Slashdot Mirror

China has today's tech, an enormous brain pool to pick from(statistically, of course), and natural resources. Even if they were 30 years back in tech, they could do it better that the US did with Appollo. Remember, the Appollo guidance computer had less than 40K of memory. (bottom of the page)

It is no secret that they now have good lauch vehicles(or rockets, if you prefer) and supposedly have made copies of the US spacesuits of old, "better than the originals" of course.

The only thing they need is a strong resolve to go there.

I probably won't respond to anything else you say on the politial part of this subthread since what I'm really interested in debating is the global warming part.

Agreed. Anyway, as much as I enjoy this challenging exchange (I do, really), it's probably time to move on. I would just like to say one last thing about the whole Chavez affair. While I agree with you that Latin America government are corrupt in general, that paints only half of the picture, i.e. that businesses in those area also tend to be corrupt. After all, to use an appropriate analogy, it takes two to tango. This is why sticking to due process (and in the case of Venezuela, the constitutional process) is essential, and should be encouraged. In my view Bush failed to encourage the constitutional process because his administration clearly dislikes Chavez. That was a blatant faux-pas on the government's part.

In other words, "Global warming is probably real. But if it isn't, we should act like it is since all it means is that it isn't happening now but will probably happen someday." I can't argue with that logic. If that's the way you see it then we might as well abandon all research--if our actions with or without global warming are the same, there's no reason to research it.

Well, that's not exactly what I meant. What I believe would go more along these lines: "Global warming is probably real. Until we know for sure that it isn't, we should act as if it was in order not to make the situation worse. It just so happens that in changing our habits in order to avert this probable catastrophe, we also solve another problem: our dependence on fossil fuels, which has dire economic and geopolitical consequences. So we kill two birds - or at least one and possible other one - with one stone (to use a non-politically correct saying... :-)

If the satellites and radiosondes for the last 23 (satellites) to 50 (radiosondes) years are showing a slight cooling and the surface record shows heating, the surface measurements are not reliable.

Read the stories again: radiosondes measure atmospheric, not surface, temperatures. In the NASA papers, they clearly show that the difference is not between recorded surface temperatures, but between recorded surface and atmospheric temperatures. The surface indeed is warming up, but the atmosphere is not warming up at the same rate, and parts of it are cooling instead. As I said, this shows that the computer models used to predict atmospheric changes are incorrect, which may mean that global warming is slower than expected (let's hope that's what it means). However, the radiosonde data does not invalidate surface temperature records, because it doesn't measure surface temperatures. The discrepancy is with the expected atmospheric warming and the actual recorded one, which is lower than expected. Thus the question of reliability does not apply to surface temperature measurements (save for the so-called "asphalt effect"), but rather to the computer models used to predict atmospheric changes.

In one section it talks about reducing emissions by 17% while in another part it says that it's emissions have increased by half the rate of growth of the economy.

Actually, the arctile says the country's energy consumption has increased by half the rate of growth of the economy, not its emissions. Those are two different things. Emissions did increase in the first part of the 90s, mind you, but they have been decreasing in the second half. A few more links about a piece of news that was quite underreported in the U.S.:

World Carbon Emissions Fall

Carbon Emissions Data | China

China and Climate Change

And here is an analysis by the US NGO that published the original report. In this analysis the researchers said they cross-examined their data a second time after the Washington Post claimed that China had underreported its actual emission figures while inflating its actual economic growth. The NRDC still found that China had in fact decreased its carbon emissions while enjoying a healthy economic growth. So the two are not irreconcilable, and the "China excuse" is not a valid reason for the U.S. to drop out of Kyoto...unless you are suggesting that americans are somehow less capable at taking on the environmental challenge than the chinese are...

Sure, there will be short-term costs, but these will be quickly recouped, and the goal is quite worthy of those small sacrifices (energetic independence and reducing the likelihood of a probable global warming).

Anyway, that's my opinion. We probably won't be able to see eye to eye on this, but still I respect your position.

Communists! All of them! These are the same kinda people who argue that the Earth is a globe, who pray to that demon Darwin, and who kill our unborn babies! Burn them!

The article you cite is very strange. In one section it talks about reducing emissions by 17% while in another part it says that it's emissions have increased by half the rate of growth of the economy. In other words, their emissions are still increasing, just not increasing as fast as the economy. That'd still be good, but it's curious which is right: Did their emissions decrease 17% or did they increase 18% (which is half the 36% rate of GDP growth?).

These are the kind of inconsistencies that you will constantly find in most of these articles. As the article also mentioned, this information was in rebuttle to President Bush citing the problem of emission exemptions in third world countries. Obviously they had to come back with something to rebut that. The fact is, the article itself says that since the 1980's China's emissions have increased 18%.

Regardless of whether or not they have reduced or increased emissions, the concern of the U.S. remains valid. If you slap emission restrictions on the developed world, the third world WILL pollute more. Whether or not China has done well in the last 5 years or so is irrelevant. If you chase industries out of the industrialized world with emission limits, believe me, past performance will be no indicator of future success.

as well as the fact that the U.S. was and still is the biggest polluter in the world.

We also are the most productive. If you look at it from a per-capita standpoint, UAE pollutes more than the U.S.. If you look at it from a per capita GDP, U.S. falls way down the list. I don't have a link for that because I haven't found that information published; but simply divide carbon emissions by per-capita GDP to get a better idea of how U.S. ranks.

You can't expect the largest, and one of the most efficient economies in the world to be so without polluting. Sure, an American might pollute 20 times as much someone from Sudan, but that American probably also generates 100 times more income (these are examples, I don't have the numbers handy).

I will not dispute that the U.S. is the largest polluter. I will dispute whether that single evaluation matters. You must compare pollution on a per capita GDP basis. Otherwise you are comparing apples to oranges.

Me: We are NOT witnessing an increase in surface temperature. Please explain to me why the satellite and radiosonde records both show global cooling and only the relatively unreliable surface record shows any warming whatsoever?
You: I'd like you to give me your sources on this, I'd be curious to read it.

Sources on what? I believe I already provided a link to the radiosonde/satellite/surface record. But let me give you some links:

NASA: Radiosonde/satellite show cooling, surface record whows warming
Cooling trend found, slight warming due to strong El Niño

I'd like to provide more, but my wife is waiting so I must make this fast. Getting all these links together in one place is why I'm working on a site that will provide all this information quickly and easily without having to go to Google each time.

In fact, the only thing the discrepancy in surface measurments vs. satellite/radiosonde results indicates is that the real atmosphere is more complicated that the computer models we have of it so far (duh!).

Uh, the satellite/radiosonde record not coinciding with surface measurements has nothing to do with computer models. The surface record itself is inaccurate. That is to say, not surprisingly, it is much more accurate to send up electronic radiosondes and calibrated satellites than to depend on thousands of people checking thousands of different stations at thousands of different locations subject to thousands of potential anomolies.

