Trillions Of Dollars To Be Wasted On Bad Science?

Will politicians’ foolish reliance on faulty “global warming” models will cost you and your children a staggering fortune?
This article is the appendix of a paper by William Gray, emeritus professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University, on the paper titled:

On The Hijacking of the American Meteorological Society (AMS)

(Scientific Discussion)

ABSTRACT
I am presently preparing a lengthy research paper to back up my low estimates of the potential for human-induced global warming resulting from a doubling of CO₂. This Appendix attempts to show that only a very small amount of the global warming that has been observed over the last century and since the mid-1970s can be attributed to global CO₂ increases. A second paper with yet more scientific documentation will hopefully be ready in another couple of months.
A doubling of CO₂ would lead to a global infrared (IR) energy blockage to space (all other processes held constant) of about 3.7 W/m². We are about one-third (~1.2 W/m²) of the way to a CO₂ doubling from the pre-industrial state. The balancing of the 1.2 W/m² energy gain from CO₂ increase that has so far occurred would lead to an upper tropospheric emission temperature increase of about 0.3^oC and a corresponding surface temperature increase of about 0.15^oC. This is less than a quarter of the ~0.7^oC global temperature increase that has been observed since the start of the industrial revolution. Processes more dominant than CO₂ increases had to be responsible for most of the global warming that has occurred.
The globe has continuous solar energy absorption of about 235 W/m² which is balanced by continuous infrared (IR) energy emittance to space of 235 W/m². This continuous in-and-out energy flux is 200 times greater than the accumulated current CO₂ induced energy gain from the mid-19^th century. Long period infrared and albedo energy changes resulting from naturally occurring differences in global rainfall, cloudiness, surface sensible flux, deep ocean current changes, etc. can be considerable greater than this relatively small and gradual 1.2 W/m² global infrared energy suppression to space. Yes, increases in CO₂ are causing global warming, but very little of it. Too little to justify a sizable reduction of our society’s use of fossil-fuels for the far more expensive employment of renewable energy.
This Appendix discusses how the variation in the global ocean’s deep circulation resulting from changes in the Atlantic Thermohaline Circulation (THC) and/or the associated ocean Meridional Overturning Circulation (MOC) is the likely cause of most of the global warming that has been observed since the start of the industrial revolution and the more recent global warming that has occurred since the mid-1970s. Changes of the MOC since 1995 are hypothesized to have lead to the cessation of global warming since 1999 and to the beginning of a weak global cooling that has occurred since 2001. This weak cooling is projected to go on for the next couple of decades.

1. INTRODUCTION
There are about 20 different General Circulation Model (GCM) groups around the world that have been conducting extensive numerical modeling simulations of the likely changes in global mean temperature that should be expected to occur from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂) gas. Carbon dioxide has so far risen about 33 percent (to 385 ppm) over its pre-industrial values and about 15 percent during the last 30 years. It is expected that there will be a doubling of atmospheric CO₂ by the latter part of the 21^st century. Most of these GCM simulations indicate that there will be a 2-5^oC (4-9^oF) increase in global mean temperature by the time this doubling takes place if there is no action to reduce these CO₂ increases. Such large warming would cause great changes in human society. These large warming scenarios are highly unlikely, however. The GCMs greatly exaggerate the potential warming that will occur. These exaggerations are due to:

1. Models assuming that an increase in atmospheric CO₂ will cause weak global warming and an increase in global precipitation that will lead to a large increase in upper-level water vapor and cloudiness. They simulate that this increase in water vapor and cloudiness will block large amounts of infrared radiation emitted to space. New observations by satellite and reanalysis data however, do not support these GCM model assumptions. The global warming that has occurred since the mid-1970s has been associated with a general decrease of global upper tropospheric water vapor and an increase of Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR) to space. These measurements are opposite to what the models predict.

1. GCMs do not currently model (or if they do – not accurately) the globe’s deep-water ocean circulation. Accurately modeling the global ocean’s deep circulation is fundamental to any realistic understanding of global temperature change. Such global deep water circulation patterns appear to be the primary control of global surface temperature. The global warming we have seen since the mid-1970s and over the last 100 years is largely due to reductions in the rate of global ocean deep water circulation (or Meridional Overturning Circulation – MOC) which is viewed as being driven by global ocean salinity variations. CO₂ changes play no role in these ocean changes.

Recent GCM global warming scenarios assume that a slightly stronger hydrologic cycle (due to the increase in CO₂) will cause additional upper-level tropospheric water vapor and cloudiness. Such vapor-cloudiness increases are assumed to allow the small initial warming due to increased CO₂ to be unrealistically multiplied 3-5 or more times. This is where most of the global warming from the GCMs comes from – not the warming resulting from the CO₂ increase by itself but the large extra warming due to the assumed increase of upper tropospheric water vapor and cloudiness. As CO₂ increases, it does not follow that the net global upper-level water vapor and cloudiness will increase very much, certainly not anything like the amount projected by the GCM climate simulations. Observations of upper tropospheric water vapor over the last 3-4 decades from the NOAA-NCEP reanalysis show that upper tropospheric water vapor undergoes a small decrease and that Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR) undergoes an increase. This is opposite to what has been programmed into the GCM models. The predicted large global warming of the GCMs should thus not be taken to be credible.


