Slashdot Mirror

Would it cost money? Sure. Then again, one tank of gas for a pickup truck costs $100 right now.

"If these missions are so worthwhile, then why are there only one or two of them?"

There are currently more than a few unmanned NASA space missions;
http://www.nasa.gov/missions/current/index.html

"Point here is that we're chosen a few big projects over many more scientific productive projects, by abandoning economies of scale. It's basic engineering and economics."

There are no small, inexpensive missions to Saturn. Space is hard. Take a look at the rate of success at NASA, and compare it to that of other nations' space programs. It's not that other nations don't see the value in doing them, or that they see an obvious flaw in our approach.

        - JAXA's Akatsuki-Venus mission failed to enter orbit around Venus last year.
        - Russia's Phobos-Grunt mission to Martian satellites failed to even escape Earth's orbit.
        - Russia's resupply mission to ISS exploded less than six minutes after takeoff. (August 2011)
        - ESA's Mars Express mission lost it's Beagle-2 lander. (crashed? nobody knows.)
        - Cassini's Huygens probe (ESA) had a fair number of problems, including, at one point, its spinning in the opposite to intended direction during descent.
        - India's Chandrayaan lunar probe operated for 312 days before failing, rather than its nominal 2-year mission (probably for thermal reasons.)

NASA's record, and particularly on Mars, distinguishes itself from those of all other countrys' space programs.

Is your argument really that NASA is somehow spending more per mission than it could or should? If so, I can assure you, having worked in both, the relative degree of oversite and budgetary controls for NASA is at least an order of magnitude higher than it is for the defense and intelligence communities. And you're getting good money for your tax dollar at NASA, because a lot of the things NASA does simply can't be done anywhere else, at any price. Also there are plenty of people grinding away day and night trying to think of how to do planetary exploration more cheaply. Of that you can be sure.

Is your argument instead that NASA shouldn't be doing planetary science? Because that's kind of in its charter.

Is your argument that you don't get why anyone is doing planetary science? You can say "Eh" all you want, but there is very clearly a scientific community that sees the value in this work. Lots of scientists expatriate from other countries to work in or with NASA, for starters.

Is your argument that we should spend less money on space, and more money on (some other scientific endeavor)? Science is a meritocracy and if you've a great new idea, you should put it forward. But by its very nature, it's hard to know what scientific undertakings will bear fruit.

NASA's budget is about a half of one percent of your federal tax dollar. If your real aim is to slim down the federal budget, NASA is way down in the noise. You ought to start with defense, intelligence, entitlements, and tax evasion - those are the biggies.

Batshit crazy he most certainly is(affordability is everything), however, he did a fantastic job on NASA's Space Shuttle documentary.

I thought the one they posted earlier with the actual NASA scientists/engineers was pretty solid: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/video/index.cfm?id=1090

I see a picture of what I assume is the "worst of the worst" monitoring stations at surfacestations.org compared to a good station. What I don't see is the methodology or the formula for determining the temperature error. You could easily test AC impact by simply setting up a second site and turning off the air, for instance.

I could just as easily make up a formula for error based on the geographic proximity to Narnia (which had a really long winter), but that doesn't mean it would be any more accurate.

Naturally, that sounds snarky, but NOAA already has a formula for compensating for local microclimate effects, what makes this new formula better?

It may be important to note that the "incorrect" graph on the surfacestations website looks different than the one at NASA, which you can view here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=425745000030&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

Of course, it should be obvious that Watts is wrong just by even a rudimentary look at the surface warming trends. Notice where they're strongest, generally? Sparsely populated areas. We're supposed to believe that the extreme warming of Siberian or Canadian tundra is due to a "urban heat island effect" not visible in, for example, New York, Tokyo, London or Los Angeles?

From the press release (didn't you say you read it?):

Other findings include, but are not limited to:

* Poorly sited station trends are adjusted sharply upward, and well sited stations are adjusted upward to match the already-adjusted poor stations.
* Well sited rural stations show a warming nearly three times greater after NOAA adjustment is applied.

To elaborate on the problem, I started reading the "paper" and he's outright misleading right on the first page. He says that siting in peer-reviewed works showed an effect on minimum temperatures but no effect on the mean. The actual papers show a small increase in minimum temperatures, but a much larger *decrease* in maximum temperatures. I'm also noticing in the paper him mixing in peer-reviewed cites with non-peer-reviewed cites without even commenting on the fact that he's doing so, which is a huge no-no.

Basically, his previous work not having shown what he claimed it showed after the peer-reviewed process got ahold of it, he simply changed his formula until it showed a different result. Which will almost certainly get likewise ripped up.

