Two bits of Barack Obama science-related news:
1) 61 Nobel Laureates have officially endorsed Obama for President. That’s more than have ever endorsed a candidate before. I don’t know if it’s Obama’s pro-science stance or the fact that McCain’s VP pick is so antiscience, wanting to teach creationism in the classroom and denying human-induced global warming (even when McCain admits as much). Either way, it’s remarkable.
2) Obama took a pretty harsh shot at the Bush Administration’s handling of NASA.
This Administration’s lack of leadership for our nation’s space program has left Americans without access to space or the ability to support its astronauts on the International Space Station (ISS) without paying Russia for transportation. The ISS is a world-class research facility, built with approximately $100 billion of U.S. taxpayers’ money. With the planned retirement of the Space Shuttle in 2010, the U.S. will be paying Russia for rides to and from the ISS, and for emergency lifeboat services, using their Soyuz spacecraft. Furthermore, at the end of 2011, NASA will no longer even have the legal authority to continue paying Russia for Soyuz flights, so unless we act immediately, the U.S. will abandon its role in supporting, and benefiting from, missions to this amazing facility, leaving it to our international partners.
I would say the ISS is potentially a world-class facility; right now it isn’t. But the rest is pretty accurate, and appears to support the leaked email by NASA admin Mike Griffin recently, too.
Obama goes on to give Congress some pretty concrete advice on what to do. One of them bugs me:
Demand that NASA take no further action that would make it more difficult or expensive to fly the Shuttle beyond 2010.
I don’t think that’s possible without delaying Constellation, the replacement for the Shuttle. We don’t have infinite money, resources, and engineers to do that. The two are tied together, so what affects one affects the other.
With the way the economy is going, it’s hard to say what will happen here. We’re still hemorrhaging money into Iraq and Afghanistan, remember, so I can’t see how we get out of this without some bad news down the road.
September 27th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Once McCain sells his time machine to unnamed overseas investors he’ll be able to pay for any financial bailouts we could possibly throw at him.
September 27th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
I’m not sure I want Nobels endorsing political campaigns. Seems to me that it opens otherwise objective scientists to unseemly influences.
September 27th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
A bill that would increase funding for NASA has now passed the Senate and the House. It adds $2.6 billion to the overall budget, with directives to study Shuttle launches for AMS and crews to ISS, and adds $1 billion directly to the Cx budget for development of Orion and Ares I.
I have also read that the INKSNA waiver has been extended through July 1, 2016, so we can continue to buy Soyuz seats as well.
September 27th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
So Dr. Plait wants to also continue hemorrhaging money into a manned space program which produces little in the way of scientific discovery. Here’s a comment from the man who doesn’t know what he’s talking about, Bob Park on the ISS, a boondoggle to end all boondoggles. So I pose the question to Dr. Plait: Why indeed did we build the ISS?
2. NASA: REMIND ME AGAIN, WHY DID WE BUILD THE ISS?
Established by Congress on July 29, 1958, NASA is finding its 50th year to be a tough one. The rickety space shuttle fleet is due to be retired in 2010 for safety and cost reasons. For five years, that will leave no way for the US to ferry astronauts to the ISS. No problem, shrugs the White House Office of Management and Budget, just hire the Russians to do it for us. Oops, differences with Russia over North Korea and Iran led to a trade embargo with Russia. NASA got an exemption to the embargo allowing it to buy Soyuz rides. Of course, that was before relations with Russia turned sour over Georgia. So, to keep the ISS alive we should make nice to Russia? Name one thing we’ve learned from the ISS?
September 27th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
I wonder how this 700 billion dollar bailout is going to effect NASA’s budget in the future. It would be really cool to see all this space tech make some money somewhere. I understand it isn’t possible now, but rides into space and other things crowds of people will pay good money for is something I hope we will see one day in my life time, even if it’s a start.
September 27th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Actually, what I really want to see is more international launch pads and space programs. NASA maybe having problems right now, but many countries are growing at an amazing rate. I’d love to see more of these countries begin space programs. I’d especially like to see one in my country Australia. It’s a perfect launchpad, its big and underpopulated, the economy is strong, resources are available, but out government is pretty short sighted so … yeah .. bugger. There was talk of it a few years back but I haven’t heard anything else. Australia already contributes a lot to the scientific community, and would really benefit from something like this. Hey, Hollywood often comes to Oz to make cheaper movies (star wars, matrix etc ) so maybe NASA could come here and make some space tech cheaper. jks
I feel a space program in Australia is way overdue.
September 27th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Just a few views from someone across the pond.
The perspective of the people in the US on politics in countries that are not in the americas is as usual very distorted. In my opinion, people in the US seem too fast with condemning Russia, just because some politicians and the main stream media say so. Here in Europe the opinion on the situation is by far not as extreme or heated as it is in the US. One might want to wonder why that is…
In my oppinion it is an overreaction to retreat from an important 100 billion USD and decades spanning science programme over a conflict that is not only localized, but also has been comparably short (so far and it seems it is already over by now actually) and blown out of proportion by the media. One must not forget that Russia had a UN mandate to have observers in South Ossetia (whether it wa so smart to put Russia there is a different question though). One also must not forget that Georgia attacked South Ossetia, killing (and these numbers might be just as exaggerated as the rest, so take them with a grain of salt) roughly 2000 people there before Russia reacted by invadint Georgia. Thing is if these numbers are incorrect then the total number of casualties in this war is comparably small (any life lost is a tragedy though).
