Slashdot Mirror

Funny how people forget..

When Galaxy 4 died it took out 80% of the pagers in the US plus several video feeds used by the major networks (I worked for CBS at the time)

This was 2 years before the 2000 Solar max when solar activity was ramping up.
More storms in 2003 took out power in parts of Switzerland and killed 2 Satellites

There were several solar flare warnings around that time.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast14jul_2 m.htm

July 14, 2000 -- This morning NOAA satellites and the orbiting Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) recorded one of the most powerful solar flares of the current solar cycle. Space weather forecasters had been predicting for days that an intense flare might erupt from the large sunspot group 9077, and today one did.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/power_outage _031031.html

The sixth in an unprecedented series of strong space storms dished out by the Sun over a 10-day period plowed past Earth Thursday, apparently cutting power to 20,000 Swedish customers. The powerful series of outbursts also claimed two satellites as casualties while fueling a host of minor disruptions to radio broadcasts and airline flight plans.

http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/articles/eisbaker.html

A very intense flux of electrons, evident in the magnetosphere earlier this year, may have caused a satellite failure (or at least exacerbated the situation) leading to the loss of telephone pager service to 45 million customers, research has shown. The electrons, known as highly relativistic electrons (HREs), were especially numerous in the weeks preceding the failure. Researchers say HREs have triggered spacecraft anomalies in the past when fluxes are elevated. They therefore believe this energetic electron event could have been behind the failure of the attitude control system of the Galaxy 4 spacecraft at 2200 UT on May 19, 1998. A backup system also failed, either at the same time or earlier, so operators were unable to maintain a stable Earth link.

Galaxy 4 is a heavily used communication satellite at geostationary orbit*. Its sudden failure caused not only widespread loss of pager service but also numerous other communication outages. Using a wide array of datasets, our team of scientists analyzed the space environment for the times in question and found evidence of highly disturbed solar, solar wind*, and geomagnetic conditions in late April and early May. The combination of coronal mass ejections*, solar flares*, and high speed solar wind streams led to a powerful sequence of interplanetary disturbances that hit the Earth. These disturbances produced a deep, powerful, and long-lasting enhancement of the HRE population throughout the outer Van Allen radiation zone. The kinds of disturbances witnessed are indicative of the types of events that may commonly occur during the approaching peak in solar activity in the years 2000 and 2001. It will be most important to determine how well space systems can stand up to the multifaceted effects of the space environment over the next several years.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/ cell_phone_020306.html

Next time your cell phone drops acall, don't rush to blame your service provider. The culprit may well be anangry Sun.

A new study of 40 years of solardata shows that during peaks in activity, bursts of energy from the Sun canpotentially cause dropped calls for some cell phone users across wide areastwice per week. The problem is caused when radio waves associated with thebursts hit cell phone towers, creating static that overwhelms the signal at thetower, where calls are relayed.

T

Funny how people forget..

When Galaxy 4 died it took out 80% of the pagers in the US plus several video feeds used by the major networks (I worked for CBS at the time)

This was 2 years before the 2000 Solar max when solar activity was ramping up.
More storms in 2003 took out power in parts of Switzerland and killed 2 Satellites

There were several solar flare warnings around that time.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast14jul_2 m.htm

July 14, 2000 -- This morning NOAA satellites and the orbiting Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO) recorded one of the most powerful solar flares of the current solar cycle. Space weather forecasters had been predicting for days that an intense flare might erupt from the large sunspot group 9077, and today one did.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/power_outage _031031.html

The sixth in an unprecedented series of strong space storms dished out by the Sun over a 10-day period plowed past Earth Thursday, apparently cutting power to 20,000 Swedish customers. The powerful series of outbursts also claimed two satellites as casualties while fueling a host of minor disruptions to radio broadcasts and airline flight plans.

http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/articles/eisbaker.html

A very intense flux of electrons, evident in the magnetosphere earlier this year, may have caused a satellite failure (or at least exacerbated the situation) leading to the loss of telephone pager service to 45 million customers, research has shown. The electrons, known as highly relativistic electrons (HREs), were especially numerous in the weeks preceding the failure. Researchers say HREs have triggered spacecraft anomalies in the past when fluxes are elevated. They therefore believe this energetic electron event could have been behind the failure of the attitude control system of the Galaxy 4 spacecraft at 2200 UT on May 19, 1998. A backup system also failed, either at the same time or earlier, so operators were unable to maintain a stable Earth link.

Galaxy 4 is a heavily used communication satellite at geostationary orbit*. Its sudden failure caused not only widespread loss of pager service but also numerous other communication outages. Using a wide array of datasets, our team of scientists analyzed the space environment for the times in question and found evidence of highly disturbed solar, solar wind*, and geomagnetic conditions in late April and early May. The combination of coronal mass ejections*, solar flares*, and high speed solar wind streams led to a powerful sequence of interplanetary disturbances that hit the Earth. These disturbances produced a deep, powerful, and long-lasting enhancement of the HRE population throughout the outer Van Allen radiation zone. The kinds of disturbances witnessed are indicative of the types of events that may commonly occur during the approaching peak in solar activity in the years 2000 and 2001. It will be most important to determine how well space systems can stand up to the multifaceted effects of the space environment over the next several years.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/ cell_phone_020306.html

Next time your cell phone drops acall, don't rush to blame your service provider. The culprit may well be anangry Sun.

A new study of 40 years of solardata shows that during peaks in activity, bursts of energy from the Sun canpotentially cause dropped calls for some cell phone users across wide areastwice per week. The problem is caused when radio waves associated with thebursts hit cell phone towers, creating static that overwhelms the signal at thetower, where calls are relayed.

T

Here are some facts about global warming. Some of which you hear and don't hear from the main stream media:

1.) Apparently, the Earth magnetic field has decreased by 10% in the last 150 years (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_magnet ic_031212.html). I'm an electrical engineer and during my studies in particle physics, I learned that a particles velocity can be affected by magnetic fields. I believe it's possible that more of the Sun's radiation is penetrating the Earth's magnetosphere ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_magnetic_fiel d ) due to it being weaker. If more radiation hits the Earth, shouldn't that also increase the overall temperature of the Earth and can global warming be attributed to this?
2.) Jupitor is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_j r.html [space.com])
3.) Mars is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/ mars_snow_011206-1.html and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/new s/news.html?in_article_id=410901&in_page_id=1770)


How can you explain the recent same climate changes on different planets? I doubt it's all those cars being driven there.
4.) The United Nations found that there is more Methane produced from livestock, which raises global temperature greater than CO2 by a factor of approx. 20, than any human caused CO2 combined (source: http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/i ndex.html)


Is it possible that the warmer temperatures that Earth is experiencing are caused by cyclical natural phenomena? What about glaciers in Greenland that have been shrinking for 100 years (source: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/21/060821191 826.o0mynclv.html [breitbart.com])? Also, how do you explain huge ice ages on Earth? Were these caused by huge carbon emissions or was it a small natural climate cycle that just happens? Were those climate changes, which are no doubt more extreme than what's going on now, caused by the combustion engine? I don't have answers and everyone seems to have an opinion including a Nobel laureate who says the answer is more pollution (source: http://reports.discoverychannel.ca/servlet/an/disc overy/1/20061117/discovery_pollutionsolution_06111 7/20061117?hub=DiscoveryReport)

One last thing. Lets say we all buy into the fact that we're causing the climate change through CO2. Regardless of what actions we (America) take, China will still produce more CO2 than anyone because they want to get rich. There's no stopping it folks.