Here's the reality of the situation. The many papers published on the subject of the land record and all of their reviewers are not idiots ignorant of Watts' rogue genius. The issues that he "raises" have been discussed and analyzed for ages. Because of these issues, nobody just takes the raw data and submits it as a result. There are all sorts of calculations to detect biases and compensate for them, and all of these adjustments are analyzed with higher-precision real-world data to see how well they work, as well as cross-correlated with totally different lines of measurement. One study, to pick a random example among many, broke the data down between windy days and calm days, as the urban heat island effect dramatically diminishes on windy days. The calm results were then compared with the windy results to see if they reached the same conclusion.

Of course, it should be obvious that Watts is wrong just by even a rudimentary look at the surface warming trends. Notice where they're strongest, generally? Sparsely populated areas. We're supposed to believe that the extreme warming of Siberian or Canadian tundra is due to a "urban heat island effect" not visible in, for example, New York, Tokyo, London or Los Angeles?

Needless to say, you don't just have to judge based on your eyes; this has been statistically analyzed and published as well.

Attending MSL landing event at NASA Ames is much cheaper as in free, http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/events/2012/ames-curiosity.html

Weather and climate related reports and articles are missing key informations.

Please do your own calculation, cross-references and double check, triple check of numbers and info.

Earth Magnetic Poles shifted 400 Miles in the last 11 years (some 800 miles in last 100 years): real cause for changing weather patterns, not Carbon Dioxide (CO2). North America shifting South. Northern Europe shifting North.

Here are some info:

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Magnetic_Pole

The North Magnetic Pole moves over time due to magnetic changes in the Earth's core.[1] In 2001, it was determined by the Geological Survey of Canada to lie near Ellesmere Island in northern Canada at 81.3ÂN 110.8ÂW. It was situated at 83.1ÂN 117.8ÂW in 2005. In 2009, while still situated within the Canadian Arctic territorial claim at 84.9ÂN 131.0ÂW,[2] it was moving toward Russia at between 34 and 37 mi (55-60 km) per year.[3] As of 2012, the pole is projected to have moved beyond the Canadian Arctic territorial claim to 85.9ÂN 147.0ÂW.

---

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1215_051215_north_pole.html
North Magnetic Pole Is Shifting Rapidly Toward Russia
December 15, 2005

New research shows the pole moving at rapid clipâ"25 miles (40 kilometers) a year.

Over the past century the pole has moved 685 miles (1,100 kilometers) from Arctic Canada toward Siberia, says Joe Stoner, a paleomagnetist at Oregon State University.

---

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/29dec_magneticfield/
Earth's Inconstant Magnetic Field

The pole kept going during the 20th century, north at an average speed of 10 km per year, lately accelerating "to 40 km per year," says Newitt. At this rate it will exit North America and reach Siberia in a few decades.

---

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap020818.html
Astronomy Picture of the Day

Indicated in the above picture is Ellef Ringnes Island, the location of Earth's North Magnetic Pole in 1999.

--- --- ---

Now the reasoning part...

Distance between 2001 and 2012 coordinates of the "Earth magnetic North pole":

81.3ÂN 110.8ÂW (2001)
85.9ÂN 147.0ÂW (2012)

is about 401.9 Miles, or 646.9 Km. That's an average of 36.5 miles per year for the last 11 years. 36.5 miles per year is about 1 mile for every 10 days. Imagine your house moves 1 mile every 10 days, that's quite a distance.

North America is shifted South, a rough estimate from a map, 400 miles is about distance between these cities:

Quebec -- New York city.
New York city -- Atlanta/Savanah.
San Francisco -- San Diego/Tiejuana.

Again, back in 2005, "Over the past century the pole has moved 685 miles (1,100 kilometers)". Which means for 2012, over the past century the Magnetic North Pole would have moved away from Canda and the USA some 800 miles. Which is about the distance of:

Washingon DC -- Fort Lauderdale

When people claim the weather has been the worst on record of the last 50 years, or 100 years, they don't even know that the comparison is invalid. The location they are now in North America is well over 800 miles South of where they were 100 years ago. Comparing such records with a city

Weather and climate related reports and articles are missing key informations.

Please do your own calculation, cross-references and double check, triple check of numbers and info.

Earth Magnetic Poles shifted 400 Miles in the last 11 years (some 800 miles in last 100 years): real cause for changing weather patterns, not Carbon Dioxide (CO2). North America shifting South. Northern Europe shifting North.

Here are some info:

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Magnetic_Pole

The North Magnetic Pole moves over time due to magnetic changes in the Earth's core.[1] In 2001, it was determined by the Geological Survey of Canada to lie near Ellesmere Island in northern Canada at 81.3ÂN 110.8ÂW. It was situated at 83.1ÂN 117.8ÂW in 2005. In 2009, while still situated within the Canadian Arctic territorial claim at 84.9ÂN 131.0ÂW,[2] it was moving toward Russia at between 34 and 37 mi (55-60 km) per year.[3] As of 2012, the pole is projected to have moved beyond the Canadian Arctic territorial claim to 85.9ÂN 147.0ÂW.