Russias reaction was stupid and exaggerated, no question about it. But then, so was the US invasion of Iraq which was objected by Russia (and France among others) Russia was ignored by the US back then, btw. I wonder what the reaction of the US had been had Russia proposed sanctions against the US for its invasion of Iraq…
Thats why the reactions of most european politicians have been rather mild and the US has had real problems getting them to do anything about the conflict.
Dont get me wrong I am not even trying to defend Russia as their reaction was immature and not appropriate for a power they are (if you are the big and strong you have to be show mercy and restraint towards those beneath you). Both Georgia and Russia got their hands dirty in this conflict. Obama was right when he asked both sides for restraint. Personally I think that his take on foreign policy is much more mature than the ones of the supposedly more experiences McCain. I also do think that his idea of talking with opponents is a wise choice. Problems dont go away if you ignore them, they usually get bigger. The image of the US in the world has severely suffered in the last 8 years (Obama was completely right when he said that as well). My wife is from the US and we have felt that personally quite often here. Also Europe is in a process of change. If things continue at the pace of the last 10 years, then in 20 years islam will be an important political factor in many if not most European countries. This is very, very frightening (I hope that I wont be living here anymore by that time) and it is something the US needs to be prepared for dealing with.
September 27th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
I am extremely critical of NASA and what they do, but I dread what is going to happen to NASA and its future with this bailout. Forget less than 1%.
September 27th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Keep an eye on that “bad news” option. It has a future.
As for “still hemorrhaging money into Iraq and Afghanistan,” last time I looked we were hemorrhaging money everywhere. The only absolute in all this as far as NASA/Science is concerned is that the Shuttle has to go. It might make sense to set up a contest to see which private firm can come up a replacement (amount of reward to be determined), but after 2010 that is it. If it means the ISS has to go as well, that is the economic reality we have to deal with. It was another bad investment that needs to be liquidated and as adults we have to accept that. Seriously, the amount of science that was obtained from the ISS –compared to the cost, the sheer amount of money “invested” is you will — was inconsequential. We could have had a huge network of orbiting telescopes and observatories, several SCSCs, vast numbers of space probes, the list goes on.
Tom Wolfe once said that the 21st century was going to be the hangover from the 20th. The Shuttle and the ISS were 20th century binges (1970’s technology for the most part). Time to get out the aspirin.
September 27th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
@Elmar–
Where exactly did you get your information re Russia and Georgia–Putin? Tass?
Read Michael Totten’s article at his website about Russia vs. Georgia–it gives a very detailed breakdown of what happened there, AND some of the historical background leading up to the events in August. Perhaps a bit more factual than what you seem to have picked up.
September 27th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
@Ray–
You’ve hit the nail right on the head. Bravo!
September 27th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
@Ray,
I think Nobel prizewinners are some of the few people who can be trusted to give an objective opinion. Once they have a Nobel, there’s very little you can bribe them with. Governments have been accused of scientific blackmail – threatening to cut funding for unpopular work – but if they’ve already earned a Nobel Prize, they’ll find someone to keep up funding.
So, I don’t see a problem with Nobel Prizewinners endorsing political candidates. It would be nice if they were endorsing a candidate for being genuinely pro-science, not just opposing someone who appears to be anti-science, but that’s all I see wrong here.
September 27th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Well, at least the money about to hemorrhage down a black hole in Wall St means the troops will come home from Iraq and Afghanistan faster than you can say “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb bomb Iran”.
Even if McCain is elected.
September 27th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
DavidD.
What exactly of what I was saying are you critizising? What part? I mean it cant be all, because a lot of what I am saying can be read on CNN actually…
So can you be a tad more precise?
Besides, you do not get my point. I am not defending Russia, as you are suggesting. I am only asking for caution and restraint. What are you asking for?
September 27th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
SLC: I agree with you. Bob doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
Seriously, I disagree pretty strongly with Bob. I’ve written about this many times here. And since I know you are a regular reader, why so snarky, when I have written dozens of times about how big a waste I think the ISS is?
The ISS is not the be all and end all of manned spaceflight. It’s possible to support manned spaceflight and be against parts of it. Bob’s attitude is either or, and that’s wrong.
September 27th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
@Elmar–
I was in southern Russia at the time of the invasion. The news that I heard from Russians that I spoke with were all about how horrible and evil the Georgians were, just “invading” for no reason. I did not have internet access at the time, but the story just didn’t seem right. When I was finally able to get some world news, I could see that the story was quite different. I try hard to understand what is going on, since my wife’s family is from this part of Russia. I have found Totten’s writing on this issue to be very educational.
So, I disagree that Georgia attacked South Ossetia, or that both sides got their hands dirty. There’s a much deeper story there. I agree with you on a cautious and restrained response.
September 27th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
Good news:
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-briefs27-2008sep27,0,1930465.story
A political stalemate that threatened to boot the United States off the International Space Station eased this week after U.S. lawmakers passed an exemption allowing NASA to buy rides from the Russians, agency officials said.
September 27th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
“So Dr. Plait wants to also continue hemorrhaging money into a manned space program which produces little in the way of scientific discovery.”