That the computer models are broken isn't even an issue. The fact is, if you feed a working model broken (surface record) data it'll obviously break. If they want to come up with a valid model, they ought to be using valid data--and that would come from the radiosonde/satellite data. And that data shows a slight cooling trend over at least the last 23 years.

I don't doubt that the environmentalists could turn that satellite cooling trend into global warming over the next 50 years though. It's amazing what their models can produce, so leave it to them to take data that shows cooling and somehow conclude that there will be warming and rising sea levels 50 years from now.

it does not by itself substantially alter the expectation that some amount of global warming will occur in the future."

Can you not see the inherent bias? They are saying, "Well, here's data that shows global cooling over the last 23 years. But don't get complacent! That doesn't mean there won't be global warming." The disclaimer itself is telling.

The fact that there is a discrepancy doesn't mean that the surface temperature isn't in fact increasing - the only thing that has been questioned following the discovery of these differences is the computer model used to predict atmospheric changes, not the surface measurements!

Again, you're jumping the gun. We're not talking about computer models that are broken. We're talking about historic surface record data from the last 150 years that is the only record which suggests global warming is occurring--and that record seems to be substantially flawed when compared with what we know to be very accurate measurements of radiosondes and satellites.

If the satellites and radiosondes for the last 23 (satellites) to 50 (radiosondes) years are showing a slight cooling and the surface record shows heating, the surface measurements are not reliable. If the recent surface record over the last 25-50 years isn't even reliable, are we really to believe it was any more reliable 100 or 150 years ago?

I'm not even discussing whether or not the models work or not. I'm saying that even if the models were right, the environmentalists are feeding it bad data--GIGO. If you feed the models corrupt data that shows warming in the last 23 years during a time where satellites have shown that there hasn't been any, what do you expect the models to produce?

which according to NASA does not invalidate the fact that surface temperature are increasing

Please re-read the article and check for yourself what "satellite record" and "surface record" refers to. The satellite record is the temperature of ALL the atmosphere (from the surface on up) as recorded accurately by satellites. The "surface record" refers to measurements made by mini-weather stations around the world subject to individual station-by-station errors, human errors, expanding cities.

It's not a matter of the temperature of the surface. It's a matter of how the temperature was taken. The "surface record" is not reliable.

Even if it is not as bad as we may have thought, that doesn't mean it's not there - it just means we've bought some time to do the right thing.

In other words, "Global warming is probably real. But if it isn't, we should act like it is since all it means is that it isn't happening now but will probably happen someday."

I can't argue with that logic. If that's the way you see it then we might as well abandon all research--if our actions with or without global warming are the same, there's no reason to research it.

Incentives are not at all a way to "force" people. You don't have to follow them.

True, that's why I said they were incentives and not truly "forcing" anyone to do anything.

Let's say it another way. "Incentives" are a way of making a minority (or majority) do something they wouldn't otherwise do because the "majority" (government) thinks it's right.

I'm sure you already have taken up on government-sponsored incentives, wether it's tax breaks for retirement funds, or whatever. So that argument doesn't seem to be getting you anywhere.

Actually, I haven't. I work for myself and instead of getting tax breaks I get hit with unemployment tax. I'm funding someone elses incentives, apparently. Which is why it further pisses me off when they give incentives for something I don't even agree with. They're taking MY money to push ME to do something I don't want to.

Anyway, we're drifting. My real interest is in debating global warming. The whole "how big should government be" is a topic for another thread; and actually a topic I don't usually get into because it's a matter of opinion.

No, but he's not particularly friendly towards the United States and that could affect oil prices. It's a variable the Bush administration could do without, for sure. This is a clear case of national interests.

Perhaps you see it as such. I haven't seen Venezuela much affect oil prices except during the coup itself. Oil prices seem much more sensitive to the middle east, war on terror, demand, etc.

Well, it seems to me that the job of the media should be to report the truth, not try to manipulate public opinion against an elected leader because a single person (the owner) has decided so.

I agree. But what if the truth happens to agree with the owner? Then it's not manipulating, it's just a matter of the owner being right and the truth affecting public opinion, not "manipulating it."

the press covers up the truth and paints a darker picture than there really is, because its owner has a clear (and avowed) political agenda, showing soaps instead of images that would disprove its fabricated editorial line. Is that what you are defending? Because that is the analysis of about every independent media, despite the official Bush administration line.

First, I don't even know the Bush administration line.

Second, have you lived in Latin America? I currently live in Mexico and have for the past 6 years. I can assure you, the type of media you are describing in Venezuela is not unique to Venezuela. It's pretty much the norm for most Latin American countries because the governments are downright corrupt. It's difficult to find anything encouraging to report about any of them. And that's the TRUTH. I live here and can attest to it.

But in this case (and we are talking about a precise case, not some hypothetical future) the people didn't want him out - they demonstrated after the coup, causing it to misfire and fail.

And as such he's back in power and I accept that as much as him being out of power.

it's called voting, and in a democracy - even an grossly imperfect one - it is the only legitimate way to do it.

Let me answer my own question above: It is clear you haven't lived in Latin America and don't have much knowledge about what you're talking about.

That's the basic principle of democracy, and you can't say it doesn't apply when the situation doesn't suit your own interest. That is simply undemocratic, and nothing you have said challenges this argument.

Well, we really have diverged from the global warming debate and I'm not going to put much effort into the political side of this for the reasons mentioned above.

I also want to say that I'm in favor of emocracy 100%. I think it's the greatest thing since capitalism.

That said, having lived in Mexico which is now "moderately" democratic (having finally escaped 60+ years of domination by a single "democratic" party), I can also tell you that there comes a time when it becomes clear to a society that the government is so corrupt and the voting process so fraudulent that the only way to create a democracy is to tear it down and start again.

I truly believe that. So did the founding fathers of my country. Your mileage may vary. :)

I probably won't respond to anything else you say on the politial part of this subthread since what I'm really interested in debating is the global warming part.

15 year to terraform Mars? I think you are a wee bit optimistic. 300 years might be more reasonable. Important things take longer than "one quarter".

And yes, the Martian atmosphere is only about 1% as thick as the Earth's, and is 95% co2.
Mars facts are at: Nasa Mars Facts
More Mars Info

Where its gotten us? NASA has developed a lot of everyday things and lots of technologies that have improved our everyday life. In fact, NASA even publishes annually what your taxpayer dollars are going to here

unless you were being sarcastic, in which case you should completly ignore my comment and shoot me.

If you look at the Kyoto Protocol, it is clear there would have been no positive impact to the environment. None. Since many developing countries--including China and India, which make up 1 of 3 people on this planet--were exempt.

