Slashdot Mirror

Various commenters have pointed out that they have had unremarkable, or even cool temperatures this year. The warmists reliably respond "weather isn't climate". But you know: enough individual weather data points are climate.

Before you make this comment "troll", consider just one little example:

This year, much of western continental Europe had an unusually cold Spring, from April through June. While individual cooler days are not unusual, this is the first year I have ever had to run the heating in June, because the entire month was cold. This wasn't confined to one town, or even one country - it affected most of Germany, northern France, Switzerland, Austria, etc.. The weather phenomenon was well-explained: the jet stream had an unusually strong north-to-south orientation, bringing cold polar air for most of the Spring.

Why is this important? Because - despite the obviously cold temperatures, over a large region, lasting several weeks, the global climate trends claims that we had an unusually warm Spring. Look, for example, at the GISS site, and ask it for a map for May or June 2016. Note how all of Europe is colored orange (i.e., unusually warm), for both months. This is simply a lie, and can only work because of the way historical temperatures have been artificially adjusted downwards.

Look, the earth is warming. Glaciers are retreating. The lakes and canals that our grandparents skated on? They no longer freeze over. There's no doubt of any of that. Why is it necessary to falsify data, in an attempt to make things look catastrophic? This only serves to destroy the credibility of climate science.

I countered with a wager that by the end of the year the temperatures would be nothing of note.

[...]

I was told that even if the past year was a completely average year that I was not to equate weather with climate. You see, I was told, just because one year produced a completely nominal temperature average world wide that this was not evidence that global warming isn't happening.

What do you consider "nothing of note"? Because we haven't had a 'completely average' year in well over 20 years.

The heat was merely sunk into the ocean to appear in a later year, or something like that. For certain this "hidden" heat that didn't show in air temperatures was still there in water, rocks, or something. I was told that this heat would still result in some major hurricanes in the future, or some other extreme weather events.

Let's look at this again in six months, when we know the entire year's temperatures, before we make claims of global warming. I'd wager that this year, like so many in recent history, will be just as much a nonevent as it was those five or six years ago.

Oh, and where were those Category 5 hurricanes we were supposed to see?

Your co-worker's fuzzy understanding of climate science is only relevant to the discussion if your co-worker is a leading climate scientist.

You should probably start with this specification, unless you're interested in the non-camera instrument data.

If the average is the hottest, show us all the locales where it was the hottest ever. Should be a lot of them.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gist...

Not a single US state was lower than average. Not one. Small parts of two states are equal, and the remaining parts plus all 49 other states are above average.

Only parts of Russia and Antarctica were below average temperatures on the entire planet.
Except you already said "state" so clearly you don't live in either of those locations.

Conclusion: You're a liar and don't care about proof of anything.

Viking lander
2K ROM
2K RAM
Storage was stainless steel, not ferrite, tape, just like the first recorders that Hitler used for speeches. (really).

http://history.nasa.gov/comput...

Seems to me all these are all "computer security has expired! click here to update [and pay money]."

However, multiple warnings lead to "alarm fatigue" i.e. part of a situation that caused a B1 in flight test to crash. Lots of warning lights for low/moderate stuff, crew acknowledge the alarms and proceed on. Then comes CG warning but they didn't pay much attention to it, until the aircraft tilts and stalls. from http://www.nasa.gov/connect/eb...

The code is available here. Papers here. NASA uses station data compiled by NOAA GHCN v3 (meteorological stations), ERSST v4 (ocean areas), and SCAR (Antarctic stations),

According to the Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies "Anyone can download it, run it for themselves and get the answer before we update our website every month."

I find it fucking hilarious that these jackasses are asking for the raw data when it's already available and has been available for years.

Next time some joker whines about raw data the answer will be: "Have you fucking looked?"

The code is available here. Papers here. NASA uses station data compiled by NOAA GHCN v3 (meteorological stations), ERSST v4 (ocean areas), and SCAR (Antarctic stations),

According to the Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies "Anyone can download it, run it for themselves and get the answer before we update our website every month."

I find it fucking hilarious that these jackasses are asking for the raw data when it's already available and has been available for years.