SLC: Tho I’m not the biggest fan of our current manned space program, I have to point out the slight flaw in this statement, which is, the manned space program is not all about science. In fact, I’d say science – apart from the actual engineering of spacecraft and the processes of space flight – is probably a junior partner to other motivations.
Nationalism, politics (local and global), and military considerations top the current raison d’etre for NASA’s manned spaceflight budget.
September 27th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
David D
You are being very vague. I am willing to hear your arguments. Please specify what they are. So far all I get from you is the reference to an article, but you provide no link.
September 27th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Say what you will about the current manned space program, but some form of manned space program is pretty much essential for the survival of the species on the very long term scale.
September 27th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
@Elmar–
FOrgive me if I came across too forcefully.
Somehow (and this happens quite often here) we have strayed off topic. So I don’t want to make this a blog about Transcaucasian tribal enmities. Totten’s essay is here.
September 27th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Okay, I’ll be serious and can the snark for this comment. The reason why Bob Park and Steven Weinberg are opposed to the manned space program is because they have concluded that the scientific contribution made by this program is not remotely commensurate with its cost. It is their view that far greater scientific contributions can be made via the unmanned space program for the same money. Now note, their evaluation is strictly based on scientific contribution and nothing else. If Dr. Plait disagrees with their analysis, he should put forward a defense based on the purely scientific contributions made to date by the manned space program which could not have been made via an unmanned program. Of course, if Dr. Plait thinks that scientific contribution should not be the end all and be all of space activities, that’s another program.
The manned space program may have made some limited sense in the 1960s because the science of robotics and the available computer hardware at that time was very limited. However, such is not the case today. For instance, a high end notebook computer from Dell or Apple has far more computing power then the most powerful mainframe that existed in the 1960s.
In particular, I see no reason from a purely scientific view to return men to the moon. And I think that a manned program to Mars is madness of the first order.
September 27th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
SLC:
There is no way to go outside to do one’s ‘business’ when someone announces in a whiny voice: “Ma-aarge, somebody broke the toilet“.
September 27th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
@Quasidog
We will gladly sell NASA to y’all for a bargan $700 Billion. We wont have a space agency left after this bailout passes anyway…so why not?
September 27th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Man made global warming has not been proven. I hate having to bring up the same arguments of the warming period in the dark ages and the mini ice age that followed. There is also plenty of evidence from ice core samples which shows the earth has been warmer in the past. We are also in an ice house right now (which is rare) and are entering a greenhouse like what should happen in the 1000s of years following an ice age or glacial retreat.
September 27th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
On the Shuttle issue, Obama is late. McCain already has proposed an extension.
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/files/mccain_vitter_hutchison_letter_on_russia_space.pdf
September 27th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
Broken toilet on the ISS… god that’s sad.
September 27th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
Is there a link anywhere that someone can point me to that shows Phil’s strongest defense of manned space flight? I’ve done a search within these pages and found nothing. I’ve asked Dr Plait directly in these forums and have received no response.
I realize some may be reading this thinking… well who the hell are you to be asking Phil this?
To which I can only answer… Nobody. But I’d love to read it anyway. Thanks.
September 27th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
Quasidog, we, meaning Oz, were the 3rd or 4th nation in the world to independently build and launch a satellite into space in the 60s. And then… nothing. Pretty pathetic really. We should be doing more. However, the Uni of Qld is right up there in scram jet research.
@SLC : “Of course, if Dr. Plait thinks that scientific contribution should not be the end all and be all of space activities, that’s another program.”
Bingo. Finally it looks as if you may be getting it. That is the problem with Parks’ stance. The either or false dichotomy. That is what we’ve been trying to say. It isn’t just about the science. Footprints and photos are almost as important as any of the science undertaken. Space exploration isn’t a purely scientific endeavour. Hence the term space exploration. Nearly anything we do adds to sum total of human knowledge and experience. Havn’t you ever lived vicariously through the achievements of another. In one sense when someone goes to Mars we all go.
September 27th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Okay – quite a bit of the push for manned space flight (and the development of other nations’ space programs) is quite selfish. He who holds the high ground, wins – it is as simple as that. As much as we would all love to think that the new “space” race is altruistic & dedicated to science, well, that is pretty much a crock.
There are more than a few countries out there that would want nothing more than to militarize space, put a bunch of anti-satellite weapons, bomb-pump lasers, and other nastiness in orbit to have the ability to cripple the recon and communications capabilities of its adversaries.
Either we put our eggs in the international cooperation basket – bringing everyone on board & removing the appeal of going it alone, or we (the US) continue to push to dominate space. It isn’t pretty, and I’m not saying it is right, but you can believe the Chinese are thinking the same thing (and the Russians did & probably are, once they can afford it again).
Because, at the end of the day, either we take the lead and do it now, or someone else (with perhaps not the best intentions) will do it later – and I don’t believe we want to find ourselves in that position.
September 27th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
@LukeL
Which part of man made global warming do you have a problem with?
1. Greenhouse gasses increase the amount of heat our atmosphere absorbs. Indisputable.
2. We can use ice cores that give us an approximation of global temperature at the time the ice was created. I suppose you could say that the method for determining this is flawed, but you seem to accept this.
3. We can use ice cores to determine the concentration of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. Indisputable.
