Science Weather Bonus Due: Fill & Download for Free

Update : Point 1 removed since I was getting many hate comments and messagesTablets (the gadget, not the medicine)Paper-based resumes (should be replaced by video-based resumes)Reservation-free private firms in India (wait and watch)Game of Thrones (there might be spinoffs)My bachelorhood (no comments)CCD phone app (it’s worse than any app ever created)The Boring Company (please don’t bash me in comment section for this)Snapdeal (will be merged or bought)Cheap airline tickets in India (90% of airlines are bleeding)The Weather Channel (really?)Delhi (if something is not done about the pollution soon)Maruti 800 on the roads (math)Hindi version of QuoraNadal and Federer on courtCryptocurrencies (not sure about this one)Undertaker in the wrestling ring (we’ll miss you)Travel agencies (due to uselessness)TV Remote (will be replaced by a smartphone app)Car keys (will be replaced by a smartphone app)M Sc. Home Science degree (due to uselessness)Booze costing money in double digit in IndiaShahid Kapoor’s acting career (hopefully)MTV Splitsvilla (hopefully)Pineapple on Pizza (hopefully)Self-proclaimed gurus and coaches on Social Media (hopefully)WeWork (the way it’s burning cash right now)Lie detector Machines (will mostly be replaced by an app)Highest population in China (India will beat China to it)Huge number of sugar mills in India (every year there’s a surplus)Blog feature on QuoraHair on Trump’s head (is it a wig already?)The Compass (everyone knows North is towards Winterfell)Edit: 7th September 2019 :Bonus #34 - Zomato. I very recently came across a SCAM that the app has been running to a while.Last I checked, it was still there. Read about it here -Anuj Narang (अनुज नारंग)'s answer to What are common scams in India?

There are few incidents which are quite famous among the peers and early employees of Space X -(In Soviet Russia, we buy your rockets! :P)Elon tried to buy the first rocket for Space X from the Russians -When Elon decided to start a rocket manufacturing company, he was not happy with current technology that the world had at its disposal. The technology and equipment's available with the leading global companies like Boeing and Airbus were of cold war era! They were clunky, slow and were based on legacy system that used Boolean language for interaction.Elon decided to buy the company’s first rocket from Russia as the technology was more or less the same (thanks to the Soviet Spies during cold war) and they would be cheap! Elon pulled some strings and got in contact with few Russian officials active in Russian military. Along with his entourage, Elon flew to Russia to make the deal.The Russian officials were not happy with Elon’s proposal and thought he was joking with them. They thought his vision for Space X was ridiculous (many still do) and quoted an absurd amount for the rockets made in 1960’s! Frustrated and angry, Elon flew back to USA and decided to build a space rocket on its own!(The rocket propellers being manufactured within Space X compound)Space X built its first rocket from scratch, right from forging military grade metal in the refinery!Since Space X was a startup, they didn't had much cash to throw around. When it became quite clear that buying an obsolete rocket is not an option, Elon decided to make one. He got himself familiar with rocket science (he is a mechanical engineer), hired many rocket scientists & engineers and asked them to figure out a way to make a cheap rocket!Space X was running through their cash reserves as space technology is expensive! In the end, they were left with no cash to buy space grade material from vendors. That’s when Elon decided to forge everything from scratch!Elon’s team started a refinery in the Space X compound to literally mold metal for engines and rocket shell, right from nuts and bolts to cushion cover for seats!(Space X’s first rocket launch site on Omelek Islands)Elon left his Space X team on a remote island for two years until their first successful launch!Ok, that doesn't sound inviting and kind of sadistic from the employee’s perspective, but Elon has always been kind of an oddball! Due to rise in his popularity and influence, Elon was able to lease an island near Hawaii from the US Military for testing world’s first private space rocket!The first few launch were a bust, due to many technical snags and unfavorable weather conditions. For every test, the team had to wait for the military to give them clearance for rocket launch, and that happened for only few days in a year! The schedule for that was uncertain and they were informed about their slot only a few hours before. Hence, the whole team had to wait for months before they used to get a shot at it! Elon funded each employees’ stay and later gave huge bonus after the first successful launch!(Han Solo’s first love!)Elon named all his rockets on Star Wars’s famous spaceship “Millennium Falcon”Remember Han Solo’s reliable spaceship? Yeah, Elon remembers that too! He went one up and decided to name Space X’s first rocket after this legendary spaceship from Star Wars! Its name…FALCON ONE!From there on, every space rocket that has been produced by Space X use Falcon as a prefix. His latest rocket is named FALCON 9!EDIT 1 - Many people have pointed it out that he is not a mechanical engineer. I agree with them. Elon Musk has a degree in Physics and Economics from Queen’s University, Ontario. The fact that he is not an engineer, still he was able to understand the nitty gritty of Rocket Science makes him even more of a bad-ass!