Here are some facts about global warming. Some of which you hear and don't hear from the main stream media:

1.) Apparently, the Earth magnetic field has decreased by 10% in the last 150 years (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_magnet ic_031212.html). I'm an electrical engineer and during my studies in particle physics, I learned that a particles velocity can be affected by magnetic fields. I believe it's possible that more of the Sun's radiation is penetrating the Earth's magnetosphere ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_magnetic_fiel d ) due to it being weaker. If more radiation hits the Earth, shouldn't that also increase the overall temperature of the Earth and can global warming be attributed to this?
2.) Jupitor is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_j r.html [space.com])
3.) Mars is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/ mars_snow_011206-1.html and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/new s/news.html?in_article_id=410901&in_page_id=1770)


How can you explain the recent same climate changes on different planets? I doubt it's all those cars being driven there.
4.) The United Nations found that there is more Methane produced from livestock, which raises global temperature greater than CO2 by a factor of approx. 20, than any human caused CO2 combined (source: http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/i ndex.html)


Is it possible that the warmer temperatures that Earth is experiencing are caused by cyclical natural phenomena? What about glaciers in Greenland that have been shrinking for 100 years (source: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/21/060821191 826.o0mynclv.html [breitbart.com])? Also, how do you explain huge ice ages on Earth? Were these caused by huge carbon emissions or was it a small natural climate cycle that just happens? Were those climate changes, which are no doubt more extreme than what's going on now, caused by the combustion engine? I don't have answers and everyone seems to have an opinion including a Nobel laureate who says the answer is more pollution (source: http://reports.discoverychannel.ca/servlet/an/disc overy/1/20061117/discovery_pollutionsolution_06111 7/20061117?hub=DiscoveryReport)

One last thing. Lets say we all buy into the fact that we're causing the climate change through CO2. Regardless of what actions we (America) take, China will still produce more CO2 than anyone because they want to get rich. There's no stopping it folks.

Here are some facts about global warming. Some of which you hear and don't hear from the main stream media:

1.) Apparently, the Earth magnetic field has decreased by 10% in the last 150 years (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_magnet ic_031212.html). I'm an electrical engineer and during my studies in particle physics, I learned that a particles velocity can be affected by magnetic fields. I believe it's possible that more of the Sun's radiation is penetrating the Earth's magnetosphere ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_magnetic_fiel d ) due to it being weaker. If more radiation hits the Earth, shouldn't that also increase the overall temperature of the Earth and can global warming be attributed to this?
2.) Jupitor is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_j r.html [space.com])
3.) Mars is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/ mars_snow_011206-1.html and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/new s/news.html?in_article_id=410901&in_page_id=1770)


How can you explain the recent same climate changes on different planets? I doubt it's all those cars being driven there.
4.) The United Nations found that there is more Methane produced from livestock, which raises global temperature greater than CO2 by a factor of approx. 20, than any human caused CO2 combined (source: http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/i ndex.html)


Is it possible that the warmer temperatures that Earth is experiencing are caused by cyclical natural phenomena? What about glaciers in Greenland that have been shrinking for 100 years (source: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/21/060821191 826.o0mynclv.html [breitbart.com])? Also, how do you explain huge ice ages on Earth? Were these caused by huge carbon emissions or was it a small natural climate cycle that just happens? Were those climate changes, which are no doubt more extreme than what's going on now, caused by the combustion engine? I don't have answers and everyone seems to have an opinion including a Nobel laureate who says the answer is more pollution (source: http://reports.discoverychannel.ca/servlet/an/disc overy/1/20061117/discovery_pollutionsolution_06111 7/20061117?hub=DiscoveryReport)

One last thing. Lets say we all buy into the fact that we're causing the climate change through CO2. Regardless of what actions we (America) take, China will still produce more CO2 than anyone because they want to get rich. There's no stopping it folks.

Did anyone else notice the bump the Kestrel engine took during stage separation? On the 40MB video from SpaceX, it happend at 3:28 in or at T+00:02:52 on the screen clock. Maybe this is normal for the engine, but it was rather odd looking to me.

Also, there was a story earlier that the 2nd launch was delayed "due to concerns over a thrust vector control pitch actuator on the Falcon 1 booster's second stage". I wonder if this came back to bite them?

Finally, I'm impressed as hell that they could experience an abort after engine start yet still cycle back and launch in just another hour! When the Shuttle once aborted after engine start it took them a month to change out the engines and try again.

Here are some facts about global warming. Some of which you hear and don't hear from the main stream media:

1.) The world appears to be getting warmer with many computer models showing an increase in global temperature.
2.) Tying a trend to warmer temperatures based on older data from the early 1900's is suspect at best. Good, reliable, accurate scientific equipment that measures the temperature wasn't readily available until recently (late 1900's).
3.) Apparently, the Earth magnetic field has decreased by 10% in the last 150 years (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_magnet ic_031212.html). I'm an electrical engineer and during my studies in particle physics, I learned that a particles velocity can be affected by magnetic fields. I believe it's possible that more of the Sun's radiation is penetrating the Earth's magnetosphere ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_magnetic_fiel d ) due to it being weaker. If more radiation hits the Earth, shouldn't that also increase the overall temperature of the Earth and can global warming be attributed to this?
4.) Jupitor is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_j r.html [space.com])
5.) Mars is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/ mars_snow_011206-1.html and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/new s/news.html?in_article_id=410901&in_page_id=1770)


How can you explain the recent same climate changes on different planets? I doubt it's all those cars being driven there.
6.) The United Nations found that there is more Methane produced from livestock, which raises global temperature greater than CO2 by a factor of approx. 20, than any human caused CO2 combined (source: http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/i ndex.html)


Is it possible that the warmer temperatures that Earth is experiencing are caused by cyclical natural phenomena? What about glaciers in Greenland that have been shrinking for 100 years (source: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/21/060821191 826.o0mynclv.html [breitbart.com])? Also, how do you explain huge ice ages on Earth? Were these caused by huge carbon emissions or was it a small natural climate cycle that just happens? Were those climate changes, which are no doubt more extreme than what's going on now, caused by the combustion engine? I don't have answers and everyone seems to have an opinion including a Nobel laureate who says the answer is more pollution (source: http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/11/16/smog.wa rming.ap/index.html)

One last thing. Lets say we all buy into the fact that we're causing the climate change through CO2. Regardless of what actions we (America) take, China will still produce more CO2 than anyone because they want to get rich. There's no stopping it folks.