---

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1215_051215_north_pole.html
North Magnetic Pole Is Shifting Rapidly Toward Russia
December 15, 2005

New research shows the pole moving at rapid clipâ"25 miles (40 kilometers) a year.

Over the past century the pole has moved 685 miles (1,100 kilometers) from Arctic Canada toward Siberia, says Joe Stoner, a paleomagnetist at Oregon State University.

---

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/29dec_magneticfield/
Earth's Inconstant Magnetic Field

The pole kept going during the 20th century, north at an average speed of 10 km per year, lately accelerating "to 40 km per year," says Newitt. At this rate it will exit North America and reach Siberia in a few decades.

---

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap020818.html
Astronomy Picture of the Day

Indicated in the above picture is Ellef Ringnes Island, the location of Earth's North Magnetic Pole in 1999.

--- --- ---

Now the reasoning part...

Distance between 2001 and 2012 coordinates of the "Earth magnetic North pole":

81.3ÂN 110.8ÂW (2001)
85.9ÂN 147.0ÂW (2012)

is about 401.9 Miles, or 646.9 Km. That's an average of 36.5 miles per year for the last 11 years. 36.5 miles per year is about 1 mile for every 10 days. Imagine your house moves 1 mile every 10 days, that's quite a distance.

North America is shifted South, a rough estimate from a map, 400 miles is about distance between these cities:

Quebec -- New York city.
New York city -- Atlanta/Savanah.
San Francisco -- San Diego/Tiejuana.

Again, back in 2005, "Over the past century the pole has moved 685 miles (1,100 kilometers)". Which means for 2012, over the past century the Magnetic North Pole would have moved away from Canda and the USA some 800 miles. Which is about the distance of:

Washingon DC -- Fort Lauderdale

When people claim the weather has been the worst on record of the last 50 years, or 100 years, they don't even know that the comparison is invalid. The location they are now in North America is well over 800 miles South of where they were 100 years ago. Comparing such records with a city

Weather and climate related reports and articles are missing key informations.

Please do your own calculation, cross-references and double check, triple check of numbers and info.

Earth Magnetic Poles shifted 400 Miles in the last 11 years (some 800 miles in last 100 years): real cause for changing weather patterns, not Carbon Dioxide (CO2). North America shifting South. Northern Europe shifting North.

Here are some info:

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Magnetic_Pole

The North Magnetic Pole moves over time due to magnetic changes in the Earth's core.[1] In 2001, it was determined by the Geological Survey of Canada to lie near Ellesmere Island in northern Canada at 81.3ÂN 110.8ÂW. It was situated at 83.1ÂN 117.8ÂW in 2005. In 2009, while still situated within the Canadian Arctic territorial claim at 84.9ÂN 131.0ÂW,[2] it was moving toward Russia at between 34 and 37 mi (55-60 km) per year.[3] As of 2012, the pole is projected to have moved beyond the Canadian Arctic territorial claim to 85.9ÂN 147.0ÂW.

---

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1215_051215_north_pole.html
North Magnetic Pole Is Shifting Rapidly Toward Russia
December 15, 2005

New research shows the pole moving at rapid clipâ"25 miles (40 kilometers) a year.

Over the past century the pole has moved 685 miles (1,100 kilometers) from Arctic Canada toward Siberia, says Joe Stoner, a paleomagnetist at Oregon State University.

---

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/29dec_magneticfield/
Earth's Inconstant Magnetic Field

The pole kept going during the 20th century, north at an average speed of 10 km per year, lately accelerating "to 40 km per year," says Newitt. At this rate it will exit North America and reach Siberia in a few decades.

---

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap020818.html
Astronomy Picture of the Day

Indicated in the above picture is Ellef Ringnes Island, the location of Earth's North Magnetic Pole in 1999.

--- --- ---

Now the reasoning part...

Distance between 2001 and 2012 coordinates of the "Earth magnetic North pole":

81.3ÂN 110.8ÂW (2001)
85.9ÂN 147.0ÂW (2012)

is about 401.9 Miles, or 646.9 Km. That's an average of 36.5 miles per year for the last 11 years. 36.5 miles per year is about 1 mile for every 10 days. Imagine your house moves 1 mile every 10 days, that's quite a distance.

North America is shifted South, a rough estimate from a map, 400 miles is about distance between these cities:

Quebec -- New York city.
New York city -- Atlanta/Savanah.
San Francisco -- San Diego/Tiejuana.