THERE NEVER WAS A CONSENSUS ON COOLING. IT WAS A MEDIA HYPE IN POP MAGS AND TABLOID NEWSPAPERS.Takeaways:A survey of the scientific literature has found that between 1965 and 1979, 44 scientific papers predicted warming, 20 were neutral and just 7 predicted cooling.So while predictions of cooling got more media attention, the majority of scientists were predicting warming even then.The single most compelling time capsule showing what the scientific community believed in the 1970s is found in the National Academy of Science's 1977 publication Energy and Climate: Studies in Geophysics. A review of the literature suggests that greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking.The White House knew all about climate change in 1965: On November 5, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson’s White House released “Restoring the Quality of our Environment”, a report that described the impacts of climate change, and foretold dramatic Antarctic ice sheet loss, sea level rise, and ocean acidification.Even ExxonMobil knew our C02 caused GW in the 1970s.The Time magazine covers and other pop mag covers of the time seemingly about cooling, were not about the cooling myth at all. Some of them were even fake.The myth stems originally from a 1971 Rasool and Schneider study, which was predicated on a quadrupling of aerosol emissions; this possible pathway was hugly overestimated and could NEVER HAPPEN because of the Clean Air Act. Most newspaper stories on cooling in the 70s used this study as source because they are tabloid and want to sell more newspapers, BUT the study was quickly criticised then forgotten. Critics quickly pointed out flaws in Rasool and Schneider's work, including some they acknowledged themselves (Charlson et al. 1972; Rasool and Schneider 1972) Refinements, using data on aerosols from volcanic eruptions, showed that while cooling could result, the original Rasool and Schneider paper had overestimated cooling while underestimating the greenhouse warming contributed by carbon dioxide (Schneider and Mass 1975; Weart 2003)Introduction:The myth goes something like this:In the 1970s the scientists were all predicting global cooling and a future ice age.The media served as the scientists’ lapdog parroting the alarming news.The ice age never came—the scientists were dead wrong.Now those same scientists are predicting global warming (or is it “climate change” now?)The entire purpose of this myth is to suggest that scientists can’t be trusted, that they will say/claim/predict whatever to get their names in the newspapers, and that the media falls for it all the time. They were wrong about ice ages in the 1970s, they are wrong now about global warming.Why a cooling myth?After rising rapidly during the first part of the 20th century, global average temperatures did cool by about 0.2°C after 1940 and remained low until 1970, after which they began to climb rapidly again.The mid-century cooling appears to have been largely due to a high concentration of sulphate aerosols in the atmosphere, emitted by industrial activities and volcanic eruptions. Sulphate aerosols have a cooling effect on the climate because they scatter light from the Sun, reflecting its energy back out into space.The rise in sulphate aerosols was largely due to the increase in industrial activities at the end of the second world war. In addition, the large eruption of Mount Agung in 1963 produced aerosols which cooled the lower atmosphere by about 0.5°C, while solar activity levelled off after increasing at the beginning of the centuryEmissions actually went the opposite trajectory due to the establishment of the EPA and the Clean Water Act in 1970, the Vienna Convention on the Protection of the Ozone Layer of 1985, the The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer of 1987 and the Clean Air Act of 1990.By the end of the 1970s, the cleaning of the air due to the passage of the Clean Air Act of 1970 (which limited sulfate aerosol emissions from industry), coupled with the significant increase in CO2 emissions from human activities combined to drive global surface temperatures upwards.Clean Air Act Requirements and HistorySince 1980 alone, annual global CO2 emissions have doubled:CO₂ and other Greenhouse Gas EmissionsAs a result, global temperatures spiked, with the rise ongoing still today, unabated:I would also like to mention that I find it extremely amusing and ironic that, after wrongly accusing scientists for “predicting cooling in the 70s”, now it’s the climate deniers who are “predicting” (or rather wanting) cooling, because it suits their narrative, which is we should continue emitting C02 like never before. And