Here are some facts about global warming. Some of which you hear and don't hear from the main stream media:

1.) The world appears to be getting warmer with many computer models showing an increase in global temperature.
2.) Tying a trend to warmer temperatures based on older data from the early 1900's is suspect at best. Good, reliable, accurate scientific equipment that measures the temperature wasn't readily available until recently (late 1900's).
3.) Apparently, the Earth magnetic field has decreased by 10% in the last 150 years (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_magnet ic_031212.html). I'm an electrical engineer and during my studies in particle physics, I learned that a particles velocity can be affected by magnetic fields. I believe it's possible that more of the Sun's radiation is penetrating the Earth's magnetosphere ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_magnetic_fiel d ) due to it being weaker. If more radiation hits the Earth, shouldn't that also increase the overall temperature of the Earth and can global warming be attributed to this?
4.) Jupitor is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_j r.html [space.com])
5.) Mars is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/ mars_snow_011206-1.html and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/new s/news.html?in_article_id=410901&in_page_id=1770)


How can you explain the recent same climate changes on different planets? I doubt it's all those cars being driven there.
6.) The United Nations found that there is more Methane produced from livestock, which raises global temperature greater than CO2 by a factor of approx. 20, than any human caused CO2 combined (source: http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/i ndex.html)


Is it possible that the warmer temperatures that Earth is experiencing are caused by cyclical natural phenomena? What about glaciers in Greenland that have been shrinking for 100 years (source: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/21/060821191 826.o0mynclv.html [breitbart.com])? Also, how do you explain huge ice ages on Earth? Were these caused by huge carbon emissions or was it a small natural climate cycle that just happens? Were those climate changes, which are no doubt more extreme than what's going on now, caused by the combustion engine? I don't have answers and everyone seems to have an opinion including a Nobel laureate who says the answer is more pollution (source: http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/11/16/smog.wa rming.ap/index.html)

One last thing. Lets say we all buy into the fact that we're causing the climate change through CO2. Regardless of what actions we (America) take, China will still produce more CO2 than anyone because they want to get rich. There's no stopping it folks.

Here are some facts about global warming. Some of which you hear and don't hear from the main stream media:

1.) The world appears to be getting warmer with many computer models showing an increase in global temperature.
2.) Tying a trend to warmer temperatures based on older data from the early 1900's is suspect at best. Good, reliable, accurate scientific equipment that measures the temperature wasn't readily available until recently (late 1900's).
3.) Apparently, the Earth magnetic field has decreased by 10% in the last 150 years (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_magnet ic_031212.html). I'm an electrical engineer and during my studies in particle physics, I learned that a particles velocity can be affected by magnetic fields. I believe it's possible that more of the Sun's radiation is penetrating the Earth's magnetosphere ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_magnetic_fiel d ) due to it being weaker. If more radiation hits the Earth, shouldn't that also increase the overall temperature of the Earth and can global warming be attributed to this?
4.) Jupitor is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_j r.html [space.com])
5.) Mars is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/ mars_snow_011206-1.html and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/new s/news.html?in_article_id=410901&in_page_id=1770)


How can you explain the recent same climate changes on different planets? I doubt it's all those cars being driven there.
6.) The United Nations found that there is more Methane produced from livestock, which raises global temperature greater than CO2 by a factor of approx. 20, than any human caused CO2 combined (source: http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/i ndex.html)


Is it possible that the warmer temperatures that Earth is experiencing are caused by cyclical natural phenomena? What about glaciers in Greenland that have been shrinking for 100 years (source: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/21/060821191 826.o0mynclv.html [breitbart.com])? Also, how do you explain huge ice ages on Earth? Were these caused by huge carbon emissions or was it a small natural climate cycle that just happens? Were those climate changes, which are no doubt more extreme than what's going on now, caused by the combustion engine? I don't have answers and everyone seems to have an opinion including a Nobel laureate who says the answer is more pollution (source: http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/11/16/smog.wa rming.ap/index.html)

One last thing. Lets say we all buy into the fact that we're causing the climate change through CO2. Regardless of what actions we (America) take, China will still produce more CO2 than anyone because they want to get rich. There's no stopping it folks.

None, but NASA. Sure, they're a big, slow moving organization... but try to do what they've done with a smaller organization. It won't work.

A slightly smaller but faster moving organization could have done more. For example, one could have built five or so International Space Stations for the price of the one that was actually built. Space probes are still built using mostly original or "one off" designs. And are built only in singles or pairs so there are no economies of scale exploited. For example, if NASA had doubled the money spent on the two rovers, they probably could have placed another 4 rovers on the surface of Mars.

Besides much of what NASA has done has been quite counterproductive. My take is that manned space exploration has been taken back by the Space Shuttle and International Space Station. And there was a period in the 80's and 90's when NASA helped thwart competition in the launch industry. For example, there have been claims of anti-competitive actions against Beal Aerospace and E Prime Aerospace. When Beal Aerospace quit the business, the chairman, Andrew Beal cited NASA and US government subsidies to existing launch platforms as the main reason for ceasing operations. Keep in mind that Beal Aerospace would have competed directly with the heavy launch vehicles from Lockheed Martin and Boeing. Ican't find similar documented complaints from E Prime Aerospace. Supposedly they experienced during their MX missile conversion program (converting these missiles to launch vehicles) bureaucratic obstructions sparked by NASA and the above prime contractors.

Then there's the Launch Services Purchase Act and subsequent legislation that attempts to force NASA to use commercially available launch services instead of its own. This legislation wasn't inspired in a vacuum or by special interests, but comes from NASA's continuning anti-competitive behavior up to that point.

Finally, keep in mind that most of the NASA-bashers used to be big fans of NASA. There is probably no organization on Earth (except for some religious organizations like the Roman Catholic Church) that has squandered as much firmly placed good will and trust as NASA did in the decades after the manned landings on the Moon. The current plague of NASA-bashing is directly a result of decades of short-sighted and often destructive behavior by NASA, by various favored prime contractors, and through political decisions by Congress and various US presidents. To be blunt, things have fallen to the point that NASA's existence is at stake.

