How about the Non-designer's Design and Type Books, Deluxe Edition, and/or The Non-Designer's Web Book, 3rd Edition, both by Robin Williams. Excellent introductory texts that cover what you need to get started.
The ones that weren't completed were part of the NPOESS fiasco Right: all the climate instruments that were slated to be on NPOESS are now gone, and the sounders on the GOES-R series are gone. Read this page of the NAS report executive summary: http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11820& page=5 If the current plan for NOAA is continued, critical climate measurements will not be made.
Second, LDCM is in launch-prep now. What does "launch=prep" mean, considering the draft request for proposals for the Landsat Data Continuity Mission imager went out last month (December 2006). Landsat 5 and Landsat 7 are both on their last legs now (both past their design lives), the replacement won't be launched for 2 or more years.
The follow-on mission to AQUA What follow-on mission to Aqua? Do you mean the NPOESS Preparatory Project? It's not a follow-on to Aqua, it's a bridge between EOS and NPOESS, except the climate instruments on NPOESS have been dropped.
USGS distributes their data through DOMSAT and internet distribution to key customers. Its not "free," as in available in real-time, but it is publicly available. It's not free, as in it costs $600 per scene.
Additionally, all data collected from geostationary spacecraft is processed and then re-broadcast in real time from those same spacecraft... and NOAA will not charge a dime for it. Which is fine if you're interested in real-time data. If you're interested in climate you have to build your own satellite receiving station and data archive, or buy old data--not free.
NASA does procure (not develop, not launch) spacecraft for NOAA and USGS Really? So the following
The Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) is responsible for the construction, integration and launch of NOAA satellites. Operational control of the spacecraft is turned over to NOAA after it is checked out on orbit, normally 21 days after launch. is a lie?
scaling back to do experimental payloads Tell me what new Earth science missions NASA is now developing? Not many. The current U.S. space policy has killed both the operational side and the research side of space-based Earth observations, with the exception of meteorology, which will lose capabilities as current research missions (Terra, Aqua, Aura, TRMM, QuikSCAT, etc.) die and are not replaced by operational ones, leaving a constellation of weather satellites with the roughly the capabilities (some gains, some losses) of those orbiting in 1995.
If you actually read the NRC report you will discover that the climate instruments on the next generation of weather satellites have all been cut: i.e. NOAA will not be able to continue this research. You might also learn that the USGS's Landsat Data Continuity Mission (you know--the one that will extend the Landsat "constellation" of satellites, of which the newest and most capable (of only two currently operational) has been partially broken for a few years) is at a standstill. As a result, when the current missions break (TRMM is 7 years over its design life, Terra 2 years over, etc.) they are not going to be replaced. Neither NOAA or the USGS is adequately funded to distribute data (both charge for it, NASA, largely, does not). Neither NOAA or the USGS is tasked to design new measurement technologies, that's NASA's job--they developed, tested, and launched the satellites NOAA and the USGS now operate. Current number of upcoming NASA Earth science satellite missions: 2. (I think: OCO and Aquarius).
Right: NASA asked for money, they didn't get it, so now the budget is decreasing. Add in the facts that: the exploration directorate is running over budget, there are no earmarks in the 2007 continuing resolution, and inmflation is running at about 3%, and the NASA science budget is decreasing. Of course I missed an important point last night: we're talking about Earth science not the science mission directorate as a whole. Funding is dropping rapidly, and if NASA (and NOAA) don't get the money to develop and launch new missions soon there will be irreparable gaps in our data record. Have you ever tried to calibrate two measurements that don't overlap?
First, the NASA science budget is increasing, not decreasing as the article would make you think... it just isn't increasing as fast it had been promised. You do realize the 2007 NASA budget was never passed?
How much of the Earth do you think DigitalGlobe images each year? (~3%) How much does NASA image each day? (>90%). Granted it's at different resolutions, but that underscores the point that NASA's remote sensors have different capabilities than DigitalGlobe's (or GeoEye's). Next question: who buys most of the high-resolution commercial satellite data? (The U.S. government via the Department of Defense(in fact, the DoD and congress forbid NASA from making high-res observations)). Do you think NASA's satellites are better calibrated than the commercial sensors, which is critical for studying long-term trends? Maybe NASA is capable of taking many more types of measurements, with spaceborne radars, lidars, scatterometers, thermal infrared sensors, gravity sensors, etc?
