s glaciers were all expected to disappear by either 2020 or 2030. In recent years the National Park Service prominently featured brochures, signs and films which boldly proclaimed that all glaciers at GNP were melting away rapidly. But now officials at GNP seem to be scrambling to hide or replace their previous hysterical claims while avoiding any notice to the public that the claims were inaccurate. Teams from Lysander Spooner University visiting the Park each September have noted that GNP’s most famous glaciers such as the Grinnell Glacier and the Jackson Glacier appear to have been growing—not shrinking—since about 2010. (The Jackson Glacier—easily seen from the Going-To-The-Sun Highway—may have grown as much as 25% or more over the past decade.) The centerpiece of the visitor center at St. Mary near the east boundary is a large three-dimensional diorama showing lights going out as the glaciers disappear. Visitors press a button to see the diorama lit up like a Christmas tree in 1850, then showing fewer and fewer lights until the diorama goes completely dark. As recently as September 2018 the diorama displayed a sign saying GNP’s glaciers were expected to disappear completely by 2020. " http://www.alt-market.com/articles/3796-glacier-national-park-quietly-removes-its-gone-by-2020-signs I found the entire article very interesting and well worth reading in it's entirety... Maybe a few others will find it worth reading, too.

To : dimreeper, DrP, swansont , When I Posted : "I have never stopped believing in god and I am well beyond my 30's and 40's!" , I was being 100% Honest in answering the question posed in the OP : "What made you stop believing in God?"! It would be Literally Impossible for me to "stop believing in" any "God" or any "santa claus" or any "easter bunny" or any "honest politician" or any other non-existent fictional creation simply because I have NEVER STARTED TO BELIEVE in any "God" or any "santa claus" or any "easter bunny" or any "honest politician" or any other non-existent fictional creation IN THE FIRST PLACE! I thought that I had expressed that correctly and clearly by Posting "god"(all LOWER CASE!), instead of "God"(Capitalized!). This thread has brought up a couple issues : 1. Why does it seem to be assumed/taken for granted by the Moderator, swansont, that any and all who Post on scienceforums.net must "still believe in God " because they have neither had any reason, nor any ability, to STOP "believing in God"? After all, there must be quite a number of people, like myself, that were never burdened with having to STOP simply because they NEVER STARTED BELIEVING IN THE FIRST PLACE!? 2. Why, if scienceforums.net is a real Science Site, were NO Scientific Methods utilized to determine if the Hypothesis/Assumption that the statement "I have never stopped believing in god and I am well beyond my 30's and 40's!" actually means or is the same as the statement I "still believe in God" was correct? dimreepr and DrP, I apologize that our discussion was wrongly nixed/interrupted due to what seems to be the failure of any application of Real Scientific Methods on what is supposed to be a Real Science Site! swanson, you have, once again, clearly shown and exercised your abilities and capabilities...As such, I must concur with the question DrP asked of you in this Thread :

The papers simply state that in the 65 or 66 years since the original "Miller and Urey" experiments, the ability to analyze the "synthesized organic compounds" has increased. That and further experiments since 1953 utilizing different 'recipes' seem to indicate that not only are more of the perceived 'building blocks of basic life' produced in these experiments, but that it seems that both nature and scientists have quite a variety of methods of producing these compounds. : https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5705758/ " Introduction In 1953, Miller and Urey synthesized organic compounds, including amino acids, from water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen. This was a spectacular experiment that emulated the conditions on the early Earth (Miller 1953). Since then, many experiments related to the origin of life were performed under various conditions (Miyakawa et al. 2002; Oró 1963; Schlesinger and Miller 1983; Fox 1995; Johnson et al. 2008). Besides amino acids, the formation of relevant precursors of biomolecules such as carboxylic acids, urea, and lipids was observed (Dickerson 1979; Dose and Rauchfuss 1975; Lazcano and Bada 2003; McCollom et al. 1999). Here, we describe the chemical analysis of complex prebiotic broth in experiments of the Miller-Urey type. We used nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy, coherent anti-Stokes Raman scattering (CARS) spectroscopy, gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS), and two-dimensional gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GCxGC/MS). Different analytical methods were necessary to achieve a comprehensive picture of the complex reaction mixture. " https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5705758/ BTW, I saw nothing in the linked articles pertaining to any "Abiogenesis", perhaps I missed reading that pertinent section of the articles. Could you possibly 'copy/paste' the sections of the Linked articles pertaining to any "Abiogenesis" ?

Still not sure how that relates in any way to my post : I have never stopped believing in god and I am well beyond my 30's and 40's! If your God doesn't matter until you make it so...then I guess that it might be "Good" or possibly "bad" for you and your God. That would seem to be between you and your God. It seems very clear, dimreepr, that your indecisiveness toward your God has nothing to do me having never stopped believing in god.

So, first you state that having never stopped believing in god is "Good" for me, then turnaround and try to get me to "accept" that "it can be bad" and now you Post what appears to be childish sarcasm, dimreepr? Do you have a point that you are trying to make?