She says that we get hailstorms like that every year or so, and it's happened enough times before. A friend who still works at KSC, as a tech, verifies this.

Not to the same order of magnitude, however. There are more than dings in the foam, there are actual cracks in the foam. Which is a much bigger problem in high-speed high-temperature flow.

Then, of course, the GOP has *never* liked the space program

Do what now? GW Bush asked for a bigger budget next year than NASA proposed, guess who shot it down? (Confirmation: here:

WASHINGTON - The White House's $17.3 billion request for NASA in 2008 demonstrates U.S. President George W. Bush's commitment to replacing the space shuttle by 2014, but might not be enough to offset the impact of a lower-than-expected budget for this year, agency officials said.
"This increase demonstrates the President's commitment to NASA and to maintaining our nation's leadership in space and aeronautics research," NASA chief Michael Griffin said in a Monday briefing.
The request, which would give the space agency a raise of roughly $1 billion over this year's likely budget, keeps science and aeronautics spending relatively flat, but does include funds to begin purchasing a new series of data-relay spacecraft.
The annual budget request tracks very closely with the spending plan the White House sent to Congress this time last year, which sought 3 percent increases for NASA in both 2007 and 2008. However, NASA is unlikely to get a raise this year due to a plan by the Democratic-led Congress to fund most U.S. domestic federal agencies at their 2006 levels.

Who was it that came up with Star Wars? Reagan.

Plenty more examples, the GOP likes space access.

Don't believe that? Then why are we still flying Shuttles whose *intended* lifespan was 20 years, and we have *nothing* new even in test?

The new test article is the Ares, which is due to complete its first test flight in April 2009. The second launch will commence six months later. The launchpad at KSC (39B) is being handed over to the Ares team at the end of this month for modifications.

And the shuttles were never rated for a useful lifetime in years - they are rated in number of flights. Namely, 100.

The researchers have collected extensive data confirming a layer of hydrogen across much of the planet within 3 feet (1 meter) of the dusty surface of both hemispheres -- well within reach of robots or humans who might venture to Mars. The scientists believe the hydrogen is strong evidence for water ice, a finding they first announced in March.

Now Mars Express has made the first direct detection of a chemical signature of the water ice at the south pole. Officials said today they had essentially seen the vapors of water at the surface.

"You look at the picture, look at the fingerprint and say this is water ice," said Allen Moorehouse of European Space Agency. "This is the first time it's been detected on the ground. This is the first direct confirmation."

The researchers have collected extensive data confirming a layer of hydrogen across much of the planet within 3 feet (1 meter) of the dusty surface of both hemispheres -- well within reach of robots or humans who might venture to Mars. The scientists believe the hydrogen is strong evidence for water ice, a finding they first announced in March.

Now Mars Express has made the first direct detection of a chemical signature of the water ice at the south pole. Officials said today they had essentially seen the vapors of water at the surface.

"You look at the picture, look at the fingerprint and say this is water ice," said Allen Moorehouse of European Space Agency. "This is the first time it's been detected on the ground. This is the first direct confirmation."

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age _031208.html

Its always fun saying "Mars has global warming" to a room full of people who consider themselves "educated enough to know that global warming denial is an unscientific crock". You first get a bit of laughter, and then about 15 seconds later the implication dawns on them, and they'll say the satellites were busted, the protocols unscientific, and that whatever boring astronomer produced the result must be a stooge for Big Carbon.

I am pointing out that just because cosmologists reject your favorite theory doesn't mean they don't think outside the box.

Well, let's review some interesting things that have happened since I took my leave of absence ...

Inventing a new particle every time an unexplained observation occurs is hardly thinking out of the box ...

From http://space.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1122 1&feedId=astronomy_rss20:

A dense stellar corpse called a neutron star has been found spinning at an astonishing 1122 rotations per second - 1.5 times faster than any other star. If confirmed, the finding could bolster the possibility of exotic "soft" states of matter inside dense stars.

When you see a flashing object and conclude that it *must* be spinning, that's hardly out-of-the-box thinking.

And when you see a supernova explosion that lasts 125 days long without fading, one might question whether or not this can really be categorized as an explosion in the traditional sense ...

From http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070308_swift _gammas.html:

The explosive death of a massive star has broken the record for longest-lived light show. Observations from NASA's Swift satellite have revealed a so-called gamma-ray burst for which the afterglow remained visible for more than 125 days.

[...]

Unlike other afterglows, the long-lived one showed little drop in brightness over the 125 days of observation. The prolonged light output suggests an underlying engine that pumped energy continuously to the burst.

It's always interesting to me to see that as evidence mounts in support of EU Theory and Thornhill's Electric Sun Hypothesis, people continue on as if it's business as usual. It's oftentimes stated that the Electric Sun Hypothesis is absurd because we've never seen any flow of electricity into the Sun. It appears that that's not really a valid claim. From http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070220_sun_s pole.html:

Ulysses is also collecting data on the holes over the sun's poles, known as coronal holes. These are regions where the magnetic field of the Sun opens, allowing solar winds to escape and galactic cosmic rays to get in.

"Flying over the sun's poles, you get slapped in the face by a hot, million mph stream of protons and electrons," Posner said.

In any other science, a flow of protons and electrons is called "electricity". In astrophysics, that continues to be blasphemy.

The article continues on ...

"The interesting thing about the past flybys was that, especially the ones in the solar minimum, there were some asymmetries between the north and the south [poles], and we are now trying to learn whether these are still there or whether they have changed," Posner told SPACE.com. "That is what we are eagerly awaiting."

If anybody cares, Wallace Thornhill will tell you what they will find. All of these "surprises" are integral parts of his Electric Sun Hypothesis. But nobody seems to care and the mainstream astrophysicists continue to live in their self-imposed box.

The "box" is The Big Bang Theory and Stellar Evolution. And by interpreting all of our observations through these theories rather than attempting to fit them to other various cosmologies, mainstream astrophysicists and enthusiasts alike have placed themselves inside of it. But, much to the consternation of people who don't like EU Theory, our observations increasingly support the statements being made by the EU Theorists. By not being aware

I am pointing out that just because cosmologists reject your favorite theory doesn't mean they don't think outside the box.

Well, let's review some interesting things that have happened since I took my leave of absence ...

Inventing a new particle every time an unexplained observation occurs is hardly thinking out of the box ...

From http://space.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1122 1&feedId=astronomy_rss20:

A dense stellar corpse called a neutron star has been found spinning at an astonishing 1122 rotations per second - 1.5 times faster than any other star. If confirmed, the finding could bolster the possibility of exotic "soft" states of matter inside dense stars.

When you see a flashing object and conclude that it *must* be spinning, that's hardly out-of-the-box thinking.