Again, back in 2005, "Over the past century the pole has moved 685 miles (1,100 kilometers)". Which means for 2012, over the past century the Magnetic North Pole would have moved away from Canda and the USA some 800 miles. Which is about the distance of:

Washingon DC -- Fort Lauderdale

When people claim the weather has been the worst on record of the last 50 years, or 100 years, they don't even know that the comparison is invalid. The location they are now in North America is well over 800 miles South of where they were 100 years ago. Comparing such records with a city

Weather and climate related reports and articles are missing key informations.

Please do your own calculation, cross-references and double check, triple check of numbers and info.

Earth Magnetic Poles shifted 400 Miles in the last 11 years (some 800 miles in last 100 years): real cause for changing weather patterns, not Carbon Dioxide (CO2). North America shifting South. Northern Europe shifting North.

Here are some info:

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Magnetic_Pole

The North Magnetic Pole moves over time due to magnetic changes in the Earth's core.[1] In 2001, it was determined by the Geological Survey of Canada to lie near Ellesmere Island in northern Canada at 81.3ÂN 110.8ÂW. It was situated at 83.1ÂN 117.8ÂW in 2005. In 2009, while still situated within the Canadian Arctic territorial claim at 84.9ÂN 131.0ÂW,[2] it was moving toward Russia at between 34 and 37 mi (55-60 km) per year.[3] As of 2012, the pole is projected to have moved beyond the Canadian Arctic territorial claim to 85.9ÂN 147.0ÂW.

---

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1215_051215_north_pole.html
North Magnetic Pole Is Shifting Rapidly Toward Russia
December 15, 2005

New research shows the pole moving at rapid clipâ"25 miles (40 kilometers) a year.

Over the past century the pole has moved 685 miles (1,100 kilometers) from Arctic Canada toward Siberia, says Joe Stoner, a paleomagnetist at Oregon State University.

---

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/29dec_magneticfield/
Earth's Inconstant Magnetic Field

The pole kept going during the 20th century, north at an average speed of 10 km per year, lately accelerating "to 40 km per year," says Newitt. At this rate it will exit North America and reach Siberia in a few decades.

---

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap020818.html
Astronomy Picture of the Day

Indicated in the above picture is Ellef Ringnes Island, the location of Earth's North Magnetic Pole in 1999.

--- --- ---

Now the reasoning part...

Distance between 2001 and 2012 coordinates of the "Earth magnetic North pole":

81.3ÂN 110.8ÂW (2001)
85.9ÂN 147.0ÂW (2012)

is about 401.9 Miles, or 646.9 Km. That's an average of 36.5 miles per year for the last 11 years. 36.5 miles per year is about 1 mile for every 10 days. Imagine your house moves 1 mile every 10 days, that's quite a distance.

North America is shifted South, a rough estimate from a map, 400 miles is about distance between these cities:

Quebec -- New York city.
New York city -- Atlanta/Savanah.
San Francisco -- San Diego/Tiejuana.

Again, back in 2005, "Over the past century the pole has moved 685 miles (1,100 kilometers)". Which means for 2012, over the past century the Magnetic North Pole would have moved away from Canda and the USA some 800 miles. Which is about the distance of:

Washingon DC -- Fort Lauderdale

When people claim the weather has been the worst on record of the last 50 years, or 100 years, they don't even know that the comparison is invalid. The location they are now in North America is well over 800 miles South of where they were 100 years ago. Comparing such records with a city

I've observed that people who regard themselves as climate science "skeptics" generally insist that one should disregard information provided by web sites run by experienced scientists who have studied the primary literature in depth and have concluded that the scientific consensus on the nature and hazards of global warming is broadly correct. Apparently, in "skeptic speak," having studied the evidence enough to have formed an opinion constitutes being "biased" (presumably, only ignorant people can be "objective"). So sites such as RealClimate, Skeptical Science, Open Mind, the IPCC web site, and the the NASA GISS web site are all out of bounds. Of course the distinguishing feature of climate science "skeptics" is that (unlike the skepticism of successful scientists) their skepticism is quite one-sided, and they become quite credulous when it comes to anything that seems to cast doubt on climate science--so they will happily cite sites like "WUWT."

But I cite SkepticalScience not as a source of opinion (I've already stated my opinion) but because that it is a site that provides good links to published reports that contain the evidence supporting my opinion. Nevertheless, it happens that I've personally reviewed many of the summaries provided on SkepticalScience and have compared them to the primary literature, and I find that SkepticalScience tends to be reliable and accurate, and a fair reflection of the consensus opinion of working climate scientists. This is in dramatic contrast to my experience at WUWT and other "skeptic" sites, where I often find that descriptions of the published literature are highly misleading, sometimes in ways that appear to me to be intentional.

Take a look at the chart they're using vs a google search [google.ca] for the same chart. Why is their chart different than the rest? All the other charts show that real temperatures most closely match Hansen's scenario C, which involved CO2 emissions ceasing to increase past 1990.