4. There’s a strong correlation between the levels of greenhouse in the atmosphere and global temperatures. Indisputable. Although, I suppose you could argue that this is a false correlation.
5. Man has significantly, increased the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere in the paste 200 years. Indisputable.
6. Global temperatures have risen over that time. Indisputable.
September 27th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
Phil,
Stick to the astronomy posts… please…
You are obviously clueless when it comes to politics, and AGW, for that matter…
-Odinist
September 27th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
Jose:
1) Yes, and those include CO2, CH4, H2O and a myriad of others. Heat in the atmosphere is also a product of solar output and the temperature response to solar changes are a better fit than to individual constituent gases.
2) Yes, and those show a variable record with our current temperature below historical maximums (the Medieval Optimum for example).
3) Ice Cores can’t tell you about H2O concentration which, in the current atmosphere, is four times more contributory to the greenhouse effect.
4) You’re correct about there being a correlation between levels of greenhouse gasses and temperatures. Unfortunately, CO2 seems to lag the temperature changes shown in O16/O18 rations from ice cores.
5) 30% rise in CO2 since pre-industrial times may or may not be significant depending on your criteria. Plants love it though.
6) Absolutely disputable because you ignore a time constraint. Over 300 years, yup warming. 1200, no cooling. 15,000 years, warming. 70,000,000 years would be cooling again. 600,000,000 years and Snowball Earth, lots of warming. The record shows climactic variations all over the place, don’t talk in absolutes without a frame.
The part of global warming that people have problems with is how science is, as Ray warned, selling its soul for a bill of goods based on highly inaccurate models. The modern modeling simply isn’t powerful enough to resolve out man’s influence on the worlds climate.
In a broader sense, not picking on Jose at this point, people who support the science of man made global warming need to state the science and get out of the Creationist mindset of beliefs and heretics that is absolutely poisoning science beyond repair.
September 28th, 2008 at 12:01 am
It is worth pointing out that McCain made a similar request last month:
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2008/08/mccain-asks-pus.html
September 28th, 2008 at 1:43 am
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1062848/Going-dogs-How-Nature-magazine-featured-Obama-McCain—unfortunate-ad-back.html
September 28th, 2008 at 4:54 am
“Man made global warming has not been proven.”
Neither has the theory of gravity. Science doesn’t work that way. If you knew anything about science, instead of just enough talking points from anti-science websites, you’d understand this.
September 28th, 2008 at 6:09 am
I’m one to say that there is value in just having a colony. I’m not talking about politics, or military advantage, or “showing off”, or economically. I’m talking about extending our presence to other places, which I consider an end in itself.
In Europe there were a lot of “local” problems that maybe some people could have focused on, but instead they decided to set up new colonies in the “new world”, and I’d say that worked out pretty well.
Saying “we should wait until EVERY human problem is delt with on earth before travelling to other worlds” is kinda foolish to me. Maybe setting up outposts on other worlds will aid us in that sense. Maybe not, but if we were a species that lived on two rocks instead of one, I’d say we’ve all gained. Yes, I’m willing to spend tax payer money for that dream.
As for “contaminating Mars”, well that’s a possibility, but really it’s not like people aren’t actively trying to find life already.
As for man-made global warming, I’d say the evidence is very strong for it. At the very least, it’s being assisted by humans. Yes, global warming has happened without human causes in the past, but that’s like saying that since animals used to go extinct before humans came along, humans can’t be responsible for any modern extinctions.
September 28th, 2008 at 6:13 am
As to global warming, I decided to take a look at the named storm activity in the North Atlantic/Caribbean/Gulf region. After smoothing the data with 5-year running averages, I found that the number of such storms since 1954 appears to be increasing exponentially.
If that isn’t an indicator of man-made global warming, I don’t know what is.
I am not a climatologist, so my understanding is limited. Have I missed anything? I would be interested to find out.
September 28th, 2008 at 6:16 am
@ Dark Jaguar
“….and I’d say that worked out pretty well.” Not so much for the indigenous peoples. Contamination, it seems, was a problem as far back as the 15th century.
September 28th, 2008 at 6:20 am
But Jose, if you are looking at the ice cores, you should know that the temperature goes up THEN about 200-800 years later the CO2 goes up. The ice-cores tell us nothing about the effects of recent CO2 emissions.
September 28th, 2008 at 6:21 am
And complex_field, how many weather satellites were there in 1954 monitoring the weather?
September 28th, 2008 at 6:30 am
@ ad
Interesting point as to weather satellites. I’ll look up the relevant data. However NOAA has been able to track this data for a long time. Again, I will look it up, but NOAA is reliable.
But:
“…THEN about 200-800 years later the CO2 goes up”. I do know physics and chemistry and on this you are, quite simply, WRONG. CO2 stores energy much as a blanket does. The experiment to prove this is simple.
Higher temperatures do not cause CO2 buildup. It is the other way around.
September 28th, 2008 at 6:31 am
Phil,
Since global warming is way off topic, can you set up an open thread?
September 28th, 2008 at 7:18 am
Hey Phil,
I know this is off topic but I thought I’d pop in to ruin your day.
Apparently your girl, Scarlet Johansson, got married this weekend. Sorry man. She told me she couldn’t keep waiting for you.
