But you are ignoring the data. The earth's magnetic field has of course been around for as long as the Earth has but we are experiencing a dynamical trend now. So why is it happening now? Well ice core samples have shown conclusively that we are currently in a very calm period in terms of solar activity. That means that the Sun cannot possible be responsible for the current trend. Sure, the sun does have an effect on the ozone layer, but to attribute any current (within the last number of decades) on solar radiation is ignoring the data and is nothing but FUD.
No doubt that our environment changes over time. But the "theory" that solar activity is responsible for current trends in the ozone is FUD. Solar activity duing the last few decades has been quite low based on ice core samples that date back for thousands of years. It's clear that something has effected our ozone over the last few decades but any attempt to place solar radiation as the cause of this trend is simply ignoring the data.
The fact is that the last number of decades have been quite modest in terms of solar radiation. It's been clearly shown from ice core samples. Radiation from the sun was much more severe during periods in the 1800's than it has been during the current "space age". While there is no doubt that the sun effects the ozone to associate solar activity with the current trends in ozone depletion is nothing but FUD.
The major source of solar radiation happens during solar maximum and during that time (a interval of around 4 years) it happens multiple times a month or more. I dont dispute the comment about ozone distruction via CFC's but the comment about solar events being infrequent is relative.
This "theory" has got a few problems. First of all we know without a doubt that for the last number of decades the major source of solar radiation - the Solar Energetic Particle events (SEPs) - are quite modest. This is known from ice core samples. I've seen the reports of the data myself and it's quite conclusive. In a nutshell our current space age has occurred during a very quiet, very benign time. To attribute solar sources to any current trends is ozone depletion is simply disregarding the data. While solar events certainly do effect the ozone to attribute any such current depletion is FUD.
All we need to do is construct detection systems capable of tracking and positioning themselvs over/around each particle accelerator and then telemeter the results back to some type of simple network. Then have some simple system that can reduce the observations from these many systems, forward that information to the interested scientists. Sounds free to me.
You may find it foolish but that is the way good science has always worked. I'll give it to you that in our society of instant gratification we want things now-now-now but when this is applied to science the product of that mind set is, for example, cold fusion.
I honestly don't know what the data policy of ESA is on the lander but I do know that the missions I work with, the data is open and available to anyone who wants to work with it. There are always a few idiots that rush things to press and are frequently wrong in their interpretation, yea they squeeze it through peer review but that does not mean it's a good piece of work. I tend to be much more careful in my analysis, I take an appropriate amount of time in my studies, and (in my opinion) the results are a better, more complete, more accurate piece of scientific work. While I do find "quick" publications interesting they are frequently non-impact.
And another point, I don't quite understand your analogy to the dead-sea scrolls. I don't know of a single piece of science that is being done where there are more than a few people involved. While there may be many people working with DNA there are only a few people working on this or that specific part associated with it. I see no difference between the Titan research and any other research that has ever gone on in the history of science.
Telemetry is always a problem. We always want more than the spacecraft/DSN/funding can deliver. Remember the data was relayed through the Cassini spacraft and then back to Earth.
The average Joe may not be awe-struck by viewing a planet we have never seen before but the average Joe is always awe-struck when he clicks on that little blue e and all of a sudden the screen shows playboy.com
Housten we DO have a problem
Yikes... doesn't that assume that the particles are propagating into a theoretical vacuum? which of course they do not.
The particles propagate (acceleration mechanism still unknown) into a dynamic system that is so totally unknown it's not even funny. We have no idea at all how the low corona works, what the fields are (only theoretical estimates with large error bars), plasma interactions (many of which are probably not even on our charts), etc... The High corona is no exception. Interplanetary space, where we have had numerous observations is a very dynamic region that we have only begun to comprehend.
Freshman physics wont work here boys... back to the drawing boards.
What Bush has done is decimate the scientific programs of NASA and had the agency over to the aerospace lobby. But with comments like...
"mostly circling around Earth"
you have made your impression of science apparent
Did you know that the "science of the outer planets" scientific research line for 2005 Was just cut? Yup, wiped off the board. This was a small program, only a few million, and it funded some very interesting work... Well, it's gone now, I guess that makes you feel very patriotic...
You dont think so? It was only a few weeks ago that we were all in a tizzy about the potential astroid strike in 2030 or whenever it was. We have landed a spacecraft on a astroid, we flying to a commet right now. No money in a meteor strike... We fund various groups of people to search the skys for these things and document them. O yea, there is money in those big rocks.
MOD Parent UP..
This is a great idea. Compair 500M for one shuttle launch to 20M per person on a russian launch. Sounds like a good investment to me. We could launch 10 americans per year and still have enough to fund an entire (real) science mission each year with money to spare.
