Actually, you're entirely wrong here. More thermal energy in the atmosphere presuming it is a result of the gasses trapping the heat actually means a *more uniform* temperature around the globe, NOT LESS. A more uniform air temperature means WEAKER storms from smaller pressure differentials, WEAKER hurricanes, and WEAKER heat waves. It's physical nonsense to say that throwing a thicker blanket on causes greater differences in temperature between different areas under the blanket. By suggesting that global warming will increase severity of weather, you are directly implying greater pressure differentials in the overall atmosphere. The only way to get that is by getting a "thinner blanket" allowing for greater difference between solar warming and atmospheric retention of heat.
NOW, if the extra heating of the earth were because of an increase in solar output (NOTE THAT I AM NOT SUGGESTING THIS IS THE CASE), then yes you would get larger temperature/pressure differences and stronger storms. But that is not the case. If CO2 and H2O amplification are the cause of the heating, that means a MORE EVEN temperature across the planet, not less. A more even temperature means far more mild weather
Uh, no it wouldn't, or at least no it needn't. We are not talking about going to a run-away greenhouse (AKA, Venus), where that might be true.
The planet is a heat engine, it absorbs heat at the equator, and radiates the excess heat away at the poles, which drives the (large scale) weather. There already is a strong greenhouse effect (it's why the oceans aren't frozen solid), and we have plenty of weather as it is. One reason is that the amount of surface IR radiation is a strong function of the temperature; the Sun heats up the equatorial regions more than the poles, so they dump more heat into the atmosphere, where it still has to go to the poles, and will still drive weather (hurricanes, etc.) along the way. Even if the entire globe heats up, the Sun will still be putting heat into the tropics, and the atmosphere will still have to radiate away at the poles, which will still drive weather.
There is also the complication that different greenhouse gases have different absorption at different parts of the IR spectrum, and hot versus cold areas have peak radiation at different locations in the spectrum, which you have to model to do this accurately. My understanding is that this tends to making the equatorial absorption more efficient compared to the polar, which of course means that greenhouse warming could act like a increase in solar output. (To put it another way, the blanket is not of uniform thickness, which invalidates your analogy.)
For regional weather, none of this matters much. The biggest effect of global warming would likely be to keep moving the average location of the jet stream polewards, which could have a big effect on your region, if you happen to be under the jet stream (as much of the US is).
They won't really know for a few days. They have to unpack the boom (with the good camera on it) - that's today. Then they have to take a good picture of Mount Sharp and the surroundings, and triangulate their permission. A panorama might take much of the week to get back, and then it will take a few minutes to figure out where in the error ellipse they are.
Nominal, dude. And with ~140kg of fuel to spare of the original 390 or so.
They could have gone around the block again before parking.
Somewhere, some scientist is thinking "they could have flown my instrument and still have 100 kg of fuel left over !"
By the way, who were they tweaking when they read that out ? It sounds like he says "sorry, van Tooma, we have 140.6 kg." Was that some prominent nay-sayer ?
They should just use UTC. Or has Mars been cut up into time zones as well?
No, but they do use local solar time. And, each mission has its own clock (the Sols), starting at landing. Why they don't just use one day count (starting with Viking Lander 1) is beyond me.
I've read many times about the "fly away" but I also know that part of the nominal early mission is to find it and image it. If it still has half of its fuel, it could (with no rover weighting it down) maybe gain 500 meters per second of delta-V, which might put it pretty far away if they burned to exhaustion.
0.1 degrees on Mars is about 6 km. Yes, I can believe that the inertial guidance is good to 10 km or so, but we were talking about 3 or even 4 orders of magnitude better.
I bet the student worked at the MIT Instrumentation Labs (now Draper Labs), which designed the Apollo (and space shuttle) guidance systems. In that case, he knew who to call. Heck, since I started working there (but not for them, for MIT) in 1975, I might even know him.
I am sorry, but this is BS as stated. The "Zond" direct return was certainly not unknown to the Apollo scientists. It's called a Zond trajectory because Zond 5 (launched 15 September 1968, returned 21 September) was the first spacecraft to execute it. (This would have been repeated with cosmonauts aboard if NASA hadn't have swapped the Apollo 8 and Apollo 9, putting men in lunar orbit in December, 1968, and thus upstaging a Soviet manned lunar flyby.) That was 2 years before Apollo 13.
I also remember the Zond trajectory was _planned_ as a failure mode option for Apollo. I am sure there is discussion of that in the Apollo planning. I knew about it, and I was in High School at the time so I would bet serious money that Gene Kranz knew of it. I am not sure what the grad student actually contributed, but it wasn't the idea of the trajectory. (If I had to guess, I would bet he worked at the Instrumentation Lab - now Draper Labs - and calculated the delta-V needed to reenter safely, which is not negligible, but not the same as coming up with the idea.)
Since many of the Apollo trajectory guys are still alive, if retired, I bet that someone will counter this in a day or so.