I just thought you should know so you can get on with your life.
http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20229417,00.html
September 28th, 2008 at 8:25 am
Not a climate expert by any means here, but my understanding, simplified, is that increasing temperatures result in a variety of CO2 sinks becoming less efficient, resulting in further net increase of CO2 released into the atmosphere, making a positive feedback loop that drives the temperature even higher.
This says nothing about how the temperature increases in the first place, whether by an initial increase on CO2 concentration in the atmosphere or by some other means. (There are other greenhouse gases besides CO2, including methane and water vapor, for example.) But it does mean that finding increased CO2 concentrations at some interval of time after a known historical temperature increase, rather than preceding or concurrent, says absolutely NOTHING about whether or not an initial increase in CO2 concentration was the event that started the warming trend in the first place.
September 28th, 2008 at 8:32 am
If a Nobel Laureate is going to make an endorsement in their field of expertise, I’ll listen. Otherwise, they are an amateur like anyone else and this is especially so in the field of politics.
If scientists want the public to listen to them and believe them as objective experts of FACTS, then the last thing they should do is become active participants in the political process advocating for this candidate or that one. Once they do so, they become players and they will lose their credibility with a large amount of voters and weaken their ability to inform the public.
September 28th, 2008 at 9:05 am
“…says absolutely NOTHING about whether or not an initial increase in CO2 concentration was the event that started the warming trend in the first place.” Actually it does say something, with respect to the relative concentrations of other greenhouse gasses. The atmospheric concentrations of water vapor and methane have remained more or less constant over a vast expanse of time. Therefore CO2 is the dominant factor.
September 28th, 2008 at 9:07 am
RL — you should read the article linked in Phil’s post. They are endorsing Obama on the matter of science. Thus, they are experts relevant to that part of the Senator’s platform.
September 28th, 2008 at 10:10 am
Odinist: You have three options:
1) Read this, and learn to love it;
2) Go away; or
3) Read it and go away.
September 28th, 2008 at 10:40 am
“Dr. Plait wants to also continue hemorrhaging money into a manned space program which produces little in the way of scientific discovery.”
Amazingly ignorant and probably willfully so in order to be provocative. I won’t bite the bait except to say “emperor, you’re naked.”
“I’d say science – apart from the actual engineering of spacecraft and the processes of space flight – is probably a junior partner to other motivations.
Nationalism, politics (local and global), and military considerations top the current raison d’etre for NASA’s manned spaceflight budget.”
Science is required for engineering to be possible. In fact, I would say that engineering takes the raw ideas of science and makes them practical. Having long work experience on both sides of that fence has made as much quite clear to me.
Finally, ironically, the grousing of the lack of science payoff from manned space flight is deeply ironic to me coming sixteen days before a Shuttle mission to repair, enhance and extend the scientific instrument that has made more astronomy discoveries than any other single instrument in human history — the HST.
And robotic enthusasts, please tell me how a robotic flight could go to Hubble and perform the upcoming mission with the same efficacy as humans wil.
September 28th, 2008 at 10:52 am
Yeah what was done to the native americans is inexcusable, but it’s not like that was the only possible result of expansion.
That said, there are no native martians to do immoral things to. Maybe microbes but they aren’t self aware, much less something we should have moral qualms about disrupting. Those are two completely unrelated issues anyway. And, even if you do take issue with “potential contamination”, the moon is a nice sterile environment that lacks such a concern, right?
September 28th, 2008 at 11:01 am
Dark Jaguar said: “And, even if you do take issue with “potential contamination”, the moon is a nice sterile environment that lacks such a concern, right?”
I really truly will not be surprised to hear of demands for environmental impact statements or the like the very day somebody wants to construct something on the moon.
September 28th, 2008 at 11:33 am
Moon -Mars. It’s a great big exciting adventure… unfortunately, nothing more.
September 28th, 2008 at 11:40 am
Dark Jaguar,
I was not referring to just genocide. I was primarily referring to the diseases that the Europeans brought with them, such as smallpox and syphilis.
Those factors, including genocide, practically destroyed the indigenous peoples.
September 28th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
@Chad
Yes, and those include CO2, CH4, H2O and a myriad of others. Heat in the atmosphere is also a product of solar output and the temperature response to solar changes are a better fit than to individual constituent gases.
Who exactly is saying that greenhouse gasses are the only thing that affects global temperature?
Yes, and those show a variable record with our current temperature below historical maximums (the Medieval Optimum for example).
We’re talking about global temperatures. Not just temperatures in Europe.
Ice Cores can’t tell you about H2O concentration which, in the current atmosphere, is four times more contributory to the greenhouse effect.
Once again, who exactly is saying that greenhouse gasses are the only thing that affects global temperature? Just because H2O concentrations contribute more to the greenhouse effect, says doesn’t negate the effect that increasing C02 levels might have.
You’re correct about there being a correlation between levels of greenhouse gasses and temperatures. Unfortunately, CO2 seems to lag the temperature changes shown in O16/O18 rations from ice cores.
Debatable.
30% rise in CO2 since pre-industrial times may or may not be significant depending on your criteria. Plants love it though.
We know how much additional heat that 30% absorbs, so we can estimate how much that CO2 will affect the amount of heat our atmosphere absorbs.
6) Absolutely disputable because you ignore a time constraint. Over 300 years, yup warming. 1200, no cooling. 15,000 years, warming. 70,000,000 years would be cooling again. 600,000,000 years and Snowball Earth, lots of warming. The record shows climactic variations all over the place, don’t talk in absolutes without a frame.