Next time some joker whines about raw data the answer will be: "Have you fucking looked?"

The code is available here. Papers here. NASA uses station data compiled by NOAA GHCN v3 (meteorological stations), ERSST v4 (ocean areas), and SCAR (Antarctic stations),

According to the Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies "Anyone can download it, run it for themselves and get the answer before we update our website every month."

The code is available here. Papers here. NASA uses station data compiled by NOAA GHCN v3 (meteorological stations), ERSST v4 (ocean areas), and SCAR (Antarctic stations),

According to the Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies "Anyone can download it, run it for themselves and get the answer before we update our website every month."

A lot of their material has been online for years:

http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/sear...

I remember the STAR journal from way back when. Monthly publication about 1 inch thick, listed science, technical, and research papers. A paragraph abstract for each paper, cost and where to order. I haven't seen what has become of it. There are sites like this http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/ and this http://www.sti.nasa.gov/ though I haven't gone through them lately. It can be very tedious finding stuff. I remember few years ago when it was pulled offline ("OMG the Chinese are stealing ALL our secrets!") which was a huge setback (basically defeated all what NASA stands for). When I do search through it, I find a lot of esoteric papers of narrow focus.

I remember ordering a couple things from STAR journal in 1970s, most things were incomprehensible for me. Small paper on "What Everyone Should Know About Solving Differential Equations" and "Space Construction Database." The SCD was a whopping 500 page document (not a book but with really long staples) illustrating different space structures carried out by the Space Shuttle with lists of materials and assembly times. One structure was a huge platform that looks like ISS but a communications platform at 23,000 miles GSO. One platform to hold several "satellites" kind of like a mountain top with a hundred repeaters and TV relay stations.

I remember the STAR journal from way back when. Monthly publication about 1 inch thick, listed science, technical, and research papers. A paragraph abstract for each paper, cost and where to order. I haven't seen what has become of it. There are sites like this http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/ and this http://www.sti.nasa.gov/ though I haven't gone through them lately. It can be very tedious finding stuff. I remember few years ago when it was pulled offline ("OMG the Chinese are stealing ALL our secrets!") which was a huge setback (basically defeated all what NASA stands for). When I do search through it, I find a lot of esoteric papers of narrow focus.

I remember ordering a couple things from STAR journal in 1970s, most things were incomprehensible for me. Small paper on "What Everyone Should Know About Solving Differential Equations" and "Space Construction Database." The SCD was a whopping 500 page document (not a book but with really long staples) illustrating different space structures carried out by the Space Shuttle with lists of materials and assembly times. One structure was a huge platform that looks like ISS but a communications platform at 23,000 miles GSO. One platform to hold several "satellites" kind of like a mountain top with a hundred repeaters and TV relay stations.

Except Bigelow papers and the like on aliens and what not.

Links:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Bigelow ranch:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Bigelow and NASA:
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/a...

Other links:
http://www.educatinghumanity.c...
http://beforeitsnews.com/paran...
http://www.michaelleehill.net/...

And that NEVER includes the bias of those making the adjustments, right?

The adjustments are done automatically by software. You can download the GISS sources here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gist... You're kindly invited to point out the bias, or withdraw your accusation.

The difference between weather and climate is basically time.
The hottest year on record is just the last data point of an increasing temperature over time http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gist...
Granted I would like to see a story of "This is the warmest 10 years" or 20, but that kind of news doesn't trigger the newspapers (well not until the numbers are nice and round when we hit 2020)

And there still might be some merit in pointing out this bit of weather since it's the hottest it's been for the last 100+ years. You don't want to over focus at a single data point but if that data point is an outlier it deserves some attention.

"Space age fantasy" drives scientific progress, which makes it hugely important.

https://spinoff.nasa.gov/

The greatest scientific advances of mankind have all come from the various space programs. No, they were not "found in space", they were developed right here on earth because the space programs created a need. Were it not for the space programs pushing science forward, many of the things you take for granted either wouldn't have been developed at all, or would have been developed much later. Stuff like velcro, food preservation, insulation, all kinds of stuff that you use every single day without even thinking about it.