Detailed info about the lahar that buried Herculaneum: Lahars in Campania
On the other hand, vesuvius destroyed Pompeii with a nuée ardente (glowing avalanche) and pyroclastic flow, not a lahar. A lahar is a mixture of water, mud, rocks, and possibly ice. A nuée ardente is a cloud of volcanic gasses and ash so hot they glow. When the ash comes to a rest, it is often so hot the individual particles fuse to become solid rock. A pyroclasitc flow is a mixture of gasses, ash, pumice, glass (obsidian) shards, and rock flowing down the side of a volcano.
In 2002 a massive lahar/avalanche slid down the flanks of a dormant volcano in Russia, killing 125 people. ~135 million cubic meters of ice and rock, moving at 180 kph.
Weather satellites are owned and operated by the government, not commerical operators. They will likely remain available. And yes, satellites provide information that land-based weather radar can not. (how many radar stations are there in the middle of the Atlantic?) Of course, the NASA is trying to kill TRMM, the only satellite-based weather radar, but that's another story.
Raw data: http://dmsp.ngdc.noaa.gov/html/download.html
Related true-color global images: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom /BlueMarb le/
Articles about research being done with the global lights dataset: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/L ights/
Info about the city lights data: http://dmsp.ngdc.noaa.gov/html/night_light_posters.html
Maps have long been used to imagine events occurring on the ground from an airborne perspective. Satellites now record a similar view of actual events for scientists to study. The Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) currently operates four satellites carrying the Operational Linescan System (OLS) in low-altitude polar orbits. Three of these satellites record nighttime data. The DMSP-OLS has a unique capability to detect low levels of visible-near infrared (VNIR) radiance at night. With the OLS "VIS" band data it is possible to detect clouds illuminated by moonlight, plus lights from cities, towns, industrial sites, gas flares, and ephemeral events such as fires and lightning-illuminated clouds. The Nighttime Lights of the World data set is compiled from the October 1994 - March 1995 DMSP nighttime data collected when moonlight was low. Using the OLS thermal infrared band, areas containing clouds were removed and the remaining area used in the time series.
>This is the only major race he participates in each year, unlike his competitors
Wrong. Hamilton, Ullrich, and the other GC (overall time, as opposed to sprinting or climbing) contenders concentrate on the Tour.
>He spends all year training specifically for this event, unlike his competitors
Wrong. See above. All the contenders train for the TdF, and plan their spring racing seasons so they will peak in mid-July during the key climbing and time trial stages.
>His teammates do what they can to help him win at the expense of their own times (I know this happens throughout cycling, but it's true nonetheless)
Why is this a problem? Cycling is a team sport. Each team has a leader, and the other riders are hired to help that rider win. Teams without a strong GC rider will often focus on setting up a sprinter (Fassa Bartolo's Petacchi, for instance) for stage wins.
Cycling is one of the best geek sports (along with rock climbing, IMHO). Not only do you have a high-tech piece of gear (your bike) but the science of bike riding and the tactics required to win are fascinating.
Relating increasing temperature to the rise in CO2 isn't a single experiment, it's large part of an entire field of study, called climatology. Many arguments used to refute the findings of climatology (non-repeatability and long time scales, for instance) can be applied to the other fields I mentioned.
To refute your rising population=more body heat=warmer Earth hypothesis, I can figure out how much heat the human body puts out, multiply by the number of people (6.0E9) and divide by the surface area of the Earth (2.90E16m^2, if I did my math right) and conclude that they have a negligible effect compared to other heat sources (like the Sun).
I can also quantify the amount of additional heat trapped by anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere (1.46 W/m^2) and conclude that it doesn have an effect.
Of course it was flawed, I was just replying to the previous poster's description of the scientific method, step by step. Which puts us at "start over again," which presents problems, as you pointed out. This is why models play such a large role in studying global warming, and why the problem gets broken down into smaller chunks.