Again, dimreepr, I cannot follow your line of reasoning. I simply stated "I have never stopped believing in god and I am well beyond my 30's and 40's!", I neither stated or implied that it was either good or bad. In all honesty I "think" that having personally never stopped believing in god is something that I would consider as "Good" or accept that it could even be "bad". Why, dimreepr, do you state that it as "Good" for me and then turnaround and try to get me to "accept" that "it can be bad"?

I cannot follow your line of reasoning, dimreepr... I never stated or implied that I thought it was "Good". It was you, dimreepr, that made the statement "Good for you.", so it seemed that you were the one to "think it is".

Why is that "Good" for me, dimreepr?

I have never stopped believing in god and I am well beyond my 30's and 40's!

more at what link, beecee...? Possibly you meant to include one of these Links...? : https://phys.org/news/2019-05-sydney-imposes-restrictions-decade.html or ; https://www.france24.com/en/20190528-sydney-imposes-first-water-restrictions-decade or ; https://www.afp.com/en/news/826/sydney-imposes-first-water-restrictions-decade-doc-1gz7l11 or ; https://www.nst.com.my/world/2019/05/492109/drought-stricken-sydney-imposes-first-water-restrictions-decade I am figuring you copied/pasted it from the phys.org/news Link, but...

Seriously, beecee, another Poor attempt at a 'Strawman' ?

https://qz.com/1625496/house-rejects-trumps-nasa-and-space-force-plans/ " Donald Trump is not getting his space money Last week, the White House submitted a late funding request for an additional $1.6 billion in spending on a proposed Artemis moon program to return astronauts to the lunar surface by 2024. Today, the House Appropriations committee left that request out of its spending plan for NASA and ignored many of the administration’s other space priorities. Without that funding, any hope of the accelerated mission to the moon touted by Vice President Mike Pence is likely to disappear. " https://qz.com/1625496/house-rejects-trumps-nasa-and-space-force-plans/

Poor attempt at a 'Strawman', beecee! Mark N. Sirangelo clearly states that the reason for his resignation was "the response back from Congress indicating their lack of support for establishing a new agency level Moon Mission Directorate ". : http://spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=52521 Only you beecee, in your Poor attempt at a 'Strawman', brought up such nonsense. Then you are wholly mistaken, beecee, that I care to engage in any Off-Topic personal issue that you are "sure" about. At any rate : https://qz.com/1625496/house-rejects-trumps-nasa-and-space-force-plans/ " Donald Trump is not getting his space money Last week, the White House submitted a late funding request for an additional $1.6 billion in spending on a proposed Artemis moon program to return astronauts to the lunar surface by 2024. Today, the House Appropriations committee left that request out of its spending plan for NASA and ignored many of the administration’s other space priorities. Without that funding, any hope of the accelerated mission to the moon touted by Vice President Mike Pence is likely to disappear. " https://qz.com/1625496/house-rejects-trumps-nasa-and-space-force-plans/

shakes head http://spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=52521 " Resignation Letter From Mark Sirangelo To NASA Administrator Bridenstine Status Report From: NASA HQ Posted: Friday, May 24, 2019 From: "Sirangelo, Mark (HQ-AA000)" Date: May 20, 2019 at 5:59:20 PM EDT To: "Bridenstine, James F. (HQ-AA000)" Subject: My Role Jim, Over the last couple of months we have accomplished much together and it has been truly exciting. After having gone through an evaluation of our conversations and the future path you have outlined for NASA it is with regret that I believe that it is time for me to end my role as the Special Assistant to the Administrator. I truly appreciate that you reached out to me earlier this year to join NASA in support of the developmental to return the U.S. to the Moon. It was such a challenging and amazing opportunity that it led me to halt all the other aspects of my life to join you and NASA. As NASA wished to expedite my entry, NASA offered, and I agreed upon the position of Special Assistant as an interim role. This role was to help develop the top-level technical path, budget and potential future management structures for the America’s Lunar 2024 challenge with the understanding that a further Agency level role might develop for me from this. Subsequent to our completing two of these goals, the initial Moon 2024 technical path and President’s Budget amendment last week, the response back from Congress indicating their lack of support for establishing a new agency level Moon Mission Directorate was certainly disappointing. Following that, from our discussions, I understand that your decision is to not to implement any alternative Agency level reorganization and to retain the Agency structure, as is, with any future management changes to remain internal to HEO Directorate. From this I realize that that my planning role is complete and without a logical follow-on I would now like to focus on having a positive transition. My notice today is for an end to my NASA employment on May 31, 2019. Due to complex nature of the efforts NASA is engaged in, I am open to discussing this situation further before that or to discussing a return to NASA in the future should the situation change. Meanwhile, I will start organizing a transition plan for the many things that I have work on and on list of outstanding activities. Please let me know who you would like me to work with on external messaging. I have enjoyed our brief, but eventful, journey. I will be leaving with the positive knowledge that I have tried to do all that I could do in the time available to advance the Vice President’s mandate and that we have, together with our colleagues and in a notably short time, created a workable technical path back to Moon for the United States and a realistic budget to begin the funding of this effort. Much is left to do and I wish you all the best for the future. I will continue to remain a strong supporter of NASA and of this historic endeavor. I sincerely hope that you continue to realize your own personal goals and that you and the NASA team are successful in bring America back to the Moon by 2024. Mark Mark N. Sirangelo Special Assistant to the Administrator // end // " http://spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=52521