Go read, and learn: https://spinoff.nasa.gov/

"Manned Interstellar fight is where you are very much off. "

Most likely we should probably be concentrating on interplanetary expeditions now, but interstellar trips may not be as far in the future as you think. It is true that we currently do not have the technological wherewithal right now for Star Trek type space flight, but a generation ship is not out of the question. In 1998, NASA launched Deep Space 1. This runs on an ion drive rocket engine generating 1/50th of a pound of thrust. Not much compared to traditional chemical rockets, but it is capable of constant thrust for a very long time. Given sufficient fuel, such an engine is capable of eventually reaching an appreciable fraction of light speed. Here is a link to an article discussing ion drive propulsion and the Deep Space 1 mission: http://science.nasa.gov/scienc...

The summary sucks for plenty of reasons. The original NASA article isn't loaded up with alarmist bullshit. Earth will eventually become as hot as Venus and there will be a runaway greenhouse effect. However, that's extremely unlikely to be due to human activities. The Earth has been significantly warmer in prehistoric times and didn't undergo a runaway greenhouse effect. Carbon dioxide levels have been much higher, but it didn't cause the oceans to evaporate away, either. Humans are likely to eradicate themselves from the planet long before they can make that occur. It will happen as the sun becomes brighter and expands, which will eventually cause the Earth to heat irreversibly and evaporate the oceans. It damages the credibility of climate scientists to attribute ridiculous claims to them, especially when they said nothing of the sort.

Now, any study like this depends on the validity of the model and the assumptions made in its configuration. The manuscript was recently accepted to JGR, but hasn't yet gone through a copy editor. I'm not about to pay Wiley for an article that's still in preparation. Unfortunately, I can't comment on the validity of the model without reading the paper. That's said, the abstract says nothing about human activities causing this on Earth. Please leave alarmist bullshit out of stories. The submitter and the editor who posted it should be ashamed.

Just because it doesn't show up on your Facebook page doesn't mean it it is hidden in bureaucracy. If you have an idea for NASA, here you go:

https://prod.nais.nasa.gov/pub...

If you are just looking for money, here you go:

http://www.grants.gov/

Yeah, it helps to know the system but they bend over backward to make it transparent.

Whoa. I had no idea grants.gov existed before today. I would have bet money that wasn't a real thing.

Still, just because an organization accepts online submissions from the general public, that doesn't mean that anybody is even reading the things, much less that they'll be given serious consideration, much less that they have a hope of competing with the customary incumbents. I have my doubts that the big-time players are even using these channels.

Secure funding from NASA, how do I learn about the opportunity to secure funding, I am sure they advertise it somewhere, and have all sorts of guidelines, but it seems as if they send out invitations only, because it's only the same companies who ever get funding. I think the process to secure government money needs to be more accessible, and not hidden in bureaucracy only a select few can navigate to.

Just because it doesn't show up on your Facebook page doesn't mean it it is hidden in bureaucracy. If you have an idea for NASA, here you go:

https://prod.nais.nasa.gov/pub...

If you are just looking for money, here you go:

http://www.grants.gov/

The same companies seem to get chosen over and over is because they usually have some expertise in that particular area and can show a good reason why NASA should spend the money with them. Yeah, it helps to know the system but they bend over backward to make it transparent.

Just read the RFPs they have out. Write a proposal for any you are qualified to undertake.

"We" are not deforesting. Mostly third world nations are.

Wow. They must have a lot of excess lumber.

Maybe they sell it or something?

I wonder who buys that.

Probably nobody buys the wood that burns up in the Amazon.

Brazil does have a timber industry but that contributes to increased fires. Slash and burn farming techniques also contribute to the problem.

From an interesting article on fire in the Amazon:

Those stories draw attention to how difficult it is to escape the cycle of accidental fire. Logging causes fire; drought causes fire; fire causes fire. With the increasing threat of fire, landholders are reluctant to use their land for anything that might be wiped out by fire or to spend their money on fire prevention measures on their own property when they are just as threatened by their neighbor’s land management decisions.

From Forest to Field: How Fire is Transforming the Amazon

They also had to develop special cameras to go with them then, too.

