i think i recently read a book like that. i wish i could remember the name, but it wasn't the one that sued the movie for stealing their idea. i can't find it, so i must be misremembering
"As an observer and operations engineer at the Catalina Sky Survey, a NASA-funded planetary defense program that utilizes the telescopes atop the Santa Catalina Mountains, he [David Rankin] spends hours looking for dangerous rocks that could cause catastrophic damage to Earth." Yes, the Catalina Sky Survey has been the greatest producer in the search for Near-Earth Asteroids (NEAs), though a separate group named Pan-STARRS has also been a major producer over the past decade: Though the new Vera C. Rubin Observatory might soon take the lead. Total known NEAs have been growing exponentially for a long time, but the discovery rate of the really big ones, over 1 km size, has dropped very sharply, from a peak of 79 in year 2000, to just 2 each in 2024 and 2025, statistically suggesting that most have already been found. The rate for rocks in the range of 140-1000 m, also quite serious, still appears stable, suggesting lots more to be found. The major growth now is in finding the little ones, under 140 meters. I just might get a chance to stop by the Mt. Lemmon observatory later this month. Original planned to ski there while in town for an unrelated event, but snow is seriously lacking, as in totally absent. So instead, make some Lemmonade . . .
I didn't know where to drop this, so feel free to move it to an appropriate thread. As an old timer, I thought I was just cynical - didn't think I was correct?? But who knows; It's YouTube.....
Vera Rubin Observatory is in instrument startup phase and is already finding new rocks out there. It will indeed bust this field wide open. @fuzzy1 second image above reminds me of a procedure that arises in sampling for many areas of ecology. When the graph is still rising to the right, one's sampling remains incomplete. -- If he can talk about Lemmonade, I can suggest that new observatory can bring Veracity to this field.
Highway 1 on California coast has been partially closed for 3 years. Now fully reopened. https://www.sfgate.com/centralcoast/article/highway-1-through-big-sur-opens-21292585.php
As a teen in the late '60s & loving scuba, friends & i went diving off a Palos Verdes area in Calif - closed off due to land & streets sinking & shifting. It appears it continues to this day Rancho Palos Verdes landslide moves as much as 4 inches a week, new NASA data shows | FOX 11 Los Angeles Nature; it likes taking back where we live our footprints. It'll be no surprise how quickly PCH again starts facing the same effects.
Three international research organizations released climate updates for 2025: NASA Releases Global Temperature Data - NASA Global Climate Highlights 2025 | Copernicus Press Release: Berkeley Earth: 2025 Was the Third Warmest Year on Record, Extending an Unprecedented Run of Global Heat - Berkeley Earth Unsurprisingly they all show close agreement on data patterns. One of the three makes no mention of climate change as being driven by human activities. Readers can guess which one does not.
1. GISS people are serious scientists. 2. How ya gon na fudge with many independent groups also looking? There are more than these 3 efforts - they simply don't show up in media today with new annual updates. -- My favorite second-tier global climate analysis is by Japan Meteorological Agency. Definitely punching above their weight. Or maybe they are Sumos.
Years ago here, people claimed that persistent temperature increases (since 1970s) came from global tampering with station records. Implying that such tampering could happen and persist. If not that, people claimed that persistent temperature increases arose from solar cycles, or anything else they were told to promote. Above all else they were told to dismiss atmospheric CO2 increases as forcing. Any year now, they told us, T would decreases and CO2 would vanish from physical reality. Told to say so by whom? You'd need to ask them. Meanwhile here in reality, T increases and several inter-related matters interfere with our future human enterprise. Estimates abound for what it might cost all of us to burn less CO2 into atmosphere. The burn industry has been much improved human enterprise in previous 2 centuries, and profited well therefrom. Their influence continues, and brains they control will continue to message. -- In my view, nobody anywhere provides a comprehensive plan for responding to +CO2 problems while extending human enterprise good run. Great Thinkers have narrower focus. Meanwhile others funded by burn industry look backward. Less meaningful but still active, anti-CO2 enthusiasts throw soup at paintings and glue themselves to roads or whatever. From this muddle, I expect a few ineffective decades followed by better later. Younger people will live to see that If they take care of themselves in a rational public-health sense