Slashdot Mirror

globally this decade has been warmer
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121/ ( I know, this link is used bloody everywhere in this discussion - but noone seems to care to read it)

"There has been an uptrend that is not significant" is more properly interpretable as "there has been no warming" than anything else.

Actually, no. "There has been no warming" is a positive statement, one that would need its own significance test. "No significant trend" means "the data over the last 14 years, taken in isolation, cannot provide conclusive evidence for or against warming." Which is quite different.

Now if you look in the previous record, you see that 14 years is simply too short a range to reliably detect significant trends, even when they are really there (as verified by using longer timespans). That's what Jones says in the bits you conveniently left out.

If the record was such that 14 years trend could predictably detect trends, then the absence of a significant trend in the last 14 years would be evidence against GW. Since they can't, it isn't. OK?

Now if the last 14 years' data cannot speak conclusively for or against GW, we need to ask the second best question, namely relative likelihood: given the recent record, even though no hypothesis reaches significance level, which is more likely than the other - warming, or no warming ? The "nearly-significant uptrend" is a coded way of saying that, even over the last 14 years alone, warming is "more likely" than non-warming, in the sense that if there was no warming going on, there would only be about 1 chance in 9 of getting similar or more extreme results.

If we add in prior knowledge, the overall long-term data says that warming is going on. The last 14 years of data, alone, cannot prove it, but they support previous data, rather than contradicting it, as you seem to imply.

tl;dr: "no significant trend over last 14 years" doesn't mean "no warming", it means "14 data points is not enough to establish significance in trends for noisy timeseries" (duh!).

And natural sinks absorb 98.8% of the CO2 that is emitted into the air. It's that extra 1.2% that it doesn't absorb that's the problem. You should read up on the Carbon Cycle. You'd find that the oceans absorb more CO2 than plants. Also, some plants do better under increased CO2, others do worse. For instance rice can lose up to 30% of its protein under high CO2 conditions.

CO2 is a positive feedback. Coming out of ice ages changes in the Earths orbit caused warming to start but the CO2 released because of the warming served as a positive feedback that caused the interglacial periods to be warmer than they otherwise would have been without the effect. The science doesn't work without CO2 considered no matter where you look in the Earths history.

I don't know why you would expect wild swings in the proxy records. Do you think positive feedback always results in a runaway situation? No. Each increment in CO2 level in the atmosphere warms a bit less than the previous increment so it eventually peters out.

Doesn't seem that way.

In fact, 1934 was colder than 1932 or 1936.

Why would the net loss in volume more than double from 22 cu mi per year to 53 cu mi per year in recent years? Could perhaps the globe be not only warming, but warming at a rapidly increasing rate? Could this be why Antarctic ice is also melting at an increasing rate?

So what if 31k people are too stupid to read a simple graph? They expect to be taken seriously just because they claim to be "scientists"? Let them do some science and then I'll listen. Ignorance and prejudice masquerading as skepticism does not impress me.

And all the recorded historical data proves these to be facts, right?

Yes.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121/

Sorry, I mis-remembered: 2009 is the second warmest year on-record. 2000-2009 is still the warmest decade.

Is that with or without the data from the Siberian weather stations? Seems that all the cold spots have been omitted in some of the recent data sets. Is your source one of them?

Here is what I got from the article:

To conduct its analysis, GISS uses publicly available data from three sources: weather data from more than a thousand meteorological stations around the world; satellite observations of sea surface temperature; and Antarctic research station measurements. These three data sets are loaded into a computer program, which is available for public download from the GISS website. The program calculates trends in temperature anomalies — not absolute temperatures — but changes relative to the average temperature for the same month during the period of 1951-1980.

So... how can they claim that it's the warmest record in history when the control data set only includes data from 1951-1980? Why does Antarctica, which takes up only a small fraction of the earth's surface make up 1/3 of the report? Why not the arctic? And again, is this from the dataset where monitoring stations were mysteriously moved when they shouldn't have been, not moved when they should have been (like when a parking lot is build where the monitor stands), or omitted altogether, like was the case in Siberia.

In other words, the raw has been tampered with.

The thickness of the Antarctic ice is also decreasing. In fact, the rate of melting is increasing.

The hypothesis of AGW does not say that only human activity can cause warming. In the past, the cooling and warming were natural, caused by changes in the Earth's orbit. Right now, most warming seems to be due to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.

You are correct that there is no "right" temperature for the Earth, but if the Earth warms up by several more degrees and the sea level rises by several meters, trillions of dollars of wealth will be lost as coastal urban areas are inundated by the ocean. The fact is that it is economically advantageous for us to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

Asphalt parking lots would not make the Arctic ice and Antarctic ice melt.

2009 was the hottest year on record? Huh. News to me, I have heard otherwise. Not locally or nationally, but globally.

Here you go:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121/

Ok, but 2009 wasn't and 2000-2009 wasn't. Don't believe me

Ok, I won't:

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121/

And all the recorded historical data proves these to be facts, right?

Yes.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121/

Sorry, I mis-remembered: 2009 is the second warmest year on-record. 2000-2009 is still the warmest decade.

One question for the warmers reading. Can the theory of AGW be falsified?

Of course it can. It wouldn't be a valid scientific hypothesis if it couldn't be falsified. If the global average temperature decreases or stabilizes over the timescale of decades, even as the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere continues to increase, that would invalidate the notion that increased carbon dioxide causes significant warming. If the Arctic ice and Antarctic ice stop melting, that would show that the warming has stopped. It should be trivial to falsify, if it is false. If it cannot be falsified, that that means the hypothesis has been confirmed.

If Phobos has ice under its surface the next 50 years will be very interesting. A mission to mars orbit with ISRU would suddenly look feasible.

For sale: One Death Star. Full size. Somewhat lumpy. Amateur construction. Needs work.

That's just an early engineering prototype. The production model came out looking much better.

What matters in science is not what someone with a fancy degree says. What matters is what evidence is provided. I have seen a few climatologists say that the Earth is not warming, but I do not accept that statement because the evidence is that the oceans are warming, and the Arctic ice and Antarctic ice are melting. I have seen some people say that human activities are not increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but the Keeling curve and the ratio of carbon isotopes show that the increase is due to burning fossil fuels.

Science is not a matter of he said, she said. It is about evidence. If you have some evidence to back up your claims, providing it would be far more convincing than an appeal to authority.

No. "Houston, Tranquillity Base here. The Eagle has landed."

"Roger, Tranquillity, we copy you on the ground. You got a bunch of guys about to turn blue, we're breathing again. Thanks a lot."

Transcript

Obligatory xkcd ref.

Well, if you want to disregard what the Wegman Report says, that's up to you.

The cheaper ones tend to report *cooler* temperatures than the more expensive, standalone sensors. So the "urban" stations actually show *less* global warming if averaged in a naive approach.

This is only true if there are no adjustments made to the temperature reading AND the "cooler" temperature is greater than the heating effect. If these aren't true, then obviously it would depend on the amount of the adjustment and amount of error in the reading.

2) There's a *lot* more than 4 stations in most regions which have correlated temperature anomalies. In the US, generally dozens.

You know very well that the # wasn't significant in the argument. It's fine to eliminate grossly incorrect readings this way. It's another thing entirely to adjust a good reading because the surrounding stations have more error.

3) The heat island effect *is* cancelled algorithmically, and this is verified by, among other things, comparing calm and windy days.

You have a remarkable confidence that this algorithm is very accurate. You can read the conclusion of here and see there are reasons to believe there are deficiencies in the algorithm. Even comparing calm/windy days will be influenced by the location of the unit (walls close by) and topological influences.

For something that is supposedly "validated", we are seeing an awful lot of instances of incorrect usage.

Yes, by people like Watts.

Proof by Innuendo. There's science for you. Are you actually trying to argue that algorithms are better than calibration?

1) This, this, and this.

er, ok. These graphs tell me the world is warmer than it was than the Little Ice Age. If you assume all this is due to CO2 (ie there is no solar forcing), one would expect and .2-.5degC if the CO2 level reached 2x pre-industrial levels (560ppm) assuming this guy did his math right.

2) Since when do you trust Phil Jones?

I don't trust EITHER side in this debate. I note that it is more significant if a proponent of AGW says there's no warming just as if a detractor of AGW says that there is warming.

3) Phil Jones is one climate scientist among several thousand. He is not the god of climate science.

Please. Saying he's just one climate scientist is like saying Joe Biden is just another government employee. It's being disingenuous. It would be much more difficult to make the AGW case if you took his work out of the picture.

4) Wrong. Jones says that there is a +0.12C warming trend for that time, but it's not long enough to be statistically significant. And he's right.

Sorry. I stand corrected. It was for the period Jan 2002-present with the -.12C.

It's idiotic how so many people keep trying to read trends into a couple years of extremely noisy data.

I have NO idea what YOU consider a trend when I wrote the question which is why I asked. Forgive me for not being psychic. Jones uses the word "trend" to talk about Jan 2002- (see question C)

Or for that matter did they not think to try testing the actual module on the ground prior to launch?

Lead ISS Flight Director Bob Dempsey was asked that during the most recent mission update briefing. (He discusses the problem in his initial remarks at 5:00, and answers the fit test question at 12:50.) He replied, "The main reason is the Center Disk Cover that we are installing was on orbit for many years before it could be fit checked on the module. Similar Disk Covers were fit into the module, but not the actual flight hardware, and not exactly in the configuration with the Cupola mated to the Node 3 as well." He later said that "every Center Disc Cover is a little bit different" (while discussing the Cupola relocation at 17:15) but didn't elaborate on it any further.

ISS commander Jeffrey Williams removed two bolts from a Cupola handrail mount which gave just enough clearance to install the center disc cover, but at the time of the briefing the ground engineers were still determining if the clearance was sufficient to proceeded with the relocation of the Cupola to the Node 3 nadir port, or if they should remove additional pieces and delay the relocation by a day. They eventually decide to go ahead with the relocation as is, and shuttle pilot Col. Terry Virts and lead robotics mission specialist Capt. Kathryn Hire will be relocating it in a couple of hours.

Watch it all live on NASA TV.

Even if this gets modded up to +5, it's going to be buried under a dozen pointless and irrelevant posts about imperial vs. metric ...

From the ISS Flight Director briefing on NASA TV at 1:30pm today:
http://www.space-multimedia.nl.eu.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5693:sts-130-iss-flight-director-update-fd-7-8&catid=1:latest
[transcribing] "Crew was able to use their eyes and hands and gave good info on interference along with photos, Jeff has had a lot of hands on the hardware and he's given us the best info. His info allowed us to validate what he's seeing with our records on the ground. Actual interference is just a bolthead, that caused us to question our clearance analysis. We went back and looked at it since we don't want clearance issue when we install Cupola on nadir, and found that we have more clearance than originally expected."

From the Flight Day 8 "execute package" sent up around 3pm to the Endeavour astronauts:
( http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/426345main_FD08.pdf )
"Because of your excellent work in checking interferences, we are now comfortable with
proceeding with cupola depress and relocate today!!! Thanks so much!!!"

From the NASA TV schedule, Tuesday:
CUPOLA MLI REMOVAL 10:39 PM EST / 03:39 UTC

After that the windows can be opened, which is what we're all waiting for!

After further analysis of the center disk cover interference issue, the teams determined that there wasn't an issue with relocating the cupola. The crew will spend time today preparing the cupola for its relocation. Source: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/main/index.html

What is your point? That a meteorologist or a computer programmer cannot in any circumstances prove a climatologist wrong? They can't say the the use of statistics in the model is flawed, or there is a coding error in the model? I didn't realize that climatologists were born perfect.

Obligatory xkcd ref.

This is one of the dumber statements I've seen in this discussion. Suppose you have 4 stations in a geographic area. 2 are out in the middle of fields way away from any development (and been this way for the last 80+ years) and 2 right next to human development. Do you not see a) which two (all other things being equal) of the 4 stations are going to give you better temperature data b) what the net effect of deleting/algorithmically adjusting the data from the data from the fields is going to be?

1) Here's where naive approaches like yours fail. The stations out in the middle of fields tend to be different, more expensive kinds of sensors than the ones close to human settlement. The cheaper ones tend to report *cooler* temperatures than the more expensive, standalone sensors. So the "urban" stations actually show *less* global warming if averaged in a naive approach.

2) There's a *lot* more than 4 stations in most regions which have correlated temperature anomalies. In the US, generally dozens.

3) The heat island effect *is* cancelled algorithmically, and this is verified by, among other things, comparing calm and windy days.

For something that is supposedly "validated", we are seeing an awful lot of instances of incorrect usage.

Yes, by people like Watts.

What "trends" are you talking about? Like the trend line of 1995-2009 (-0.12C per decade - yes, that's a minus - from Phil Jones no less)? Or are you talking about the one since 1850?

1) This, this, and this.

2) Since when do you trust Phil Jones?

3) Phil Jones is one climate scientist among several thousand. He is not the god of climate science.

4) Wrong. Jones says that there is a +0.12C warming trend for that time, but it's not long enough to be statistically significant. And he's right. It's idiotic how so many people keep trying to read trends into a couple years of extremely noisy data. El Nino in particular adds a *lot* of short-term noise. The "-0.12 trend" is for 2002 to present, which is an even shorter time period and even less statistically significant -- as Jones points out.

Are you saying a station next to a heat pump discharge is going to give you accurate readings?

1) Which is why you *algorithmically eliminiate bad stations*. The problem is that you criticize them when you think that they're using said stations, but also criticize them when they mathematically eliminate them. It's a no-win situation that you're trying to put them in.

2) The "bad" stations tend to show *less* warming than the good stations. So "whoops" on your part.

you do not think the urban heat island effect is real?

1) The urban heat island effect is algorithmically cancelled, and the cancellation verified by, among other things, comparing windy days to calm days.

2) There exists a closely monitored "reference network" for a reason, you know.

"Each record is encased in a protective aluminum jacket, together with a cartridge and a needle. Instructions, in symbolic language, explain the origin of the spacecraft and indicate how the record is to be played."

Confucius say "There is difference between weather and climate." And NASA say, too.

Some conservatives hate the proposal because of the retreat from the high frontier and even go so far as to cast doubt on the commercial space aspects.

Uh, no- all congresscritters hate it because NASA is giant cash-cow for the defense industry- companies like Lockheed-Martin and Boeing. Hell hath no fury like a congresscritter who wants to stand on a platform in front of a defense factory in his or her district, come election time, and talk about how important the makers of the A43 Latrine Servicing Truck are to the defense and security of our great nation.

All those probes, satellites, etc? Built by defense contractors, carried up on rockets built by defense contractors, and very often launched from launch facilities owned by defense contractors.

The shuttle costs half a billion dollars per launch, for example...and almost everything NASA does is outsourced to government contractors.

They're calling for more than a few days of the year:

The disadvantges of this orbit include higher launch and orbit acquisition costs (relative to LEO) and eclipse (Earth shadow) seasons twice annually, During these 2-3 week eclipse periods, SDO will experience a daily interruption of solar observations. There will also be three lunar shadow events each year from this orbit.

I think that I will go outside and rendezvous with the Sun too.

However, even if it isn't going much closer to the Sun than my back yard, it is in a cool orbit.

SDO is a sun-pointing semi-autonomous spacecraft that will allow nearly continuous observations of the Sun with a continuous science data downlink rate of 130 Megabits per second (Mbps). The spacecraft is 4.5 meters high and over 2 meters on each side, weighing a total of 3100 kg (fuel included). SDO's inclined geosynchronous orbit was chosen to allow continuous observations of the Sun and enable its exceptionally high data rate through the use of a single dedicated ground station.

So, it is in a geostationary orbit with the major advantage of the L1 Lagrange point (continuous observations) but requiring less fuel to reach, less power to communicate, and only one ground station (a L1 observatory needs 3, or sufficient on-board recording). That sounds like a major win for this new orbit, which I predict will be used more in the future.

With this orbit, it might also be able to get some cool pictures of Lunar eclipses, which SOHO (at the L1 Lagrange point) can never do.

The sun is actually a really great object for observation with a small telescope exactly because of the advantages pointed out above. You could view it, for instance, every day for a week during school hours.

The sun is actually quite fascinating as a telescopic object. Sunspots are intricate and no two are the same. They change from day to day or even hour to hour (compared with most astronomical objects, which don't change much at all over the course of even months or years, as seen from even large earth-based telescopes, with few exceptions).

I've shown the sun to a number of school and youth groups and it never fails to get a "wow!!" and "I never knew the sun LOOKED like that".

With even a 4-inch scope (and solar filter of course) you'll be able to see a view very similar to the one here:

  http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/sunspots/

In addition, however, you'll be able to use different eyepieces to zoom in & see more detail in the sunspot clusters.

A great class project would be to view the sun daily for a week & make a sketch of the sunspots & their location on the sun. Over that time you'd see the sunspots rotate to different positions on the sun (thus your students will be able to directly observe the rotation of the sun & do things like calculate the speed of rotation if you're interested in that type of thing) and also change in shape & size.

You can buy something like this:
http://www.telescope.com/control/accessories/telescope-and-eyepiece-filters/4*57-inch-id-orion-full-aperture-solar-filter

But far more economical is this (the 8x11 sheet at 20 euros is enough to build like three or four solar filters):

http://www.baader-planetarium.com/sofifolie/sofi_start_e.htm

Then use that film to construct a solar filter that will mount to your telescope as explained here:

http://www.baader-planetarium.com/sofifolie/bauanleitung_e.htm

Download a starmap application or I guess there are some online so you know what's up there and when.

Go to the Heavens Above site http://www.heavens-above.com/ and do the free registration. It will let you set and save your location for subsequent use. Then you can display current star maps so you can see what's in sight whenever you want.

The home page is a bit jumbled, so you'll have to look for the Register and subsequent Login links, but it's worth it.

One thing I'd suggest is to have the kids register so they can use it i the future. It has links that will let you generate tables of visible satellite passes, including the International Space Station and shuttle passes. I've only watched a couple myself, but it's really impressive to watch an ISS pass at night. The speed with which it moves across the sky is surprising the first time you see it.

I haven't yet caught one, but the flares off of Iridium satellites would also be worth looking for. By registering, interested kids will be able to look for these things on their own long after your class unit is done. I think that would make for a much more satisfying experience (for those ready for it) as an ongoing resource for their own exploration, as compared to the one-time experience your necessarily limited schedule would allow.

I'd also encourage the kids to look frequently at NASA's Astronomy Picture of the Day (APOD) http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html -- truly astounding and gorgeous pictures daily and likely to pique a deeper interest in the subject.

Best of luck on this worthwhile project.

Actually not true (see above post), but I did misspeak (also see above post). Phases are still quite pronounced on Mars (example), but are mild on Jupiter (example)

Find a local astronomy club! I'm sure they would be more than enthused to do a public outreach viewing event for you. Not only are they more familiar with the night sky, but you can be sure they'll bring everything from 4" scopes up through 20" Dobsonians. Make it an event for not only your class, but all the kids in your school! You'll get to see a lot more that way. Here is a good place to start... http://nightsky.jpl.nasa.gov/

NASA has a website for educators:

        http://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/index.html

Most missions have a public outreach person who will send materials to teachers for use in their classroom.

And for those joking about looking at the sun, see :

        http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/classroom/for_students.html
        http://stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov/classroom/classroom.shtml

NASA has a website for educators:

        http://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/index.html

Most missions have a public outreach person who will send materials to teachers for use in their classroom.

And for those joking about looking at the sun, see :

        http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/classroom/for_students.html
        http://stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov/classroom/classroom.shtml

NASA has a website for educators:

        http://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/index.html

Most missions have a public outreach person who will send materials to teachers for use in their classroom.

And for those joking about looking at the sun, see :

        http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/classroom/for_students.html
        http://stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov/classroom/classroom.shtml

NASA Image of the Day Gallery has some fantastic photos of stars, nebulas, planets (including the Earth), moons, galaxies, spacecraft, the ISS, the Hubble (and things it has photographed) etc. They're available in very high resolution and some are breathtaking.

No Photoshop needed for that one.

I used my binoculars to go spotting at Jupiter a while back after this image...
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0907/lune-jupiter4_riou.jpg ...totally blew me away.

Screw the sun and moon, The Blue Marble and dozens of infographics of the solar system with "you are here" labels.. that image - and subsequent direct viewing - instilled far more of a sense of being inside a solar system than any of those things.

That said - I'd go for the moon right afterward as well.. seeing the craters, especially on a waxing or warning moon, is great and can easily be done by kids.

The aforementioned image happens to have our moon -and- Jupiter + its 4 largest (well, most visible at the time) moons, which just makes it all the more awesome.

There's a whole bunch of ways to approach it, but my favorite is to dig up the Messier objects - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messier_object - visible in your sky and just run down what you have available. Tried and true, fairly well known, and they're tough enough you have to actually look for them, but mostly easily enough to find that the students can find success. Another bonus: There are fantastic images available online and you can dig up a pile of photos that will help them see what they're looking for. Side topics up for discussion could be photo manipulation, wavelengths of light, and why the photos don't look the same as we can see through a microscope. It's important in case you think you can put a camera at the end of a telescope and just snap off equivalent photos.

Personal recommendation: If you're just starting yourself take a look at the Astronomy Picture of the Day http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ to see what kinds of interesting objects are in the sky at that particular time of year. They give great talking points there targeted towards interested amateurs like me.

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/realdata/sightings/index.html

Different things are visible at different times, although a four inch telescope is really only going to be able to see the the brightest objects. A little better than binoculars, but surprisingly little better after you account for the perception boost binoculars get by letting you use both eyes.

If you're talking about a nearby observation opportunity, then let me recommend Sky & Telescope - At a Glance and Human Spaceflight Realtime Data as sources of interesting things to look for. You can also nearly always find a satellite or two around dusk, if you know where to look. Nasa has some pages about that as well.

Make sure you have some information to talk about about everything you plan to look at, since most of the class will be standing around the telescope rather than actually looking through it at any given time.

Troed, If you're such a good software engineer go get the NASA/GISS Model E code and analyze it. It is available here. The Model E is one of the biggies in climate modeling.

The NASA/GISS Model E code (one of the main climate models is available here. The "hockey stick" graph (over 10 years ago now) has largely been vindicated by subsequent studies.

Dang, I've modded so I'm posting AC.

The code for the NASA/GISS Model E (one of the main General Circulation Models) and other GISS software is available here as is much of the NOAA code at their site. If you want to invalidate global warming go for the Model E code because much of the rest of it is just about corroborating evidence.
 

On prediction failure, Hansen's 1988 "A,B,C" forecasts of rising temperature are rapidly diverging from the cooling we are actually experiencing right now, where case C assumed we massively limited CO2 also

In the past ten years, we've seen warming of 0.18 degrees Celsius, which is less than the 0.25 degrees Celsius that was predicted, but it certainly hasn't been cooling. This is why the Arctic ice and Antarctic ice are melting. Yes, stop the presses, the globe is warming!

On prediction failure, Hansen's 1988 "A,B,C" forecasts of rising temperature are rapidly diverging from the cooling we are actually experiencing right now, where case C assumed we massively limited CO2 also

In the past ten years, we've seen warming of 0.18 degrees Celsius, which is less than the 0.25 degrees Celsius that was predicted, but it certainly hasn't been cooling. This is why the Arctic ice and Antarctic ice are melting. Yes, stop the presses, the globe is warming!

Most, if not all work done at US universities or government institutions is required to be made public. In fact, you can already find climate models from the main US based investigators:

http://www.ncar.ucar.edu/tools/models/
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/

FY 2011 Budget request specifically outlines an expectation of continuing ISS utilization until 2020. As other posters have mentioned, we have already shut down the External Tank factories, making it pretty certain the shuttle will not stay up till 2016.

The implied assumption that a gap won't exist is misleading at best. The Augustine Report found that the gap would be 6 years minimum with Constellation. Contracting with private corps for delivery of humans to space was estimated at 5-8 years to complete. And of course neither of these options is ten years.

The Ares V is likely to be saved in some form. We have a large need for a SHLV. FY2011 Budget Request begins funding for development of SHLV technology 5 years before the program of record would have begun funding Ares V. Program of Record funding was also contingent on ISS deorbit in 2016. Which means the choice in 2016 was super heavy lift or ISS maintenance. The choice has been shifted by the administration to SHLV vs HLV in 2011. Now would you pick a launcher in a crowded field (20-30,000 kg to LEO) or one that would be unique (130-160,000 kg to LEO)?

Obligatory citation:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/396093main_HSF_Cmte_FinalReport.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_heavy_lift_launch_systems
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_super_heavy_lift_launch_systems
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/420990main_FY_201_%20Budget_Overview_1_Feb_2010.pdf

FY 2011 Budget request specifically outlines an expectation of continuing ISS utilization until 2020. As other posters have mentioned, we have already shut down the External Tank factories, making it pretty certain the shuttle will not stay up till 2016.

The implied assumption that a gap won't exist is misleading at best. The Augustine Report found that the gap would be 6 years minimum with Constellation. Contracting with private corps for delivery of humans to space was estimated at 5-8 years to complete. And of course neither of these options is ten years.

The Ares V is likely to be saved in some form. We have a large need for a SHLV. FY2011 Budget Request begins funding for development of SHLV technology 5 years before the program of record would have begun funding Ares V. Program of Record funding was also contingent on ISS deorbit in 2016. Which means the choice in 2016 was super heavy lift or ISS maintenance. The choice has been shifted by the administration to SHLV vs HLV in 2011. Now would you pick a launcher in a crowded field (20-30,000 kg to LEO) or one that would be unique (130-160,000 kg to LEO)?

Obligatory citation:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/396093main_HSF_Cmte_FinalReport.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_heavy_lift_launch_systems
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_super_heavy_lift_launch_systems
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/420990main_FY_201_%20Budget_Overview_1_Feb_2010.pdf

The launch has been scrubbed due to less-than-optimal weather.
Damn, I was really looking forward to watching the launch. I hope they'll launch tomorrow, otherwise i probably won't be able to watch it...
Goddamnit Obama! Nuke the friggin' clouds from high orbit!

There's no need to cherry-pick 1850 as a starting point. Pick any year from several decades ago and you can show warming over the past several decades. There's also no need to cherry-pick 1998 as an ending point. Pick any year in the past decade, and you can show warming over the previous several decades. The past decade was hotter than the 90s, which was hotter than the 80s, which was hotter than the 70s. It truly is warming as shown by the instrumental temperature record, Arctic ice melting, and Antarctic ice melting.

well let me inform you, it's the Climate Research Unit..... they pretty much supply ALL the data for global warming enthusiasts world wide.

I guess I'm a bit behind, I know what the Climate Research Unit is but I never heard of it referred to as CRU. Thanks for the heads up.

also changing from global warming to climate change is a cop out.

No, this is the cop-out. Global Warming was first used in 1975. Before that "inadvertent climate modification" was used. Climate change did come later but it is more accurate, while some places would warm up others would cool off. And of course if some places cool off those like you can say "see Global Warming" is not real. But you can't easily deny that climate is changing.

more and more evidence is coming forward that shows a SHIT load of people are blowing smoke out their asses about the human cause of "global warming" and an awful lot more people are profiteering by the spreading of utter FUD about it too.

And a hell of a lot more can profit off of proving it is wrong. Exxon-Mobile as much deeper pockets than Greenpeace. So does the Middle East, China, India, and Russia. I bet any scientist who can deinitively prove climate change is false can get paid a lot from these businesses and nations. So why aren't they stepping up with that proof?

and the global warming hero Al fucking gore.. the rankest of all the hypocrites...spreading FUD AND a major shareholder in Occidental Petrolium

I just posted the same thing, except for "spreading FUD", which I do not believe. Like you I think Gore is being a bit of a hypocrite, not disclosing the shares in Oxy. However he didn't buy the stocks himself. His father Al Gore Sr was a friend of Armand Hammer who was the CEO of Oxy and he worked for the company becoming head of the subsidiary Island Creek Coal Company after he lost his senate seat. Further the wiki article says "Albert Gore Jr., however, did not exercise control over the shares, which were eventually sold when the estate closed".

Actually I found out about Gore's connection to Oxy back in the '90s. Back then Oxy wanted to explore and drill for oil in the U'wa tribe's homeland in Colombia. The tribe had threatened to commit mass suicide if the Colombian government allowed them to drill.

always odd how when the smell of bullshit is often along the same path as the smell of hypocrisy and money

Yeap, and that works both ways.

Falcon