this in a time when the Earth is rapidly warming like never before. Yesterday deniers claimed “we’re coming out of an ice age” but today, deniers are claiming “we’re heading for a ice age. That’s the level of stupidity they are on.LETS DEBUNK THE MYTH IN 4 SIMPLE STEPS:1. A survey of the scientific literature has found thatbetween 1965 and 1979, 44 scientific papers predicted warming, 20 were neutral and just 7 predicted cooling.So while predictions of cooling got more media attention, the majority of scientists were predicting warming even then.http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1THE MYTH OF THE 1970s GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS_________________________________________________________LET’S CONTINUE TO NEXT POINT:2. The effects and dangers of human made climate change were well known and understood by the US military and the president already in the 1960s.How?They got their info from scientists, not pop magazines.Fifty years ago: The White House knew all about climate changeOn November 5, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson’s White House released “Restoring the Quality of our Environment”, a report that described the impacts of climate change, and foretold dramatic Antarctic ice sheet loss, sea level rise, and ocean acidification.That 1965 White House report stated:“Carbon dioxide is being added to the earth’s atmosphere by the burning of coal, oil, and natural gas at the rate of 6 billion tons a year. By the year 2000 there will be about 25 percent more CO2 in our atmosphere than present. This will modify the heat balance of the atmosphere to such an extent that marked changes in climate, not controllable through local or even national efforts, could occur.”On the 50th anniversary of the White House report, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are indeed at 399 ppm: 25 percent over 1965 levels, exactly as predicted 50 years ago.http://ourchildrenstrust.org/sites/default/files/1965%20Whitehouse%20report-restoring-quality-environment.pdfScientists warned the President about global warming 50 years ago today | Dana NuccitelliIn 1977, geophysicist Frank Press, the top White House science policy advisor, wrote a memo to President Jimmy Carter warning of "catastrophic" damage to climate stability due to the extraction and burning of fossil fuels.________________________________________________________________3. The single most compelling time capsule showing what the scientific community believed in the 1970s is found in the National Academy of Science's 1977 publication Energy and Climate: Studies in Geophysics."A review of the literature suggests that greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.Energy and Climate: Studies in GeophysicsIn July 1979 in Woods Hole, Massachusetts, Jule Charney, one of the pioneers of climate modeling, brought together a panel of experts under the U.S. National Research Council to sort out the state of the science. The panels work has become iconic as a foundation for the enterprise of climate change study that followed (Somerville et al. 2007). Such reports are a traditional approach within the United States for eliciting expert views on scientific questions of political and public policy importance (Weart 2003). In this case, the panel concluded that the potential damage from greenhouse gases was real and should not be ignored. The potential for cooling, the threat of aerosols, or the possibility of an ice age shows up nowhere in the report. Warming from doubled C02 of 1.5°-4.5°C was possible, the panel reported.Clearly, if a national report in the 1970s advocates urgent action to address global warming, then the scientific consensus of the 1970s was not global cooling."Carbon Dioxide and ClimateBrian Dunning from Skeptoid have a brutal debunking here:inFact: About That 1970s Global Cooling.4. Even ExxonMobil knew our C02 caused GW in the 1970s:The dirty truth:Exxon Mobil Chief Executive Officer Rex Tillerson testified under oath on the witness stand that the company knew for years how human-caused climate change was a significant threat to the world:"We knew, we knew it was a real issue," Tillerson said. "We knew it was a serious issue and we knew it was one that's going to be with us now, forevermore, and it's not something that was just suddenly going to disappear off of our concern list because it is going to be with us for certainly well beyond my lifetime."'We knew': Ex oil boss says climate change 'with us forevermore'New study confirms;Yes, this is like fighting the tobacco industry again.The main reason we have not fixed the climate crisis, as we fixed the problems with acid rain