And when you see a supernova explosion that lasts 125 days long without fading, one might question whether or not this can really be categorized as an explosion in the traditional sense ...

From http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070308_swift _gammas.html:

The explosive death of a massive star has broken the record for longest-lived light show. Observations from NASA's Swift satellite have revealed a so-called gamma-ray burst for which the afterglow remained visible for more than 125 days.

[...]

Unlike other afterglows, the long-lived one showed little drop in brightness over the 125 days of observation. The prolonged light output suggests an underlying engine that pumped energy continuously to the burst.

It's always interesting to me to see that as evidence mounts in support of EU Theory and Thornhill's Electric Sun Hypothesis, people continue on as if it's business as usual. It's oftentimes stated that the Electric Sun Hypothesis is absurd because we've never seen any flow of electricity into the Sun. It appears that that's not really a valid claim. From http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070220_sun_s pole.html:

Ulysses is also collecting data on the holes over the sun's poles, known as coronal holes. These are regions where the magnetic field of the Sun opens, allowing solar winds to escape and galactic cosmic rays to get in.

"Flying over the sun's poles, you get slapped in the face by a hot, million mph stream of protons and electrons," Posner said.

In any other science, a flow of protons and electrons is called "electricity". In astrophysics, that continues to be blasphemy.

The article continues on ...

"The interesting thing about the past flybys was that, especially the ones in the solar minimum, there were some asymmetries between the north and the south [poles], and we are now trying to learn whether these are still there or whether they have changed," Posner told SPACE.com. "That is what we are eagerly awaiting."

If anybody cares, Wallace Thornhill will tell you what they will find. All of these "surprises" are integral parts of his Electric Sun Hypothesis. But nobody seems to care and the mainstream astrophysicists continue to live in their self-imposed box.

The "box" is The Big Bang Theory and Stellar Evolution. And by interpreting all of our observations through these theories rather than attempting to fit them to other various cosmologies, mainstream astrophysicists and enthusiasts alike have placed themselves inside of it. But, much to the consternation of people who don't like EU Theory, our observations increasingly support the statements being made by the EU Theorists. By not being aware

There is a deadline here, and the deadline is a natural one. Right now Pluto is near its perihelion, which means it is (just barely) warm enough to have an atmosphere. There are many many things you can learn scientifically from an atmosphere. However, if the space probe takes too long to arrive at Pluto, the atmosphere will be gone by the time it gets there. In that case, we'll have to wait a cool 200 years before Pluto comes around to perihelion again.

Quoting space.com:

"Some people think its 20 years off and some people think its five years off," said Stern. "No one really knows when Pluto's atmosphere will snow out and collapse."

Can you explain then why warming on Mars appears to also be warming? Please don't tell me that we already have SUV's running around there spewing CO2???

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/07 0228-mars-warming.html
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age _031208.html
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070312_giant _dwarf.html

I rest my case.

"Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun."

"the average surface temperature of the nitrogen ice on Pluto has increased slightly less than 2 degrees Celsius over the past 14 years."

"The latest images could provide evidence that Jupiter is in the midst of a global change that can modify temperatures by as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit on different parts of the globe."

"At least since 1989, Triton has been undergoing a period of global warming. Percentage-wise, it's a very large increase," said Elliot, professor of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences and director of the Wallace Astrophysical Observatory. The 5 percent increase on the absolute temperature scale from about minus-392 degrees Fahrenheit to about minus-389 degrees Fahrenheit would be like the Earth experiencing a jump of about 22 degrees Fahrenheit."

You bet me to the punch :) Mars is not just the only other planet warming,,, But just to give our claim some credence, here are some reputable links.. MARS http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age _031208.html http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/07 0228-mars-warming.html PLUTO http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warmin g_021009.html JUPITER http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_j r.html TRITON http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1998/triton.html We now live in what i call the DisInformation Age, and not the Information Age. No one can doubt global warming is happening, but we sure can doubt the cause as being man made.

You bet me to the punch :) Mars is not just the only other planet warming,,, But just to give our claim some credence, here are some reputable links.. MARS http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age _031208.html http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/07 0228-mars-warming.html PLUTO http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warmin g_021009.html JUPITER http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_j r.html TRITON http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1998/triton.html We now live in what i call the DisInformation Age, and not the Information Age. No one can doubt global warming is happening, but we sure can doubt the cause as being man made.

You bet me to the punch :) Mars is not just the only other planet warming,,, But just to give our claim some credence, here are some reputable links.. MARS http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age _031208.html http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/07 0228-mars-warming.html PLUTO http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warmin g_021009.html JUPITER http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_j r.html TRITON http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1998/triton.html We now live in what i call the DisInformation Age, and not the Information Age. No one can doubt global warming is happening, but we sure can doubt the cause as being man made.

Meanwhile beneath the surface of Mars..

I think they should go looking for the Bunny which hopped through the Opportunity landing site all those years ago.

This is what happens when a poorly thought definition change occurs. The dynamics of the Pluto orbit were known for a long time. There's been no sudden increase in scientific insight due to this capricious change. Let's look at the facts. Pluto was considered a planet for more than 75 years. In recent times, many Kuiper Belt objects (which by definition interact gravitationally with Neptune) were found, one which is probably even larger than Pluto and at it's closest approach can be closer to the Sun than Pluto is at it's most distant. There may be many such objects larger than Pluto. So yes, if Pluto were discovered now (ignoring the new definition), it probably would not be considered a planet.

But let's look at the definition. Pluto satisfies the first two conditions, it is in orbit around the Sun and is massive enough to form a sphere. The third condition is that "it must have cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit". That phrase has yet to be defined. So we're saying Pluto is not a planet even though we don't yet know the meaning of a critical term. Let me point out what should be obvious. Namely, if one defines the neighborhood of an orbit as a locus of the trajectory (in four dimensional space-time, eg, the space within distance d of the object at time t), then anything big enough to be round most likely has cleared an impressively large neighborhood of anything of similar mass. I assume reasonably that "cleared" means here that no amount of mass similar in order of magnitude routinely runs through this neighborhood. Also, it ignores the grief that the definition change causes to the outside world. Science textbooks need to be modified to reflect this new definition. Given that the definition is "official" yet is still mostly incomplete, the IAU will need to complete the definition of planet (and you can bet that Pluto == planet is still on the agenda). Finally, the definition explicitly only defines "planet" in the Solar System. The related definition of "dwarf planet" (ie, if it is massive enough to be rounded by gravity, it's a dwarf planet) does apply to exosolar dwarf planets (by a 2003 decision by the IAU).