I also heard that, and it did sound like they were talking about a few meters offset but, note
- the landing was out of sight of Earth, so there was no direct Earth tracking of the landing. - Mars Odyssey orbiter has at best a very bad Doppler tracking system, which I don't think they were even using, and - the internal inertial guidance system is not going to be good at the meter level.
So, I would really doubt that they currently know the landing accuracy to anything like the meter level. It will take a few days to really determine where the rover is, and thus the true error. (The last I heard, they do not plan ANY range / doppler tracking from Earth, which I regard as a mistake, but it's best not to get me started on that.)
Is there any proof that the classical dynamics corresponding to any given problem will settle in the ground state in a finite time? Or, in other words, could there be Sudoku puzzles with infinite hardness ?
If you are talking about Nuclear Thermal, I would not expect any international heat. NASA is also working hard on this (after almost 40 years of inertia).
If you are talking about an (original) Orion type "bombs out the rear" rocket, then, yes, I think there would be a pretty big stink. I don't see that coming.
Do you actually know any mainland Chinese ? I do, they are of course middle class engineers and the like, and they are following the one child policy. It sees pretty real to me.
How about we eliminate non-core classes from degree requirements? Why is that as a comp sci student I have to take any classes in the sociology/humanities area? I can see having electives, but why does X number of elective credits have to come from those departments?
Partially to (try and) teach you how to think, partially to (try and) provide us all with a common set of shared memes, so we can maybe understand one another, and (of course) partially to justify their existence.
To paraphrase Voltaire, political science is neither politics nor science nor indeed necessary. But, I guess it provides training on how to get in the papers.
In other words, the money that the Court awarded to compensate artists and rightsholders for their losses is not going to the artists at all.
This is not a logical conclusion. If anti-piracy activities increase future sales by detering illegal copying, the artists will (proportionately) benefit just as much as the labels.
You do realize that "money that the Court awarded" and "increase future sales" are not the same? One is actual cash, and the other is wishful thinking. So, logically, your second sentence is a non sequitur.
Slashdot Mirror
Google still does search ? I had forgotten.
Actually, you're entirely wrong here. More thermal energy in the atmosphere presuming it is a result of the gasses trapping the heat actually means a *more uniform* temperature around the globe, NOT LESS. A more uniform air temperature means WEAKER storms from smaller pressure differentials, WEAKER hurricanes, and WEAKER heat waves. It's physical nonsense to say that throwing a thicker blanket on causes greater differences in temperature between different areas under the blanket. By suggesting that global warming will increase severity of weather, you are directly implying greater pressure differentials in the overall atmosphere. The only way to get that is by getting a "thinner blanket" allowing for greater difference between solar warming and atmospheric retention of heat.
NOW, if the extra heating of the earth were because of an increase in solar output (NOTE THAT I AM NOT SUGGESTING THIS IS THE CASE), then yes you would get larger temperature/pressure differences and stronger storms. But that is not the case. If CO2 and H2O amplification are the cause of the heating, that means a MORE EVEN temperature across the planet, not less. A more even temperature means far more mild weather
Uh, no it wouldn't, or at least no it needn't. We are not talking about going to a run-away greenhouse (AKA, Venus), where that might be true.
The planet is a heat engine, it absorbs heat at the equator, and radiates the excess heat away at the poles, which drives the (large scale) weather.
There already is a strong greenhouse effect (it's why the oceans aren't frozen solid), and we have plenty of weather as it is. One reason is that the amount of surface IR radiation is a strong function of the temperature; the Sun heats up the equatorial regions more than the poles, so they dump more heat into the atmosphere, where it still has to go to the poles, and will still drive weather (hurricanes, etc.) along the way. Even if the entire globe heats up, the Sun will still be putting heat into the tropics, and the atmosphere will still have to radiate away at the poles, which will still drive weather.
There is also the complication that different greenhouse gases have different absorption at different parts of the IR spectrum, and hot versus cold areas have peak radiation at different locations in the spectrum, which you have to model to do this accurately. My understanding is that this tends to making the equatorial absorption more efficient compared to the polar, which of course means that greenhouse warming could act like a increase in solar output. (To put it another way, the blanket is not of uniform thickness, which invalidates your analogy.)
For regional weather, none of this matters much. The biggest effect of global warming would likely be to keep moving the average location of the jet stream polewards, which could have a big effect on your region, if you happen to be under the jet stream (as much of the US is).
I have, and that was not my experience.
Say what ? Global warming is baseless because hypothetical mice don't like cheese ?
Given that actual mice actually really do like cheese (that is at least my experience), does that mean that global warming is not baseless ?
I think you need to work on your examples.
I am in the US, and my video stream was very choppy and then crashed hard during the 7 minutes of terror. Fortunately, I get NASA TV on the cable.
They won't really know for a few days. They have to unpack the boom (with the good camera on it) - that's today. Then they have to take a good picture of Mount Sharp and the surroundings, and triangulate their permission. A panorama might take much of the week to get back, and then it will take a few minutes to figure out where in the error ellipse they are.