Of course we can sort out whether or not warming lagged CO2 or vice versa. We're burning a large (quantified) amount of fossil fuels. We also have an idea how much CO2 is moving into and out of the atmosphere through biological and geological processes. Therefore we are reasonably certain that the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is from us. We can also (and do) look into confounding variables (clouds, solar variability, aerosols).
Global climate change research is a very tricky field of science, but it's certainly valid.
In the end, the universe suffers heat death, so you might as well end it all now. Anthropogenic climate change, on the other hand, affects a great many people right now. so it's a bit more relevant.
hypothesis: Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere will warm the Earth (first proposed in 1895, by Svante Arrhenius experiment: measure temperature and carbon dioxide, wait
result> CO2 and temperature both rise
fits your definition of the scientific process, no?
Seems to me you failed 9th grade science class.
no, we learned that in 7th grade. Maybe it was the fact I was in a gifted and talented class?
therefore does the increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere cause Global Climate Change?
yes. we can even quantify how much energy the CO2 traps (radiative forcing): 1.46 W/m^2. (Current Greenhouse Gas Concentrations) A little more than the 1 W/m^2 difference between the max and min of the 11-year solar cycle. Total change in solar radiative solar forcing since the Maunder Minimum (associated with the "little ice age") is estimated at 0.7 W/m^2
The difficult part of this process is figuring out the feedbacks between CO2, water vapor, vegetation, and clouds. And then we have to include the other things humans do to the Earth that have implications for global climate--other greenhouse gasses, aerosol emissions, deforestation, reforestation, etc. Some of these may offset or intensify CO2 induced warming. Of course, the "cure" (stabiliazation mechanisms) could be worse than the disease (a change in monsoon patterns, for instance.)
If you look at the historical record, increases in temperature PRECEDED the increase in CO2 levels. This is due to CO2 being released into the atmosphere from the oceans as they are warmed. Most likely temperature fluctuations are related to increased solar activity.
And your evidence for this is... ??? (post a link, perhaps?)
Slashdot Mirror
How about the Non-designer's Design and Type Books, Deluxe Edition, and/or The Non-Designer's Web Book, 3rd Edition, both by Robin Williams. Excellent introductory texts that cover what you need to get started.
If the current plan for NOAA is continued, critical climate measurements will not be made. Second, LDCM is in launch-prep now. What does "launch=prep" mean, considering the draft request for proposals for the Landsat Data Continuity Mission imager went out last month (December 2006). Landsat 5 and Landsat 7 are both on their last legs now (both past their design lives), the replacement won't be launched for 2 or more years. The follow-on mission to AQUA What follow-on mission to Aqua? Do you mean the NPOESS Preparatory Project? It's not a follow-on to Aqua, it's a bridge between EOS and NPOESS, except the climate instruments on NPOESS have been dropped. USGS distributes their data through DOMSAT and internet distribution to key customers. Its not "free," as in available in real-time, but it is publicly available. It's not free, as in it costs $600 per scene. Additionally, all data collected from geostationary spacecraft is processed and then re-broadcast in real time from those same spacecraft... and NOAA will not charge a dime for it. Which is fine if you're interested in real-time data. If you're interested in climate you have to build your own satellite receiving station and data archive, or buy old data--not free. NASA does procure (not develop, not launch) spacecraft for NOAA and USGS Really? So the following The Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) is responsible for the construction, integration and launch of NOAA satellites. Operational control of the spacecraft is turned over to NOAA after it is checked out on orbit, normally 21 days after launch. is a lie? scaling back to do experimental payloads Tell me what new Earth science missions NASA is now developing? Not many. The current U.S. space policy has killed both the operational side and the research side of space-based Earth observations, with the exception of meteorology, which will lose capabilities as current research missions (Terra, Aqua, Aura, TRMM, QuikSCAT, etc.) die and are not replaced by operational ones, leaving a constellation of weather satellites with the roughly the capabilities (some gains, some losses) of those orbiting in 1995.