Mod Parent UP. decadal continuity means actually doing what the scientists suggest, instead of following the political waves one way or the other.
But then again, there just scientists, what do they know.
I don't know what you call it but to dismiss a report from one of the top scientific bodies on the planet as you did in my book is certainly UD, ok I'll drop the F. Look, there has been a process in place for a long time of how new programs are to be dealt with. The method that this administration put in place simply by-passes each and every step of that process. Lets forget Mars right now. You don't think going to the moon is going to impact the funding of other programs? I haven't seen congress pass any new funding line for paying for a manned mission to the Moon, have you? So if there is not any new money to pay for this effort then how does NASA intend to pay for it? Well the simple answer is cut current spending lines. Missions are currently in the process of being cut. This isn't a spook-story or a this-might-theoretically-happen-story, it's going on right now. The problem is that it is being done wrong and that is what has the much of the scientific community up in arms about this whole process. If you don't think so try talking to the group interesting in studying global warming. It's of course no surprise how the current administration feels about that topic. And that's just one example of the many programs that ARE going to be seriously damaged by going to the Moon as it's their funding that is going to pay for it
FUD proliferation is in high gear here. Either NASA is a science driven organization or it's not, If it's not then you get what we have here - A politician who disregards nearly every scientific panel on the planet (in nearly every field) that just walks in and says... no, I think we should do it this way... Or NASA is a science driven organization and we do things the right way, like consider what a panel of top scientists has to say (hum, what a novel concept for this administration). I have no problem with going to the moon, but it needs to be done the right way. Develop the scientific justification for the mission, fight through the peer review process, and queue up like every other mission that has been conceived, justified, reviewed, and is waiting funding.
Slashdot Mirror
But you are ignoring the data. The earth's magnetic field has of course been around for as long as the Earth has but we are experiencing a dynamical trend now. So why is it happening now? Well ice core samples have shown conclusively that we are currently in a very calm period in terms of solar activity. That means that the Sun cannot possible be responsible for the current trend. Sure, the sun does have an effect on the ozone layer, but to attribute any current (within the last number of decades) on solar radiation is ignoring the data and is nothing but FUD.
No doubt that our environment changes over time. But the "theory" that solar activity is responsible for current trends in the ozone is FUD. Solar activity duing the last few decades has been quite low based on ice core samples that date back for thousands of years. It's clear that something has effected our ozone over the last few decades but any attempt to place solar radiation as the cause of this trend is simply ignoring the data.
Thats George W Bush "logic"
The fact is that the last number of decades have been quite modest in terms of solar radiation. It's been clearly shown from ice core samples. Radiation from the sun was much more severe during periods in the 1800's than it has been during the current "space age". While there is no doubt that the sun effects the ozone to associate solar activity with the current trends in ozone depletion is nothing but FUD.
"Such phenomenon does not happen too often"
Um, are you talking about solar Min or solar Max?
The major source of solar radiation happens during solar maximum and during that time (a interval of around 4 years) it happens multiple times a month or more. I dont dispute the comment about ozone distruction via CFC's but the comment about solar events being infrequent is relative.
This "theory" has got a few problems. First of all we know without a doubt that for the last number of decades the major source of solar radiation - the Solar Energetic Particle events (SEPs) - are quite modest. This is known from ice core samples. I've seen the reports of the data myself and it's quite conclusive. In a nutshell our current space age has occurred during a very quiet, very benign time. To attribute solar sources to any current trends is ozone depletion is simply disregarding the data. While solar events certainly do effect the ozone to attribute any such current depletion is FUD.
All we need to do is construct detection systems capable of tracking and positioning themselvs over/around each particle accelerator and then telemeter the results back to some type of simple network. Then have some simple system that can reduce the observations from these many systems, forward that information to the interested scientists. Sounds free to me.
You may find it foolish but that is the way good science has always worked. I'll give it to you that in our society of instant gratification we want things now-now-now but when this is applied to science the product of that mind set is, for example, cold fusion.
I honestly don't know what the data policy of ESA is on the lander but I do know that the missions I work with, the data is open and available to anyone who wants to work with it. There are always a few idiots that rush things to press and are frequently wrong in their interpretation, yea they squeeze it through peer review but that does not mean it's a good piece of work. I tend to be much more careful in my analysis, I take an appropriate amount of time in my studies, and (in my opinion) the results are a better, more complete, more accurate piece of scientific work. While I do find "quick" publications interesting they are frequently non-impact.
And another point, I don't quite understand your analogy to the dead-sea scrolls. I don't know of a single piece of science that is being done where there are more than a few people involved. While there may be many people working with DNA there are only a few people working on this or that specific part associated with it. I see no difference between the Titan research and any other research that has ever gone on in the history of science.