2. OTHER GCM PROBLEMS

Small-Scale Problems. In order to integrate over the entire globe and many years into the future it is necessary that the GCMs have rather large grid spacing. This requires that the GCMs employ sub-grid scale cumulus parameterization schemes which can often be poor approximations of the real-world complex, non-linear small-scale cumulus convective processes. An important deficiency in the global models is the large amount of compensating up-and-down motion occurring between grid spaces that cannot be explicitly resolved by the models (Figure 1). These poorly-resolved approximations of sub-grid scale processes are integrated by the models for hundreds of thousands of time steps into the future. This guarantees large errors. Realistic sub-grid scale parameterization schemes have yet to be developed. Most GCM modelers are unfamiliar with the detailed functioning of the hydrologic cycle. Their models assume that changes in lower and upper tropospheric water vapor occur simultaneously which the observations do not verify (Figure 2). Observations show, in fact, that as global warming has occurred since the mid-1970s that lower tropospheric water vapor has increased while upper tropospheric water vapor has decreased. This appears to be a result of there being somewhat more deep Cb convection and a higher rainfall efficiency when the globe is warmer than when it is colder. There are slightly more deep convection updrafts and compensation mass subsidence drying during times when the globe is warmer.
Much research on the small scale parameterization of cumulus convection in terms of the large scale circulation patterns was done in the 1970s and 1980s without satisfactory resolution. The topic was too complex to be resolved during this period. To move forward the GCM models primarily ignored this difficult task. They chose not to get ‘down-in-the-trenches’ on such a complex topic. They accepted a few simple compromised schemes (with known problems) and went forward with their broader-scale modeling integrations assuming that their sub-grid schemes were ‘good enough’ or that the errors would average out in the end. But the sub-grid scale approximations they have used have not been good enough and the sub-grid parameterization errors do not average out over the long integration periods.
There are many large and complicated variations as to how sub-grid scale cumulus parameterization should be accomplished with respect to differences in latitude, land, sea, season, and other conditions. There are no general sub-grid parameterization schemes that can perform this function within the various global regions and on the long climate time-scales. And there will likely never be a satisfactory scheme.


Figure 1. Idealized portrayal of how the grid size of the GCMs is too large to accommodate real sub-grid scale vertical motion. GCMs cannot resolve (top) the concentrated rain or the surrounding cloud downdrafts and subsidence within the scale of its grid space (bottom). The top and bottom diagrams contrast the mean vertical motion of the GCM (top) and the real up-and-down vertical motion of nature if deep convection is occurring within a grid space. Note that the unresolved vertical motion of the top diagram allows less OLR to escape to space – than the bottom actual representation.


Figure 2. Comparison of correlation coefficient between upper and lower level tropospheric water vapor of the typical GCMs model output (red) and that of the Rawinsonde-reanalysis observations (blue line). The GCM model outputs are programmed to have a simultaneous moistening of the lower and upper tropospheric levels, but the observations of upper vs. lower troposphere moisture shows little correlation. This high correlation of the models causes them to artificially moisten the upper troposphere and block too much OLR to space. Adapted from Sun and Held 1996.
The net effect of the GCM’s sub-grid scale parameterization schemes is to underestimate sub-grid subsidence drying, and to unrealistically suppress OLR to space. This is one of the ways the GCMs are able to develop their large amounts of artificial warming. It is thus not so surprising that the GCMs produce so much global warming (~2 to 5^oC) for only a relatively small increase (3.7 ^W/_m²) of suppressed radiation to space for a doubling of CO₂.
It is expected that global rainfall will increase somewhat as human-induced greenhouse gases increase. This increased rainfall is expected to primarily manifest itself in small amounts of increased and concentrated deep cumulus convection and increased rainfall efficiency in the normal areas where deep convection and rainfall are already occurring. This somewhat greater and more concentrated rainfall will not bring about global upper-level water vapor and cloud increase anywhere near as much as the GCM modelers have assumed. The diagram of Figure 3 gives the author’s concept of how the globe will handle a doubling of CO₂ by the end of the 21^st century. We will not see a global warming of 2-5^oC as the GCM models indicate but rather a much more modest warming of about 0.3-0.5^oC.
Albedo Considerations. Analysis of OLR and albedo from the new ISCCP (International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project – 1984-2005) for differing reanalysis determined rainfall amounts shows that at the places and times where rainfall increases that albedo goes up more than OLR goes down. There is thus more net short and long wave energy going to space in periods of increased rainfall than with decreased rainfall conditions. These observations do not agree with the programmed physics within the GCMs.


Figure 3. A view of the physical process differences between the global warming for a doubling of CO₂ from the GCM climate models and reality.


Positive Water Vapor Feedback. Most geophysical systems react to forced imbalances by developing responses which oppose and weaken the initial forced imbalance; hence, a negative feedback response. Recent GCM global warming scenarios go counter to the foregoing in hypothesizing a positive feedback loop. This positive water vapor feedback assumption allows the small initial warming due to human-induced CO₂ increases to be unrealistically multiplied 3-5 or more times. As AGW gases increase it does not follow that upper-level water vapor and cloudiness will increase very much. Observations indicate that the specific humidity and relative humidity of the middle and upper troposphere has been going down over the last 4-5 decades (Figure 4). The assumed positive water vapor increase with temperature as programmed into the GCM models does occur however at the surface and the lower troposphere. But this simultaneous increase of temperature and water vapor is not found in the upper troposphere near the radiation emission level. It is not the total precipitable water which is most important (measurements show this goes up with temperature) but rather the amount of water vapor near the upper tropospheric emission level which is important. This specifies the amount of infrared energy going to space.