No really? I have to put time constraints on things for them to have meaning? You’re response almost made me forget what I said. “Man has significantgly, increased the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere in the paste 200 years. Indisputable. Global temperatures have risen over that time. Indisputable.” 200 years is a pretty good time constraint.
The part of global warming that people have problems with is how science is, as Ray warned, selling its soul for a bill of goods based on highly inaccurate models. The modern modeling simply isn’t powerful enough to resolve out man’s influence on the worlds climate.
You put a thicker blanket on something, it retains more heat. We don’t need a climate model that is 100% accurate to know that.
In a broader sense, not picking on Jose at this point, people who support the science of man made global warming need to state the science
Not picking on Chad here, but people who deny the science of man made global warming need to state how increasing the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere can not have the effect of raising global temperatures.
and get out of the Creationist mindset of beliefs and heretics that is absolutely poisoning science beyond repair.
Ooohh. We have creationist mindsets now that are poisoning science beyond repair? I hadn’t realized that. You win.
September 28th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
@complex field
I did read their letter and my comment stands.
September 28th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
@RL
If a Nobel Laureate is going to make an endorsement in their field of expertise, I’ll listen. Otherwise, they are an amateur like anyone else and this is especially so in the field of politics.
I don’t understand this sentiment. Who are the qualified people you’ll listen to? Do you have to be a politician, pundit, or lobbyists? Exactly what political expertise do scientists need in order to make an informed statement on which candidate has a more enlightened view of science?
September 28th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Nobel Prize winners are among the heaviest of heavy weight intellectuals on this planet. Just because politics isn’t their area of study doesn’t mean they can’t have a considered opinion about the people involved in making good/bad decisions and I for one will listen to someone who shows a propensity toward rigorous thinking, even though it’s not their field of study. Einstein had much to say about the goings on in Germany vis-a-vis ethnic cleansing,,,and he was JUST a theoretical physicist,,,but a thoughtful person is still thoughtful, regardless of their area of specialization.
GAry 7
September 28th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Er, again I don’t know of any martian type humanoids we need to be morally concerned about infecting.
September 28th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
“Moon -Mars. It’s a great big exciting adventure… unfortunately, nothing more.”
Guess you’ve never heard of Helium-3 and don’t know much about nuclear fusion engineering.
September 28th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Yes, yes. Heard of it… and?
September 28th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Lunar He-3 Processing Plant
————————————–
Environmental Impact Statement:
There isn’t any. It’s on the f—ing Moon.
Seems easy enough to me! Shouldn’t cost more than a few $100K to type this up and submit it to the EPA..
Seriously, though there is no impact on the Moon, the launches and re-entries required for all the flights to and from the Moon could potentially have large environmental impacts on Earth. This would make a good case for a space elevator since, once built, it only requires electricity to operate, which could be supplied by solar panels at the top of the elevator. Other than that, LH2/LOX rockets are much cleaner than solids, so if enough rockets were launched to matter, they would definitely be preferable. Then of course there is the impact of the factories, roads, launch pads, people driving to work at the various facilities, the A/C load of the VAB, and what’s the EPA MPG of the crawlers? (150 gallons/mile, according to Wikipedia.)
September 28th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
Hey, wait a minute Charles Boyer! I’m on your side! I’m the one who wants a colony on the moon, remember? But I will again point out that it seems that current NASA manned spaceflight priorities seem to have more to do with politics than science. Isn’t the Hubble repair mission a case of, well, we’ve nothing better to do with that shuttle, might as well send it to the Hubble? I’m talking the upcoming one, not the original flight. Okay, that’s a bit harsh. But I’ve yet to hear a really good explanation for the “science” going on in the ISS, apart from, as I mentioned above, all the really great stuff we’re learning about working in microgravity. What other experiments are being conducted there?
And having lived with engineers all my life, no way would I get into that whole “engineering is/isn’t real science” argument!
September 29th, 2008 at 12:05 am
NASA has gone the way of all bureaucracies. About one-tenth of it actually does useful work. The money spent on the other nine-tenths might as well be flushed down the toilet.
And don’t even get started thinking about the irony of blog posts warning of global warming next to blog posts supporting the enormous CO2 generation machine which is NASA.
But don’t tell let that get around to Phil Plait. It could cost precious jobs for drones if he turns his skeptical eye on NASA.
September 29th, 2008 at 4:00 am
Sully: “And don’t even get started thinking about the irony of blog posts warning of global warming next to blog posts supporting the enormous CO2 generation machine which is NASA.”
Can you provide numbers about how much NASA generates CO2 in comparsion to… well, anything else.
To lighten up a bit your darkness of ignorance: one rocket launch have about same footprint as one fly of jumbojet through ocean. And guess what is, oh, about two to three order of magnitude, more often in each year.
Oh yes, it really burns. This picture is really useful.
September 29th, 2008 at 4:27 am
RL:
If scientists want the public to listen to them and believe them as objective experts of FACTS, then the last thing they should do is become active participants in the political process advocating for this candidate or that one.
Translation: “The voices of the smart and well-informed have no place in political discourse. Leave it to prattling pastors turning out the fundy vote.”
