News Across the Cosmos

Three cheers, no fears

As of September 2010:

UPDATE:  In case you missed it the first time back in April 2010, our American astronauts, namely, Neil Armstrong, Eugene Cernan, and James Lovell, wrote decisely for the continuation of the current NASA program to explore the Moon and planets, after the current Administration cut back and revised NASA's basic mission of exploration.

Since that announced cutback, NASA is apparently now re-ordering its priorities in an attempt to salvage work-to-date on programs intended to visit Mars.  Read it here.

Original entry as of April 2010:

Kudos to three American heroes who traveled to the Moon and know a thing or two about outer space. 

Neil Armstrong and Eugene Cernan, both of whom walked on the Moon, and James Lovell, who rounded it on two separate missions, addressed in a letter to President Obama their strong reservations about proposed revisions to NASA's current space program. 

The three strongly criticized the Administration's budget cutbacks for NASA, specifically for the Constellation program and its components, namely, the Ares series of  launch vehicles and the Orion spacecraft for return to the Moon.  The text of their letter is found here.

The astronauts' strongly worded letter warned of America's "long downhill slide to mediocrity" if we maintain the proposed course of cutbacks and cancellations in the Constellation program. 

These men know of which they speak.  They know that a continuing human presence in outer space, whether back to the Moon or on to Mars, is essential for advancing science and pushing back all human frontiers.  They know that spaceflight is fraught with peril; they've faced that prospect first-hand.  And they know the rewards as well.  Not personal glory, but knowledge for all.

(This is not the first time that NASA's astronauts have made their views known to the current Adminsitration.  See Armstrong's previous remarks here.)

Some may offer the argument that robotic spacecraft can do things just as well in space as humans, and more safely.  Here is one such argument.  A detailed exchange on robots versus humans in outer space can also be found here.  Others may argue that limited funds should be diverted to social programs rather than to space exploration.  In my estimation, relying on robots or diverting funds are two viewpoints that appear short-sighted. 

While it would be certainly advantageous for less public money (and more private funds) to be spent for space exploration, the budget outlays for NASA and its accomplishments over the last five decades has been a bargain for the advances gained.  Not as much can be said for the social programs that have attempted much, but continue to require more and more funds to deliver vanishing returns.

(If you'd like a detailed analysis of NASA's budget versus long-standing social programs in the U.S budget, read here or here.) 

It is a curious thing that those who once took to heart the soaring rhetoric of President Kennedy's call (in 1961) to explore the Moon later dismissed President Bush's proposal (in 2004) to move on to Mars, and now think it prudent to scale back (in 2010) and rely on others, such as pricey seats offered on Russian spacecraft to get into orbit.  (And if you're unconvinced of that last thought, read the critics' comments here and here for yourself.  Btw, here's the complete text of JFK's original speech.)

And, if you'd like a snapshot of what was on the drawing board before it was scaled back by the Administration, look for it here.  As of June 2010, the Orion spacecraft, part of the original constellation program, has been spared from the swing of the budget axe and apparently will be re-purposed as a lifeboat for the International Space Station.  Read about that and other changes here.

Let's hope our space heroes continue to speak up for the advancement of science.  We in this country have helped to take the lead in space exploration and to shoulder the cost of its accomplishment.  Let us not now abandon that leadership role; at the same time, let's become less fearful and more creative in how we finance its future.

It's all geek to me:

Continuing Climate Clamor

 This is the latest summary as of September 2010:

UPDATE:  The print and electronic media in this country has not covered much of this unfolding scandal in the scientific community since it broke in November 2009.  Since the details of the scandal has washed through the Internet and other sources, an initial internal investigation has resulted in a review (some say, "whitewash") that appears to absolve those directly involved in deliberate obfuscation and apparent deceit. 

One result of these initial inquiries claims that whatever happened in this scandal, it still should not undermine what some still think is "settled science".  And, apparently, there may not have been a consensus of "settled science" to begin with.  Indeed, that assertion of consensus about global warming appears to be melting. 