That is conveniently ignoring the fact that China has actually reduced their carbon emissions while developing their economy, as well as the fact that the U.S. was and still is the biggest polluter in the world. That excuse is getting old. It's not China and India that are polluting the planet, it's the U.S. But you're right, Kyoto won't change things, because the U.S. has pulled out of it using the fallacious "China" argument (how convenient) and therefore will keep on poisoning our atmosphere.

We are NOT witnessing an increase in surface temperature. Please explain to me why the satellite and radiosonde records both show global cooling and only the relatively unreliable surface record shows any warming whatsoever?

I'd like you to give me your sources on this, I'd be curious to read it. Meanwhile, it seems not everyone at NASA agrees with you (see also this for an alternate scenario). In fact, the only thing the discrepancy in surface measurments vs. satellite/radiosonde results indicates is that the real atmosphere is more complicated that the computer models we have of it so far (duh!). Still, as this NASA page indicates, "it does not by itself substantially alter the expectation that some amount of global warming will occur in the future." The thing is, satellites and radiosonde measure changes in the atmosphere, not the surface. The fact that there is a discrepancy doesn't mean that the surface temperature isn't in fact increasing - the only thing that has been questioned following the discovery of these differences is the computer model used to predict atmospheric changes, not the surface measurements!

At the risk of repeating myself: yes, we do not have complete, conclusive proof. So I'll be generous to your point of view (which seems to be entirely based on that surface/atmosphere discrepancy, which according to NASA does not invalidate the fact that surface temperature are increasing) and say that it's a 50-50 chance. Now, how much would you be prepared to risk on 50-50 chance? I know I'm not prepared to risk it, and fortunately policymakers are less and less inclined to do so. Sure, there will be some people on the fringe that believe that global warming isn't real, despite the mounting evidence to the contrary (even if the computer models are not quite accurate). Even if it is not as bad as we may have thought, that doesn't mean it's not there - it just means we've bought some time to do the right thing.

"Incentive" is just another way of saying "force." Sure, it's not made law, but taxes or tax breaks are made that essentially push people to do something they would not otherwise do. I'm not a believer in the benevolance nor the superior intelligence of government. I believe in the people.

Well, as faulty as it is, the government is the only representation the people as a whole have. Even if it's imperfect, it's better than nothing! Incentives are not at all a way to "force" people. You don't have to follow them. No one is forcing you. Similarly, when a state puts tax incentives to draw a company to build a new factory, they are not forcing that company in any way. It may choose to go somewhere else instead. Another example: China forces people to have only one child (by punishing those who have more than one). India gives incentives so that people will have only one child. The fact is, a lot of people in India have more than one child, despite the incentives. They are not being forced, and it does not have the same impact. You're just playing on words to try to get out of a losing argument. Give it up.

When someone says "free market" it should be translated to "free people."

What a load of bull! You confuse companies with actual citizens. Case in point: capital is now much more free in its international movement than people are. Markets are freer than populations. You can have a dictatorship that has a free market and prosperous economy. There is absolutely no relationship between the two concepts! Either you're a businessman, or you're being very naive.

My government's job is NOT to herd me like a cow in the direction that someone else has decided my life should take.

No, but it is its job to balance the needs of individuals with the common good. In other words, to limit your freedom so that it does not go against those of others. Political Science 101. But anyway that's not what I was talking about, and you know it. I'm talking about incentives, like any government always use for a variety of purposes. I'm sure you already have taken up on government-sponsored incentives, wether it's tax breaks for retirement funds, or whatever. So that argument doesn't seem to be getting you anywhere.

>Venezuela has the world's third largest oil reserves!

So what? He hadn't stopped shipping oil to the U.S.

No, but he's not particularly friendly towards the United States and that could affect oil prices. It's a variable the Bush administration could do without, for sure. This is a clear case of national interests.

Probably not. That's not the point. Freedom of the press doesn't mean freedom from the owner of the press. It's the right to report whatever needs to be reported.

Well, it seems to me that the job of the media should be to report the truth, not try to manipulate public opinion against an elected leader because a single person (the owner) has decided so. Freedom of the press means freedom of the journalists to write what they think is true - if the journalists are pressured, either by the government or by the owners, into writing something they don't think is true, then the press cannot be said to be free. That's called editorial interference and it is frowned upon in any democratic society. Of course there are always the Op-Ed pages where one can say whatever he wants, as long as it is not slanderous. But we're talking about factual reporting here.

I know the press in Venezuela is controlled by a Chavez opponent. That's a GOOD thing. I'd much rather have a press that reports and criticizes the bad things about the government than just goes along and paints a pretty picture and covers up the truth.

That doesn't seem to be the case, here. Quite the opposite: the press covers up the truth and paints a darker picture than there really is, because its owner has a clear (and avowed) political agenda, showing soaps instead of images that would disprove its fabricated editorial line. Is that what you are defending? Because that is the analysis of about every independent media, despite the official Bush administration line.

But if the people of Venezuela were to decide that they've had enough and that they were going to overthrow their own government, that's their internal problem, as long as no-one external instigated it.

But in this case (and we are talking about a precise case, not some hypothetical future) the people didn't want him out - they demonstrated after the coup, causing it to misfire and fail. And if the people get tired of him they have a way to take him out of office: it's called voting, and in a democracy - even an grossly imperfect one - it is the only legitimate way to do it. The people who organized the coup are part of a well-organized and well-funded minority. They do not represent the will of the majority...and in a democracy, the majority has the final say. Even though it can be wrong, even though it can elect a tyrant (or a Yale drop-out). That's the basic principle of democracy, and you can't say it doesn't apply when the situation doesn't suit your own interest. That is simply undemocratic, and nothing you have said challenges this argument.

If you look at the Kyoto Protocol, it is clear there would have been no positive impact to the environment. None. Since many developing countries--including China and India, which make up 1 of 3 people on this planet--were exempt.

That is conveniently ignoring the fact that China has actually reduced their carbon emissions while developing their economy, as well as the fact that the U.S. was and still is the biggest polluter in the world. That excuse is getting old. It's not China and India that are polluting the planet, it's the U.S. But you're right, Kyoto won't change things, because the U.S. has pulled out of it using the fallacious "China" argument (how convenient) and therefore will keep on poisoning our atmosphere.

We are NOT witnessing an increase in surface temperature. Please explain to me why the satellite and radiosonde records both show global cooling and only the relatively unreliable surface record shows any warming whatsoever?

I'd like you to give me your sources on this, I'd be curious to read it. Meanwhile, it seems not everyone at NASA agrees with you (see also this for an alternate scenario). In fact, the only thing the discrepancy in surface measurments vs. satellite/radiosonde results indicates is that the real atmosphere is more complicated that the computer models we have of it so far (duh!). Still, as this NASA page indicates, "it does not by itself substantially alter the expectation that some amount of global warming will occur in the future." The thing is, satellites and radiosonde measure changes in the atmosphere, not the surface. The fact that there is a discrepancy doesn't mean that the surface temperature isn't in fact increasing - the only thing that has been questioned following the discovery of these differences is the computer model used to predict atmospheric changes, not the surface measurements!