If this attitude wins out in the U.S. come November, I’ll be voting for our Robot Overlords as humans will have proven themselves beyond reasonable doubt to be unfit to rule the planet.
September 29th, 2008 at 6:27 am
MaDeR – “one rocket launch have about same footprint as one fly of jumbojet through ocean”
Sure it does – if you destroy the jumbojet completely with no recycling after it takes that one flight and generate all the CO2 it takes to build another one.
Some activities of NASA have made scientific sense over the past 20 years. Other activities, such as the ISS and almost all of the manned space program, have been like the twitchings of a headless snake, only on an enormously costly scale.
September 29th, 2008 at 7:02 am
@Sully
Sure it does – if you destroy the jumbojet completely with no recycling after it takes that one flight and generate all the CO2 it takes to build another one.
Even if this was true (it’s not), the effect on global warming would still be negligible.
But don’t tell let that get around to Phil Plait. It could cost precious jobs for drones if he turns his skeptical eye on NASA.
Oh yes, there’s no way Phil would ever criticize NASA. The drones must be protected at all costs! Are you a first time reader, or do you just have a short memory?
September 29th, 2008 at 11:07 am
Maybe if Obama would dedicate the money he wants to throw away on yet another useless war (Afghanistan) to spaceflight we’d be ok. It’s hypocritical of Obama to criticize the Bush administration for not funding NASA properly when he doesn’t seem interested in ending the policies that keep money away from research and education himself.
McCain’s an example of epic FAIL. Obama’s letting us down left and right and he’s not even president yet. Gee, if only there were some other party or candidate we could get behind who actually wants to redirect war profiteering funds into things like science and education. Wait – I forgot what country I live in.
September 29th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Obama = third world nation /warmongering
Mcain= permanent warmongering
Wake up and stop this rip off of the american tax payer!
September 30th, 2008 at 5:50 am
SLC said:
Yah, sure, except that the military machine is spending the equivalent of NASA’s entire annual budget every few days in Iraq and Afghanistan. Get a sense of proportion.
I happen to agree that the ISS is mostly a waste of money, but it hasn’t failed its remit anything like as badly as the Shuttle fleet. As a successor to Apollo, Shuttle was supposed to give quick and easy (and cheap!) access to space. What went wrong? The military insisted that it be big enough to launch their big spy satellites, hence the eventual addition of the external fuel tank and the SRBs, with concomitant increases in cost and complexity. On the plus side, the Shuttle happened to be big enough to launch a 2.4-metre telescope into Earth orbit. So even this hideous compromise had its upside.
September 30th, 2008 at 6:00 am
SLC said:
Why should Phil justify NASA’s space programme to you, SLC? This is Phil’s blog, where he publishes his opinion. He is under no obligation to justify himself to you. Besides, you seem to be ignoring the fact that science is not the major motivation for having a manned space programme in the first place.
September 30th, 2008 at 6:10 am
LukeL said:
Anthropogenic GW has not been “proven”, but neither has Newtonian mechanics, GR, SR, QM etc. etc. However, anthropogenic GW is the overwhelmingly most plausible conclusion from the available evidence.
Did you have a point?
Temperature fluctuations in the last 2000 years are mostly well understood by climate scientists, and are trivial compared to what we face in the next 100 years if we do not curb our emissions of greenhouse gases.
In “the past”, the Earth has of course been much warmer (and much colder) than it is now. IIUC, the Jurassic was a particularly warm epoch. In what way does this make it OK that we are at risk of flooding all of our coastal cities in the next 100 years?
September 30th, 2008 at 7:34 am
Okay, the current administration, who increased funding at NASA for the next 7 years to plan a mission to the Moon is neglecting our space program. Typical Obama speak.
The ISS is nothing but a money pit anymore. We aren’t gaining much from it at all and it definitely isn’t worth the LIVES OF ASTRONAUTS to use the Shuttle to get them there.
The current administration has funded more things into space than ever before and more than ANY OTHER ADMINISTRATION (Mars robots, Cassini, Horizons, Hubble upkeep, etc) will provide much more useful information.
Once again, Mr. Obama is speaking from INEXPERIENCE. He takes one thing and diverts attention to it like a magician; keeping you blind to the reality. Truth is, when he gets into the Oval Office, he will increase taxes and funding for social programs and forget about NASA just like Mr. Carter did.
Again, Senator Obama promises another program to increase funding for, without the means to fund it. Even raising taxes, he cannot hope to pay for everything.
I’d love to have all the programs he wants to implement. Fact is, it isn’t affordable to do so. If you really think Sen Obama is going to fund NASA and science over all the other programs he’s pushing, you must believe everything you see and read on the Internet…. gullible.
September 30th, 2008 at 8:16 am
Odinist said:
First off, it’s Phil’s blog and no-one is forcing you to read the non-astronomy posts, so quit whining.
Second, while I do not agree with all of Phil’s political statements, he seems to be far more grounded in fact than a lot of other political commentaries, so he is quite demonstrably not clueless.
Third, he supports the scientific consensus regarding anthropogenic GW, which is far from clueless, since it is supported by everyone who has studied the field in depth in the last 10 – 20 years (disclaimer – and who does not have a vested interest to protect).
In short, Odinist, either take the time to become informed or keep your valueless opinion to yourself.