Figure 4. The NOAA-NCEP reanalysis of standardized anomalies of 400 mb (~7.5 km altitude) water vapor content (i.e. specific humidity – in blue) and Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR) from 1950-2008. Note the downward trend in moisture and the upward trend in OLR.


Faulty Reasoning Behind Climate GCMs. A basic assumption error behind the global GCMs has been the model builder’s general belief in the physics of the National Academy of Science (NAS) 1979 study – often referred to as The Charney Report. This report hypothesized that a doubling of atmospheric CO₂ would bring about a general warming of the globe’s mean temperature between 1.5 – 4.5^oC (or an average of ~ 3.0^oC). This was based on the report’s assumption that the relative humidity (RH) of the atmosphere should be expected to remain quasi-constant if the globe’s temperature were to increase. The fundamental law of the Clausius-Clapeyron (CC) equation specifies that as the temperature of the air rises its ability to hold water vapor goes up exponentially. If relative humidity (RH) were to remain constant as atmospheric temperature rose then the water vapor (q) amount in the atmosphere would accordingly rise (Figure 5 and Figure 6). Observations show that this is indeed a valid assumption for the lower tropospheric levels but does not observationally apply in the upper troposphere (300-400 mb) where water vapor and relative humidity have been observed to slightly decrease as the atmospheric temperatures rises. Lower RH and reduced water vapor contents near the upper radiation emission level will act to increase the amount of outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) which will be emitted to space. By contrast, the GCMs have programmed a reduction of OLR for rising upper level temperature.
The global general circulation models (GCMs) which test the influence of CO₂ increases, have accepted the hypothesized NAS – Charney Report (1979) scenario. Some of the GCM modelers such as the early NASA-GISS (Hansen 1988) model have even gone further than the Clausius-Clapeyron equation would specify for water vapor increasing with temperature. Hansen’s early GISS model assumed that a doubling of CO₂ would cause the upper tropospheric RH not just to stay constant but to actually increase. And his assumed upper tropospheric increase of water vapor (q) for a doubling of CO₂ led to a water vapor increase (∆q) in the upper troposphere of as much as an extremely unlikely 50 percent. These large vapor increases caused Hansen to require that his model have a tropical (30^oN-30^oS) upper tropospheric warming for a doubling of CO₂ as much as 7^oC (Figure 8). No wonder Hansen got such high values of global warming for a doubling of CO₂. This logically followed from his extremely high water vapor assumptions.





Figure 5. The very influential NAS report of 1979 which deduced that any warming of the globe would occur with near constant relative humidity (RH). Global warming consequently causes an increase in atmospheric water vapor (q) and decrease outgoing longwave radiation (OLR). This assumption appears valid in the lower troposphere but no the upper troposphere.

Figure 6. Clausius-Clapeyron (CC) relationship showing the required increase of water vapor as temperature increases at constant relative humidity (RH) – red line. The observations of upper tropospheric water vapor – green dashed line – do not follow this theoretical relationship. This is likely a result of a warmer climate causing more deep convection and more return flow dryer subsidence.



Figure 7. James Hansen’s early GISS showing his assumed increases in specific humidity (q) and RH for a doubling of CO₂. Such water vapor assumptions are completely unrealistic.



Figure 8. North-South vertical-cross section showing Hansen’s early GCM’s model change in temperature (^oC) that would accompany a doubling of atmospheric CO₂. There is no way a doubling of CO₂ and an extra 3.7 ^W/_m² blockage of OLR to space could lead to such extreme upper tropospheric temperature rises. These large temperature increases occurred because of Hansen’s unrealistic upper level water vapor assumptions.
In order to obtain the global balance of incoming and outgoing radiation for his assumed high values of upper tropospheric water vapor it was necessary for Hansen to unrealistically raise his model’s upper tropospheric temperatures to obtain the amounts of Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR or σT⁴) to space that would accomplish net radiation balance. It is amazing that Hansen’s high water vapor increase assumptions for a doubling of CO₂ were not immediately challenged.
It was these large amounts of warming resulting from his model’s gross over-estimate of water vapor which Hansen presented to a US Senate Committee hearing at the request of then Senator Al Gore during the hot summer of 1988. The media and much of the general public accepted it all. The environmentalists salivated. Hansen had secured his place in the sun. But history will reverse such adulation when his warming predictions are inevitable proven to be wrong.
Not only have Hansen’s extreme and unrealistic high values of upper tropospheric moisture and temperature changes (for a doubling of CO₂) not been challenged, they were instead closely emulated by most of the other prominent GCM early global warming modeling groups of NOAA-GFDL (Figure 9), NCAR (Figure 10) and the British Met Service (Figure 11). They all followed suit and incorporated unrealistically high amounts of upper tropospheric water vapor and, as a result, obtained unrealistic high values of global upper and surface temperature just as Hansen had.
I am sure that the more recent global climate models of Hansen’s GISS model and the more recent, GFDL, NCAR and UKMET models have been improved. I expect the current set of GCM modelers will say I am referring to older model runs that are now obsolete. This argument does not hold however. If the more recent year models are superior to the older ones, then we would be seeing a revision downward of their warming estimates. But their newer models give much the same magnitude of warming as their older ones.