And here we see an example of why a site like SkepticalScience is useful, particularly compared to a Google search, which often turns up frequently-repeated misinformation. If you doubt that SkepticalScience is accurately reporting the models, all you have to do is click on the link, and it will take you to the original paper by Hansen. And if you doubt that the GISS data is accurate, you can click on the link, and it will take you to actual GISS data. Moreover, it is quite obvious just from looking at the short term variation of the models that Scenarios B and C diverge only slightly up to the present day, so it is impossible that we could have temperature data that would differentiate between them. However, the question of whether there is any evidence of the warming trend "leveling off" as described in Scenario C (which was calculated for an unrealistically optimistic scenario of CO2 mitigation that does not at all correspond to reality) can be addressed statistically by mathematically subtracting known sources of short term variation, and the answer is "No."

By the way, one way in which real scientific skepticism differs from climate science "skepticism" is that real scientists are skeptical of even their own work, and often acknowledge errors and revise their conclusions in the light of new evidence and better analysis. So, for example, based on subsequent work, it is now generally thought that

I've observed that people who regard themselves as climate science "skeptics" generally insist that one should disregard information provided by web sites run by experienced scientists who have studied the primary literature in depth and have concluded that the scientific consensus on the nature and hazards of global warming is broadly correct. Apparently, in "skeptic speak," having studied the evidence enough to have formed an opinion constitutes being "biased" (presumably, only ignorant people can be "objective"). So sites such as RealClimate, Skeptical Science, Open Mind, the IPCC web site, and the the NASA GISS web site are all out of bounds. Of course the distinguishing feature of climate science "skeptics" is that (unlike the skepticism of successful scientists) their skepticism is quite one-sided, and they become quite credulous when it comes to anything that seems to cast doubt on climate science--so they will happily cite sites like "WUWT."

But I cite SkepticalScience not as a source of opinion (I've already stated my opinion) but because that it is a site that provides good links to published reports that contain the evidence supporting my opinion. Nevertheless, it happens that I've personally reviewed many of the summaries provided on SkepticalScience and have compared them to the primary literature, and I find that SkepticalScience tends to be reliable and accurate, and a fair reflection of the consensus opinion of working climate scientists. This is in dramatic contrast to my experience at WUWT and other "skeptic" sites, where I often find that descriptions of the published literature are highly misleading, sometimes in ways that appear to me to be intentional.

Take a look at the chart they're using vs a google search [google.ca] for the same chart. Why is their chart different than the rest? All the other charts show that real temperatures most closely match Hansen's scenario C, which involved CO2 emissions ceasing to increase past 1990.

And here we see an example of why a site like SkepticalScience is useful, particularly compared to a Google search, which often turns up frequently-repeated misinformation. If you doubt that SkepticalScience is accurately reporting the models, all you have to do is click on the link, and it will take you to the original paper by Hansen. And if you doubt that the GISS data is accurate, you can click on the link, and it will take you to actual GISS data. Moreover, it is quite obvious just from looking at the short term variation of the models that Scenarios B and C diverge only slightly up to the present day, so it is impossible that we could have temperature data that would differentiate between them. However, the question of whether there is any evidence of the warming trend "leveling off" as described in Scenario C (which was calculated for an unrealistically optimistic scenario of CO2 mitigation that does not at all correspond to reality) can be addressed statistically by mathematically subtracting known sources of short term variation, and the answer is "No."

By the way, one way in which real scientific skepticism differs from climate science "skepticism" is that real scientists are skeptical of even their own work, and often acknowledge errors and revise their conclusions in the light of new evidence and better analysis. So, for example, based on subsequent work, it is now generally thought that

I've observed that people who regard themselves as climate science "skeptics" generally insist that one should disregard information provided by web sites run by experienced scientists who have studied the primary literature in depth and have concluded that the scientific consensus on the nature and hazards of global warming is broadly correct. Apparently, in "skeptic speak," having studied the evidence enough to have formed an opinion constitutes being "biased" (presumably, only ignorant people can be "objective"). So sites such as RealClimate, Skeptical Science, Open Mind, the IPCC web site, and the the NASA GISS web site are all out of bounds. Of course the distinguishing feature of climate science "skeptics" is that (unlike the skepticism of successful scientists) their skepticism is quite one-sided, and they become quite credulous when it comes to anything that seems to cast doubt on climate science--so they will happily cite sites like "WUWT."

But I cite SkepticalScience not as a source of opinion (I've already stated my opinion) but because that it is a site that provides good links to published reports that contain the evidence supporting my opinion. Nevertheless, it happens that I've personally reviewed many of the summaries provided on SkepticalScience and have compared them to the primary literature, and I find that SkepticalScience tends to be reliable and accurate, and a fair reflection of the consensus opinion of working climate scientists. This is in dramatic contrast to my experience at WUWT and other "skeptic" sites, where I often find that descriptions of the published literature are highly misleading, sometimes in ways that appear to me to be intentional.