At the risk of repeating myself: yes, we do not have complete, conclusive proof. So I'll be generous to your point of view (which seems to be entirely based on that surface/atmosphere discrepancy, which according to NASA does not invalidate the fact that surface temperature are increasing) and say that it's a 50-50 chance. Now, how much would you be prepared to risk on 50-50 chance? I know I'm not prepared to risk it, and fortunately policymakers are less and less inclined to do so. Sure, there will be some people on the fringe that believe that global warming isn't real, despite the mounting evidence to the contrary (even if the computer models are not quite accurate). Even if it is not as bad as we may have thought, that doesn't mean it's not there - it just means we've bought some time to do the right thing.

"Incentive" is just another way of saying "force." Sure, it's not made law, but taxes or tax breaks are made that essentially push people to do something they would not otherwise do. I'm not a believer in the benevolance nor the superior intelligence of government. I believe in the people.

Well, as faulty as it is, the government is the only representation the people as a whole have. Even if it's imperfect, it's better than nothing! Incentives are not at all a way to "force" people. You don't have to follow them. No one is forcing you. Similarly, when a state puts tax incentives to draw a company to build a new factory, they are not forcing that company in any way. It may choose to go somewhere else instead. Another example: China forces people to have only one child (by punishing those who have more than one). India gives incentives so that people will have only one child. The fact is, a lot of people in India have more than one child, despite the incentives. They are not being forced, and it does not have the same impact. You're just playing on words to try to get out of a losing argument. Give it up.

When someone says "free market" it should be translated to "free people."

What a load of bull! You confuse companies with actual citizens. Case in point: capital is now much more free in its international movement than people are. Markets are freer than populations. You can have a dictatorship that has a free market and prosperous economy. There is absolutely no relationship between the two concepts! Either you're a businessman, or you're being very naive.

My government's job is NOT to herd me like a cow in the direction that someone else has decided my life should take.

No, but it is its job to balance the needs of individuals with the common good. In other words, to limit your freedom so that it does not go against those of others. Political Science 101. But anyway that's not what I was talking about, and you know it. I'm talking about incentives, like any government always use for a variety of purposes. I'm sure you already have taken up on government-sponsored incentives, wether it's tax breaks for retirement funds, or whatever. So that argument doesn't seem to be getting you anywhere.

>Venezuela has the world's third largest oil reserves!

So what? He hadn't stopped shipping oil to the U.S.

No, but he's not particularly friendly towards the United States and that could affect oil prices. It's a variable the Bush administration could do without, for sure. This is a clear case of national interests.

Probably not. That's not the point. Freedom of the press doesn't mean freedom from the owner of the press. It's the right to report whatever needs to be reported.

Well, it seems to me that the job of the media should be to report the truth, not try to manipulate public opinion against an elected leader because a single person (the owner) has decided so. Freedom of the press means freedom of the journalists to write what they think is true - if the journalists are pressured, either by the government or by the owners, into writing something they don't think is true, then the press cannot be said to be free. That's called editorial interference and it is frowned upon in any democratic society. Of course there are always the Op-Ed pages where one can say whatever he wants, as long as it is not slanderous. But we're talking about factual reporting here.

I know the press in Venezuela is controlled by a Chavez opponent. That's a GOOD thing. I'd much rather have a press that reports and criticizes the bad things about the government than just goes along and paints a pretty picture and covers up the truth.

That doesn't seem to be the case, here. Quite the opposite: the press covers up the truth and paints a darker picture than there really is, because its owner has a clear (and avowed) political agenda, showing soaps instead of images that would disprove its fabricated editorial line. Is that what you are defending? Because that is the analysis of about every independent media, despite the official Bush administration line.

But if the people of Venezuela were to decide that they've had enough and that they were going to overthrow their own government, that's their internal problem, as long as no-one external instigated it.

But in this case (and we are talking about a precise case, not some hypothetical future) the people didn't want him out - they demonstrated after the coup, causing it to misfire and fail. And if the people get tired of him they have a way to take him out of office: it's called voting, and in a democracy - even an grossly imperfect one - it is the only legitimate way to do it. The people who organized the coup are part of a well-organized and well-funded minority. They do not represent the will of the majority...and in a democracy, the majority has the final say. Even though it can be wrong, even though it can elect a tyrant (or a Yale drop-out). That's the basic principle of democracy, and you can't say it doesn't apply when the situation doesn't suit your own interest. That is simply undemocratic, and nothing you have said challenges this argument.

If you look at the Kyoto Protocol, it is clear there would have been no positive impact to the environment. None. Since many developing countries--including China and India, which make up 1 of 3 people on this planet--were exempt.

That is conveniently ignoring the fact that China has actually reduced their carbon emissions while developing their economy, as well as the fact that the U.S. was and still is the biggest polluter in the world. That excuse is getting old. It's not China and India that are polluting the planet, it's the U.S. But you're right, Kyoto won't change things, because the U.S. has pulled out of it using the fallacious "China" argument (how convenient) and therefore will keep on poisoning our atmosphere.

We are NOT witnessing an increase in surface temperature. Please explain to me why the satellite and radiosonde records both show global cooling and only the relatively unreliable surface record shows any warming whatsoever?

I'd like you to give me your sources on this, I'd be curious to read it. Meanwhile, it seems not everyone at NASA agrees with you (see also this for an alternate scenario). In fact, the only thing the discrepancy in surface measurments vs. satellite/radiosonde results indicates is that the real atmosphere is more complicated that the computer models we have of it so far (duh!). Still, as this NASA page indicates, "it does not by itself substantially alter the expectation that some amount of global warming will occur in the future." The thing is, satellites and radiosonde measure changes in the atmosphere, not the surface. The fact that there is a discrepancy doesn't mean that the surface temperature isn't in fact increasing - the only thing that has been questioned following the discovery of these differences is the computer model used to predict atmospheric changes, not the surface measurements!

At the risk of repeating myself: yes, we do not have complete, conclusive proof. So I'll be generous to your point of view (which seems to be entirely based on that surface/atmosphere discrepancy, which according to NASA does not invalidate the fact that surface temperature are increasing) and say that it's a 50-50 chance. Now, how much would you be prepared to risk on 50-50 chance? I know I'm not prepared to risk it, and fortunately policymakers are less and less inclined to do so. Sure, there will be some people on the fringe that believe that global warming isn't real, despite the mounting evidence to the contrary (even if the computer models are not quite accurate). Even if it is not as bad as we may have thought, that doesn't mean it's not there - it just means we've bought some time to do the right thing.