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-space-exploration-nasa/nasa-executive-quits-weeks-after-appointment-to-lead-2024-moon-landing-plan-idUSKCN1SU0A5 - excerpts : " NASA executive quits weeks after appointment to lead 2024 moon landing plan CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (Reuters) - A top NASA executive hired in April to guide strategy for returning astronauts to the moon by 2024 has resigned, the space agency said on Thursday, the culmination of internal strife and dwindling congressional support for the lunar initiative. Mark Sirangelo, named six weeks ago as special assistant to NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine, left the agency as NASA abandoned a reorganization plan due to a chilly reception on Capitol Hill, Bridenstine said in a statement. ... The latest initiative was dubbed Artemis, after the goddess of the hunt and the moon in Greek mythology and the twin sister of Apollo. NASA had aimed to return crewed spacecraft to the lunar surface by 2028, after putting a “Gateway” station into lunar orbit by 2024. However, the prospect of additional funding drew little enthusiasm from congressional appropriators. The two people with knowledge of the matter said Sirangelo’s ouster was sealed by increasing skepticism that 2024 was a realistic deadline for moon landings. In his statement, Bridenstine said the agency was still exploring what organizational changes were “necessary to maximize efficiencies and achieve the end state of landing the first woman and the next man on the moon by 2024.” “If the $1.6 billion does not materialize, we will fall back on the previous plan, which was to land in 2028,” the NASA chief told reporters at a news conference earlier in the day. " https://www.reuters.com/article/us-space-exploration-nasa/nasa-executive-quits-weeks-after-appointment-to-lead-2024-moon-landing-plan-idUSKCN1SU0A5

What might possibly be construed as the “fish lineage of man” begins around the 1 minute point. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2W5hOJaFjxU

Perhaps you may Cite evidence to support your statement : "Perhaps not with nature, but "most" certainly do...seems to be a natural process with journalism. "? Should be fairly easy, since "..."most" certainly do..." as you stated. And, No, I cannot agree "that the expertise on this forum in general, are always quick to highlight or dispute any wrong or false conclusion from any article and the journalism portrayed within. " Obviously? I did not compare "a basically science news site as is "physorg," with a science paper publishing company publishing peer reviewed articles as is "nature" ". I did not mention any "science news site ". I did not even mention "physorg", and no "physorg" Links have been posted in this Thread. I am not sure what you are trying to convey when you state : "I mostly include both as both give relevant outlines of the relevant news item I'm posting." Maybe you could provide Links to your Posts where you "mostly include both as both give relevant outlines of the relevant news item I'm posting." ?

No. The Paper : https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1113-7 , DOES NOT SAY "A growing body of evidence indicates that binary neutron-star mergers are the primary origin of heavy elements". The Paper : https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1113-7 , SAYS "A growing body of evidence indicates that binary neutron-star mergers are the primary origin of heavy elements produced exclusively through rapid neutron capture1,2,3,4 (the ‘r-process’)." Yes, beecee, "most"of your Pop-Science Sites "will tend to sensationalize"! However, I do not find that to be true with "most journalism", as you put it, and I find that it is definitely not the case with Real Science Sites - such as https://www.nature.com/ .

I agree, swansont, Three Tenths of One Percent is "not really a lot"! However, Pop-Science sites relying on a Revenue Stream often "leverage the wrong thing to sensationalize the story". Click Bait, I believe some call it.

See : https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1113-7 , Nature 569, pages 85–88 (2019) " A nearby neutron-star merger explains the actinide abundances in the early Solar System " Imre Bartos & Szabolcs Marka Abstract " A growing body of evidence indicates that binary neutron-star mergers are the primary origin of heavy elements produced exclusively through rapid neutron capture1,2,3,4 (the ‘r-process’). As neutron-star mergers occur infrequently, their deposition of radioactive isotopes into the pre-solar nebula could have been dominated by a few nearby events. Although short-lived r-process isotopes—with half-lives shorter than 100 million years—are no longer present in the Solar System, their abundances in the early Solar System are known because their daughter products were preserved in high-temperature condensates found in meteorites5. Here we report that abundances of short-lived r-process isotopes in the early Solar System point to their origin in neutron-star mergers, and indicate substantial deposition by a single nearby merger event. By comparing numerical simulations with the early Solar System abundance ratios of actinides produced exclusively through the r-process, we constrain the rate of occurrence of their Galactic production sites to within about 1−100 per million years. This is consistent with observational estimates of neutron-star merger rates6,7,8, but rules out supernovae and stellar sources. We further find that there was probably a single nearby merger that produced much of the curium and a substantial fraction of the plutonium present in the early Solar System. Such an event may have occurred about 300 parsecs away from the pre-solar nebula, approximately 80 million years before the formation of the Solar System. "