and the ozone layer, is because the industry spends billions on disinformation - and blocking climate actions.This is the same disinformation that climate deniers, in their total ignorance, see as "healthy skepticism" or "evidence" against climate science and the AGW theory.America Misled: How the fossil fuel industry deliberately misled Americans about climate changeExxon was aware of climate change, as early as 1977, 11 years before it became a public issue, according to a recent investigation from InsideClimate News. This knowledge did not prevent the company (now ExxonMobil and the world’s largest oil and gas company) from spending decades refusing to publicly acknowledge climate change and even promoting climate misinformation—an approach many have likened to the lies spread by the tobacco industry regarding the health risks of smoking. Both industries were conscious that their products wouldn’t stay profitable once the world understood the risks, so much so that they used the same consultants to develop strategies on how to communicate with the public.1982:Exxon Knew about Climate Change Almost 40 Years AgoA new study shows how Exxon Mobil downplayed climate change when it knew the problem was realBONUSDigging into the question,Early 20th Century warming (1910-1940) was about one-third caused by human activities. The rest of that was a combination of natural factors. Starting in the war years (1940) and continuing through the 1970s, sulfate aerosol emissions (which act to reflect incoming sunlight, cooling the Earth’s surface) combined with natural cooling held daytime temperatures flat, despite increasing CO2 and other GHG emissions from human activities. However, during this time nighttime low temperatures continued to increase, a hallmark confirmation of the combined effects of increases in GHG emissions from human activities coupled with sulfate aerosol emissions from industrial activities (the explosions during WW2 and the post-war reconstruction boom in industrial activities).A limited role for unforced internal variability in 20th century warming.Historical Sulfur Dioxide Emissions 1850-2000: Methods and Results (Technical Report)Perturbation of the northern hemisphere radiative balance by backscattering from anthropogenic sulfate aerosolsImpact of global dimming and brightening on global warming“climate scientists have had a difficult time explaining exactly what caused a warming event in the early 20th century, between about 1910 and 1945. “[…] The new study, published in the Journal of Climate, tackles the discrepancy in part by addressing an issue with ocean temperature data during the second world war, when measurements were more often made from warmer engine room intakes than from buckets lowered over the side of ships. This has resulted in a bias, inflating estimated surface temperatures in the early-to-mid 1940s. The new study removed this bias by focusing on temperatures along continental and island coastlines.[…]They found that the 0.4C warming from 1910 to 1945 could be accounted for by 0.2C warming from human greenhouse gases offset by 0.08C cooling from human aerosol pollution, 0.2C warming from natural factors (mostly a quiet period for volcanic activity plus a small contribution from increased solar activity), and a bit of natural variability plus some remaining uncertainty in the data.Since 1950, the authors found that the 0.8C temperature rise is due to 1.2C warming from greenhouse gases offset by 0.3C cooling from human aerosol pollution and 0.1C cooling from volcanoes and the sun.Did Smoke From City Fires in World War II Cause Global Cooling? - Robock - 2018 - Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres - Wiley Online LibraryAtmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global ClimateBONUS 2:LETS TIME TRAVEL BACK TO THE EARLY 80S TO HEAR WHAT SCIENTISTS WERE TALKING ABOUT: COOLING OR WARMING.The 1984 Climate Change Documentary:The 1984 Climate Change DocumentaryBONUS 3:DEBUNKING SOME OF THE MOST USED POP MAG ARTICLES.This article, and much of the media coverage in its vein, overstated the level of scientific concern regarding on global cooling and its effects from that time period, a point graciously conceded by the author of the 1975 Newsweek article in a 2014 story he wrote for Inside Science.Peter Gwynne, the man who wrote The Cooling world article, is rebutting his own story:"My 1975 'Cooling World' Story Doesn't Make Today's Climate Scientists Wrong - It's time for deniers of human-caused global warming to stop using an old magazine story against climate scientists.""In retrospect, I was over-enthusiastic in parts of my Newsweek article. Thus, I suggested a connection between the purported global cooling and increases in tornado activity that was unjustified by climate science. I also predicted a forthcoming impact of global cooling on the world’s food production that had scant research to back it.