Figure 9. Same as Figure 8 but for early model NOAA-GFDL GCM temperature rises for a doubling of CO₂.



Figure 10. Same as Figure 8 but for NCAR’s early model GCM temperature rises for a doubling of CO₂.

NASA Announces $1.5 Million ‘Green’ Aircraft Challenge

The NASA Innovative Partnerships Program and the Comparative Aircraft Flight Efficiency (CAFE) Foundation today announced the Green Flight Challenge. The contest is a flight efficiency competition for aircraft that can average at least 100 mph on a 200-mile flight while achieving greater than 200 passenger miles per gallon.

The prize for the aircraft with the best performance is $1.5 million. The competition is scheduled for July 2011 at the Charles M. Schulz Sonoma County Airport in Santa Rosa, CA. A variety of innovative experimental aircraft using electrical, solar, bio-fuel or hybrid propulsion are expected to enter. Several major universities and aircraft builders have expressed their intention to enter teams in the challenge.

To win, teams must use cutting-edge technologies in mechanical and electrical engineering, structures, aerodynamics and thermodynamics. As a national showcase of "green" technology, the challenge is expected to help advance all three of the major climate mitigation initiatives: efficiency, conservation and zero-carbon energy sources. These technologies will support advances in aviation and may have broader applications in transportation and energy storage.

The Green Flight Challenge is administered for NASA by CAFE. Founded in 1981, CAFE is a non-profit organization dedicated to advancing the understanding of personal aircraft technologies through research, analysis and education.
NASA is providing the prize money as part of the Centennial Challenges program. The program seeks innovative solutions to problems of interest to NASA and the nation from diverse and unconventional sources. Competitors may not receive government funding for their entries in this challenge.

For information about CAFE and competing in this challenge, visit:

http://cafefoundation.org/v2/main_home.php

For more information about Centennial Challenges, visit:

http://www.ipp.nasa.gov/cc

For information about NASA and agency programs, visit:

http://www.nasa.gov

Has Cold Fusion Been Verified By US Navy Lab?

Researchers have reported compelling new scientific evidence for the existence of low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR). The LENR process—also called "cold fusion"—may portend a limitless and environmentally-clean method for generating electricity. The group of Navy scientists describes what it terms the first clear visual evidence that LENR devices can produce neutrons; subatomic particles which indicate nuclear reactions are taking place.

Their report—which injects new life into this controversial field—was presented 23 March at the American Chemical Society's National Meeting. It was among 30 papers on the topic presented during a four-day symposium, New Energy Technology, coinciding with the 20th anniversary of the first description of cold fusion.

The study was undertaken at the U.S. Navy's Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center (SPAWAR) in San Diego, California, and published in the peer-reviewed journal, Naturwissenschaft, DOI: 10.1007/s00114-008-0449-x (SpringerLink subscription required).

Co-author and analytical chemist Pamela Mosier-Boss, Ph.D. said:

"Our finding is very significant… to our knowledge, this is the first scientific report of the production of highly energetic neutrons from an LENR device."

Fusion is the energy source which powers the sun and stars. Scientists have been striving to reproduce—in a controlled fashion—that power here on Earth. Fueled by deuterium—an abundant isotope of hydrogen easily extracted from seawater—fusion reactors would provide a clean and cheap source of electricity. For decades, prevailing fusion research concentrated on a sophisticated new genre of nuclear reactors able to withstand temperatures of tens of millions of degrees Fahrenheit—hence, often called “hot” fusion.

The first report on "cold fusion," presented in 1989 by Martin Fleishmann and Stanley Pons, was a global scientific sensation. In contrast to the huge, complex and tremendously expensive “hot” fusion reactors, Pons and Fleishmann claimed to have achieved nuclear fusion at comparatively "cold" room temperatures—in a simple, tabletop laboratory device termed an electrolytic cell.

Other researchers could not seem to reproduce Pons and Fleishmann’s results, and the field of cold fusion research declined. A stalwart cadre of scientists persisted, however, seeking solid evidence that nuclear reactions can occur at low temperatures. One problem in proving the existence of low-energy (cold) nuclear reactions involved the extreme difficulty in using conventional electronic instruments to detect the small number of neutrons produced in the process.

In their new study, Mosier-Boss and colleagues inserted an electrode composed of nickel or gold wire into a solution of palladium chloride mixed with deuterium or "heavy water" in a process called co-deposition. They passed electric current through the solution—causing a reaction within seconds—using a special plastic, CR-39, to capture and track any high-energy particles emitted, including any neutrons emitted during the fusion of deuterium atoms.

They examined the plastic microscopically, discovering patterns of "triple tracks;" tiny-clusters of three adjacent pits that appear to split apart from a single point, (see the photo above). The researchers say that the track marks were made by subatomic particles released when neutrons smashed into the plastic. Significantly, no such tracks were seen if the experiment was repeated using normal rather than heavy water. Mosier-Boss and colleagues believe the neutrons originated in nuclear reactions, perhaps from the combining or fusing deuterium nuclei.

"People have always asked 'Where's the neutrons?'" Mosier-Boss said. "If you have fusion going on, then you have to have neutrons. We now have evidence that there are neutrons present in these LENR reactions."