If you actually read the NRC report you will discover that the climate instruments on the next generation of weather satellites have all been cut: i.e. NOAA will not be able to continue this research. You might also learn that the USGS's Landsat Data Continuity Mission (you know--the one that will extend the Landsat "constellation" of satellites, of which the newest and most capable (of only two currently operational) has been partially broken for a few years) is at a standstill. As a result, when the current missions break (TRMM is 7 years over its design life, Terra 2 years over, etc.) they are not going to be replaced. Neither NOAA or the USGS is adequately funded to distribute data (both charge for it, NASA, largely, does not). Neither NOAA or the USGS is tasked to design new measurement technologies, that's NASA's job--they developed, tested, and launched the satellites NOAA and the USGS now operate. Current number of upcoming NASA Earth science satellite missions: 2. (I think: OCO and Aquarius).
Right: NASA asked for money, they didn't get it, so now the budget is decreasing. Add in the facts that: the exploration directorate is running over budget, there are no earmarks in the 2007 continuing resolution, and inmflation is running at about 3%, and the NASA science budget is decreasing. Of course I missed an important point last night: we're talking about Earth science not the science mission directorate as a whole. Funding is dropping rapidly, and if NASA (and NOAA) don't get the money to develop and launch new missions soon there will be irreparable gaps in our data record. Have you ever tried to calibrate two measurements that don't overlap?
Michael Crichton is an MD, not a scientist, and especially not a climate scientist.
How much of the Earth do you think DigitalGlobe images each year? (~3%) How much does NASA image each day? (>90%). Granted it's at different resolutions, but that underscores the point that NASA's remote sensors have different capabilities than DigitalGlobe's (or GeoEye's). Next question: who buys most of the high-resolution commercial satellite data? (The U.S. government via the Department of Defense(in fact, the DoD and congress forbid NASA from making high-res observations)). Do you think NASA's satellites are better calibrated than the commercial sensors, which is critical for studying long-term trends? Maybe NASA is capable of taking many more types of measurements, with spaceborne radars, lidars, scatterometers, thermal infrared sensors, gravity sensors, etc?
& page=1
Have you ever tried to buy an acquisition from DigitalGlobe? Do you have $10,000? If you have more questions, read the NRC report itself:
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11820
or read about NASA's current Earth science research:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/
I've built a page with 540 by 270-pixel copies of each month, some of the ancilliary data files, and links to the 8km/pixel and 2km/pixel files:
b le/BlueMarble_monthlies.html
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/BlueMar
'cause I use Electric Image? (and the render is halfway down the page)
Good idea, but we couldn't get the Goddard network admins to give us a port waiver for BitTorrent.
Done by the same group.
1 438
http://www.visibleearth.nasa.gov/view_rec.php?id=
Yup, our server is having issues. Now I'm going to have to spend tomorrow pulling all the 5400 by 2700 and 21600 by 10800 pixel links off ...
r ble.html has small samples.
In the meantime, http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/features/blue_ma
Aren't pommes frites really Belgian?
Detailed info about the lahar that buried Herculaneum: Lahars in Campania
On the other hand, vesuvius destroyed Pompeii with a nuée ardente (glowing avalanche) and pyroclastic flow, not a lahar. A lahar is a mixture of water, mud, rocks, and possibly ice. A nuée ardente is a cloud of volcanic gasses and ash so hot they glow. When the ash comes to a rest, it is often so hot the individual particles fuse to become solid rock. A pyroclasitc flow is a mixture of gasses, ash, pumice, glass (obsidian) shards, and rock flowing down the side of a volcano.
Volcanic and Geologic Terms
Collapse of the Kolka Glacier
Weather satellites are owned and operated by the government, not commerical operators. They will likely remain available. And yes, satellites provide information that land-based weather radar can not. (how many radar stations are there in the middle of the Atlantic?) Of course, the NASA is trying to kill TRMM, the only satellite-based weather radar, but that's another story.