You know, that's exactly what I thought. But this being slashdot, and me being about 3 days behind on my reading, I expected that someone would have provided the link. Instead of just complaining about the lack of a link. So, here's the link.

Can't you just use several cameras?

I have a Panasonic sub-compact camera with a mixed-light setting that that takes multiple exposures of the same scene and processes them together into one properly exposed image.

In this brief PDF they do mention the innovative part, though without details sadly:

Typically, HDR images are developed using multiple cameras or multiple exposure sequencing. The game changing approach implemented here is to create high-speed HDR video imagery utilizing a single camera without time sequencing.

Camera exposure will instead be controlled at the chip/pixel level and then integrated into a high-speed video camera. The resulting HDR capability will be easier to install and operate within the SSC test stands because the entire system will be contained within a single camera; this is a completely revolutionary and innovative means to generate HDR capability with high-speed video when compared with the labor-intensive steps associated with the careful alignment required when multiple cameras are used to generate similar imaging results.

So it seems they have per-pixel exposure control, rather than a full-frame exposure control.

Not sure how that works, perhaps instead of letting the charge build up on a cell and then read all the cells after time T, they time how long each cell takes to charge, and after a cutoff time T, measure the charge of the remaining cells?

The idea being you use the time-to-saturation as a measure of brightness for over-exposed areas, while the traditional charge level for the well-exposed areas.

First thing that popped into my mind, but then I don't really know the area so yeah... may be a very stupid idea :)

Camera exposure will instead be controlled at the chip/pixel level and then integrated into a high-speed video camera. The resulting HDR capability will be easier to install and operate within the SSC test stands because the entire system will be contained within a single camera; this is a completely revolutionary and innovative means to generate HDR capability with high-speed video when compared with the labor-intensive steps associated with the careful alignment required when multiple cameras are used to generate similar imaging results.

Note that an HDR video camera is not in and of itself particularly "revolutionary and innovative", and there's no indication of how the NASA camera might differ from existing offerings (higher frame rate? better dynamic range? more "scientific-ness!"?). But when fighting for budget the more clickbait one's research generates the easier it is to convince a politician to fund it - so everything becomes "revolutionary." (This is the science and engineering PR version of the music industry's "loudness war.")

Anyway, revolutionary or not, the rocket is big and the pictures are pretty.

"Game Changing Comment Uses Disruptive Technologies Based On Emerging Advances To Bring Revolutionary Full Stack Vacuity To Slashdot."

Space systems engineer here. Overall these are good ideas, but I think the mission sequence and technical details are slightly off:

* Near Earth Asteroids (NEA) are easier to start with. They can be reached entirely with electric propulsion, while landing on the Moon requires chemical propulsion. The latter require about 10 times as much propellant for the same mission velocity. To reach an asteroid you can use the Moon itself for a gravity assist, so the delta-V to reach the well-placed ones is actually lower than reaching the Lunar surface.

* The mass return ratio of an electric tug fetching rock from NEAs is about 200:1 over it's operating life, assuming you mine some of the returned rock for propellant for later trips. Up to 20% of the rock is water and carbon compounds. These can be reformed to oxygen + hydrocarbons, which is high thrust chemical fuel. This fuel can then be used to land on the Moon, or other missions that need the higher thrust levels. 20% x 200:1 means the yield of chemical fuel can be 40:1.

* Processing rock to useful products is best done in open space where you get sunlight 100% of the time. The Lunar surface only averages 50%, and polar craters where ice freezes out get 0%, which is why they are cold enough to trap ice.

* Five out of six discovered NEA are larger than 30 meters in size ( http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/stats/ ), which means their mass is a minimum of 18,000 tons, and ranges much higher depending on composition and size. These are too massive to move, so mining will be a surface-scraping operation at first. Dust and pebbles will be easier to run through the processing equipment. Hollowing out natural asteroids is not a good idea, because most of them are the end result of multiple impacts. They are very likely structurally flawed. Placing smaller pieces in storage lockers *around* fabricated modules can provide radiation shielding and hold pressure more safely.

