Slashdot Mirror

The 70-95 GHz range is a critical radio astronomy band. Much of the gas in the Galaxy emits spectral line radiation in this band. See http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/reports/pub9835. Portions are protected in some areas

All we have are some brilliant people constructing climate models that predict that the global average temperature will rise by some non-negligible amount and that according to mathematics in these models greenhouse gases cause this rise.

Then why, might I ask, does the global satallite data, taken after the Pacific Decadial Occilation, show a slight decrese in the global average temperature? Moreover, why is it that most of the computer models seem to be incapable of reproducing the current conditions, reliably, when run against the past century?
Personally, I think that at this point there is nothing but a bit of antecdotal evidence and a lot of screaming, to support the radical changes that are often proposed in order to "save the planet". Sure, I like the idea of making cars emit less CO and NOx, afterall where I live has seen its days of high smog levels. But I don't see the need to abandon our current way of doing things, until we have a really good alternitive.

An increase in CO2 can therefore be assumed to increase the amount of heat trapped by the earths atmosphere, since CO2 has been doing that since the beginning of time.

Then why don't satellites show a net change of external energy input and output over the past 20 years? There are studies which show that no net changes are observed, and other studies which detail that surface temperature changes are not uniform, as you would expect CO2 to be; but rather, may be more due to urban concrete heat sinks and soot. Global warming is happening, and we may indeed be able to do something about it and/or be causing it -- but let's make sure we're addressing the proper issue before jumping into anything.

It is like arguing that an oily beach is a natural phenomenon. It is possible that an oil reserve is exposed to the sea through natural causes (like an undersea earthquake opening a rift), but the hulking remains of the Exxon Valdeze would, for example, make the argument that the cause could have been natural pretty weak, even without 100% irrefutable proof.

Well, natural oil slicks occur all the time, so I suppose what we need to see here is the Exxon Valdeze which links human CO2 production to global warming. At one point in the past, the Gulf of Mexico reached the base of the rocky mountains with help from high global temperatures (see Discover Magazine/May 2002) and without the help of human CO2 production. The Green party folks were certain that human pollution was sending us into another ice age back in the 1970s, and now they're just as certain that the Sky is Falling yet again. Those of use who urge caution are signaled out as ignorant duffs who do not pay attention; e.g. "You're with us or you're against us". Personally, I'd rather see some rational discussion happen over this. I want to see all the side-effects of atmospheric CO2 found. I want to see good reconciliation with satellite data. Most importantly, I want scientists, and not politicians, to draft specific reccomendations after the research has become sufficient.

It is like arguing that an oily beach is a natural phenomenon. It is possible that an oil reserve is exposed to the sea through natural causes (like an undersea earthquake opening a rift), but the hulking remains of the Exxon Valdeze would, for example, make the argument that the cause could have been natural pretty weak, even without 100% irrefutable proof.

Well, natural oil slicks occur all the time, so I suppose what we need to see here is the Exxon Valdeze which links human CO2 production to global warming. At one point in the past, the Gulf of Mexico reached the base of the rocky mountains with help from high global temperatures (see Discover Magazine/May 2002) and without the help of human CO2 production. The Green party folks were certain that human pollution was sending us into another ice age back in the 1970s, and now they're just as certain that the Sky is Falling yet again. Those of use who urge caution are signaled out as ignorant duffs who do not pay attention; e.g. "You're with us or you're against us". Personally, I'd rather see some rational discussion happen over this. I want to see all the side-effects of atmospheric CO2 found. I want to see good reconciliation with satellite data. Most importantly, I want scientists, and not politicians, to draft specific reccomendations after the research has become sufficient.

For evidence try a report from the EPA, thisfrom a committee of the National Research Council which included "11 of the nation's top climate scientists, including seven members of the National Academy of Sciences", and a page written by a NASA scdientist.

This is a direct quote from the EPA volcano link I posted earlier. More sources can be found on this NASA page: Depletion Causes. Apparently the water vapor in the volcanic plume caused much (~99%) of the HCl to coalesce into water/acid droplets or freeze into ice crystals.

Erm, but 540 nm = 540e-9 m = 5.4e-7 m, not 5.4e-10m. So, the frequency of 540 nm wavelength light is about 3e8/5.4e-7 = 5.6e14 Hz = 560 THz.

This is roughly in the middle of visible light (400 to 700 nanometers) so light is indeed about 550 THz.