Original entry as of December 2009:

"Some say the world will end in fire/Some say in ice."

These prescient words of Robert Frost, as others have no doubt used them recently, help to frame nicely the continuing debate over climate change, which just seems to grow curiouser and curiouser.  And, most recently, there has come an admission that the leading indicators for man-made warming just can't be found.

To begin, some high-profiles figures have said of anthropogenic global warming that the "science is settled" while other critics here and here offer a more extensive review.  Nevertheless, recent events certainly refute that smug assertion, and the science is far from settled. 

Then, as we learned late in 2009, scientists at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, England, were apparently embarassed, or, in more sinister terms as some have inferred, caught red-handed with not only manipulating temperature data but, inadvertently or not, even destroying it! 

But don't take my word for it, examine it for yourself in the words of those who hold the opinions.  To compare and contrast viewpoints for yourself, read the theorists' rationale here and here and their take on the email flap at East Anglia here.  And, you can examine the skeptic's rationale here and here and their take on the same email flap here.

In addition, some fairly established assumptions in climate change, such as polar ice melting and Himalayan glacier recession, have recently been found to be poorly documented, greatly exaggerated, or clearly unverified. 

And, in one odd twist, anthropogenic global warming has been invoked in deforestation of the Amazon River basin, which many concur has nothing to do with climate change.  Read about it here and here.  In another turn, too, the same warming has been invoked in dire predictions of African food shortages, which has also turned out to be bogus, in that the claim has no scientific basis.  Read about that here.

And, in an even odder twist, sources to a major report describing glacier recession in major mountain ranges have not been rigorously vetted by peer review, but have been found to be gleaned from anecdotes of mountain climbers and from a masters thesis!  Read about those spurious sources here.

At the very least, the settled science sounds very sloppy, maybe even desperate.  Perhaps some decent reasons will emerge for the bogus notions recently laid bare.

Though the embarassment doesn't bode well for those scientists, researchers, and policy-makers who have attempted to bludgeon the rest of us to their line of thinking, it appears for the moment that any culpability for data misrepresentation or deliberate fudging may not be forthcoming. 

Yes, as odd as it may sound, no one may have to account for the misrepresentations or fudging.  Read about at least one high-profile example here.  And another high-profile example thinks he shouldn't be blamed for shoddy science!  Read about that here.

Still, as allegations of accidental or willful misuse of data continue to surface (as in here and here), any sound case for anthropogenic global warming becomes largely suspect and the theory becomes badly undermined. 

It is alarming to note that the original temperature data once housed at East Anglia (and for which it was noted)evidently no longer exists, and, that its modified record of temperature data may be hopelessly compromised with other potentially pertinent data.

And of those in the news, one of the central characters in the East Anglia email flap, Dr. Phil Jones, now has admitted he's been so distraught (from the heat of the email scandal?), that he has wanted to kill himself!  At present, new reports describe him as an ill man. 

Now no one wishes ill of scientists involved in this widening scandal, but we learn why he may have been so distraught:  He can't prove his case!  In a more recent interview, Dr. Jones has now admitted that his previous basis for anthropogenic global warming cannot be verified.  Apparently, he "lost track" of pertinent data to the claim.  So, according to Dr. Jones, there is no statistical basis for global warming since 1995!  His assertion is also buttressed here by others.

(Read more incredible tidbits here and here.)

Yes, the data that might lend credence to anthropogenic global warming apparently has gone missing, and, the good Dr. Jones admits now that there may not be a statistically significant increase in temperature after all.

So, it appears as if the considerable credibility for global warming theorists and some of the work they've done is shrinking faster than an Andean glacier.

Certainly a sensible accounting ought to be forthcoming if the scientific method is allowed to play out in its usual fashion and is not co-opted with deliberate bias.