Nominal, dude. And with ~140kg of fuel to spare of the original 390 or so.
They could have gone around the block again before parking.
Somewhere, some scientist is thinking "they could have flown my instrument and still have 100 kg of fuel left over !"
By the way, who were they tweaking when they read that out ? It sounds like he says "sorry, van Tooma, we have 140.6 kg." Was that some prominent nay-sayer ?
Yeah, why not view it as stimulus money. After all, it all gets spent on Earth, and almost all in the USA.
They should just use UTC. Or has Mars been cut up into time zones as well?
No, but they do use local solar time. And, each mission has its own clock (the Sols), starting at landing. Why they don't just use one day count (starting with Viking Lander 1) is beyond me.
I've read many times about the "fly away" but I also know that part of the nominal early mission is to find it and image it. If it still has half of its fuel, it could (with no rover weighting it down) maybe gain 500 meters per second of delta-V, which might put it pretty far away if they burned to exhaustion.
Well, when I helped convince the DSN to range Mars pathfinder, I had to go to JPL. This will do for the moment.
0.1 degrees on Mars is about 6 km. Yes, I can believe that the inertial guidance is good to 10 km or so, but we were talking about 3 or even 4 orders of magnitude better.
Apollo 14, see posts about it above.
Yes, I was 15, and I remembered it too, as I posted below. I also remember that trajectories were planned to make this easy (from a delta-V sense).
By the way, the country is a lot better off. There are signs of sanity returning.
I bet the student worked at the MIT Instrumentation Labs (now Draper Labs), which designed the Apollo (and space shuttle) guidance systems. In that case, he knew who to call. Heck, since I started working there (but not for them, for MIT) in 1975, I might even know him.
I am sorry, but this is BS as stated. The "Zond" direct return was certainly not unknown to the Apollo scientists. It's called a Zond trajectory because Zond 5 (launched 15 September 1968, returned 21 September) was the first spacecraft to execute it. (This would have been repeated with cosmonauts aboard if NASA hadn't have swapped the Apollo 8 and Apollo 9, putting men in lunar orbit in December, 1968, and thus upstaging a Soviet manned lunar flyby.) That was 2 years before Apollo 13.
I also remember the Zond trajectory was _planned_ as a failure mode option for Apollo. I am sure there is discussion of that in the Apollo planning. I knew about it, and I was in High School at the time so I would bet serious money that Gene Kranz knew of it. I am not sure what the grad student actually contributed, but it wasn't the idea of the trajectory. (If I had to guess, I would bet he worked at the Instrumentation Lab - now Draper Labs - and calculated the delta-V needed to reenter safely, which is not negligible, but not the same as coming up with the idea.)
Since many of the Apollo trajectory guys are still alive, if retired, I bet that someone will counter this in a day or so.
Yes, an amazing achievement. I wonder if they burned it all off, or made a fireball somewhere.
I also heard that, and it did sound like they were talking about a few meters offset but, note
- the landing was out of sight of Earth, so there was no direct Earth tracking of the landing.
- Mars Odyssey orbiter has at best a very bad Doppler tracking system, which I don't think they were even using, and
- the internal inertial guidance system is not going to be good at the meter level.
So, I would really doubt that they currently know the landing accuracy to anything like the meter level. It will take a few days to really determine where the rover is, and thus the true error. (The last I heard, they do not plan ANY range / doppler tracking from Earth, which I regard as a mistake, but it's best not to get me started on that.)
Is there any proof that the classical dynamics corresponding to any given problem will settle in the ground state in a finite time? Or, in other words, could there be Sudoku puzzles with infinite hardness ?
If you are talking about Nuclear Thermal, I would not expect any international heat. NASA is also working hard on this (after almost 40 years of inertia).
If you are talking about an (original) Orion type "bombs out the rear" rocket, then, yes, I think there would be a pretty big stink. I don't see that coming.
Yes, I have heard pretty much the same thing. And, it's not like this is their state of the art any more.
Do you actually know any mainland Chinese ? I do, they are of course middle class engineers and the like, and they are following the one child policy. It sees pretty real to me.
How about we eliminate non-core classes from degree requirements? Why is that as a comp sci student I have to take any classes in the sociology/humanities area? I can see having electives, but why does X number of elective credits have to come from those departments?
Partially to (try and) teach you how to think, partially to (try and) provide us all with a common set of shared memes, so we can maybe understand one another, and (of course) partially to justify their existence.
To paraphrase Voltaire, political science is neither politics nor science nor indeed necessary. But, I guess it provides training on how to get in the papers.
From TFA:
In other words, the money that the Court awarded to compensate artists and rightsholders for their losses is not going to the artists at all.
This is not a logical conclusion. If anti-piracy activities increase future sales by detering illegal copying, the artists will (proportionately) benefit just as much as the labels.
You do realize that "money that the Court awarded" and "increase future sales" are not the same? One is actual cash, and the other is wishful thinking. So, logically, your second sentence is a non sequitur.