Renewables are an important part of the mix, but seems like nuclear is more important right now. It’s the best way to move industry away from coal and gas in the long run, though it’s something we in the US should have started on 30 years ago.
I’m aware that nuclear power has it’s own set of complications, but they’re more solvable than reducing emissions without it
I don’t know that scientists gaslit anyone. I think it’s more the state of journalism driven by the way it is monetized. Chasing SEO drives clickbait headlines and sensational claims to the top of everyone’s feed.
I really appreciate the discussion on Lemmy.
The video (you can skip to the last five or 10 minutes of it to get the gist of what I’m talking about) says that the discrepancy isn’t unexplained. It’s point is that the different models depend on a large number of variables, and one of those variables is the size and brightness of the first generation of stars in the early universe. Tweaking that part of the model can explain the discrepancy. (According to the video.)
I am not a planetary scientist, but I have read a bit on the subject. My understanding is that it’s almost entirely due to the lack of magnetic field. The solar wind just blasts the atmosphere away over time.
If we ever reach a high enough state of technology to terraform Mars, we will have to figure out some way to protect the atmosphere. I found this video to be a really interesting take on the subject: https://youtu.be/HpcTJW4ur54?si=P-HpbrHPjJFfAaEI
I would love to understand this better. I have worked in power generation before (writing maintenance software for a nuclear plant, so I picked up a few things). I don’t understand the distribution side at all, though.
Can you suggest a book or article on the subject?