Take a look at the chart they're using vs a google search [google.ca] for the same chart. Why is their chart different than the rest? All the other charts show that real temperatures most closely match Hansen's scenario C, which involved CO2 emissions ceasing to increase past 1990.

And here we see an example of why a site like SkepticalScience is useful, particularly compared to a Google search, which often turns up frequently-repeated misinformation. If you doubt that SkepticalScience is accurately reporting the models, all you have to do is click on the link, and it will take you to the original paper by Hansen. And if you doubt that the GISS data is accurate, you can click on the link, and it will take you to actual GISS data. Moreover, it is quite obvious just from looking at the short term variation of the models that Scenarios B and C diverge only slightly up to the present day, so it is impossible that we could have temperature data that would differentiate between them. However, the question of whether there is any evidence of the warming trend "leveling off" as described in Scenario C (which was calculated for an unrealistically optimistic scenario of CO2 mitigation that does not at all correspond to reality) can be addressed statistically by mathematically subtracting known sources of short term variation, and the answer is "No."

By the way, one way in which real scientific skepticism differs from climate science "skepticism" is that real scientists are skeptical of even their own work, and often acknowledge errors and revise their conclusions in the light of new evidence and better analysis. So, for example, based on subsequent work, it is now generally thought that

I am not going to doubt his word, so it presumably happened, but it is also bullshit. NASA has plenty of rocket research going on. Right now, for example, NASA is testing the J2X rocket for the SLS at Stennis. If you look at the link, you will see considerably better facilities than a hanger in a field.

NASA is a big organization, with lots of parts, and it is certainly conceivable that some center sent somebody inexperienced to see what was going on at Armadillo, but if those were real rocket people, I suspect what they were doing was closer to industrial espionage than to basic education.

How could something like this come out of nothing? And people wonder why evolutionists are considered dumb.

No, they were made by an exploding god. Better not miss communion there. The last dude who did triggered the Big Bang.

You've been warned: http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap030630.html

A larger and heavier aircraft must displace more air and create more lift to sustain flight, compared with small, light aircraft. Therefore, they will create sonic booms stronger and louder than those of smaller, lighter aircraft. The larger and heavier the aircraft, the stronger the shock waves will be.

source

Moreover,

The Air Force has restrictions in place such that sonic booms be produced over water at altitudes above 30,000 feet whenever possible. When impossible, aircraft may only fly at supersonic speeds in specially designated areas as dictated by the Headquarters of the United States Air Force, Washington, D.C., and the FAA.

source

Given enough clean energy, we can always build a plant that will take CO2 from the air, combine it with hydrogen from water, and make hydrocarbons. We can then gasify the hydrocarbons to produce carbon. And pure carbon (as opposed to CO2) we can sequester easily.

Don't believe me? Look out your window. See that plant? No, the living one. That's such a plant. Then the gasification produces charcoal. Or, if you can't get enough of those plants, for this function, they can be replaced.

I'm not sure why you think it's a pro-AGW story,

"Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data. "But if we continue to observe melting events like this in upcoming years, it will be worrisome." Satellites See Unprecedented Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Melt

It actually support natural variability of the climate, not a lot of CO2 released from anthropogenic industrial activity back in 1889; not sure how they got from a melt that happens every 150 years or so to a "Satellites See Unprecedented Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Melt headline, unless NASA doesn't read the articles either.

I see a problem. Although engineers usually have large safety margins, the margin is only relative to the known data at the time. Over 40-60 years, better data points become available which may not have been apparent when the original margin was computed resulting in a much smaller real margin.

The problem: although people can do recomputations for the problem that are obvious to newcomers (a 35yo experienced engineer 60 years later is 95yo consulting engineer long retired or dead), how many built-in assumptions did the original designers make that weren't thought to be critical design issues are now violated by new information? Probably quite a few. How will this likely be addressed? By ignoring this issue because is it too expensive to address.

Your attitude is similar to what was pointed to in the Challenger report, appendix F. To paraphrase: If it is true that if the reliability was so high that it could handle 120 years, it would take an inordinate number of tests to determine it (you would get nothing but a string of perfect results from which no precise figure, other than that the probability is likely more than the number of years so far). But, if the real probability of failure is not so small, similar reactors would show troubles, near failures, and possible actual failures with a reasonable number of trials and standard statistical methods could give a reasonable estimate.

However, sometime people attribute the lack of actual failure as proving the design and "go-with-their-gut" instead of using available statistical methods to do real analysis change the definition of margin to justify their conclusions.

Given the number of reactors is small and we have seen trouble and near failures in some reactors of similar design already (such as the one pointed out by this article), perhaps this estimate is a bit optimistic? Just sayn...