They cited other evidence for nuclear reactions occurring in their experiment, including X-rays, tritium, (another isotope of hydrogen), and excess heat. Meanwhile, Mosier-Boss and colleagues are continuing to explore the phenomenon to get a better understanding of exactly how LENR works—key to controlling it for practical purposes.

Mosier-Boss points out that the field currently gets very little funding and, despite its promise, researchers cannot predict when—or if—LENR may emerge from the lab with practical applications.

Paul Padley, a physicist at Rice University who reviewed Mosier-Boss's published work, said the study did not provide a plausible explanation of how cold fusion could take place in the conditions described.

"It fails to provide a theoretical rationale to explain how fusion could occur at room temperatures. And in its analysis, the research paper fails to exclude other sources for the production of neutrons," he told the Houston Chronicle. "The whole point of fusion is, you’re bringing things of like charge together. As we all know, like things repel, and you have to overcome that repulsion somehow."

Padley’s remarks in no way negate the SPAWAR team’s findings and those findings in no way negate Padley’s comments: Isaac Newton, in his Principia Mathematica, formulated the mathematical laws governing gravitational force, though Newton never understood what gravity was or how it attracted objects.

The Navy team has performed experiments and released the results of those experiments—a fundamental step in scientific inquiry. The next step is for other researchers to precisely reproduce the apparatus used by Mosier-Boss and her team, perform the same experiment the same way under the same conditions and see if they derive they same results. If they do, the following step is to attempt to explain exactly what is happening, why and what physical and chemical processes are involved.

Other speakers at the conference presented evidence supporting cold fusion, including Antonella De Ninno, a scientist with New Technologies Energy and Environment (Rome), who reported both excess heat and helium gas.

"We now have very convincing experimental evidence," De Ninno claimed.

Tadahiko Mizuno of Japan's Hokkaido University also reported excess heat generation and gamma-ray emissions.

All three research groups are currently exploring both experimental and theoretical studies in hopes of better understanding the cold fusion process well enough to commercialize it.

These experimental results may be due to a cold fusion/LENR process or they may be the effects of chemical or physical processes not yet understood. Clearly, something is going on in such experiments which requires further scrutiny. Whatever the ultimate explanation, science can only be enriched by answering the questions raised: There is no downside to exploring this matter to its definitive conclusion.

If these findings are, indeed, evidence of a cold fusion process and this process can be extenuated into a practical means of inexpensively generating electricity in large quantity, we may be witnessing the first steps of a discovery which will benefit mankind—not in a small way, but in a truly revolutionary fashion.

Those with high-speed connections may watch streaming videos from the ACS cold fusion conference at:

Session 1, Session 2

Mars Update to Google Earth

Mars' Valles Marineris Credit: NASA/Google Earth

NASA and Google announce an update to Mars in Google Earth, a 3D mapping tool for the Red Planet.

Originally released with Google Earth 5.0, Mars in Google Earth now contains even more features that give users a sense of how our knowledge of Mars, and our study of astronomy, has evolved over time.  After selecting 'Mars' from the toolbar in Google Earth, users “fly” to a 3D view of the Red Planet, complete with informational layers, imagery, and terrain.  The tools for navigation and exploration on Mars are identical to those on Earth - zoom in and out, change the camera view, or spin the entire planet with a click of the mouse.

There are several new features in this updated version of Mars in Google Earth:

First, users can “travel back in time” to see the Red Planet through the eyes of the pioneers of Mars science in the Historical Maps layer by exploring antique maps by astronomers Giovanni Schiaparelli, Percival Lowell, and others .

Then, they can fast-forward to the present day with the new Live from Mars layer, featuring a continuous stream of the latest imagery from today's Mars spacecraft.  Live from Mars includes imagery from NASA's THEMIS camera on board the Mars Odyssey spacecraft, and lets users fly along with Odyssey as well as the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter to see what they have been observing lately and where they are headed next.

Users can discover these, and other exciting features—and learn all about the history of Mars science and exploration—with two new guided tours of Mars narrated by Ira Flatow of Public Radio's Science Friday and Bill Nye the Science Guy.

You may wish to view the narrated tutorial here or here.

Mars in Google Earth also contains several updated elements, in addition to the many popular features that were available at the original launch:

Updated imagery from NASA and ESA, and improved the search function to make it easier to explore well-known sites on Mars.  Just as they could in the original version of Mars in Google Earth, users can read geo-located articles from William K. Hartmann’s A Traveler's Guide to Mars about the solar system's largest canyon, Valles Marineris, its tallest volcano, Olympus Mons, the infamous “Face on Mars”, and many other famous Martian locations.  They can also follow the paths of Mars rovers and view hi-resolution panoramic photos of the Mars surface.

British May Launch Spaceplane Within 10 Years

Single-Stage-To-Orbit spacecraft would use runways for take-off and landing

Illustration of Skylon spaceplane in orbit

The European Space Agency and the British Government have awarded $1.28 million dollars to Reaction Engines Limited as part of a multi-million dollar package aimed at developing the SABRE hybrid engine. The SABRE engine is capable of operating as both an air-breathing jet engine and a rocket engine.

SABRE engines would make possible the 269-foot-long Skylon Spaceplane, capable of taking off from and landing on a runway like any airliner, (the Boeing 747-300 is 231 feet long). However, after take-off, Skylon will ascend high above the Earth where at Mach 5.5 Skylon’s SABRE engines will switch from air-breathers to rockets, propelling the craft into orbit.

