Will be good to see a new type of measurement system for the atmosphere. What I would really like to see in these articles is a link to the uncertainty analysis for the measurements. We receive a lot of information on climate change but no links to the hard science about the calculation and measurement uncertainty. The simplest data for climate change for example is the measurement of glacier and ice pack loss, a measure of change in lengths as observed from space and from land. These depend on simple measurements. Determination of something like sea rise is much more complicated and based on many instruments. Atmosphere temperature increase depends on diverse types of measurement and I would expect a complex system of calculations. The uncertainty of the conclusions drawn by measurements would be good to know to determine how well the science is being practiced.

I am a retired mechanical engineer that worked as an engineer and not a manager. In my work, excellent communication skills were the icing on the cake for a well produced document pertaining to a technical device or other product. One who does not get some education in liberal arts and works as an engineer is crippled with respect to becoming a generalist who are the best among us and who will rise to the top of a technical career path or a managerial path. Liberal arts subjects such as history, psychology should not be a required part of an engineering program but engineering faculty should promote their study as they teach the technical material. English is the language which enables us to communicate and the best engineer that cannot communicate is just another cog on the shaft. Read well and of many diverse subjects my fellow engineers and prosper. Be safe also.

A lot of good and thoughtful comments from knowledgeable people. I worked nuclear for my entire career both naval and industrial. The main problem with nuclear is the Non-Proliferation Treaty which requires signatories to use nuclear with fission cycles that are not able to make material for nuclear weapons without significant (requiring national resources) effort to reprocess the fuel. Different fuel cycles are able to burn the waste that we now have and get additional energy that is now just sitting in holes in the ground in non-US countries and sited in acres and acres and acres of dry cask repositories in the US. These other cycles would allow the manufacture of weapons material, however. I support nuclear but without a means of eliminating the vast amounts of waste that already exist and a new cycle that produces less waste, we should be cautious. The US government regardless of administration has failed to meet its legally imposed obligation to accept and disposition fuel waste. We should not expect such malfeasance to change. Nuclear power steam plants are not efficient. More waste heat is produced by nuclear plants than any fossil fuel plant therefore nuclear contributes to direct heating of the planet than fossil fuel plants on a per MW basis. To improve the thermodynamic cycle that nuclear uses requires that the heat of the working fluid leaving the reactor to the turbine to be much, much higher. This requires the nuclear core internals to be much, much hotter which is a very very difficult materials problem. Given the difficulty of building a nuclear plant, research into these material improvements is probably not economic. One item we do not see in any studies of the impact of fuel expenditure, energy creation and energy use is the amount of waste heat generated. This is an area where reduction in heating of the world can be improved. Removing carbon and greenhouse pollutants is one aspect that will allow built up heat to exit the world but examining the efficiency of the world aggregate energy cycle to identify where heat addition to the world can be lessened will promote world cooling. I admit I have few ideas as to how to make such happen. My two bits worth. Thanks to all who commented with their ideas.

The writers of the article should be commended for trying to think of a way to get rid of CO2. However, use of fuel sources stored in the Earth will always result in vast amounts of heat being pumped into the world. The most efficient thermal cycles can exceed 50% efficiency but not 60% and are implemented in combined cycle, fossil fueled plants. Please consider this often overlooked fact - every watt of electricity is used, none is stored, all electricity ends up as heat input to the world. So a 1000 MW electric power plant is just a 1000 MW heater making the world warmer. It is just a fortunate condition that we can get 300 to 500 MW for use in our machines, lights, etc., to turn into heat after it has worked for us. The only sources of energy over which we have control that do not add additional heat to the world are solar, wind and hydro. All of these sources of energy are solar based.