* Once you have access to the Lunar surface, set up a centrifugal catapult and launch bulk materials into orbit for processing. You want to use both Lunar and NEA raw materials because they have different histories and compositions. Lunar launch, even with 50% sunlight, has much higher mass return ratios and shorter transit times, so you definitely want it as an upgrade.

* Definitely bootstrap mining and processing wherever you go. There are just as many asteroids near a Mars Cycler orbit as near Earth, our home planet is not special in that regard. So a tug can fetch raw rock to your cycling habitat for radiation shielding and later processing. Phobos is a very large resource to mine, and it is likely to have water and carbon compounds (we need to actually visit it to be sure.

* Again, the general idea of bootstrapping mining and production from local materials is very much right. The leverage on not having to bring everything from Earth is huge.

> Well, the thing about a black hole - its main distinguishing feature - is it's black. And the thing about space, the colour of space, your basic space colour, is black. So how are you supposed to see them?

Given that there may several exaquintrillion tonnes of asteroids, planetesimals, rocky planets gas giants, black, brown and red dwarves and even reasonably large stars, roaming around that we are only just beginning to be able to see, a large amount of dark matter may well turn out to be regular matter, just very hard to see.

At 10:56 p.m. EDT Armstrong is ready to plant the first human foot on another world. With more than half a billion people watching on television, he climbs down the ladder and proclaims: "That's one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind."

'One Small Step for Man': Was Neil Armstrong Misquoted?

Short-wave Infrared goes through smoke and fog (cf. this). Then it is just a matter of attenuation, you just have to pump more power.
What is fun is indeed snooping on the communication via the light scattered away from the beam.

I'll tell you the same thing I tell everybody else: Go Read "A people's history of the United States". Read some Gore Vidal too while you're at it. Listen to what Bill Nye tells adults when the kids aren't around. You and people like you are dragging us all down. If that's you're goal (e.g. if you're a shill for the 1%) Bravo Sir, you're doing a fine job. But if you have the slightest bit of human decency in you stop being foolish.

And in rebuttal, I direct you to this link. Some aspects of humanity's enormous progress in the recent past can't be hidden by naked propaganda and fools. Here, the lighting of the night is one of the most noticeable human activities from space. And it depends on growing human wealth. You can't have light without the technology to make light, the considerable infrastructure to manufacture and support those light sources, and the people wealthy enough to have such outdoor light sources.

A video replay of the post Juno orbital insertion briefing is available on nasa.gov/nasatv.

Disclaimer: Requires ustream.tv plugin.

one two

To the real deal. Not some shiity site that makes you answer surveys to read content. https://www.nasa.gov/mission_p...

off topic: You know what's funny, there is nothing more stupider than a theist or a troll, using the sentence Atheist's god. This demonstrate a complete lack of understanding on how atheist think. Or the utter inability to think out of the box and understand that others (be it atheist or ...) can think vastly differently in scope and conclusion. It is really similar to that "you atheist in reality believe in gods/God and you are just angry of them/him" meme which demonstrate an utter inability to really think outside of their religion. /off topic

http://science.nasa.gov/scienc... we already knew the ozone hole was reducing in size. It seems to me the reduction is faster though... ?

JPL gives it magnitude 24 at closest approach, but since it is in a solar orbit similar to Earth's, it only gets that close twice a year. There's a nice animation available at http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.c... (Java required). Just set it for one day incréments and hit ">>" to let it run.

Learn to fucking report. The asteroid orbits the Sun not the Earth. It's not a moon nor satellite. It's best described as a companion because the asteriod and earth follow SIMILAR ORBIT around the sun. Nothing more. Just read the JPL article: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/n... Fuck off CNN.

I looked around for an actual number on the "200 light years" and couldn't find anything. However, I found a calculation hereof 14,600 stars within 100 light years based on calculations from here. BUT this is just a calculation based off average galactic density and not an actual catalog and seems way too high to be accurate. Many astronomers think that F stars might have habitable planets, and the K and M type would work as well...although there is an issue with habitable planets near K and M might be tidally locked so that could really screw up the planet's weather. K and M types also have periodic radiation outbursts; with their planets being closer that would also be bad for life.