"Incentive" is just another way of saying "force." Sure, it's not made law, but taxes or tax breaks are made that essentially push people to do something they would not otherwise do. I'm not a believer in the benevolance nor the superior intelligence of government. I believe in the people.

Well, as faulty as it is, the government is the only representation the people as a whole have. Even if it's imperfect, it's better than nothing! Incentives are not at all a way to "force" people. You don't have to follow them. No one is forcing you. Similarly, when a state puts tax incentives to draw a company to build a new factory, they are not forcing that company in any way. It may choose to go somewhere else instead. Another example: China forces people to have only one child (by punishing those who have more than one). India gives incentives so that people will have only one child. The fact is, a lot of people in India have more than one child, despite the incentives. They are not being forced, and it does not have the same impact. You're just playing on words to try to get out of a losing argument. Give it up.

When someone says "free market" it should be translated to "free people."

What a load of bull! You confuse companies with actual citizens. Case in point: capital is now much more free in its international movement than people are. Markets are freer than populations. You can have a dictatorship that has a free market and prosperous economy. There is absolutely no relationship between the two concepts! Either you're a businessman, or you're being very naive.

My government's job is NOT to herd me like a cow in the direction that someone else has decided my life should take.

No, but it is its job to balance the needs of individuals with the common good. In other words, to limit your freedom so that it does not go against those of others. Political Science 101. But anyway that's not what I was talking about, and you know it. I'm talking about incentives, like any government always use for a variety of purposes. I'm sure you already have taken up on government-sponsored incentives, wether it's tax breaks for retirement funds, or whatever. So that argument doesn't seem to be getting you anywhere.

>Venezuela has the world's third largest oil reserves!

So what? He hadn't stopped shipping oil to the U.S.

No, but he's not particularly friendly towards the United States and that could affect oil prices. It's a variable the Bush administration could do without, for sure. This is a clear case of national interests.

Probably not. That's not the point. Freedom of the press doesn't mean freedom from the owner of the press. It's the right to report whatever needs to be reported.

Well, it seems to me that the job of the media should be to report the truth, not try to manipulate public opinion against an elected leader because a single person (the owner) has decided so. Freedom of the press means freedom of the journalists to write what they think is true - if the journalists are pressured, either by the government or by the owners, into writing something they don't think is true, then the press cannot be said to be free. That's called editorial interference and it is frowned upon in any democratic society. Of course there are always the Op-Ed pages where one can say whatever he wants, as long as it is not slanderous. But we're talking about factual reporting here.

I know the press in Venezuela is controlled by a Chavez opponent. That's a GOOD thing. I'd much rather have a press that reports and criticizes the bad things about the government than just goes along and paints a pretty picture and covers up the truth.

That doesn't seem to be the case, here. Quite the opposite: the press covers up the truth and paints a darker picture than there really is, because its owner has a clear (and avowed) political agenda, showing soaps instead of images that would disprove its fabricated editorial line. Is that what you are defending? Because that is the analysis of about every independent media, despite the official Bush administration line.

But if the people of Venezuela were to decide that they've had enough and that they were going to overthrow their own government, that's their internal problem, as long as no-one external instigated it.

But in this case (and we are talking about a precise case, not some hypothetical future) the people didn't want him out - they demonstrated after the coup, causing it to misfire and fail. And if the people get tired of him they have a way to take him out of office: it's called voting, and in a democracy - even an grossly imperfect one - it is the only legitimate way to do it. The people who organized the coup are part of a well-organized and well-funded minority. They do not represent the will of the majority...and in a democracy, the majority has the final say. Even though it can be wrong, even though it can elect a tyrant (or a Yale drop-out). That's the basic principle of democracy, and you can't say it doesn't apply when the situation doesn't suit your own interest. That is simply undemocratic, and nothing you have said challenges this argument.

If you look at the Kyoto Protocol, it is clear there would have been no positive impact to the environment. None. Since many developing countries--including China and India, which make up 1 of 3 people on this planet--were exempt. It is obvious that polluting industries would just pick up and move to those areas of the world where labor is cheap and they'd be exempt from the Kyoto restrictions. On a global level the pollution would be the same, just in their backyard instead of ours.

Since that obviously doesn't help the environment at all, all we're left with is looking at what we know it will do: It will shift industries, jobs, and wealth from developed countries to developing countries. It doesn't require an economics degree to figure that out.

So... If it's obvious that Kyoto wouldn't have helped the environment but would have led to a redistribution of jobs and wealth on this planet, what could the motivation or goal be? I'll leave that as an excercise for the reader. I don't think it's necessary for me to connect the dots for you...

There is, however, plenty of incentive on the other side to say that global warming is just hogwash.

There is incentive on both sides. I'd say 95% (or more) of all reports on both sides are more political thant science. The best we, the outsiders, can do is look for the data in all reports, look for the biases, and try to make sense out of it.

That said... you responded with two paragraphs to my text: "And considering the satellite record coincides very well with the radiosonde record", but didn't speak to that fact at all. The fact is that the two most accurate methods we have of recording global temperature--satellites and radiosondes--both indicate flat or even slight cooling in the last 23 years. Why is that? And please don't tell me that's big oil bias. That comes from NASA.

However you put it, the truth is we are witnessing an increase in surface temperature (including oceanic temperature).

See above. Until you realize that the most accurate methods for recording global temperature do NOT indicate warming, you will be spinning your wheels and repeating the environmentalist party line.

We are NOT witnessing an increase in surface temperature. Please explain to me why the satellite and radiosonde records both show global cooling and only the relatively unreliable surface record shows any warming whatsoever? Those that push the idea of global warming inevitably ignore the two most accurate temperature records because they are not convenient for their arguement and they haven't been able to discredit them. Discrediting the surface record is much easier since the stations are not equally distributed over the earth, don't exist at sea, are subject to poor record-keeping, are not priorities that are given high importance in many countries, and are subject to the effect of local changes in the environment including the heat islands of cities, trees coming and going, etc..

Not to force people, to give incentive. To lead. To act responsibly for the common good, not the privileges of the oil industry shareholders.

"Incentive" is just another way of saying "force." Sure, it's not made law, but taxes or tax breaks are made that essentially push people to do something they would not otherwise do.

I'm not a believer in the benevolance nor the superior intelligence of government. I believe in the people. When someone says "free market" it should be translated to "free people." I believe that when free people see that alternative energy is worthwhile they will start using it all by themselves. If the government has to push people to do it beforehand with "incentives" it's because the technology isn't mature enough yet. Instead of spending money on the incentives, they should spend money improving the technology so that people will adopt it without the incentives.

My government's job is NOT to herd me like a cow in the direction that someone else has decided my life should take.