The article's talking about stuff with a frequency down about 1 THz, though, rather than hundreds of THz (which puts you up near a petahertz).

Most of the drag is caused by the turbulant high pressure boundary layer near the trains skin, you can (in theory) suck this into the tain and eject it out the back to reduce drag. NASA have tested aircraft using this apprach a couple of times, currently using an F-16XL. The problem in aircraft is making the gear to do this light enough to give a net benefit. Personnally I recon 500kph would be enough for now, better to make use of the air (using Wing In Ground effect) to save fuel. Once up to speed stub wings could generate enough lift to keep the train up reducing power consumption (or allowing more power to be used for forward movement)

Actually, from what I've read, studies have shown that societies go through stages in terms of pollution. First, they are primitive. They pollute a lot per person, but most die young from disease, so the net effect is small. Next, they begin to industrialize, and pour soot and ash and other crap all over the place. Finally, they become wealthy enough to begin curtailing their pollution because they are no longer worried about dying at age 35 from starvation or other third-world maladies. E.g., slash-and-burn forestry in the rainforests is because poor people want a decent life, not because McDonald's is raping them for its french fry containers.
The solution to global pollution is global wealth, not Soviet-style top-down repression. Oh, yes, and I agree the jury is still out on global warming; let's get some better computer models; even the experts admit their models are not proven to be reliable yet.
Here're a couple of good link to discussions on this subject:
http://www.spiked-online.com/sections/science/deba tes/kyoto/
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/

Everyone knows that Jovians were gaseous, not solid beings.

And they were called Jupiteranians.

And they were very upset about the cancelling of the TV show "Eight Is Enough," as Dick Van Patten is worshipped as a god by them.

The Jupiteranians, sadly, were all wiped out by the Shoemaker-Levy comet.

A sad, cautionary tale indeed

That is the link to the Astronomy Picture of the day, which has since changed.

The ring of fire can be seen here

Well... almost. ( sorry couldn't resist )

Anyways, a space vehicle can actually be propelled by light alone (no reaction mass needed - Solar sail).

This is due to the fact that light actually exerts pressure on any surface it shines on (altough very little) - thus, the idea is to deploy a big sail in a spaceship (in space, not inside the atmosphere) and use the pressure of solar radiation to propel it.

Due to the fact that the pressure per unit of area is proportional to the intensity of the light (Formulas for the mathematical inclined), a (really powerfull) laser can be used to provide a significant boost to said solar sail, with a much smaller decrease of the radiation intensity versus distance than the one you get from the sun's radiation (ie when the ship gets to Pluto, the Sun's radiation is very weak, while the laser's is still strong).

Just remembered reading a FAQ(Warp Drive, When?) on the Glenn Research Center homepage the other day.
Talks briefly about Gravity Shielding...

If you live in Ontario tomorrow night (2002-06-11) at 21:57 the ISS with docked shuttle will show up in the NorthWest near the horizon and make it's way across the sky in 5 minutes to set in the SouthEast. It will show up near Venus which will also be in the NorthWest. Apparently the shuttle docked with the ISS makes for quite a bright celestial object (twice as luminous as the ISS normally is). According to the editor of Sky News who was speaking about this (and the eclipse) on CBC this afternoon it will be unmistakable (not only due to its movement but also its brightness).

A good tool for tracking the ISS can be found at liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov for those who are interested.

OBEclipse: The moon is in space -- so is the ISS :-)

i saw the full eclipse last year (in bulgaria) and will definitely have my smoked glass for tonight's

You might want to re-think that smoked glass. According to NASA, "Unsafe filters include color film, some non-silver black and white film, medical x-ray films with images on them, smoked glass, photographic neutral density filters and polarizing filters."

Of course if my response doesn't reach you in time, you won't be able to read it anyway.

I always post this, but the best eclipse web site is at http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/eclipse.html

• United States
• Canada
• Mexico
• Asia and the Pacific Ocean

• United States
• Canada
• Mexico
• Asia and the Pacific Ocean

• United States
• Canada
• Mexico
• Asia and the Pacific Ocean

• United States
• Canada
• Mexico
• Asia and the Pacific Ocean

• United States
• Canada
• Mexico
• Asia and the Pacific Ocean

That's not true. There's a total eclipse in December.
Perhaps you mean in the US? Also not true, as one will hit Hawaii in Oct 2004.

That's not true. There's a total eclipse in December.
Perhaps you mean in the US? Also not true, as one will hit Hawaii in Oct 2004.