For example, for the scientific method to have a stronger role, this may mean that, at a minimum, temperature data and its means of collection ought to be more keenly scrutinized while experimental procedures, such as climate modeling, ought to be more acutely analyzed and more closely peer-reviewed. 

But, again, one doesn't have to take my word for it on the topic of climate change, though I have attempted to chronicle in this continuing column the crisis of confidence that is consuming certain quarters of the scientific community, the press, and the public-at-large over this topic.  You can read an excellent summary of this sad spectacle as it has unfolded and its aftermath here.

Meantime, it seems as if the rest of the journalistic world is finally catching up with what most folks online have known for many months.

For the record, continue to count me as a skeptic in the dealings of anthropogenic global warming.  (And this is one reason why: our best efforts still can't discern a clear-cut trend.  But as you might expect, there are several strands of skeptical thinking on this as well.) 

This is not to say that global warming, per se, does not happen.  It does and it has, obviously, since the last ice age ended nearly 12,000 years ago.  And, according to researchers here and here and here, that warming is due largely to natural variations in earthly cycles.

[As an aside, I know that the mere mention of something akin to "natural cycles" just sends some folks into orbit or at least sets some on edge, as if the phrase is a lame euphemism for willful ignorance or a coded call for taking license with the natural environment. 

Neither is the case at all.

Those with good intentions for the environment, who also believe they have greater passion for it than most others, should realize they don't own it or the argument for taking care of it.  For example, greater passion for keeping Planet Earth clean does not make one a better person than the ungrateful slob who couldn't care less.  Passion alone does not always convince; one must also exercise persuasion.

What matters is what one does with the opportunity to persuade others to serve as good stewards for the environment.  And being a good steward for the natural environment can embody several approaches, depending on one's interpretation of what constitutes stewardship. 

Whatever approach one might use, if used well it can often be a good persuader.  Even the ungrateful slob can be shamed into doing his part, whether or not he actually likes to participate.   

One approach is primarily governmental and is presented here.  Another approach (more often referred to as "environmental justice") is articulated here as regulatory enforcement and here as a religious endeavor.  These approaches seem valid, though for some, ownership for the term environmental justice may become a battle of the civic versus the religious.  It shouldn't have to.]

Now, naturally varying cycles in earthly temperatures certainly do occur, whether or not we're around to record the changes first-hand.  A careful, honest assessment of reliable proxy data can verify that.  And, because the Earth varies in temperature naturally and in a cyclical fashion (here and here) we haven't fully deciphered, this does not mean that we let up in a commitment to persuade the uninformed that our human actions to the environment can have consequences.

This last one may itself require some persuasion.  It appears to be the hardest item for some to accept, namely, that those who don't share the same ideas on anthropogenic global warming, or perhaps the same passion for keeping Planet Earth clean, still do their part for environmental stewardship, but in a quiet way.

In the meantime, I prefer to think that our information is incomplete (and now, so does the United Nations), that we need more and better data, and, that we need to take an extra-global view about climate change.  That is, we shouldn't be so close-minded to think that we alone are responsible for effecting climate change; there's more than likely an astronomical link as well, a prospect not to be dismissed. 

If you'd like to learn more of such viewpoints, which have actually been around for awhile, try here and here and here.  Some folks will think these things crazy; if so, then step up and debate it.  But be ready to back up assertions with reliable data and analysis.  It's the way of science.

News to use from a universe of astronomy:

Look up the latest events in outer space and manned space flight, such as those from the civilian space agency NASA for upcoming launches of spacecraft that are set to explore deep into the cosmos. 

News to use from the realm of authorship:

Need a wide variety of interesting reading?  Start off the season of Summer with new authors found here.

News to use from the world of art:

From the grandest vista to the smallest detail, the cosmos shows majesty to the eye of the artist.  Check out this gallery here with its theme of space flight art hosted by NASA at the Marshall Space Flight Center.