September 30th, 2008 at 8:44 am
Chad said:
Wrong. Go do your homework. In fact, the recent observed increase in global temperature does not match changes in solar output, whereas it does match the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.
The alleged Mediaevel Optimum is trivial compared to the changes we face in the next 100 years if we don’t do something about it. Even if it weren’t, we are now far more at the mercy of changes in sea level that we were 800 years ago.
Fluctuations in atmospheric H2O concentration are a trivial component of GW, since they represent such small changes compared to the baseline contribution of H2O (g). Sure, without all the water vapour in the atmosphere, the Earth would be 30°C colder, but any changes are measured relative to the starting value. (10 is a much larger proportion of 20 than it is of 1000).
If there are one or two anomolies in the data, this reflects the relative youth of climatology as a field, not necessarily anything wrong with the consensus, unless you are also prepared to address every other piece of evidence that adds up to anthropogenic GW…?
This is a common misconception. First, it’s more than 30%, depending on where you start from (it can be argued that humanity has been adding CO2 to the atmosphere by its land management techniques for far longer than the industrial age alone); second, since H2O is already a large component of the atmosphere, changes in CO2 have a larger overall impact; third, no, plants don’t “love” it. For small increases in CO2, plant growth does increase, but it levels off for larger increases, because other factors become limiting (such as nitrogen availability).
The timeframe is obvious – the existence of human civilisation. GW does not threaten life as a whole, neither does it seriously threaten the existence of human life. It threatens human civilisation, and many individual species (in effect, we are about to cause a mass extinction event, which is a perfectly natural phenomenon – the main problem is that it may also reduce the human population by about 95% if left to proceed unchecked). Surely, a moment’s reflection would have suggested the obvious timeframe.
Rubbish.
And, even if the GW were not anthropogenic, would it not be a bloody good idea for us to do everything we can to stop it?? Sea level rises threaten most of the major cities in the world (including New York, New Orleans, London, Beijing, Mumbai, Cairo), and a great deal of agricultural land. Since we know that the presence of CO2, CH4 etc. contribute to GW, we should attempt to reduce the amount of these gases that we are adding to the atmosphere. It ain’t rocket science.
The science is in the public domain. Since it is you that are “criticising” the mainstream science, perhaps it behooves you to find out exactly what it is you are dissing, rather than just regurgitating propaganda. Perhaps you need to get out of your Creationist mindset, and stop trusting your favourite authorities so you can actually learn about the science.
September 30th, 2008 at 10:04 am
Well, all you believes of the church of manmade global warming.
read this:
http://www.eap-journal.com/download.php?file=671
Have a nice day
October 1st, 2008 at 3:30 am
Dark Jaguar said:
Don’t forget, though, that the first European presence in the Americas was a number of trading posts that were set up to make money. This is a harder thing to do with a lunar or Martian colony.
Heh. Nicely put.
October 1st, 2008 at 5:11 am
RL said:
What, so are you saying that Nobel Laureates have to keep their political opinions to themselves?
Maybe the same should go for anyone with any level of fame and / or notoriety, hmmm? Oh, hang on, wouldn’t that amount to censorship, though?
In this case, it is so clear which candidate is the less bad for science that I am not surprised that so many scientists agree about which candidate they prefer. Why should Nobel lareates not be allowed to state which candidate will most probably improve the working environment for American science?
October 1st, 2008 at 5:16 am
mk said:
Until we start building radio telescope arrays on the far side of the Moon…! Think of the science we could do with that.
Especially if they were FFT telescopes.
October 1st, 2008 at 5:25 am
Liz B said:
No, no, Liz. It’s only Americans that will have proven themselves unfit to rule the planet.
October 1st, 2008 at 5:27 am
Sully said:
While I agree that the ISS is a waste, your argument, without numbers, is no more than arm-waving. Perhaps you should look up some figures before making such claims.
October 1st, 2008 at 5:32 am
Dick said:
So now a single economist knows more climatology than all of the world’s climate scientists? Oh, please. You are arguing from authority, and I do not accept your economist as an authority.
Did you have a point, Dick?
October 17th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
You can’t believe anything Obama says on NASA. He has changed his position 180 degrees in the past year.
During the primary (when Florida didn’t count for Democrats), Obama said he was going to delay development of Aries and Orion in order to pay for “early education” programs. Later, when it became clear that this was hurting his general election chances in Florida, he changed his position to say he would not delay development of Constellation vehicles but he kept his platform silent about going to the moon or mars. And then in September, he changed his position to the point that he is in favor of doing absolutely everything including going to the Moon and Mars. Who knows what he will actually do if he become President.
October 22nd, 2008 at 11:00 am
[...] That’s nice to hear. I’m pretty concerned over the next few years for NASA, and more money will help, though it cannot solve all the problems. [...]
November 10th, 2008 at 1:52 am
NASA isn’t as expensive as everyone assumes–they’re barely getting by on a shoestring budget using whatever chump change is left over from other government agencies. Check out the cost of this war, check out the cost of other state departments. I’m an engineer, and although I don’t work for NASA I work with satellites. Almost everyone I knew in school was inspired by the space program. If Obama hurts NASA then many (not all, but a significant portion) will loose interest in science and math. Many kids today don’t even believe we went to the moon because our gov has been so feckless RE: space travel.
He wants to delay the constellation program? I can’t believe I voted for that guy. ….HUGE mistake.