A rather spectacular image from a 1992 annular eclipse (the name given to this type of eclipse) can be found at APOD today.

A rather spectacular image from a 1992 annular eclipse (the name given to this type of eclipse) can be found at APOD today.

actually some people will have a chance to see the amazing annular eclipse which is much more interesting.

i saw the full eclipse last year (in bulgaria) and will definitely have my smoked glass for tonight's (50% only, where i'm at) eclipse!

Besides, the Enterprise is no longer operational. If my memory is correct, it's become a museum piece in Kennedy Space Center in Florida.

The Enterprise was never operational. It was a test platform. The first shuttle to see service was Columbia in 1981. I still remember waking up early that morning to watch the launch on TV, it doesn't seem like 20 years ago.

BTW, Enterprise is at the Smithsonian now, not Kennedy. See this page for more.

while these articles don't directly touch on the sun's magnetic field affecting climate it does discuss how the sun affects the Earth's energy balance.

Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment
First Paragraph: "Without the Sun, the Earth would be no more than a frozen rock stranded in space. The Sun warms the Earth and makes life possible. Its energy generates clouds, cleanses our water, produces plants, keeps animals and humans warm, and drives ocean currents and thunderstorms. Despite the Sun's importance, scientists have only begun to study it with high precision in recent decades. Prior to 1979, in fact, astronomers and Earth scientists did not even have accurate data on the total amount of energy from the Sun that reaches the Earth's outermost atmosphere. Variable absorption of sunlight by clouds and aerosols prevented researchers from accurately measuring solar radiatio before it strikes the Earth's atmosphere."

Watching the Sun: Measuring Variation in Solar Energy Output to Gauge its Effect on Long-term Climate Change

and a very cool image of a solar storm

while these articles don't directly touch on the sun's magnetic field affecting climate it does discuss how the sun affects the Earth's energy balance.

Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment
First Paragraph: "Without the Sun, the Earth would be no more than a frozen rock stranded in space. The Sun warms the Earth and makes life possible. Its energy generates clouds, cleanses our water, produces plants, keeps animals and humans warm, and drives ocean currents and thunderstorms. Despite the Sun's importance, scientists have only begun to study it with high precision in recent decades. Prior to 1979, in fact, astronomers and Earth scientists did not even have accurate data on the total amount of energy from the Sun that reaches the Earth's outermost atmosphere. Variable absorption of sunlight by clouds and aerosols prevented researchers from accurately measuring solar radiatio before it strikes the Earth's atmosphere."

Watching the Sun: Measuring Variation in Solar Energy Output to Gauge its Effect on Long-term Climate Change

and a very cool image of a solar storm

while these articles don't directly touch on the sun's magnetic field affecting climate it does discuss how the sun affects the Earth's energy balance.

Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment
First Paragraph: "Without the Sun, the Earth would be no more than a frozen rock stranded in space. The Sun warms the Earth and makes life possible. Its energy generates clouds, cleanses our water, produces plants, keeps animals and humans warm, and drives ocean currents and thunderstorms. Despite the Sun's importance, scientists have only begun to study it with high precision in recent decades. Prior to 1979, in fact, astronomers and Earth scientists did not even have accurate data on the total amount of energy from the Sun that reaches the Earth's outermost atmosphere. Variable absorption of sunlight by clouds and aerosols prevented researchers from accurately measuring solar radiatio before it strikes the Earth's atmosphere."

Watching the Sun: Measuring Variation in Solar Energy Output to Gauge its Effect on Long-term Climate Change

and a very cool image of a solar storm

But last I read, the Milky Way was thought to be a bared spiral.
This guy, these guys, and most convincingly, these guys, seem to all agree.

http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/temp/StationLoc.html

In a television interview, she was granting a journalist a formal visit of the Space Station (grounded, in one piece before being dismantled and put to space or a life-sized model, I don't remember), and the jounalist did ask about the possibility of sex in space. She said that serious studies about it have been done but hinted that the only way to have sex in space, is to have one partner tied up

Funny.

Yep.

Incorrect. Hubble was launched by Discovery on STS-31.

However, all such missions (including the last HST maintenance flight) are now handled by Columbia, since she is too heavy to fly to the ISS with any kind of useful payload -- heavier materials were used for her construction -- so the rest of the fleet is tasked for ISS flights while Columbia remains on research duty -- the kind of flight the whole fleet used to fly.