With a payload capacity of 13 tons and a 40-foot cargo bay, Skylon will be capable of hefting satellites and orbital base (space) station modules into orbit. There are even plans for a 40-passenger payload module for astronauts or space tourists.

Computer-generated Skylon Spaceplane animations may be viewed at REL’s website in QuickTime or Flash.

Water Found On Mars… Yet Again?

Update: Based on a comment to this article, it seems I overestimated the degree of general knowledge concerning the conditions of the Martian climate and the properties of water. I have updated this article to include data showing why I think the globules are not evidence of liquid water.

Phoenix touched down at its landing site in the Martian arctic on 25 May 2008. Recent examinations of early Phoenix photographs show globules of what may be liquid water on the lander’s struts.

Image: Mars water, Renno, et al., NASA

Images of one of Phoenix's struts taken by the lander's robotic arm camera on Sols (or Martian days) 8, 31 and 44 of the mission. The two spheroids enclosed by the circle appear to merge with each other.

Some Phoenix scientists argue is a sign that the globs are liquid water, but researchers are divided on just what the photographs actually show.

Let’s talk about water and triple point:

The triple point of any substance is that temperature and pressure at which the material can coexist in all three phases (solid, liquid and gas) in equilibrium. Specifically the triple point of water is 273.16 K, (0.01° C, 32.018° F) at 611.2 Pa [pascals], (6.112 mb [millibars]).

Now, let’s look at this diagram showing water in relation to the Martian atmosphere:

The atmospheric pressure on Mars is so low, even in the most favorable spots where the pressure is higher than average, liquid water is restricted to the temperature range +0.01º C to +9 °C.

So, for liquid water to exist on Mars, the atmospheric pressure would have to be between 6.1 mb to 10 mb and the temperature between +0.01º C to +9 °C.

The temperature and pressure at Phoenix’ location on the dates the three photos were taken were:

(Martian day number, low temp, high temp, atmospheric pressure)

Sol 8 -83 ºC, (-117.4º F), -31 ºC, (-23.8º F), 8.49 mb (849 Pa, 0.00837 atm)
Sol 31 -79 ºC, (-110.2º F), -31 ºC, (-23.8º F), 8.16 mb (816 Pa, 0.00805 atm)
Sol 44 -78 ºC, (-108.4º F), -30 ºC, (-22.0º F), 8.04 mb (804 Pa, 0.00793 atm)

Highs between Sol 8 and Sol 44, inclusive:
-25 ºC, (-13º F, 248º K) 8.5mb, (850 Pa, 0.00838 Atm)

For those “globules” to be pure liquid water, we would have to throw out the physics of water as we understand it, the physics of the Martian atmosphere as we understand it, or both. Neither are likely to be incorrect on this scale.

So. The globules aren’t pure liquid water. BUT—what if the water is contaminated?

Phoenix found perchlorates in the soil around the lander. Perchlorates are highly water soluble and in solution allow the water to remain in a liquid state to -70°C. The presence of perchlorates increases the plausibility of water solutions in a liquid state.

Also, Phoenix’ landing rockets “burned” hydrazine, which decomposes into ammonia, nitrogen gas, and hydrogen gas. I have not calculated the phase states of hydrazine or ammonia under Martian climatic conditions, but I propose either would be a better bet than pure liquid water.

In any event, the globules really can’t be pure liquid water, though they may be water with antifreeze added—big deal. NASA’s press release is much ado about nothing but it serves to demonstrate that such releases are a bad idea until all your data is in, properly reduced, and passed around for comment and critique by other researchers.

Every once in a while, there is a “sensational” story about water being found on Mars as though it was a new discovery. To set the record straight, it has long been known that there IS, in fact, water on Mars.

A small, small sample of such stories from only the BBC:

21 June, 2000, Water 'found on Mars'

26 July, 2001, Water reserves found on Mars

28 May, 2002, Mars ice could flood planet

16 February, 2003, Ankle-deep on Mars

24 January, 2004, Long history of water and Mars

6 March, 2004, More signs of water found on Mars

18 May, 2004, Rover finds new Mars water signs

26 July, 2004, Probe maps water vapour on Mars

21 February 2005, Mars pictures reveal frozen sea

29 July 2005, Ice lake found on the Red Planet

5 September 2005, Martian dunes hide water secret

30 November 2005, Radar sees ice deep below Mars

16 March 2007, Polar water 'would blanket Mars'

19 December 2007, 'Active glacier found' on Mars

20 December 2007, Greenhouse clue to water on Mars

17 July 2008 14:28 Water 'widespread' on early Mars

31 July 2008 22:15 NASA's lander samples Mars water

There’s water on Mars. So okay already. Move on.

Earth Escapes Disaster by 41 Minutes

Asteroid Passed Within 46,500 Miles, Monday

An asteroid named 2009 DD45, estimated to be the size of a ten-story building, (about 115ft), barely missed colliding with Earth Monday. Had the asteroid arrived just 41 minutes earlier it would have struck the Earth with devastating consequences.

Tunguska, 45 years after the event

An asteroid of similar size to 2009 DD45 smashed into the Earth’s atmosphere on June 30, 1908, over Siberia. Streaking across the sky at an estimated speed of about 62,000mph, it exploded high in the atmosphere with a blast equivalent to about 15 one-megaton atomic bombs. Over 60 million trees were flattened over more than 770 sq miles of forest, (an area 1.6 times the size of New York City), near Siberia’s Tunguska River. By sheer luck the blast occurred over a remote area and no lives were known lost.