The Bush administration's hardly-concealed joy at Chavez' temporary overthrow had nothing to do with freedom of the press. Come on! Venezuela has the world's third largest oil reserves!

So what? He hadn't stopped shipping oil to the U.S.

For your information the press in Venezuela isn't free. It belongs to the richest South American media magnate, who happens to be an outspoken adversary of Chavez.

Oh brother, you think "free" means that the press doesn't belong to someone? The press always belongs to someone. The question is whether or not they have the freedom to print/say/report anything without government approval.

Do you really believe these media have any editorial independence from their owner?

Probably not. That's not the point. Freedom of the press doesn't mean freedom from the owner of the press. It's the right to report whatever needs to be reported. I know the press in Venezuela is controlled by a Chavez opponent. That's a GOOD thing. I'd much rather have a press that reports and criticizes the bad things about the government than just goes along and paints a pretty picture and covers up the truth.

The truth is, the Venezuelan media are just a mouthpiece for a corrupt, greedy business elite, nothing else.

And Chavez is just a mouthpiece for a poor, numeros and uninformed population. He said what he had to say to get elected. Sounded good to uneducated poor people. But he can't deliver. Believe me, if he stays president long enough it'll only be a matter of time until the rest of the country--rich and poor--overthrows him as well.

Populist leaders generally are popular (by definition) until the end of their reign when they are often overthrown by the people that used to love them.

Whether the Bush administration likes Chavez or not is irrelevant. He was elected, and if the people don't want him anymore they can vote him out during the next election.

It's irrelevant in the sense that it's an internal issue. I agree the correct way to get rid of a president is to vote him out or impeach him. But if the people of Venezuela were to decide that they've had enough and that they were going to overthrow their own government, that's their internal problem, as long as no-one external instigated it.

My opinion.

• Changing Global Cloudiness Clouds are visible collections of small particles of water or ice, or both, suspended in the atmosphere. They are one of the most obvious and influential features of Earth's climate system. They are also one of its most variable components.
  
  Aerosols and Climate Change Aerosols are tiny particles suspended in the air. Taken as a whole these particles tend to cool Earth's atmosphere, and are an important factor in global change.
  
  Clouds and Radiation The study of clouds, where they occur, and their characteristics, play a key role in the understanding of climate change. Whether a given cloud will heat or cool the surface of the Earth depends on several factors.

• Changing Global Cloudiness Clouds are visible collections of small particles of water or ice, or both, suspended in the atmosphere. They are one of the most obvious and influential features of Earth's climate system. They are also one of its most variable components.
  
  Aerosols and Climate Change Aerosols are tiny particles suspended in the air. Taken as a whole these particles tend to cool Earth's atmosphere, and are an important factor in global change.
  
  Clouds and Radiation The study of clouds, where they occur, and their characteristics, play a key role in the understanding of climate change. Whether a given cloud will heat or cool the surface of the Earth depends on several factors.

• Changing Global Cloudiness Clouds are visible collections of small particles of water or ice, or both, suspended in the atmosphere. They are one of the most obvious and influential features of Earth's climate system. They are also one of its most variable components.
  
  Aerosols and Climate Change Aerosols are tiny particles suspended in the air. Taken as a whole these particles tend to cool Earth's atmosphere, and are an important factor in global change.
  
  Clouds and Radiation The study of clouds, where they occur, and their characteristics, play a key role in the understanding of climate change. Whether a given cloud will heat or cool the surface of the Earth depends on several factors.

• Changing Global Cloudiness Clouds are visible collections of small particles of water or ice, or both, suspended in the atmosphere. They are one of the most obvious and influential features of Earth's climate system. They are also one of its most variable components.
  
  Aerosols and Climate Change Aerosols are tiny particles suspended in the air. Taken as a whole these particles tend to cool Earth's atmosphere, and are an important factor in global change.
  
  Clouds and Radiation The study of clouds, where they occur, and their characteristics, play a key role in the understanding of climate change. Whether a given cloud will heat or cool the surface of the Earth depends on several factors.

• Changing Global Cloudiness Clouds are visible collections of small particles of water or ice, or both, suspended in the atmosphere. They are one of the most obvious and influential features of Earth's climate system. They are also one of its most variable components.
  
  Aerosols and Climate Change Aerosols are tiny particles suspended in the air. Taken as a whole these particles tend to cool Earth's atmosphere, and are an important factor in global change.
  
  Clouds and Radiation The study of clouds, where they occur, and their characteristics, play a key role in the understanding of climate change. Whether a given cloud will heat or cool the surface of the Earth depends on several factors.

• Changing Global Cloudiness Clouds are visible collections of small particles of water or ice, or both, suspended in the atmosphere. They are one of the most obvious and influential features of Earth's climate system. They are also one of its most variable components.
  
  Aerosols and Climate Change Aerosols are tiny particles suspended in the air. Taken as a whole these particles tend to cool Earth's atmosphere, and are an important factor in global change.
  
  Clouds and Radiation The study of clouds, where they occur, and their characteristics, play a key role in the understanding of climate change. Whether a given cloud will heat or cool the surface of the Earth depends on several factors.

• Changing Global Cloudiness Clouds are visible collections of small particles of water or ice, or both, suspended in the atmosphere. They are one of the most obvious and influential features of Earth's climate system. They are also one of its most variable components.
  
  Aerosols and Climate Change Aerosols are tiny particles suspended in the air. Taken as a whole these particles tend to cool Earth's atmosphere, and are an important factor in global change.
  
  Clouds and Radiation The study of clouds, where they occur, and their characteristics, play a key role in the understanding of climate change. Whether a given cloud will heat or cool the surface of the Earth depends on several factors.

Unfortunately the ocean sailing analogy breaks down: solar sails are not propelled by the solar wind, which is essentially a stream of particles from the sun. Solar sails are propelled by pure light pressure - by photons bouncing off of them.

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/2002/release_2002 _113.html

http://tpf.jpl.nasa.gov

To quote from the former:

The two candidate architectures are:

-- Infrared Interferometer: Multiple small telescopes on a fixed structure or on separated spacecraft flying in precision formation would simulate a much larger, very powerful telescope. The interferometer would utilize a technique called nulling to reduce the starlight by a factor of one million, thus enabling the detection of the very dim infrared emission from the planets.

-- Visible Light Coronagraph: A large optical telescope, with a mirror three to four times bigger and at least 10 times more precise than the Hubble Space Telescope, would collect starlight and the very dim reflected light from the planets. The telescope would have special optics to reduce the starlight by a factor of one billion, thus enabling astronomers to detect the faint planets.

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/releases/2002/release_2002 _113.html

http://tpf.jpl.nasa.gov

To quote from the former:

The two candidate architectures are:

-- Infrared Interferometer: Multiple small telescopes on a fixed structure or on separated spacecraft flying in precision formation would simulate a much larger, very powerful telescope. The interferometer would utilize a technique called nulling to reduce the starlight by a factor of one million, thus enabling the detection of the very dim infrared emission from the planets.