Judith Resnik was cute and single, also a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering. Lost in the Challenger tragedy, alas.

first link should be this

-Isaac

"...the man in the street expects them to be working towards the Starship Enterprise, after all."

What do you mean? Nasa already built the starship Enterprise!

*G*

Nasa has an interseting nanotechnology gallery With some pics and videos of the technology in action

Nearly all of the cool astrophotographs that you'll see from Hubble and elsewhere are false-colored, because the visible spectrum is not any more useful than any of the other spectra (microwave, UV, and IR, to name a few), provided you have the proper equipment to capture all of them.

You can see more cool hubble pics (and other astrophotographs), and learn more about false-coloring of astrophotographs at the Astronomy Picture of the Day page.

Atomic clocks on ISS are a trivial test of relativity compared to Gravity Probe B, hopefully to be launched soon after DECADES of development. A one-pager "GPB for Dummies" is here. GPB tests not for alterations in time but another phenomenon known as "frame dragging" which has never been directly measured. There's been lots of criticism about GPB as being too ambitious, so there's been lots of independent reviews.

Then there's the communications gap. Absolute minimum of, I forget, 20 minutes round trip to get a response from Earth? Going up to 40 minutes? Not >a huuuge gap, but it's there.

It's much less actually, (at least the mininum time).

Min:

54.5 * 10^9 m / 3*10^8 m/s = 181 sec (3.02 min)

Max:

401.3 * 10^9 m /3*10^8 m/s = 1337 sec (22 minutes)

Ref:
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/mar sfact.html

Refuting global warming
You provide evidence that global tropospheric temperatures are decreasing. However, these measurements are actually further evidence of global warming. If the greenhouse effect is trapping heat in the lower atmosphere, less heat makes it back into the upper atmosphere as measured by satellites. Check out this article from the NOAA, especially paragraph 3 (although the whole thing is pretty interesting). Also note the results of a NAS study that examines the data you referenced. They conclude that global surface warming is definitely real and that the satellite data does not invalidate these measurements.

Refuting importance of CO2 compared to H2O in global warming
Your source states that water vapor is a greenhouse gas and that it exists in much greater concentrations than CO2 in the atmosphere. Therefore, global warming should be closely related to an increase in atmospheric water vapor, with the effect of CO2 being negligible. However, if we grant that global surface temperatures are increasing, were are left wondering why atmospheric water vapor is increasing. This document from the WMO explains how CO2 emissions affect the climate by increasing the amount of water vapor in the air. Basically, the CO2 traps a bit of heat near the surface. The warmer air holds more water, and this additional water in turn leads to more warming. The "push" from the CO2 basically changes the planet's water distribution, with more water in the air and less elsewhere. You can consider the CO2 an indirect cause, but it definitely leads to warming. On a related note, here's an interesting article from NASA which suggests that an increasingly moist atmosphere may harm the ozone layer as well. Note the quote in paragraph 7.

Refuting rising sea levels
This article was by far the most entertaining source you provided. I love the part in paragraph 10 where Lord Bumpershoot (or whatever his name was) complains about convicts vandalizing his test equipment. According to your source, the sea level measurements in this area seem to be decreasing. However, consider the observations from the TOPEX/POSEIDON satellite, which uses a radar altimeter to map global sea levels. There appears to be a clear upward trend of about 3 mm/year. Judging from the data, it's apparent that the global mean sea level is increasing.

On a final note, I noticed from your previous posts that you seem to be a Bush supporter. It looks like the Bush administration has reversed its position on the existence of global warming. I'm totally shocked. Are you? :)

why don't we encourage people like this to experiment on other, lifeless planets before messing up this one?

Hmmm, with these people selling Air Force, etc., parts, and NASA looking to buy parts from eBay, maybe these two groups could get together on this! NASA gets the parts they need, and bin Laden or Hussein's cronies don't buy F16 parts.

What about this, fuckwit?

Ever remember the Ozone hole craze? This was supposed to be uneviatable end of
the word and no measure should have been able to fix it in hundred s of years. So
where is the hole?

It's doing quite well, fuckwit. Just because it's not anymore fashionable to write about and you in your amazing ignorance would prefer to pretend it's not there doesn't mean it's any less of a threat.

I would very much like to discuss that.

Refuting global warming
Refuting importance of CO2 compared to H2O in global warming
Refuting rising sea levels

Please give them a read and we'll continue the discussion on those points. I do eagerly await your response.