I don't think I have actually seen a case of practical application exceeding ICE efficiency, especially not a in practical size for automotive use.

NASA pursued this in the 70s and 80s for the DOE: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19880002196_1988002196.pdf. The numbers they list for both ICE and Stirling are pretty laughable today but they serve as a reminder of just how much we've improved on engine tech in the past 30 years.

Power density in a Stirling is largely a function of working fluid density - a good chunk of NASA's research work regards how to change that on the fly (as you floored the gas pedal), something that isn't necessary in a series arrangement.

Sputnik invented the Internet.

The first thing I noticed was the shape of the windows. Notice the sharp edges, and the shape. Looking at the windows on modern spacecraft (in this case, this is a part of the Orion MPCV before being welded together, one can see that there is a large support structure around the window, all of which adds a tremendous amount of weight.

An aerodynamic clone of the space shuttle, such as Buran, must retain the shape in it's exactness, or else it will ruin the design without a lot of testing.

If anything, they could do what Boeing is doing with the X-37C, and scale down the shuttle (though it differentiates from the design slightly).

I see a lot of fundamental flaws. Their idea isn't impossible, but they should focus more on copying what's out there in the public domain before trying to improve the cockpit by adding big protruding windows to the cabin, which will make this thing a deathtrap. To keep costs down, nothing new should be added to this spacecraft that hasn't already been tested by a government over and over (the most expensive part of spaceflight). Normally a space system one or two new technologies to it. If one were to be a scaled copy (say a shuttle designed for two people), it could be done for significantly less.

Personally, if I had $10 million to develop a shuttle, I'd clone three SSMEs, make an orbiter that held two people (scale down of the current orbiter), and make it work without Solid Rocket Motors. I'd also make sure to use the new PICA heat shield tiles (the old orbiters only got new tiles if one fell off).

The first thing I noticed was the shape of the windows. Notice the sharp edges, and the shape. Looking at the windows on modern spacecraft (in this case, this is a part of the Orion MPCV before being welded together, one can see that there is a large support structure around the window, all of which adds a tremendous amount of weight.

An aerodynamic clone of the space shuttle, such as Buran, must retain the shape in it's exactness, or else it will ruin the design without a lot of testing.

If anything, they could do what Boeing is doing with the X-37C, and scale down the shuttle (though it differentiates from the design slightly).

I see a lot of fundamental flaws. Their idea isn't impossible, but they should focus more on copying what's out there in the public domain before trying to improve the cockpit by adding big protruding windows to the cabin, which will make this thing a deathtrap. To keep costs down, nothing new should be added to this spacecraft that hasn't already been tested by a government over and over (the most expensive part of spaceflight). Normally a space system one or two new technologies to it. If one were to be a scaled copy (say a shuttle designed for two people), it could be done for significantly less.

Personally, if I had $10 million to develop a shuttle, I'd clone three SSMEs, make an orbiter that held two people (scale down of the current orbiter), and make it work without Solid Rocket Motors. I'd also make sure to use the new PICA heat shield tiles (the old orbiters only got new tiles if one fell off).

SpaceX already managed to do their rockets for like a tenth what the NASA cost models predicted. So there is room to do things a lot cheaper.

Just start at the OGC and OSGeo websites. There are tons of applications. Personally, I think one of the best is actually a NASA project "WorldWind" http://worldwind.arc.nasa.gov/features.html

For Flash/Flex/Air based apps, there is a port of the OpenLayers project called OpenScales http://openscales.org/

Cherry pick your data.

Now, what was it you were saying about being current?

Being current with real s/e degrees from "good schools" is trolling at SlashDot? From an A/C, hah!

Here's the National Solar Observatory in case you missed it: http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/03sep_sunspots/

Here's the National Solar Observatory, in case you missed it: http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/03sep_sunspots/

The glasses are bolted to his skull. Mann cannot remove them. Technically, a prosthetic leg isn't 'medically necessary' either, it's just that a lot of amputees find them more functional (and dignified) than scooting around on the floor.

Do you know what it's called if you grab a guy who is acting like a dick? Assault!

As for taking photographs, what is the threshold there? Is it OK to assault a man using a JORDY

How about those few people using an implant into their visual cortex and a head mounted camera? Shall they be blinded again?

Here is a graphic with Europa. Europa has more water than Earth ("volume 2-3 times the volume of water in Earth's oceans").
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap120524.html

FYI: it wasn't a Mercury capsule, it was Apollo 1. Apart from that, yes it was.

This assumes NASA's #1 priority is manned spaceflight - a premise I do not accept.

From New Horizons to Cassini and Messenger, the amount of non-manned spacecraft visiting Mercury, Saturn, and Pluto to expand our knowledge of the solar system in just this decade has been extensive. (Oh yeah, and the Mars rovers - the asteroid mission, etc. etc.)