You might be able to see the hurricanes heading for Florida. Maybe. But just about all other commercial satellite imagery could be put off-limits
Raw data: http://dmsp.ngdc.noaa.gov/html/download.html
m /BlueMarb le/
L ights/
s .html
Related true-color global images:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroo
Articles about research being done with the global lights dataset:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/
Info about the city lights data: http://dmsp.ngdc.noaa.gov/html/night_light_poster
Maps have long been used to imagine events occurring on the ground from an airborne perspective. Satellites now record a similar view of actual events for scientists to study. The Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) currently operates four satellites carrying the Operational Linescan System (OLS) in low-altitude polar orbits. Three of these satellites record nighttime data. The DMSP-OLS has a unique capability to detect low levels of visible-near infrared (VNIR) radiance at night. With the OLS "VIS" band data it is possible to detect clouds illuminated by moonlight, plus lights from cities, towns, industrial sites, gas flares, and ephemeral events such as fires and lightning-illuminated clouds. The Nighttime Lights of the World data set is compiled from the October 1994 - March 1995 DMSP nighttime data collected when moonlight was low. Using the OLS thermal infrared band, areas containing clouds were removed and the remaining area used in the time series.
>This is the only major race he participates in each year, unlike his competitors
Wrong. Hamilton, Ullrich, and the other GC (overall time, as opposed to sprinting or climbing) contenders concentrate on the Tour.
>He spends all year training specifically for this event, unlike his competitors
Wrong. See above. All the contenders train for the TdF, and plan their spring racing seasons so they will peak in mid-July during the key climbing and time trial stages.
>His teammates do what they can to help him win at the expense of their own times (I know this happens throughout cycling, but it's true nonetheless)
Why is this a problem? Cycling is a team sport. Each team has a leader, and the other riders are hired to help that rider win. Teams without a strong GC rider will often focus on setting up a sprinter (Fassa Bartolo's Petacchi, for instance) for stage wins.
Cycling is one of the best geek sports (along with rock climbing, IMHO). Not only do you have a high-tech piece of gear (your bike) but the science of bike riding and the tactics required to win are fascinating.
Relating increasing temperature to the rise in CO2 isn't a single experiment, it's large part of an entire field of study, called climatology. Many arguments used to refute the findings of climatology (non-repeatability and long time scales, for instance) can be applied to the other fields I mentioned.
To refute your rising population=more body heat=warmer Earth hypothesis, I can figure out how much heat the human body puts out, multiply by the number of people (6.0E9) and divide by the surface area of the Earth (2.90E16m^2, if I did my math right) and conclude that they have a negligible effect compared to other heat sources (like the Sun).
I can also quantify the amount of additional heat trapped by anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere (1.46 W/m^2) and conclude that it doesn have an effect.
Of course we can sort out whether or not warming lagged CO2 or vice versa. We're burning a large (quantified) amount of fossil fuels. We also have an idea how much CO2 is moving into and out of the atmosphere through biological and geological processes. Therefore we are reasonably certain that the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is from us. We can also (and do) look into confounding variables (clouds, solar variability, aerosols).
Global climate change research is a very tricky field of science, but it's certainly valid.
hypothesis: Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere will warm the Earth (first proposed in 1895, by Svante Arrhenius
experiment: measure temperature and carbon dioxide, wait
result> CO2 and temperature both rise
fits your definition of the scientific process, no?
yes. we can even quantify how much energy the CO2 traps (radiative forcing): 1.46 W/m^2. (Current Greenhouse Gas Concentrations) A little more than the 1 W/m^2 difference between the max and min of the 11-year solar cycle. Total change in solar radiative solar forcing since the Maunder Minimum (associated with the "little ice age") is estimated at 0.7 W/m^2
The difficult part of this process is figuring out the feedbacks between CO2, water vapor, vegetation, and clouds. And then we have to include the other things humans do to the Earth that have implications for global climate--other greenhouse gasses, aerosol emissions, deforestation, reforestation, etc. Some of these may offset or intensify CO2 induced warming. Of course, the "cure" (stabiliazation mechanisms) could be worse than the disease (a change in monsoon patterns, for instance.)
And your evidence for this isSo solar physics, cosmology, and geology aren't science, either? (and people are the problem, but killing half of them is likely not a good solution)
Heavily disputed by whom? The quote you chose is an accurate reflection of the scientific consensus.