So all this effort fails to apply to other star systems. This is quite relevant. First, the Solar System is a mature star system, more than 4 billion years old with no signs of recent perturbation. Second, all the orbits of the "planets" are circular. That's unusual. Most of the objects yet discovered have very elliptical (ie, large eccentricity) orbits. The definition would be hard to observe anyway since one would need to be able to account for most of the nonstellar mass in the star system before they could claim that anything has "cleared its orbit".

Finally, the decision was made with little concensus. The IAU is not an open-membership body. My impression is that it admits members directly by election only or at the behest of a "national member", a national level organization (like the US National Academy of Science's Board on International Scientific Organizations) which may have similar membership requirements. IMHO, IAU membership isn't constituted in a way conducive to concensus outside the astronomy community. Second, as noted before, only 5% of the members of the IAU actually voted on the definition in question. Further, only IAU officials had the power to modify the definition when it was being voted on. Finally, no report of the actual vote has ever been made public, as far as I can tell. We know that 424 members voted on it (this is widely reported in the media), but I have never seen reported the actual vote tally.

In summary, a redefinition of a common term, "planet" which manages to remain ill-defined and to have little scientific value by an international body that failed to generate any concensus either inside or out on the decision.

Video:
http://boss.streamos.com/wmedia-live/ula/18488/56_ ula-atlas_v_stp_070306.asx (56k)
http://boss.streamos.com/wmedia-live/ula/18488/300 _ula-atlas_v_stp_070306.asx (300k)

Play-by-play
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/070308_atlas5 _stp1_cntdwn.html

The article implies that this broke some sort of record, but the article fails to mention the space suit worn by Dr. McCoy wore in "The Tholian Web" that sold for $144,000 at the Christie's Star Trek auction.

Interesting because NASA has said the sun's output has increased every decade since detailed records have been kept(70s) - http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_0 30320.html

sorry it's an older article, but finding any information that conflicts with a human cause for global warming is buried pretty deep.

Perhaps a pretty picture will help - http://www.space.com/images/suncycle_temps_0108_02 .gif

And comments like yours like "As it turns out, solar output isn't sufficient to explain the observed global warming. " make me laugh. How do you know? WE can't predict if it's going to rain tomorrow, yet YOU know the sun doesn't account for what we've seen. Sorry, I call BS with your blanket statements.

It's a big unknown, so to discount possible causes seems suspect to me.

Interesting because NASA has said the sun's output has increased every decade since detailed records have been kept(70s) - http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_0 30320.html

sorry it's an older article, but finding any information that conflicts with a human cause for global warming is buried pretty deep.

Perhaps a pretty picture will help - http://www.space.com/images/suncycle_temps_0108_02 .gif

And comments like yours like "As it turns out, solar output isn't sufficient to explain the observed global warming. " make me laugh. How do you know? WE can't predict if it's going to rain tomorrow, yet YOU know the sun doesn't account for what we've seen. Sorry, I call BS with your blanket statements.

It's a big unknown, so to discount possible causes seems suspect to me.

Here are some facts about global warming. Some of which you hear and don't hear from the main stream media:

1.) The world appears to be getting warmer with many computer models showing an increase in global temperature.
2.) Tying a trend to warmer temperatures based on older data from the early 1900's is suspect at best. Good, reliable, accurate scientific equipment that measures the temperature wasn't readily available until recently (late 1900's).
3.) Apparently, the Earth magnetic field has decreased by 10% in the last 150 years (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_magnet ic_031212.html). I'm an electrical engineer and during my studies in particle physics, I learned that a particles velocity can be affected by magnetic fields. I believe it's possible that more of the Sun's radiation is penetrating the Earth's magnetosphere ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_magnetic_fiel d ) due to it being weaker. If more radiation hits the Earth, shouldn't that also increase the overall temperature of the Earth and can global warming be attributed to this?
4.) Jupitor is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_j r.html [space.com])
5.) Mars is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/ mars_snow_011206-1.html and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/new s/news.html?in_article_id=410901&in_page_id=1770)


How can you explain the recent same climate changes on different planets? I doubt it's all those cars being driven there.
6.) The United Nations found that there is more Methane produced from livestock, which raises global temperature greater than CO2 by a factor of approx. 20, than any human caused CO2 combined (source: http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/i ndex.html)


Is it possible that the warmer temperatures that Earth is experiencing are caused by cyclical natural phenomena? What about glaciers in Greenland that have been shrinking for 100 years (source: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/21/060821191 826.o0mynclv.html [breitbart.com])? Also, how do you explain huge ice ages on Earth? Were thse caused by huge carbon emissions or was it a small natural climate cycle that just happens? Were those climate changes, which are no doubt more extreme than what's going on now, caused by the combustion engine? I don't have answers and everyone seems to have an opinion including a Nobel laureate who says the answer is more pollution (source: http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/11/16/smog.wa rming.ap/index.html)

One last thing. Lets say we all buy into the fact that we're causing the climate change through CO2. Regardless of what actions we (America) take, China will still produce more CO2 than anyone because they want to get rich. There's no stopping it.

Here are some facts about global warming. Some of which you hear and don't hear from the main stream media:

1.) The world appears to be getting warmer with many computer models showing an increase in global temperature.
2.) Tying a trend to warmer temperatures based on older data from the early 1900's is suspect at best. Good, reliable, accurate scientific equipment that measures the temperature wasn't readily available until recently (late 1900's).
3.) Apparently, the Earth magnetic field has decreased by 10% in the last 150 years (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_magnet ic_031212.html). I'm an electrical engineer and during my studies in particle physics, I learned that a particles velocity can be affected by magnetic fields. I believe it's possible that more of the Sun's radiation is penetrating the Earth's magnetosphere ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_magnetic_fiel d ) due to it being weaker. If more radiation hits the Earth, shouldn't that also increase the overall temperature of the Earth and can global warming be attributed to this?
4.) Jupitor is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_j r.html [space.com])
5.) Mars is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/ mars_snow_011206-1.html and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/new s/news.html?in_article_id=410901&in_page_id=1770)


How can you explain the recent same climate changes on different planets? I doubt it's all those cars being driven there.
6.) The United Nations found that there is more Methane produced from livestock, which raises global temperature greater than CO2 by a factor of approx. 20, than any human caused CO2 combined (source: http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/i ndex.html)


Is it possible that the warmer temperatures that Earth is experiencing are caused by cyclical natural phenomena? What about glaciers in Greenland that have been shrinking for 100 years (source: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/21/060821191 826.o0mynclv.html [breitbart.com])? Also, how do you explain huge ice ages on Earth? Were thse caused by huge carbon emissions or was it a small natural climate cycle that just happens? Were those climate changes, which are no doubt more extreme than what's going on now, caused by the combustion engine? I don't have answers and everyone seems to have an opinion including a Nobel laureate who says the answer is more pollution (source: http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/11/16/smog.wa rming.ap/index.html)

One last thing. Lets say we all buy into the fact that we're causing the climate change through CO2. Regardless of what actions we (America) take, China will still produce more CO2 than anyone because they want to get rich. There's no stopping it.