Telemetry is always a problem. We always want more than the spacecraft/DSN/funding can deliver. Remember the data was relayed through the Cassini spacraft and then back to Earth.
And the Methane fog makes things kind of tough.
Um, there is a difference between speculation and preliminary results.
Speculation is science fiction
Preliminary results is science
There was a great deal of information and speculation on the Mars/Water issue. It did
not take a lot to jump to preliminary results.
Titan does not have anywhere near the scientific background that Mars had and so it takes much longer to reach preliminary resutls.
I applaud the scientists for taking the appropriate amount of time to publish the observations.
The average Joe may not be awe-struck by viewing a planet we have never seen before but the average Joe is always awe-struck when he clicks on that little blue e and all of a sudden the screen shows playboy.com Housten we DO have a problem
2.4 % is the number that I had as well
mod Parent UP!!!!!! This was one of the funniest posts I've read in a long time. Anonymous Coward rocks...
Yikes... doesn't that assume that the particles are propagating into a theoretical vacuum? which of course they do not.
The particles propagate (acceleration mechanism still unknown) into a dynamic system that is so totally unknown it's not even funny. We have no idea at all how the low corona works, what the fields are (only theoretical estimates with large error bars), plasma interactions (many of which are probably not even on our charts), etc... The High corona is no exception. Interplanetary space, where we have had numerous observations is a very dynamic region that we have only begun to comprehend.
Freshman physics wont work here boys... back to the drawing boards.
What Bush has done is decimate the scientific programs of NASA and had the agency over to the aerospace lobby. But with comments like...
"mostly circling around Earth"
you have made your impression of science apparent
Did you know that the "science of the outer planets" scientific research line for 2005
Was just cut? Yup, wiped off the board. This was a small program, only a few million, and it funded some very interesting work... Well, it's gone now, I guess that makes you feel very patriotic...
"God Bless America"... indeed
"no grant money... meteor strike" ...
You dont think so? It was only a few weeks ago
that we were all in a tizzy about the potential
astroid strike in 2030 or whenever it was. We
have landed a spacecraft on a astroid, we flying
to a commet right now. No money in a meteor
strike... We fund various groups of people
to search the skys for these things and document
them. O yea, there is money in those big rocks.
MOD Parent UP.. This is a great idea. Compair 500M for one shuttle launch to 20M per person on a russian launch. Sounds like a good investment to me. We could launch 10 americans per year and still have enough to fund an entire (real) science mission each year with money to spare.
Logic collision.
Ugh.. me like banana
Ugh2.. me cut down all banana tree for you
Ugh.. good, I get banana
NASA.. me want money
Politician.. me give you money but you have to spend it my way
NASA... good, me want money
Scientist...??? What ???
More news on this tonight at 10 on FoxNews O'Reilly Factor.
Mod parent up. Informative
Mod Parent UP. decadal continuity means actually doing what the scientists suggest, instead of following the political waves one way or the other. But then again, there just scientists, what do they know.
MOD parent up...FUNNY
MOD parent UP. If I had MOD points I'd dump em all here.
I don't know what you call it but to dismiss a report from one of the top scientific bodies on the planet as you did in my book is certainly UD, ok I'll drop the F. Look, there has been a process in place for a long time of how new programs are to be dealt with. The method that this administration put in place simply by-passes each and every step of that process. Lets forget Mars right now. You don't think going to the moon is going to impact the funding of other programs? I haven't seen congress pass any new funding line for paying for a manned mission to the Moon, have you? So if there is not any new money to pay for this effort then how does NASA intend to pay for it? Well the simple answer is cut current spending lines. Missions are currently in the process of being cut. This isn't a spook-story or a this-might-theoretically-happen-story, it's going on right now. The problem is that it is being done wrong and that is what has the much of the scientific community up in arms about this whole process. If you don't think so try talking to the group interesting in studying global warming. It's of course no surprise how the current administration feels about that topic. And that's just one example of the many programs that ARE going to be seriously damaged by going to the Moon as it's their funding that is going to pay for it
FUD proliferation is in high gear here. Either NASA is a science driven organization or it's not, If it's not then you get what we have here - A politician who disregards nearly every scientific panel on the planet (in nearly every field) that just walks in and says... no, I think we should do it this way... Or NASA is a science driven organization and we do things the right way, like consider what a panel of top scientists has to say (hum, what a novel concept for this administration). I have no problem with going to the moon, but it needs to be done the right way. Develop the scientific justification for the mission, fight through the peer review process, and queue up like every other mission that has been conceived, justified, reviewed, and is waiting funding.
Hey now, your slashing the premise of the whole discussion ... your right of course, neither have I... but thats not the point.