Venus is tidally locked to the Sun, and it rotates the opposite direction of all the other planets. Theory is a major impact did this; so that puts comparing it's tilt to Earth and Mars non-comparative. And there is considerable theories that radioactive decay is not enough to explain the total core heat; both radioactive decay AND tidal frictional forces add together. And there is a large difference between "million or billion"; current estimates are that our core won't cool off until long after the Sun is a white dwarf. The axial tilt idea has been verified by hundreds of computer simulations and has been known about for at least few decades now. The core frictional dynamics is far more contested, though.

And their not "statements", but links to sites. If you have a spare $39.99 you can go read the actual paper. Like I said, this is still controversial and even the paper says "we suggest" and "we propose". But as for the axial tilt, even NASA agrees. So, you should show your math and argue with them and not me.

Actually, many NEOs are 'closer' in terms of dV than the moon. LEO to LLO is ~8km/s dV, many LEOs are much less than that - the table above is for round trip dV, by default showing those that are less than 6km/s dV.

I knew Luna is the Latin name for the Moon, but I speak English not Latin. I have never hear anyone say how bright or how beautiful Luna looks. Pink Floyd didn't release and album call "Dark side of Luna" or "Dark side of a moon". How about NASA, you know, the guys who have actually been there? They do tend to be more precise usually referring to it as the Earth's Moon though are rather flexible about Moon vs moon. They mention lunar but not Luna. Even their URL has moon, not luna, http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/pl....

Basically I see no 'real' problem with my post, However, I'm reasonable, no need for descent. I will continue to call it the Moon and you can call it Luna and I'm sure other Slashdot readers will have own idea what it should be called.

For interest's sake, the idea of a crushable hhoneycomb landing leg arrangement was used for the Apollo Lumar Modules. It was very light as it only needed to be used once, unlike a hydraulic or spring system.
Have a look at page 6 of the LM Structures document at http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a...

So? If a technology works, you keep using it.

Don't fix what isn't broken.

At any rate, these are not the spot-welded honeycombs of the Apollo days. I would wager that that they are extruded aluminum honeycombs.

Allowing an anonymous login for an FTP server is tantamount to putting up a sign which says "take the files". If you don't understand why, just follow this link. If you did, in fact, follow that link, congratulations: you just downloaded a file from an FTP server using an anonymous login. It's such an accepted thing that your web browser just did that process for you without bothering to ask if you were okay with it. You've now done the same thing he was accused of doing without even knowing you were doing it.

Putting files on a public FTP server with an anonymous login is exactly the same as putting those files on a public HTTP server without requiring user credentials. The only difference is which protocol is being used.

For interest's sake, the idea of a crushable hhoneycomb landing leg arrangement was used for the Apollo Lumar Modules. It was very light as it only needed to be used once, unlike a hydraulic or spring system. Have a look at page 6 of the LM Structures document at http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a...

The link I posted was specifically to debunk BS like the graph you posted. You can't just draw a line on a chart, call it "reality", and let that be that. Here's actual reality. Over 0.8 degrees since 1976, not 0.2.

Your Nature links demonstrate your complete lack of understanding of the topic. The second article, first off, is about the northern hemisphere. Are you under the impression that the northern hemisphere is the entire planet? Secondly, the article is about precipitation, not temperature, so I don't think you even read it. Concerning both of them: there are literally tens of thousands of climate papers out there. You may feel smug by handpicking the few contrarian ones, but that's not how actual science works.

Well, thats the "secret" part - using a 70 km snorkel to get the oxygen! You can see it in the picture here at the end of the long yellow air tube

(or you can go by NASA's press release that says 100,000 *feet* or very roughly 27.8 km not 278 km)

NASA will send you a txt message on the days that the ISS will be passing overhead at dawn or dusk.
It's way cool to actually see it going over and to think about the people up there.
https://spotthestation.nasa.go...

But this is my favorite. It's downward looking webcams from the ISS.

http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/HDEV/

NASA will send you a txt message on the days that the ISS will be passing overhead at dawn or dusk.
It's way cool to actually see it going over and to think about the people up there.
https://spotthestation.nasa.go...

But this is my favorite. It's downward looking webcams from the ISS.

http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/HDEV/