Here are some facts about global warming. Some of which you hear and don't hear from the main stream media:

1.) The world appears to be getting warmer with many computer models showing an increase in global temperature.
2.) Tying a trend to warmer temperatures based on older data from the early 1900's is suspect at best. Good, reliable, accurate scientific equipment that measures the temperature wasn't readily available until recently (late 1900's).
3.) Apparently, the Earth magnetic field has decreased by 10% in the last 150 years (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_magnet ic_031212.html). I'm an electrical engineer and during my studies in particle physics, I learned that a particles velocity can be affected by magnetic fields. I believe it's possible that more of the Sun's radiation is penetrating the Earth's magnetosphere ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_magnetic_fiel d ) due to it being weaker. If more radiation hits the Earth, shouldn't that also increase the overall temperature of the Earth and can global warming be attributed to this?
4.) Jupitor is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_j r.html [space.com])
5.) Mars is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/ mars_snow_011206-1.html and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/new s/news.html?in_article_id=410901&in_page_id=1770)


How can you explain the recent same climate changes on different planets? I doubt it's all those cars being driven there.
6.) The United Nations found that there is more Methane produced from livestock, which raises global temperature greater than CO2 by a factor of approx. 20, than any human caused CO2 combined (source: http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/i ndex.html)


Is it possible that the warmer temperatures that Earth is experiencing are caused by cyclical natural phenomena? What about glaciers in Greenland that have been shrinking for 100 years (source: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/21/060821191 826.o0mynclv.html [breitbart.com])? Also, how do you explain huge ice ages on Earth? Were thse caused by huge carbon emissions or was it a small natural climate cycle that just happens? Were those climate changes, which are no doubt more extreme than what's going on now, caused by the combustion engine? I don't have answers and everyone seems to have an opinion including a Nobel laureate who says the answer is more pollution (source: http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/11/16/smog.wa rming.ap/index.html)

One last thing. Lets say we all buy into the fact that we're causing the climate change through CO2. Regardless of what actions we (America) take, China will still produce more CO2 than anyone because they want to get rich. There's no stopping it.

The original article mentions Mars as having global warming, but scientists are also reporting that Jupiter http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_j r.html, Triton http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1998/triton-0715.htm l and Pluto http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warmin g_021009.html may also be warming up. Coincidence again?

I see the recent IPCC report mentioned often, but I wonder how many folks that refer to it have only actually heard about it through the news or even actually read the summary. I wonder because at least 7-8 of the scientists that wrote the detailed reports have complained that the IPCC official summaries and press releases show the opposite conclusion from the detailed reports. In other words, at least some (if not much) of the actual science behind the IPCC report apparently was unable to find any definite correlation between humankind's effects and climate. That doesn't mean that anyone thinks current pollution levels should continue, or even that the Earth isn't getting warmer right now. One interesting series of articles about those scientists is at http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=2 2003a0d-37cc-4399-8bcc-39cd20bed2f6&k=0

Personally, I'm suspicious of the global warming industry because of some of the funding issues I've read about (but don't have references handy, sorry). For one, the funding rate went up by a factor of about 100 after global warming was announced around the time of Pres. Regan. Also, it seems that anyone who attempts to publish any research contrary to popular views has their funding cut (and some have lost their jobs completely). To me, that sounds like an organization that wants to stay alive at any cost, rather than one interested in real science. Especially since the funding seems to be tied to producing proof that, rather than determining if, Man is responsible for global warming.

The original article mentions Mars as having global warming, but scientists are also reporting that Jupiter http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_j r.html, Triton http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1998/triton-0715.htm l and Pluto http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warmin g_021009.html may also be warming up. Coincidence again?

I see the recent IPCC report mentioned often, but I wonder how many folks that refer to it have only actually heard about it through the news or even actually read the summary. I wonder because at least 7-8 of the scientists that wrote the detailed reports have complained that the IPCC official summaries and press releases show the opposite conclusion from the detailed reports. In other words, at least some (if not much) of the actual science behind the IPCC report apparently was unable to find any definite correlation between humankind's effects and climate. That doesn't mean that anyone thinks current pollution levels should continue, or even that the Earth isn't getting warmer right now. One interesting series of articles about those scientists is at http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=2 2003a0d-37cc-4399-8bcc-39cd20bed2f6&k=0

Personally, I'm suspicious of the global warming industry because of some of the funding issues I've read about (but don't have references handy, sorry). For one, the funding rate went up by a factor of about 100 after global warming was announced around the time of Pres. Regan. Also, it seems that anyone who attempts to publish any research contrary to popular views has their funding cut (and some have lost their jobs completely). To me, that sounds like an organization that wants to stay alive at any cost, rather than one interested in real science. Especially since the funding seems to be tied to producing proof that, rather than determining if, Man is responsible for global warming.

Nope. The proposition that manmade greenhouse gases are causing "an enhanced greenhouse effect" is the proposition of a nutcase called James Hansen.

And you swallowed the lie whole with a side of bad climate modelling.

Funnily enough Triton is warming as is Pluto

Of course the biggest lie you've swallowed is that all of this is somehow disinformation by Exxon. It takes a very wide gullet to manage that one but you've taken it in your stride.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_0 30320.html

It seems as though some people monitoring the sun do seem to believe (or at least did in 2003) that the solar output has been increasing.

Also, it's pretty well known that many simple lab experiments don't generalize well to larger, complex (real-world) systems. Some do, some don't. A great example of this are the numerous anti-cancer agents that work in vitro but fail to kill cancer in vivo.

I'm just saying is all...

Pluto - http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warmin g_021009.html

Triton - http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/19980526052143dat a_trunc_sys.shtml

Jupiter - http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_j r.html

Pluto - http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warmin g_021009.html

Triton - http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/19980526052143dat a_trunc_sys.shtml

Jupiter - http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_j r.html

Wasn't a while ago that a Russian played golf on ISS?[1] Maybe the 'special golf ball' was planned by Putin's neo-communist regime to undermine NASA's space effort!

[1] http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/ft_060227_exp 13_golf.html

This type of laser has been successfully used to shoot incoming missiles and mortar rounds. The first application will be battlefield defense against projectile and missiles. See this for example this article.

And no, you cannot coat a warhead with a mirror surface.

ping marsbase.com.mars.sol.milky
Now it's really future-proof

ping marsbase.com.mars.sol.milky
Now it's really future-proof

What a shallow low tech article.
Better reviews using these links

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interplanetary_Intern et
http://www.space.com/news/mars_micromissions_99120 7.html

so... what is causing MARS to warm up?