[...] Our climate is warming -- not cooling, as the original story suggested" Peter Gwynne 2014.Newsweek is also rebutting their own story:http://www.newsweek.com/climate-change-prediction-perils-111927THE TIME MAGAZINE COVERSI searched around on Time’s website and looked through all of the covers from the 1970s. I was shocked (shocked!) to find not a single cover with the promise of an in-depth, special report on the Coming Ice Age. What about this cover from December 1973 with Archie Bunker shivering in his chair entitled “The Big Freeze”? Nope, that’s about the Energy Crisis. Maybe this cover from January 1977, again entitled “The Big Freeze”? Nope, that’s about the weather. How about this one from December 1979, “The Cooling of America”? Again with the Energy Crisis.The 1970s Ice Age Myth and Time Magazine Covers – by David Kirtley"By 1980 the predictions about ice ages had ceased, due to the overwhelming evidence contained in an increasing number of reports that warned of global warming.Unfortunately, the small number of predictions of an ice age appeared to be much more interesting than those of global warming, so it was those sensational 'Ice Age' stories in the press that so many people tend to remember."A doctored TIME magazine cover warns of a coming ice age. But the reality remains that the world is warming, thanks chiefly to human action.http://science.time.com/2013/06/06/sorry-a-time-magazine-cover-did-not-predict-a-coming-ice-age/The fake cover:The authentic cover :FACT CHECK: Did a 1977 'Time' Story Offer Tips on 'How to Survive the Coming Ice Age'?Here we see how a denier blog uses this fake Time cover to give the impression that researchers have predicted ice age in the 70's and warming 30 years later:LET’S LOOK AT SOME OF THE AUTHENTIC TIME MAGAZINE COVERS OFTEN USED BY CLIMATE DENIERS.ARE THEY REALLY ABOUT GLOBAL COOLING / COOLING PREDICTIONS?Despite the fact that this article did not once mention the concept of global cooling, and despite the fact that this article is about record setting cold temperatures in the winter of 1977 and explicitly filed under the subject “weather,” WUWT described the cover as:"An example [of the] global cooling scare of the 70s."Despite all their bluster, climate denial blogs still do not appear to understand the difference between weather and climate.Let's have a closer look at these covers. Here are examples of how the climate deniers / misunderstand / deliberately cheat and merge pictures to distort reality.Picture number 1 and 3 (below) is about local cold winters, and has NOTHING to do with “scientists are predicting cooling”.Its beyond ironic; climate deniers still do not understand the difference between weather and climate and that this can indeed be a sign of global warming, as the Time article on the right is even saying: More signs of global warming.Weather Patterns Are Getting Stuck as Climate Changes Affect the Jet StreamIn other words, these two articles confirms the opposite of what climate deniers think they are about. In this context, however, it creates an erroneous impression that researchers have predicted ice age - global warming - ice age.Like here in the Heartland / Exxon-sponsored echo chamber climate denier blog WattsUpWithThat. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/01/time-magazine-and-global-warming/But again, these are NOT scientific journals, these are pop magazines. They'll pick the odd story most of the times. They will sensational their stories in order to sell more magazines. The vast majority of climate scientists predicted, as said, global warming already in the 70's. . Here we see another version of the image collage:The first picture (above) is about the oil / energy crisis in 1973 and consequently has absolutely nothing to do with the “scientists predicted cooling in the 70's” claim. This obviously does not prevent the climate deniers from misusing the cover. Like in this denier blog.Here we see again, how two images (above), which are about energy crises, and consequently has absolutely nothing to do with the "scientists predicted cooling in the 70's" claim, are being misused to tell a completely different story. Like here, in the blog of conservative politician Ron Paul. You'll find variations over these Time covers in hundreds of climate denier blogs.BONUS 4.Every ice age / cooling predictions comes from contrarians, not the real climate scientists. Potholer54 explains: