Slashdot Mirror

Good thing NASA likewise never uses Open Source to design engines and aircraft alongside companies like Boeing. (*This product may contain nuts^H^H^H^Hsarcasm.)

Good thing NASA likewise never uses Open Source to design engines and aircraft alongside companies like Boeing. (*This product may contain nuts^H^H^H^Hsarcasm.)

Good thing NASA likewise never uses Open Source to design engines and aircraft alongside companies like Boeing. (*This product may contain nuts^H^H^H^Hsarcasm.)

Good thing NASA likewise never uses Open Source to design engines and aircraft alongside companies like Boeing. (*This product may contain nuts^H^H^H^Hsarcasm.)

Good thing NASA likewise never uses Open Source to design engines and aircraft alongside companies like Boeing. (*This product may contain nuts^H^H^H^Hsarcasm.)

Good thing NASA likewise never uses Open Source to design engines and aircraft alongside companies like Boeing. (*This product may contain nuts^H^H^H^Hsarcasm.)

Good thing NASA likewise never uses Open Source to design engines and aircraft alongside companies like Boeing. (*This product may contain nuts^H^H^H^Hsarcasm.)

Good thing NASA likewise never uses Open Source to design engines and aircraft alongside companies like Boeing. (*This product may contain nuts^H^H^H^Hsarcasm.)

She [Anne H. Milley, director of technology product marketing at SAS] adds, "We have customers who build engines for aircraft. I am happy they are not using freeware when I get on a jet."

Good thing Boeing's not using fere software for aircraft simulation tools, space station labs, sub hunters, or moon rockets ;-)

What is the real use of getting a man to Mars or another planet other thean bragging about it for the next 70 years? Somehow, some people are in favor of a manned space program. The question is, what is the tangible benifit of sending people to the moon/Mars/Jupiter/Proxima Centauri?

"Sending people to the moon" had a lot of prerequisites. These prerequisites include:

• Developed by NASA
• • memory foam (used in your mattresses)
  • home insulation (not exactly invented by NASA, but they changed it from adhoc hacks into an actual science and engineering discipline)
  • Satelitte Dishes
  • GPS
  • Laser thermometer
  • Invisible braces
  • Joystick controllers
• Improved by NASA
• • MRI
  • quartz clocks
  • smoke alarm
  • Water purification systems
  • Automobiles
  • cordless tools
  • Thermal gloves and boots
  • Shock absorbing helmets
  • Lithium Batteries
• Found new uses by NASA
• • velcro
  • kevlar

And many, many more (see http://techtran.msfc.nasa.gov/at_home.html, http://spaceplace.jpl.nasa.gov/en/kids/spinoffs2.shtml, http://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/5-8/features/F_Spinoffs_Extra.html etc.)

"Putting a man on mars" is simply an easy-to-define milestone. The real benefits are too long to lists.

What is the real use of getting a man to Mars or another planet other thean bragging about it for the next 70 years? Somehow, some people are in favor of a manned space program. The question is, what is the tangible benifit of sending people to the moon/Mars/Jupiter/Proxima Centauri?

"Sending people to the moon" had a lot of prerequisites. These prerequisites include:

• Developed by NASA
• • memory foam (used in your mattresses)
  • home insulation (not exactly invented by NASA, but they changed it from adhoc hacks into an actual science and engineering discipline)
  • Satelitte Dishes
  • GPS
  • Laser thermometer
  • Invisible braces
  • Joystick controllers
• Improved by NASA
• • MRI
  • quartz clocks
  • smoke alarm
  • Water purification systems
  • Automobiles
  • cordless tools
  • Thermal gloves and boots
  • Shock absorbing helmets
  • Lithium Batteries
• Found new uses by NASA
• • velcro
  • kevlar

And many, many more (see http://techtran.msfc.nasa.gov/at_home.html, http://spaceplace.jpl.nasa.gov/en/kids/spinoffs2.shtml, http://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/5-8/features/F_Spinoffs_Extra.html etc.)

"Putting a man on mars" is simply an easy-to-define milestone. The real benefits are too long to lists.

What is the real use of getting a man to Mars or another planet other thean bragging about it for the next 70 years? Somehow, some people are in favor of a manned space program. The question is, what is the tangible benifit of sending people to the moon/Mars/Jupiter/Proxima Centauri?

"Sending people to the moon" had a lot of prerequisites. These prerequisites include:

• Developed by NASA
• • memory foam (used in your mattresses)
  • home insulation (not exactly invented by NASA, but they changed it from adhoc hacks into an actual science and engineering discipline)
  • Satelitte Dishes
  • GPS
  • Laser thermometer
  • Invisible braces
  • Joystick controllers
• Improved by NASA
• • MRI
  • quartz clocks
  • smoke alarm
  • Water purification systems
  • Automobiles
  • cordless tools
  • Thermal gloves and boots
  • Shock absorbing helmets
  • Lithium Batteries
• Found new uses by NASA
• • velcro
  • kevlar

And many, many more (see http://techtran.msfc.nasa.gov/at_home.html, http://spaceplace.jpl.nasa.gov/en/kids/spinoffs2.shtml, http://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/5-8/features/F_Spinoffs_Extra.html etc.)

"Putting a man on mars" is simply an easy-to-define milestone. The real benefits are too long to lists.

NASA was formed to explore space as a peaceful endeavor, not as a conquest.

Bullshit. Your confusing your Federation/Starfleet history with NASA.

NASA was created because Sputnik scared the shit out of everyone.
http://history.nasa.gov/sputnik/index.html

  The Sputnik launch also led directly to the creation of National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). In July 1958, Congress passed the National Aeronautics and Space Act (commonly called the "Space Act"), which created NASA as of October 1, 1958 from the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) and other government agencies.

Enjoy,

These have been working of submarines and aircraft carriers for decades.

Military applications have larger budgets, aren't expected to produce a profit, have different design criteria and safety rating systems to determine them fit for operation. If they do not meet those criteria, they are not operated (i.e Nuclear Subs). If you want to understand why read The Columbia Accident Investigation Board's final report of how Military vehicles are kept safe.

It is high time some of that military tech comes to civilian use.

By all means, can we have the engineering and safety culture that comes with it?

If you are afraid of nuclear power, you are on the wrong website.

I'm afraid of ignorance. Especially ignorance of the science and facts associated with the nuclear power process, especially here where people are usually more skeptical. I haven't met anyone capable of sustaining an advocacy of the Nuclear process when confronted with the facts. Nuclear advocacy here generally means resorting to ad-hominem attack, as these two thinly veiled comments demonstrate.

This is supposed to be for technologically informed people.

I'd be happy with just 'informed'. There are so many problems with nuclear power process that you could be 'informed' about, yet "pithy" comments such as yours get modded 'insightful'; perhaps because you say what the group think wants to believe. If you want to use a military methodology why don't you listen to the dissenting voices that have something to say about the nuclear industry and evaluate those comments with some pragmatism slashdot, instead of just accepting the 'marketingspeak' all techies hate to hear - except if it's to do with nuclear. It's all to common for these sorts of comments to be modded up, it's like there is a 'twitter' for nuclear power.

Credible Nuclear advocacy cannot exist while the nuclear process is layered with failures, obscuration of facts and blame shifting.

Nuclear power provides no opportunity for technologists. Solar and wind power provide opportunities for extending the technology industry by creating a framework for driving efficiency into the entire energy industry. Instead of 'just throwing more watts at it', if we were smart technologists, we would would be identifying the areas in the energy industry where adding intelligence to power management saves power, creates more technology jobs and investment into sustainable medium to long term energy solutions and infrastructure.

Consider how much energy it would take to move this massively long cable. There is no way in hell that is going to be efficient. You're going to be wasting a massive amount of energy as you move the entire cable the whole time the thing is climbing.
****

If the entire system is powered from the ground, we have essentially unlimited power available. Just build a couple of reactors nearby to power it exclusively. The major problem with getting materials up to space isn't a lack of power, it's a lack of space to hold the fuel. And, of course, the safety factor. Nearly one in every 30 launches still is a failure (3% even with the best technology). This appears to do away with all of that. At least for the trip up.

http://www.g2mil.com/safety.htm
It's horribly dangerous to try to get up to and back from space. Speed isn't the real issue here.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/information/shuttle_faq.html
It costs 450 million to do a single Shuttle launch. That buys a LOT of electricity or other fuel down on the ground to power a space elevator. Honestly, I can't imagine how much fuel that would buy. Dozens? Hundreds of climbs? It's worth exploring this technology in any case, as the potential long term savings is huge.

+1 Informative

I'm pulling it from the Climatic Research Unit in the UK. They've been very meticulous about maintinaing and publishing their data sets. The basic FAQ on the dataset and collection methodology is here. Among the many papers published over the years on the methodology and estimation of uncertainty, there is at least this freely available, though you can check:

• Jones, P.D., New, M., Parker, D.E., Martin, S. and Rigor, I.G., 1999: Surface air temperature and its variations over the last 150 years. Reviews of Geophysics 37, 173-199
• Rayner, N.A., P. Brohan, D.E. Parker, C.K. Folland, J.J. Kennedy, M. Vanicek, T. Ansell and S.F.B. Tett, 2006: Improved analyses of changes and uncertainties in marine temperature measured in situ since the mid-nineteenth century: the HadSST2 dataset. J. Climate, 19, 446-469.
• Rayner, N.A., Parker, D.E., Horton, E.B., Folland, C.K., Alexander, L.V, Rowell, D.P., Kent, E.C. and Kaplan, A., 2003: Globally complete analyses of sea surface temperature, sea ice and night marine air temperature, 1871-2000. J. Geophysical Research 108, 4407

as well if you like (and have access to the respective journals).

The entire "this century is hotter then last" has been disproved back when they found errors in the calculations the US made.

Actually no. There were errors, and they did have an effect on which years were the hottest for the US, but had a much smaller (almost neglible effect) on the calculated global temperatures. And, of course, that is the NASA GISS dataset that you are speaking of. The datasets I'm referring to, HadCRUT3 and CRUTEM3, from the UK, are quite independent in their processing of raw data, and did not contain the same errors.

In fact, I haven't heard claims like your making in over 4 years after they revised a bunch of shit found to of been faulty.

Really? He claimed:

1. The hottest 10yrs on record have occured in the last 12yrs.
2. Every year in the 21st century has been hotter than any year in the 20th century (exluding 1998).

which is actually a very reasonable claim. We can put it to the test easily enough. Here is the latest CRUTEM data, fully up to date, including 2008 data. According to the file format description, we find the average annual global anomaly (from the average temperature from 1961-1990 used as a base point) in the last column of every second row. Scan down. You'll find the the original poster is indeed correct in his claims.

Just because you are so certain, let's go with the dataset you're referring to: Hansen's GISTemp from NASA. Again, let's grab the latest data with the relevant corrections you are complaining about made: here (that's global averages for land and sea surface temperatures). Again, scan down and you'll see that, surprisingly enough, the original poster is still correct in his claims.

One of the wonderful things about the internet is that it actually puts a vast array of resources and data right at your fingertips, so you can actually go to the source data itself rather than relying on second and third hand reports. Apparently that was too much work for you. Hopefully, however, with the links laid out above, you can click through and verify for yourself that the data actually shows what it is claimed to show.

I'm pulling it from the Climatic Research Unit in the UK. They've been very meticulous about maintinaing and publishing their data sets. The basic FAQ on the dataset and collection methodology is here. Among the many papers published over the years on the methodology and estimation of uncertainty, there is at least this freely available, though you can check:

• Jones, P.D., New, M., Parker, D.E., Martin, S. and Rigor, I.G., 1999: Surface air temperature and its variations over the last 150 years. Reviews of Geophysics 37, 173-199
• Rayner, N.A., P. Brohan, D.E. Parker, C.K. Folland, J.J. Kennedy, M. Vanicek, T. Ansell and S.F.B. Tett, 2006: Improved analyses of changes and uncertainties in marine temperature measured in situ since the mid-nineteenth century: the HadSST2 dataset. J. Climate, 19, 446-469.
• Rayner, N.A., Parker, D.E., Horton, E.B., Folland, C.K., Alexander, L.V, Rowell, D.P., Kent, E.C. and Kaplan, A., 2003: Globally complete analyses of sea surface temperature, sea ice and night marine air temperature, 1871-2000. J. Geophysical Research 108, 4407

as well if you like (and have access to the respective journals).

The entire "this century is hotter then last" has been disproved back when they found errors in the calculations the US made.

Actually no. There were errors, and they did have an effect on which years were the hottest for the US, but had a much smaller (almost neglible effect) on the calculated global temperatures. And, of course, that is the NASA GISS dataset that you are speaking of. The datasets I'm referring to, HadCRUT3 and CRUTEM3, from the UK, are quite independent in their processing of raw data, and did not contain the same errors.

In fact, I haven't heard claims like your making in over 4 years after they revised a bunch of shit found to of been faulty.

Really? He claimed:

1. The hottest 10yrs on record have occured in the last 12yrs.
2. Every year in the 21st century has been hotter than any year in the 20th century (exluding 1998).

which is actually a very reasonable claim. We can put it to the test easily enough. Here is the latest CRUTEM data, fully up to date, including 2008 data. According to the file format description, we find the average annual global anomaly (from the average temperature from 1961-1990 used as a base point) in the last column of every second row. Scan down. You'll find the the original poster is indeed correct in his claims.

Just because you are so certain, let's go with the dataset you're referring to: Hansen's GISTemp from NASA. Again, let's grab the latest data with the relevant corrections you are complaining about made: here (that's global averages for land and sea surface temperatures). Again, scan down and you'll see that, surprisingly enough, the original poster is still correct in his claims.

One of the wonderful things about the internet is that it actually puts a vast array of resources and data right at your fingertips, so you can actually go to the source data itself rather than relying on second and third hand reports. Apparently that was too much work for you. Hopefully, however, with the links laid out above, you can click through and verify for yourself that the data actually shows what it is claimed to show.

What I found odd in this story is that the DoD's space budget is $22B. NASA requested a $17.6B budget for FY2009. WTF? Does the DoD even do anything past LEO/polar orbits?

The military and Nasa have always had a relationships; choosing astronauts from the ranks of the Air Force, for one. Obviously, the technology developed through the space program has military applications such as spy satellites and obviously a rocket that can put a man in orbit can just as easily deliver a multi-ton warhead to the other side of the planet. What worries me in this plan is shifting the focus from science to defense objectives.

While NASA has a long relationship with the military and shares plenty of technology, they are a civilian organization. I know that up until recently, NASA's mission was, "To understand and protect our home planet...", but the main focus has been to send interplanetary probes into the solar system, bust up comets and generally produce outstanding backgrounds for our desktops. Would this shift in leadership take more energy away from studying the nature of the universe, lofting the next generation of space telescopes and studying our planet from above? Under the military it seems more likely that NASA's goals would shift away from "understanding" and more to "protecting". I imagine this wold involve developing the next generation of anti-satellite and anti-anti-satellite weapons (despite the fact that earth orbit is supposed to be a weapons free zone).

What insight does the slashdot community have on this? Will shifting NASA to military control result in a more nimble and focused organization able to achieve the goal of putting a man on mars in the next 20 years, or will military research take precedence over science?

The military and Nasa have always had a relationships; choosing astronauts from the ranks of the Air Force, for one. Obviously, the technology developed through the space program has military applications such as spy satellites and obviously a rocket that can put a man in orbit can just as easily deliver a multi-ton warhead to the other side of the planet. What worries me in this plan is shifting the focus from science to defense objectives.

While NASA has a long relationship with the military and shares plenty of technology, they are a civilian organization. I know that up until recently, NASA's mission was, "To understand and protect our home planet...", but the main focus has been to send interplanetary probes into the solar system, bust up comets and generally produce outstanding backgrounds for our desktops. Would this shift in leadership take more energy away from studying the nature of the universe, lofting the next generation of space telescopes and studying our planet from above? Under the military it seems more likely that NASA's goals would shift away from "understanding" and more to "protecting". I imagine this wold involve developing the next generation of anti-satellite and anti-anti-satellite weapons (despite the fact that earth orbit is supposed to be a weapons free zone).

What insight does the slashdot community have on this? Will shifting NASA to military control result in a more nimble and focused organization able to achieve the goal of putting a man on mars in the next 20 years, or will military research take precedence over science?

Here are Nasa's global temperature curves.

NASA will soon launch a satellite to directly monitor for the locations of ground level point sources of CO2. http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/oco-20081112.html

I suggest a moratorium on all of the "lets 'STOP' Global Warming" hoopla and gather some meaningful data. Let's find out where this evil CO2 is coming from and develop programs and incentives to reduce the actual sources.

If U.S. autos are a huge source, there is data to support moving to something else. If the U.S. Electrical power industry is one of the major sources, there is additional emphasis to stop pi**ing away money on Tokamaks and get serious about developing truly net positive fusion.

If the problem is China's factories or power generation, well the Chinese can clean up their mess.

As an incentive, let's suppose Chinese factories and power generation is a large component of man-made emissions. Consuming nations should make a decision if they can produce the goods they purchase from this high emission region at lower emissions. If so, imports from high per item emission producers should be reduced in favor of local production in lower emission areas.

One last comment, just because it bothered me so.

I recently saw the remake of the classic Sci-Fi B movie "The day the Earth stood still". I was disturbed by the omission of an epilogue which described the results of the closing scenes of the movie.

"... and with the loss of electrical and other power sources, industry shutdown, and all that depended upon mechanization died with it. Within weeks Billions of the Earth's inhabitants were starving. The cities became hunter killer grounds as those who could, took from those unable to protect themselves.

Within months humanity had retreated to a Medieval life style, as disease and starvation continued to reduce the numbers of humanity to a tiny fraction of those alive on the day of landing.

The forests were denuded as those left alive sought fuel to guard against the cold of the Northern Latitudes. Coal once again became a primary fuel source. Recovered from the ground as it had been 400 years before, by children working until their early deaths."

Yeah, just what I want for MY children! (Sarcasm intended)

To those who thought the ending of that movie was nirvana, I have a suggestion. Pool you money, buy a small country, move there and institute your "no carbon emission" fantasy. After your gone we'll come around to reclaim the land if we feel like we need it.

I for one DO NOT want to see my childrens future (economic, educational, or standard of living) eviscerated to fulfill someone else desire to "fight Global Warming".

Instead of generating completely unrealistic Carbon caps and Carbon reduction targets, which in reality will simply become the next economic weapon (and a HUGE moneymaker for those trading in "carbon credits"). Let's get serious about fixing the problem.

We need a new, continuous, throttleable energy source and a new high energy density, safe liquid fuel of low or 0 carbon emission. I'd feel much better about my standard of living being decimated if the reduction was being spent to develop these things, than to "conserve our way to Carbon nirvana".

In case you haven't noticed, you can't conserve your way to prosperity.

Spirit took the first picture ever taken of the Earth from the surface of another planet.

Holy Crap! How the hell did it know where I was?

the ozone hole that appeared over antarctica and caused all the panic is a natural and annual phenomena.

Uh, you know that's bullshit, right?

the annual ozone hole was first measured in 1956-57, long before the ozone destroying CFCs were in common use.

You're confused. There is a seasonal cycle in ozone concentrations. CFCs have added a long-term downward trend on top of that seasonal cycle, meaning that each winter the hole is on average larger it used to be.

There is no overall or permanent depletion of the ozone layer.

The data disagree.

Yes, the rovers have photographed both moons.

Excellent link to some of the astronomy Spirit and Opportunity have done. Considering they were designed to be mainly geologists, the rovers have done a decent amount of astronomy (some of it not covered by that page), including observing a Phobos transit and a Deimos transit.

We've even imaged the Earth! On sol 63, Spirit took the first picture ever taken of the Earth from the surface of another planet.

Yes, the rovers have photographed both moons.

Excellent link to some of the astronomy Spirit and Opportunity have done. Considering they were designed to be mainly geologists, the rovers have done a decent amount of astronomy (some of it not covered by that page), including observing a Phobos transit and a Deimos transit.

We've even imaged the Earth! On sol 63, Spirit took the first picture ever taken of the Earth from the surface of another planet.

Yes, the rovers have photographed both moons.

There is a debate somewhere in the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal about the way US and Russian engineers built user interfaces for space craft. The Americans tended to have (say) ten thousand functions, and a switch for each one. Configuring the vehicle requires you to go through a check list turning things off and on in the right sequence. The Russians took a more modal approach. Their space craft had a launch mode and a landing mode, etc.

The Russian approach is faster for normal operations but terrible for abnormal operations. The American approach is the reverse. The non modal approach gives the pilot more control over the system, which is presumably why engineers dislike modal (or agent based) UIs.

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970603.html

exposure to vacuum causes no immediate injury. You do not explode. Your blood does not boil. You do not freeze. You do not instantly lose consciousness.

All that NASA is good at doing these days is burning money.

Deary me - isn't that a little unfair? The only thing they can do is burn money? You don't see any value at all in the various Mars missions, the fascinating output of Cassini-Huygens, or SOHO, or...? And so on.

Check out the NASA Current Missions for a bit of an overview of some of the amazing work that NASA are doing.

Whilst I don't disagree with your main point that small, nimble, commercial outfits can often work smarter and quicker than monolithic government departments, I don't think it's fair cast NASA as nothing but a bottomless sinkhole for cash.

It might also be worth considering how many of those current projects would never even get to the drawing board stage if the only space enterprises we had were entirely commercial.

I think the real news is that the M3 is working and is confirming the results of other moon missions. This isn't so much important for double-checking that there really *is* iron on the moon, but more double-checking that the M3 is working and providing correct information. If the M3 sent back information that the moon's surface was composed of cheese-oxide, they'd probably want to recheck their instruments.

One thing I would like to know is whether this is iron ore that can be processed by a future lunar factory into metal? But the other interesting thing is that it looks like the mission of the M3 is to create a high-resolution mineral map of the moon, which is interesting to me as this would be very useful for possible exploitation of lunar resources in the future.

Anyway, I haven't heard of this mission before (sorry, I've only started to get back interested in astronomy recently) but I'm glad they're doing it.

Here's some links I've found:

NASA's page on the M3
A Space Spin article
Wikipedia on Chandrayaan

Also, from TFA:

"Obviously many missions before have found iron, but Chandrayaan-1 has reiterated the presence. We believe it is very significant because the mission has already fulfilled one of its objectives, which was to sight minerals. More is to come and it should be exciting if we can confirm the presence of uranium and other minerals,'' said an ISRO official.

Which would be extremely cool if we found uranium on the moon because of the possibility of nuclear energy on the moon. I know, we'll probably only exploit solar at first with the future lunar outpost, but still neat.

(BTW, I'm basically just spilling the thoughts that I'm sure anyone else is having when they read this stuff, I'm sure others will correct whatever mistaken thoughts I have.)

Nobody "outsourced" this particular space trip to India.

Actually, NASA did... as part of the Discovery Program.

From the DP page:

It represents a breakthrough in the way NASA explores space, with lower-cost, highly focused planetary science investigations designed to enhance our understanding of the solar system.

So yeah, in order to lower the cost of the M3 mission, the launch was outsourced to India.

-shrug- Could've been Sealaunch for all I care, but the fact IS that the M3 was outsourced to another launch program to save money, per program specs.

Nobody "outsourced" this particular space trip to India.

Actually, NASA did... as part of the Discovery Program.

From the DP page:

It represents a breakthrough in the way NASA explores space, with lower-cost, highly focused planetary science investigations designed to enhance our understanding of the solar system.

So yeah, in order to lower the cost of the M3 mission, the launch was outsourced to India.

-shrug- Could've been Sealaunch for all I care, but the fact IS that the M3 was outsourced to another launch program to save money, per program specs.

Years back, we were agog with the quality of images - depth, detail - from synthetic aperture radar. Visible-spectrum processing is very cool and very different than radar, but what new problem is really being solved here?

I'm not trolling, I'm seriously asking. Hundreds of pulse returns per second to a vehicle in flight (where the pulses themselves provide the shadowing) as opposed to three passive returns of separately-sourced shadowing.... I'm just not getting the improvement from a conceptual point of view (no pun intended).

For those unfamiliar, here's a good starting point: http://southport.jpl.nasa.gov/

I repeat - I appreciate the tech here is cool, but where's the application improvement? Thanks in advance for helping me to understand...

I don't understand the problem, here. All data from NASA planetary missions are made public 1 year after they are taken. Here, you can go download them and use them for whatever you like at the Planetary Data System . There's a group of enthusiastic amateurs that use and interpret the raw data at UMSF , among other places. You're welcome to use these data and do science with them and publish them, scooping other scientists. Believe me, there's plenty of science left to be done in there.

Not bad considering it costs $450 million per shuttle launch.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/information/shuttle_faq.html

Q. How much does it cost to launch a Space Shuttle?

A. The average cost to launch a Space Shuttle is about $450 million per mission.

Yes, it is La Nina. It's true that the PDO is in its cool phase, as the JPL press release notes. It has been for some time now. That's not why 2008 is a cold year, relative to recent years. The reason why 2008 is a cold year relative to recent years is because most of this year was in or recovering from a La Nina. (And no, it's not a "record cold year" either. 2008 has been still quite warm, globally speaking, compared to most years in the 20th century.) The PDO cools the Pacific too, so the La Nina added on top of that. But the PDO doesn't explain why this year was cooler than recent years, because recent years were also in a PDO cool phase. The PDO influences the climatological background state, but the interannual temperatures are modulated by ENSO.

As I said, the PDO can influence the likelihood/magnitude of a La Nina, but if there's a big temperature difference between one year and the next, it's not fundamentally due to a multidecadal oscillation. Multidecadal oscillations don't have big changes from one year to the next.

Actually this post from JPL contradicts your statement.

It is NOT La Nina.

So we need MORE clouds? The Earth is already about 70% covered in clouds.

I think the Earth already does a pretty good job of putting water vapour into the atmosphere on a daily basis.

The cloud cover is in dynamic equilibrium. I don't think that spraying some water air changes that equilibrium. Because, like I said, it's already dynamic equilibrium!.

We need to find the Earth's thermostat and turn it down a bit. I think it has to do more with the composition of the atmosphere.

That's interesting because James Hansen of the NASA global warming fame wrote his first paper on the global temperatures in the 1970's and it actually called for global cooling.

Like most of what you write about climate science, that's wrong.

Hansen's first paper on global Earth temperatures (he wasn't the first author) did not call for global cooling. It concluded that global warming was likely: "The overall impression left by Table 3 is that anthropogenic perturbations of the gaseous anthropogenic composition are likely to eventually warm the earth [...] That impression is supported by the likelihood that the potential counter-effect of atmospheric aerosols will either be sporadic (in the case of volcanic aerosols) or limited by the short lifetime of airborne particles subject to fallout and rainout (in the case of tropospheric anthropogenic aerosols)." They then note that this is a tentative result which requires better modeling capabilities to arrive at reliable conclusions.

The Rasool and Schneider paper - which was published BEFORE Hansen's first paper on Earth temperatures - did call for global cooling. But that was only ASSUMING that, as you note, industrial activity would cause anthropogenic aerosol emissions to increase by a large amount (4x). That hasn't happened, but that's an error of economic projection, not climate projection. Nor is does it have anything to do with Hansen. The R&S paper did use Hansen's Venus scattering code, but that code is not what led to their prediction of cooling. There wasn't anything wrong with Hansen's scattering calculations. What led to the prediction of cooling is R&S's assumption of large future aerosol emissions (much larger than Hansen's paper assumed), coupled to their very low estimate of climate sensitivity to CO2 (which again had nothing to do with Hansen, who hadn't even published anything on the subject yet). Hansen's later climate sensitivity estimate was 2-3.2 K, converting from his 25% CO2 increase to the reference CO2 doubling, which is within the modern IPCC range. R&S used only 0.8 K, well below modern estimates.

Perhaps someday you will learn to read the primary scientific literature instead of getting all your "science" from skeptic blogs and the mainstream media.

As if NASA has done much original exploration lately. How long has it been since anybody has been to the Moon?

About the only genuinely ground breaking missions currently on tap are the New Horizons mission to Pluto and the Dawn mission to the asteroids. I am excited about both, but they certainly don't need an agency the current size of NASA to support either or both missions.

The spirit to boldly go where nobody has been before seems to be lost right now with NASA. No astronauts are setting altitude (aka distance) records to explore the depths of the Solar System. Heck, it was Apollo 13... a "failed" mission... that set the all-time distance record for anybody away from the Earth. There just doesn't seem to be any fire in the policy makers to have a difference here. This isn't even a Democrat or Republican issue, as both political parties are to blame.

NASA's total budget request for FY 2009 was $17.6 billion...

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/210020main_NASA_FY09_Budget_Estimates_Summary.pdf

Wanna bitch about wasting money, go yell at a banker or a broker.

You do know that the CO2 forcing that is "proven" only occurs in closed systems with uniform CO2 distribution?

Untrue. In closed systems with uniform CO2 distribution, the phenomenon is simplistic enough to show first-year science students, being taught for the first time the reason for a "control" system or group, and an "experimental" one that differs by just a single variable, to positively identify the cause of observed differences in the two groups. A real scientist, before humiliating yourself by opining publicly about things you don't understand, would have considered that absorption and emission spectra of substances are identical for all particles of any given atomic composition, whether atoms or molecules. Every carbon dioxide molecule, therefore, has the same non-emission behavior in the infrared band regardless of its location and regardless of what other substances are in its vicinity. CO2 concentration matters, not distribution.

Having non-uniform distribution means there are escape routes OUT of the Earth's atmosphere

Liar. "Having non-uniform distribution" only means that some types of particle are more or less prevalent in some regions than others. Gases mix very efficiently, and do not vary by location much anyway, as the NASA AIRS study you cited actually proves. What such a variation does not change is the total number of carbon dioxide molecules, and the behavior of all carbon dioxide molecules with respect to infrared radiation. It does not matter how they are "distributed". The cumulative effect is identical. Even if Some areas are perceptibly worse than others, the least CO2-dense areas today are worse than the most CO2-dense areas just six years ago.

Given that we have multi-decadal weather patterns, and the sun itself (where we get all the damn heat to start with) is on a 11-year pattern, and with the data we have, we cannot yet break our temperature down into what cycle is responsible for what amount of temperature variation.

I can.
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensofaq.shtml#pred_mon

Identifying long-term statistical trends in data that include short-term statistical variations is not as complicated as liars like you try to make it seem. I refer the interested, honest reader to a detailed discussion of statistical methods in climate science:
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-appA.pdf

The warming trend is clear and honest people know it. Last month:
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20081216_climatestats.html

Read the recent NASA AIRS satellite paper that describes two hemispheres with completely different carbon cycles and distributions.

NASA portrays those data as potentially helpful in further improving the accuracy of climate change predictions, which are already very accurate. 'Our results show carbon dioxide there can vary by nearly one percent and that the free troposphere is like international waters--what's produced in one place is free to travel elsewhere,' he said. Summary: (1) The variation you mentioned is "nearly one percent" (2) the wind mixes it very efficiently (3) as I already explained, as long as the average concentration remains elevated, a little local variation is irrelevant. NASA, its data, and its analysis do not say what you claim they say, liar.

We had a WARMING TREND.

Fixed that for you, it's been getting cooler the last 10 years.

Is that so?

The truth is that 2008 is the coolest year since 2000. Every year from 2001 to 2007 was warmer than 2008. Creatively spun, one can make it sound like things have been cooling since 2000. But in reality, the trend is still warming with merely one data point (this year) below the upward slope.

Not surprisingly, the global climate is also in a cooling trend.

Needs citation.
Global Temperature Land Ocean Index? -- Increasing
Global Temperature (meteorological stations)? -- Increasing.
Annual Mean Temperature Change for Three Latitude Bands? -- Slight dip for low latitudes, but mostly increasing
Annual Mean Temperature Change for Hemispheres? -- You guessed, it, increasing.
Global Monthly Mean Surface Temperature Change? -- All positive (thus, increasing)
Annual Mean Temperature Change in the United States? -- Shocking! - also increasing!
Seasonal Mean Temperature Change? -- Don't let the dip fool you, just means it is warming less rapidly

Perhaps you heard that 2008 is the coolest year since 2000? Well that's true. 2008 has the coolest temperatures of the past 8 years. But guess what? It's the 9th warmest year on record (since 1880). I'd wait for a few more data points before claiming a global cooling trend.

Talk about inconvenient...

Indeed.

Not surprisingly, the global climate is also in a cooling trend.

Needs citation.
Global Temperature Land Ocean Index? -- Increasing
Global Temperature (meteorological stations)? -- Increasing.
Annual Mean Temperature Change for Three Latitude Bands? -- Slight dip for low latitudes, but mostly increasing
Annual Mean Temperature Change for Hemispheres? -- You guessed, it, increasing.
Global Monthly Mean Surface Temperature Change? -- All positive (thus, increasing)
Annual Mean Temperature Change in the United States? -- Shocking! - also increasing!
Seasonal Mean Temperature Change? -- Don't let the dip fool you, just means it is warming less rapidly

Perhaps you heard that 2008 is the coolest year since 2000? Well that's true. 2008 has the coolest temperatures of the past 8 years. But guess what? It's the 9th warmest year on record (since 1880). I'd wait for a few more data points before claiming a global cooling trend.

Talk about inconvenient...

Indeed.

Not surprisingly, the global climate is also in a cooling trend.

Needs citation.
Global Temperature Land Ocean Index? -- Increasing
Global Temperature (meteorological stations)? -- Increasing.
Annual Mean Temperature Change for Three Latitude Bands? -- Slight dip for low latitudes, but mostly increasing
Annual Mean Temperature Change for Hemispheres? -- You guessed, it, increasing.
Global Monthly Mean Surface Temperature Change? -- All positive (thus, increasing)
Annual Mean Temperature Change in the United States? -- Shocking! - also increasing!
Seasonal Mean Temperature Change? -- Don't let the dip fool you, just means it is warming less rapidly

Perhaps you heard that 2008 is the coolest year since 2000? Well that's true. 2008 has the coolest temperatures of the past 8 years. But guess what? It's the 9th warmest year on record (since 1880). I'd wait for a few more data points before claiming a global cooling trend.

Talk about inconvenient...

Indeed.

Not surprisingly, the global climate is also in a cooling trend.

Needs citation.
Global Temperature Land Ocean Index? -- Increasing
Global Temperature (meteorological stations)? -- Increasing.
Annual Mean Temperature Change for Three Latitude Bands? -- Slight dip for low latitudes, but mostly increasing
Annual Mean Temperature Change for Hemispheres? -- You guessed, it, increasing.
Global Monthly Mean Surface Temperature Change? -- All positive (thus, increasing)
Annual Mean Temperature Change in the United States? -- Shocking! - also increasing!
Seasonal Mean Temperature Change? -- Don't let the dip fool you, just means it is warming less rapidly

Perhaps you heard that 2008 is the coolest year since 2000? Well that's true. 2008 has the coolest temperatures of the past 8 years. But guess what? It's the 9th warmest year on record (since 1880). I'd wait for a few more data points before claiming a global cooling trend.

Talk about inconvenient...

Indeed.

Not surprisingly, the global climate is also in a cooling trend.

Needs citation.
Global Temperature Land Ocean Index? -- Increasing
Global Temperature (meteorological stations)? -- Increasing.
Annual Mean Temperature Change for Three Latitude Bands? -- Slight dip for low latitudes, but mostly increasing
Annual Mean Temperature Change for Hemispheres? -- You guessed, it, increasing.
Global Monthly Mean Surface Temperature Change? -- All positive (thus, increasing)
Annual Mean Temperature Change in the United States? -- Shocking! - also increasing!
Seasonal Mean Temperature Change? -- Don't let the dip fool you, just means it is warming less rapidly

Perhaps you heard that 2008 is the coolest year since 2000? Well that's true. 2008 has the coolest temperatures of the past 8 years. But guess what? It's the 9th warmest year on record (since 1880). I'd wait for a few more data points before claiming a global cooling trend.

Talk about inconvenient...

Indeed.