-- Visible Light Coronagraph: A large optical telescope, with a mirror three to four times bigger and at least 10 times more precise than the Hubble Space Telescope, would collect starlight and the very dim reflected light from the planets. The telescope would have special optics to reduce the starlight by a factor of one billion, thus enabling astronomers to detect the faint planets.

Based on the (skimpy) description, couldn't it just as easily have been a Neutron Star fragment or a primordial black hole?

Oh yeah, there is also a cool poster -m

---
http://dubinko.info/blog/

NASA has a bit more on that here.

The most important graph for this question:
"Infrared TPF concepts would use multiple telescopes configured into an interferometer and spread out over a large (30 meter) boom. The telescopes must operate at extremely low temperatures, and the spacecraft would necessarily be much larger. However, the image contrast requirement is much easier at infrared wavelengths -- only a million to one -- and thus the system optical quality is easier to achieve. "

One of my coworkers was a crew chief in the early 90's for a B-52 that was built in 1962. He said, even though the plane may be fourty years old, so many parts (nose, wings, tail, fuselage sections, navcomp, weapons, et cetera) have been replaced over time that the build date of the plane is more like 1980-something.

Every few years, they basically take the plane apart and put it together. Since many of the parts are no longer available from the original manufacturers, the facility that does this work has the ability to build pretty much any needed replacement part from scratch by measuring/analyzing/reverse-engineering the originals. (There was a story linked by /. a few months ago about the Air Force sending a B-52H to OCALC to be refitted and turned over to NASA to replace its B-52B launch aircraft, but I can't seem to locate it.)

Re: Why 486 Upgrade?
Re: Why 486 Upgrade?
Re: Why Intel 486?

Re: Why 486 Upgrade?
Re: Why 486 Upgrade?
Re: Why Intel 486?

Re: Why 486 Upgrade?
Re: Why 486 Upgrade?
Re: Why Intel 486?

So either the contract has expired and the shuttles have exceeded their lifespan, or Intel has broken its contract.

The the "design lifetime" of the shuttle was around 100 flights. Based on this the most of the shuttles have only burned a quarter to a third of their design lifetimes.

On the other hand, the shuttles have been flying for over 20 years, the first flight was in 1981. NASA was, initally at least, anticipating a much higher number of flights per year, in theory this means that they were really expecting to take them out of service during the early to mid-nineties. I remember hearing 15 years as being the expected design lifetime back in the '80's.

I guess you take their pick, depending on how you want to look at it, they're only a quarter of the way through their design lifetime, or they're outlived their design lifetime by five years (possibly more).

In their "Long term research" section, NASA Ames claims to be working on a 10^18 MIPS Babbage-style mechanical computer from nanotubes - perhaps powered by these little nanosprings?

I like the idea of using magnets. If they can do it for rides at six flags, they can use it to launch a vehicle into space.

Gerald Bull who shot to fame as the inventor of the Iraqi Super Gun did a lot of work on constant pressure launch systems - enormous cannons with explosives positioned along the barrel to keep the pressure behind the projectile constant for the full launch length.

Estimated cost to LEO? $1 per pound.

Because the shock was distributed along the acceleration, maximum G force on the load was 40G: fine for food and fuel and most construction supplies.

You can read more about his work at Federation of American Scientists Supergun pages, [2], and at NASA.

There really is more than one way to do it.

I was looking for some info to compare the Buran and US space shuttles, but couldn't find anything easily. We know it's possible to transport US shuttles but I'm not sure about the Buran.

There may be some information available about the Buran's size and weight but I can't find it.

Funny except from that page:

Q. So the two countries with shuttle fleets are the U.S. and Kahzakstan?

A. Pretty much.

There were a few ideas on the go:

• The VentureStar
• The X-30

There are some interesting links here about orbital vehicles and other programs.

The biggest problem is people don't want to pay for it. Most people have no idea the kind of impact the space programs of the world have had on everyday life. Freeze dried foods, powdered drinks, plastics, computers, digital cameras, compsite materials, GPS, cell phones, long distance phone calls, satellite TV... The list goes on and on.

1 1988 Russian Space Shuttle, only 237,986 miles, fully loaded, power steering, power aerobrakes, 4 RD-0120 Rocket Engines, plus 4 boosters using a single single four-chamber RD-170 Kerosene/Liquid Oxygen Rocket Engine.

Priced to move at only $6 million! Buy yours now!

Bzz, wrong, try again. Better yet, check the following links for your own personal intellectual growth:

Corrected Satellite Record still doesn't shown global warming
Ice caps have been melting since last ice age
Satellite record shows no warming in NA, Europe, neither does surface record

I highly recommend the last article. It shows that, among other things:

• Of the 0.9 degrees that the temperature has risen since 1890, 2/3rd of the increase occured before 1940.
• The majority of the the remaining 1/3rd of heating actually occured in 1998, and is attributed to an El Nino effect that year.
• The satellite record and the surface record tend to coincide quite nicely (and show no significant warming, except for above mentioned El Nino) in N. America, Western Europe, and Australia where the surface record is more reliable. Most of the "global warming" is occuring in areas of the world where the surface record is not as reliable, such as S. America, Africa, Asia. That is, the surface temperature record only shows a deviation from the no-warming satellite trend in those areas with unreliable stations.
• Since 1979, there has been no warming except for an El Nino event in 1998. In fact, were it not for the El Nino event there would have been global cooling since 1979.
• There was also global cooling of -0.2C from 1940 to 1975.

The question is not whether or not the earth is warming up, we *know* it is.

Again, wrong. We don't know that. In fact, the evidence disproves your assertion. Please review the above sites, including NASA, which contradict your belief.

The only debate left is what is *causing* it, whether or not it is "natural", and whether or not it is cause for alarm (which is not necessarily the same as whether or not it is natural - even if it turns out to be an entirely naturally-caused warming, if it might harm millions (or billions) of people, we should damn well do something about it anyway).

Again, I stress that the evidence cited above (and available elsewhere if you spend some time in google) shows that global warming is far from proven.

Even if there is global warming, again you make the assumption that it is bad. The earth has warmed and cooled many times in the last 4 billion years. The mini-ice age some 500 years ago cooled things off and, since then, earth has been rebounding to its pre-ice age temperature.

Are we really so arrogant as to believe that we can know whether global warming is bad? Especially if it's naturally occuring, who are we to alter that course just because we are used to things the way they are? Every species has to adapt... We are no exception. If the seas rise, we will move. If the seas fall, we'll extend our beaches. If there is more severe weather we'll build stronger homes.