But we’re not out of the woods yet. There are plenty more cosmic missiles—known and yet to be discovered—coming our way.

At 1,100 ft, asteroid Apophis--designated 2004 MN4--is capable of causing considerably more devastation than either the Tunguska asteroid or 2009 DD45. Apophis will swing past Earth in 2029 at an altitude less than our communications and spy satellites. There's a slim chance that Apophis will pass through a "keyhole." In this narrow corridor of space, perhaps a few hundred yards wide, Earth's gravity would deflect the asteroid just enough to put it on a certain collision course with our planet on its next pass in 2036.

An asteroid made this crater in Arizona, 50,000 years ago

The odds that Apophis will pass through this fatal corridor are currently estimated at 1 in 45,000. We might have to wait until weeks after its close approach in 2029 to learn whether Apophis has squeezed through the keyhole, leaving us precious little time to avert calamity in 2036.

Few experts are giving this much thought, says astronomer David Morrison of NASA’s Ames Research Center: “The number would roughly staff a couple shifts at a McDonald’s.”

John McCain take note!

Help NASA Name New Space Station Module

Voting will be open until March 20th, 2009

NASA will announce the winning name in April 2009

NASA wants your opinion in naming the International Space Station’s Node 3 – a connecting module and its cupola – before the two segments travel to space and are installed on the orbiting laboratory. The name should reflect the spirit of exploration and cooperation embodied by the space station, and follow in the tradition set by Node 1- Unity- and Node 2- Harmony.

Node 3 Module

Space shuttle Endeavour will deliver the Node 3 components during the STS-130 mission targeted for December 2009.

Once the cupola is attached to one of the module’s six ports, it will offer astronauts a spectacular view of both their home planet and their home in space.  The cupola’s six rectangular windows and one circular window overhead will show a panoramic view that will be unrivaled by any other spacecraft ever flown. Aside from providing a perfect location to observe and photograph the Earth, the cupola also will contain a robotics workstation, where astronauts will be able to control the station’s giant robotic arm.

Node 3 will connect to the port side of the Unity Node and will provide room for many of the station’s life support systems, in the form of eight refrigerator-sized racks.  After Node 3 is installed, the station’s crew will transfer over many of the Environmental Control and Life Support Systems (ECLSS) currently stored in various places around the station, including:

• Water Recovery System (WRS) and Urine Processor Assembly (UPA), which take waste water from the station and purify it, separating any contaminants and making it safe for the crew to drink
• Waste and hygiene compartment, which provides a place for the crew to use the bathroom in a way that allows the station to process the majority of the water used onboard so that it may be used again, greatly lessening the need for resupply flights from Earth.

My choice for a name? Well, considering the above, I like… John.

John McCain Puts The "Twit" In Twitter

McCain Mocks Spending For Astronomy

McCain answers a question on his IQ

John McCain, a man so inept his wife has to scan the internet for him, has a Twitter account, which he uses to promote his political agenda, (I suspect one of his aides makes the entries).

Among other things, McCain has been twittering about pork in the congressional theft "economic stimulus" bill. Now, I'm against pork--which makes up the vast majority of that bill--but look at what McCain sees as the number 2 porker:

#2. $2 million “for the promotion of astronomy” in Hawaii - because nothing says new jobs for average Americans like investing in astronomy

What?

Let's see... McCain represents Arizona... Okay, take a gander at this page:
The Economic Impact of Astronomy, Planetary and Space Science Research in Arizona

Quoting from that page:

Research in Astronomy, Planetary Sciences and Space Sciences is a core strength of Arizona’s economy.

According to the economic analysis contained in the report, in 2006 alone, research in astronomy and space and planetary sciences provided over a $250 million in economic impact to Arizona. To put that in perspective, that is the equivalent of the economic impact of the Super Bowl every two years.

Arizona, like most of the nation, is facing an uncertain economic future in the near term. But one thing is not uncertain and that is the importance of astronomy, space and planetary research to Arizona’s economy.

There are real threats that will diminish the economic contributions of research in these fields. Immediate and decisive action must be taken so that will continue to realize the economic benefit of astronomy and space and planetary sciences.

So. Astronomy brings over a quarter-of-a-billion dollars into his own state every year, but McCain thinks spending 0.000049% of the Pork Bill to promote astronomy in Hawaii is a bad idea?

Well, what’s so special about astronomy in Hawaii?

Hawaii is Earth's connecting point to the rest of the Universe. The summit of Mauna Kea on the Island of Hawaii hosts the world's largest astronomical observatory, with telescopes operated by astronomers from eleven countries. The combined light-gathering power of the telescopes on Mauna Kea is fifteen times greater than that of the Palomar telescope in California -- for many years the world's largest -- and sixty times greater than that of the Hubble Space Telescope.

There are currently thirteen working telescopes near the summit of Mauna Kea. Nine of them are for optical and infrared astronomy, three of them are for submillimeter wavelength astronomy and one is for radio astronomy. They include the largest optical/infrared telescopes in the world (the Keck telescopes), the largest dedicated infrared telescope (UKIRT) and the largest submillimeter telescope in the world (the JCMT). The westernmost antenna of the Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA) is situated at a lower altitude two miles from the summit.