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age _031208.html

or cliamte change on Jupiter?

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2006-05 -04-jupiter-jr-spot_x.htm?POE=TECISVA

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N17363374 .htm

To put this into perspective you have roughly a 1 in 80,000 chance of dying from an act of terrorism, almost twice the odds that this thing will strike the Earth. Now think about that. The odds of this think hitting the PLANET is greater than any 1 person being killed by a terrorist. Now look back at how much time and money has been spent on combating those that use terrorism to accomplish their goals.

Think about it where our priorities should be.

For reference, Meteor Crater in Arizona, which is about a mile wide and 500 feet deep, was created by a ~66' wide meteor. Apophis is ~450' wide. If another meteor the size of the one from Arizona were to hit a city, which is twice as likely to happen than a terrorist strike, it'd be akin to a nuclear detonation. If something the size of Apophis should strike the earth, well, say goodbye to whatever county (or small state) it lands in.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_mond ay_040412.html

There isn't in fact, anything particularly ridiculous about the concept of Orbiting Solar Power Satelites/Sun Shades -- it might not actually work, but on the other hand there might be ways to get it to work, and you can get a clean power source out of it as well as a possible global warming amelioration strategy:

• solar power satellite
• Space Sunshade Might Be Feasible In Global Warming Emergency
• Bright Future for Solar Power Satellites

I realize it bugs environmentalist-types to think about amelioration, but it's looking like we need to do pretty much everything we can think of at this point. The skeptics seem to miss the fact that while it's at least possible that the consensus could be wrong, that includes the possibility that things are even worse than they say they are... e.g. it appears that the arctic ice is melting much faster than expected. It'll be, uh, interesting to see if the influx of fresh water manages to deflect the gulf stream and plunges Europe into another little ice age, eh?

(Why is it so hard to convince people to replace coal power with nuclear? Coal burning is killing something like 20,000 people a year in the United States... you can't come up with a nuclear accident scenario that gets anywhere near that level, and that's without putting fears of green house gasses on the table.)

Can I call Bullshit on your source? You're looking to a blog for all your information on something you believe may cause the end of the world as we know it. Something that important I would think you would try to find someone who isnt just saying "What I Know Is...." Plus, we all know the real reason for global warming is lack of Pirates.

But something I found interesting that also may be used to support the solar radiation hypothesis is that at least three other planets in our solar system are also expereiecing "global warming." Mainly Mars and Pluto. Now that would likely mean one of two things, at least a large percentage of global warming has absolutly nothing to do with human impact, or the greenhouse gases we produce are also warming Pluto.

Here are some facts about global warming. Some of which you hear and don't hear from the main stream media:

1.) The world appears to be getting warmer with many computer models showing an increase in global temperature.

2.) Tying a trend to warmer temperatures based on older data from the early 1900's is suspect at best. Good, reliable, accurate scientific equipment that measures the temperature wasn't readily available until recently (late 1900's).

3.) Apparently, the Earth magnetic field has decreased by 10% in the last 150 years (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_magnet ic_031212.html). I'm an electrical engineer and during my studies in particle physics, I learned that a particles velocity can be affected by magnetic fields. I believe it's possible that more of the Sun's radiation is penetrating the Earth's magnetosphere ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_magnetic_fiel d ) due to it being weaker. If more radiation hits the Earth, shouldn't that also increase the overall temperature of the Earth and can global warming be attributed to this?

4.) Jupitor is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_j r.html [space.com])

5.) Mars is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/ mars_snow_011206-1.html and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/new s/news.html?in_article_id=410901&in_page_id=1770)

How can you explain the recent same climate changes on different planets? I doubt it's all those cars being driven there.

6.) The United Nations found that there is more Methane produced from livestock, which raises global temperature greater than CO2 by a factor of approx. 20, than any human caused CO2 combined (source: http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/i ndex.html)

Is it possible that the warmer temperatures that Earth is experiencing are caused by cyclical natural phenomena? What about glaciers in Greenland that have been shrinking for 100 years (source: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/21/060821191 826.o0mynclv.html [breitbart.com])? Also, how do you explain huge ice ages on Earth? Were thse caused by huge carbon emissions or was it a small natural climate cycle that just happens? Were those climate changes, which are no doubt more extreme than what's going on now, caused by the combustion engine? I don't have answers and everyone seems to have an opinion including a Nobel laureate who says the answer is more pollution (source: http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/11/16/smog.wa rming.ap/index.html)

One last thing. Lets say we all buy into the fact that we're causing the climate change through CO2. Regardless of what actions we (America) take, China will still produce more CO2 than anyone because they want to get rich. There's no stopping it folks.

Here are some facts about global warming. Some of which you hear and don't hear from the main stream media:

1.) The world appears to be getting warmer with many computer models showing an increase in global temperature.

2.) Tying a trend to warmer temperatures based on older data from the early 1900's is suspect at best. Good, reliable, accurate scientific equipment that measures the temperature wasn't readily available until recently (late 1900's).

3.) Apparently, the Earth magnetic field has decreased by 10% in the last 150 years (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_magnet ic_031212.html). I'm an electrical engineer and during my studies in particle physics, I learned that a particles velocity can be affected by magnetic fields. I believe it's possible that more of the Sun's radiation is penetrating the Earth's magnetosphere ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_magnetic_fiel d ) due to it being weaker. If more radiation hits the Earth, shouldn't that also increase the overall temperature of the Earth and can global warming be attributed to this?

4.) Jupitor is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_j r.html [space.com])

5.) Mars is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/ mars_snow_011206-1.html and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/new s/news.html?in_article_id=410901&in_page_id=1770)

How can you explain the recent same climate changes on different planets? I doubt it's all those cars being driven there.

6.) The United Nations found that there is more Methane produced from livestock, which raises global temperature greater than CO2 by a factor of approx. 20, than any human caused CO2 combined (source: http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/i ndex.html)

Is it possible that the warmer temperatures that Earth is experiencing are caused by cyclical natural phenomena? What about glaciers in Greenland that have been shrinking for 100 years (source: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/21/060821191 826.o0mynclv.html [breitbart.com])? Also, how do you explain huge ice ages on Earth? Were thse caused by huge carbon emissions or was it a small natural climate cycle that just happens? Were those climate changes, which are no doubt more extreme than what's going on now, caused by the combustion engine? I don't have answers and everyone seems to have an opinion including a Nobel laureate who says the answer is more pollution (source: http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/11/16/smog.wa rming.ap/index.html)

One last thing. Lets say we all buy into the fact that we're causing the climate change through CO2. Regardless of what actions we (America) take, China will still produce more CO2 than anyone because they want to get rich. There's no stopping it folks.