He is being a bit of a blowhard to say we've nothing to show for the money NASA has spent.

http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/messenger/main/index.html
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/newhorizons/main/index.html
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/

This assumes NASA's #1 priority is manned spaceflight - a premise I do not accept.

From New Horizons to Cassini and Messenger, the amount of non-manned spacecraft visiting Mercury, Saturn, and Pluto to expand our knowledge of the solar system in just this decade has been extensive. (Oh yeah, and the Mars rovers - the asteroid mission, etc. etc.)

He is being a bit of a blowhard to say we've nothing to show for the money NASA has spent.

http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/messenger/main/index.html
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/newhorizons/main/index.html
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/

This assumes NASA's #1 priority is manned spaceflight - a premise I do not accept.

From New Horizons to Cassini and Messenger, the amount of non-manned spacecraft visiting Mercury, Saturn, and Pluto to expand our knowledge of the solar system in just this decade has been extensive. (Oh yeah, and the Mars rovers - the asteroid mission, etc. etc.)

He is being a bit of a blowhard to say we've nothing to show for the money NASA has spent.

http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/messenger/main/index.html
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/newhorizons/main/index.html
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/

This assumes NASA's #1 priority is manned spaceflight - a premise I do not accept.

From New Horizons to Cassini and Messenger, the amount of non-manned spacecraft visiting Mercury, Saturn, and Pluto to expand our knowledge of the solar system in just this decade has been extensive. (Oh yeah, and the Mars rovers - the asteroid mission, etc. etc.)

He is being a bit of a blowhard to say we've nothing to show for the money NASA has spent.

http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/messenger/main/index.html
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/newhorizons/main/index.html
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/

For thoses who are watching the video. It is at the 6 sec mark in the middle right. http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/Videos/CrewEarthObservationsVideos/myanmar_iss_20120430/myanmar_iss_20120430HD_web.mov

I watched the video, but could not find the still from TFA in it. At what point does the sprite happen?

Never mind! I found it. It's about 4 seconds into the video in the upper right. It flashed by very quickly so it is easy to miss.

I watched the video, but could not find the still from TFA in it. At what point does the sprite happen?

Well, they found water on Mars recently.

I'm not the OP, but he did say "Charles C. Mann, in his excellent book 1493." The "data and logic" you want is in the book that he cited. He didn't pull this out of his ass. Charles C. Mann [might] have pulled it out of his ass. I haven't read the book so can't comment.

Here's the Amazon link. There's even a Kindle edition you can get started reading right now since you're so interested.

http://www.amazon.com/1493-Uncovering-World-Columbus-Created/dp/0307278247/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1342030329&sr=8-1&keywords=1493

And here's a link to an article that discusses the deforestation caused by the Maya that might have led to their downfall.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/06oct_maya/
 

Why do you say the temperature has decreased in the last two decades? Looking at this graph (first one I found on google), http://climate.nasa.gov/news/index.cfm?NewsID=249 it seems pretty clear that it's increased since the 1990's.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=5275

See the yellow over texas?

As if this kind of sensationalistic ignorance is confined to the Higgs discovery. Here is a similar example of a recent article by a NASA "science" writer. I can't even fathom what kind of leap of ignorance it takes to frame the relatively banal topic of connections between the Earth and Sun's magnetic field in terms of sci-fi "portals" (as in wormholes), but there you have it.

Interesting time to talk about Software Defined Radios.

NASA's SCaN Testbed with 3 Software Defined Radios is launching onboard the Japanese HTV-3 Unmanned cargo vehicle in 15 days. (July 21st)

It's an experimental payload that will be bolted to the exterior of the International Space Station and perform communications experiments with the 3 SDR's contained in the payload.

http://spaceflightsystems.grc.nasa.gov/SOPO/SCO/SCaNTestbed/Payload/

> I was always told that space is anything but empty.

It it was empty then why did the tether on the Space Shuttle melt due to electricity? In other words how did the charge build up?

http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wtether.html

Amoy (Min dialect)
"Friends of space, how are you all? Have you eaten yet? Come visit us if you have time."

What would one think of that?

Here's the "scenes": http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/spacecraft/scenes.html

Let's see if I can infringe on the copyright for the calibration circle: O

Amoy (Min dialect)
"Friends of space, how are you all? Have you eaten yet? Come visit us if you have time."

What would one think of that?

Here's the "scenes": http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/spacecraft/scenes.html

Let's see if I can infringe on the copyright for the calibration circle: O

Amoy (Min dialect)
"Friends of space, how are you all? Have you eaten yet? Come visit us if you have time."

What would one think of that?

Here's the "scenes": http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/spacecraft/scenes.html

Let's see if I can infringe on the copyright for the calibration circle: O