I think the most important thing here, though, is that you review the above links. You seem to believe that global warming is an undebated fact. While many people have chosen to believe it due to rather one-sided reporting in the media, it is far from proven. Even if you consider some of the sources biased, at least they will balance the other bias you've been reading so far. PLEASE READ THE LINKS.

OK, I was looking at the JPL site, and I must say that this picture is just amazing. The brick is 2.5 Kg, and the aerogel holding it up is 2 g. Just completely amazing, even if the basic technology is years old. Actually, especially because it is so old.

What stars???

usa at night

There are already groups for keeping the night dark.

I think there's satelight photos ( here's a small one) somewhere on nasa of light visible from space, there's a lot of it, especially on the coast cities.

Oh yeah, and Yosemite is nice, but LOT of airplanes fly right over it, kind of annoying/distracting.

I think there's satelight photos ( here's a small one) somewhere on nasa of light visible from space, there's a lot of it, especially on the coast cities.

Oh yeah, and Yosemite is nice, but LOT of airplanes fly right over it, kind of annoying/distracting.

Another (shorter) summary of the issues involved with global warming is this NASA fact sheet: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/GlobalWar ming/

especially the graph on the top of the fifth page which shows the "forcings" - amount of energy gained or lost due to various changes in the environment.

(disclaimer - I worked on the fact sheet)

Another (shorter) summary of the issues involved with global warming is this NASA fact sheet: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/GlobalWar ming/

especially the graph on the top of the fifth page which shows the "forcings" - amount of energy gained or lost due to various changes in the environment.

(disclaimer - I worked on the fact sheet)

I'm not sure how strong the stuff is. It would have to be rather strong to contain the vacuum. Here is some indication, it's supporting a brick.

Well...this is a ridiculously old story and don't know why it came up, but since we're talking about it...here is the home page for the stuff at NASA. The stuff can stand incredible amounts of pressure, but be sure not to try to tear it...it will. And to see the stuff is just cool. I mean this solid just looks like it floats on you. Oh, and it's a rather expensive manufacturing process, which is why it hasn't found use in your home yet...

Well...this is a ridiculously old story and don't know why it came up, but since we're talking about it...here is the home page for the stuff at NASA. The stuff can stand incredible amounts of pressure, but be sure not to try to tear it...it will. And to see the stuff is just cool. I mean this solid just looks like it floats on you. Oh, and it's a rather expensive manufacturing process, which is why it hasn't found use in your home yet...

What I find remarkable about this substance is not so much its density as the fact that it's strong, too.

There's a great image of a block of this stuff supporting a brick 1,000 times its mass.

That strength is all compression; I don't know how it responds to shear, or tension, or if it's flexible.

That's just a challenge to the Materials Science Engineers. Maybe that can make He-gel or H2-gel and get the *solid* material to be lighter than air... at least until gas-diffusion takes over and replaces all of the H2/He with O2. A thin membrane around the outside might even prevent this from happening! I can't wait for (air)floating surfboards and cloud-cities.

take a look at the aerogel photogallery.

40 million cubic foot balloons are the biggest common size used at the National Scientific Balloon Facility in the US, and I believe they're about 130 meters tall when they reach altitude. I don't know how that compares to Nelson's "Column," as they so delicately put it, but that's probably smaller than the Empire State Building.

However, 40 km altitude is no record, the 40 millions can (and do) take a pretty hefty package to 43 km. I guess they're talking about a balloon carrying people. Why anybody would want to do that is beyond me.

I guess this article would give the impression that ballooning is the realm of crazies and crackpots, but high altitude ballooning is a very handy technology. Much science that is done from satellites can be done from balloons for a tiny fraction of the cost.

SOHO, launched over six years ago as a project of international cooperation between the European Space Agency (ESA) and NASA, has discovered more than 420 comets in just under six years. This makes the spacecraft the most prolific comet finder in the history of astronomy. Most of the comets were first spotted by amateurs around the world who downloaded SOHO's real-time images to their home computers. Anyone with Internet access can take part in the hunt for new comets and be a comet discoverer.

A new comet was discovered over the Internet by a Chinese amateur astronomer visiting the website for the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) spacecraft. The comet "C/2002 G3 (SOHO)" was first reported on Friday, April 12, by XingMing Zhou of BoLe city, in the XinJiang province of China, who discovered the comet while watching SOHO real-time images of the Sun on the Internet. The comet is a new comet, not belonging to any known group.

"From September 2000 to now I have been trying to find SOHO comets, and I've discovered 13 comets, one of which, designated '2001U9' and initially cataloged by the SOHO project as 'SOHO-367,' was the brightest one in the last two years," said Zhou, who previously spent more than 1,600 hours since his 1985 graduation scanning the heavens with his 15cm F/5.3 reflector telescope to discover a single comet.

"What's exciting about these near-sun comets is that we are exploring a population of comets that has never been seen before because they are very small and faint," said Douglas Biesecker, a solar physicist with L3 Com Analytics Corporation, Vienna, Va. "By the time their orbits take them close to the Sun so they become bright, they are lost in the Sun's glare and require a space-based coronagraph like that on SOHO to be seen." Biesecker, who is affiliated with the SOHO program at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., confirms potential comet discoveries as they are posted to the SOHO website.

C/2002 G3 (SOHO) will be visible in SOHO's Large Angle and Spectrometric Coronagraph (LASCO) C3 images until Saturday, April 20. The comet was first visible late in the day on Thursday, April 11. It entered the field of view at the bottom edge, almost directly under the Sun. It is moving upward to the left, and will eventually move back toward the right, exiting from the LASCO C3 field of view at the top edge, to the right of the Sun. First cataloged by the SOHO project as "SOHO-422," it has been officially designated C/2002 G3 (SOHO) by the International Astronomical Union.

The comet reached the point closest to the Sun in its orbit on April 17 at about 1:30 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time, at a distance of about 7.6 million miles (12.3 million kilometers). As the week goes on, the comet will move through the field of view more quickly.

In all these images, the shaded disk is a mask in the instrument that blots out direct sunlight, making faint comets and the dim outer atmosphere of the Sun, or the corona, visible. The white circle added within the disk shows the size and position of the visible Sun.

Solar radiation heats the comet, which in turn causes the outgassing of its water molecules and dust. The dust scatters sunlight at visible wavelengths, making the comet bright in LASCO images. The water molecules break down into oxygen and hydrogen atoms, and the hydrogen atoms interact with the coronal plasma (electrified gas that comprises the extended atmosphere of the Sun).

Story from NASA website. Modifications made.

See reference

There's another interesting NASA project where you can mark craters of Mars and other interesting stuff. Clickworkers. You only need a decent browser for that.

you can find a number of really cool (and large!) animations of the Aqua launch and deployment on the Aqua visualizations page. continuing coverage can also be found on Earth Observatory