Mauna Kea is unique as an astronomical observing site. The atmosphere above the mountain is extremely dry -- which is important in measuring infrared and submillimeter radiation from celestial sources - and cloud-free, so that the proportion of clear nights is among the highest in the world. The exceptional stability of the atmosphere above Mauna Kea permits more detailed studies than are possible elsewhere, while its distance from city lights and a strong island-wide lighting ordinance ensure an extremely dark sky, allowing observation of the faintest galaxies that lie at the very edge of the observable Universe. A tropical inversion cloud layer about 600 meters (2,000 ft) thick, well below the summit, isolates the upper atmosphere from the lower moist maritime air and ensures that the summit skies are pure, dry, and free from atmospheric pollutants.

Part of the observatory complex on Mauna Kea

To quote the 2006 Report on long-term development of observatory sites on the summit of Mauna Kea:

Astronomy facilities on Mauna Kea and Haleakala represent a capital investment of close to $1 billion. The economic impact of astronomy to the State [of Hawaii] amounts to $150 million per year. New projects for Haleakala and Mauna Kea have the potential to double these numbers.

As of 2006, $150 million and the potential to bring over $300 million to the State of Hawaii every year? Maybe that’s just chump change to a man who didn’t even know how many houses he owned until a journalist told him.

Green Comet Lulin Approaches Earth

Quanzhi Ye, a 19 year-old meteorology student at Sun Yat-sen University, China, discovered a new comet on an image taken at Lulin Observatory, after which the comet is named.

Comet Lulin (C/2227 N3) makes its closest approach to Earth, (0.41 AU, about 14.5 times the distance between the Earth and the Moon), on 24 February 2009. Current estimates set the maximum brightness at 4th or 5th magnitude, which means dark country skies will be required to see it. The hyperbolic orbit of Comet Lulin suggests this could be the comet's first visit to the inner solar system, hence, its first exposure to intense sunlight: Magnitude estimates may therefore be off—perhaps considerably.

Comet Lulin Image by Mike Broussard, Maurice, Louisiana, USA, 4 February 2009 Equipment used included a TV-85 refractor, Hutech Canon XS, IDAS-LPS filter and an Atlas EQ-G w/EQMOD. Exposure was 15x180 sec @ ISO 1600.

Lulin's green color comes from the gases that make up its Jupiter-sized atmosphere. Jets spewing from the comet's nucleus contain cyanogen (CN: a poisonous gas found in many comets) and diatomic carbon (C₂). Both substances glow green when illuminated by sunlight in the near-vacuum of space.

The comet rises a few hours before the sun and may be found about 1/3rd of the way up the southern sky before dawn.

Feb. 6th: Comet Lulin glides by Zubenelgenubi, (zuBEN-el-JA-newbee), a double star at the fulcrum of Libra's scales. You can see Zubenelgenubi with your unaided eye (it is about as bright as stars in the Big Dipper); binoculars pointed at the binary star reveal Comet Lulin in beautiful proximity. [NASA sky map]

Feb. 16th: Comet Lulin passes Spica in the constellation Virgo. Spica is a star of first magnitude and a guidepost even city astronomers cannot miss. A finderscope pointed at Spica will capture Comet Lulin in the field of view, centering the optics within a nudge of both objects. [NASA sky map]

Feb. 24th: Closest approach! On this special morning, Lulin will lie just a few degrees from Saturn in the constellation Leo. Saturn is obvious to the unaided eye, and Lulin could be as well. [NASA sky map]

Orbital Elements:

Epoch 2009 Jan. 9.0 TT = JDT 2454840.5
T 2009 Jan. 10.66551 TT                                 MPC
q   1.2125523            (2000.0)            P               Q
z  +0.0000043      Peri.  136.85390     -0.92916054     -0.36953038
+/-0.0000079      Node   338.53392     -0.34642777     +0.86057082
e   0.9999948      Incl.  178.37278     -0.12902902     +0.35052129

2009: International Year of Astronomy, Bicentenary of Darwin’s Birth

The International Year of Astronomy 2009 is a global effort initiated by the International Astronomical Union (IAU) and UNESCO to help the citizens of the world rediscover their place in the Universe through the day- and night-time sky, and thereby engage a personal sense of wonder and discovery.

Everyone should realize the impact of astronomy and other fundamental sciences on our daily lives, and understand how scientific knowledge can contribute to a more equitable and peaceful society. IYA2009 activities are taking place locally, nationally, regionally and internationally. National Nodes in each country are running activities throughout 2009 which will establish collaborations between professional and amateur astronomers, science centers and science communicators. 136 countries are already involved and well over 140 are expected to participate eventually.

To coordinate this huge global program and to provide an important resource for the participating countries, the IAU established a central Secretariat and an IYA2009 website (www.astronomy2009.org) as the principal IYA2009 resource for public, professionals and media alike

The International Year of Astronomy 2009 is endorsed by the International Council of Science (ICSU) and by the United Nations, (one of the rare times I will mention the UN in a convivial light).


2009 is also the bicentenary of the birth of Charles Darwin, the 150th anniversary of the publication of his seminal work, ‘On the Origin of Species’, and the 800th anniversary of the University of Cambridge which will be celebrating Darwin's life and achievements 5–10 July 2009.