The UK is 10 years smoke-free and there’s more at stake than just clean-smelling clothes

It’s 10 years since a trip to your local would leave you smelling like an ashtray.

And if you can remember smoking in pubs, clubs and restaurants, turning back time might not be high on your agenda – our poll shows more than 8 in 10 people don’t want to go back to those days.

The poll also shows that the number one difference people mention following the ban is that their clothes no longer smell of smoke after a night out. This is a sign that you’ve not been exposed to second hand smoke, which can increase a non-smoker’s risk of getting lung cancer by a quarter, and may also increase the risk of cancers of the larynx (voice box) and pharynx (upper throat).

So with ‘Eau de Ashtray’ firmly out of fashion, what other benefits has the smoking ban brought? The Smokefree policy, which made smoking in enclosed workplaces and public places illegal, has had one of the biggest influences on public health over the last decade.

Benefits of smokefree

Since it came into force, the number of smokers in the UK has dropped by almost 2 million. Other policies have played a big part in driving down smoking rates, like tax increases on tobacco, media campaigns helping smokers to quit, and a ban on point of sale advertising.

The question now is: what next?

Since the smoking ban exposure to tobacco smoke, which contains more than 70 chemicals that may cause cancer, has significantly reduced in public places.

Laws like this have been linked to lower rates of preterm births and severe cases of asthma in children. And hospital admissions for heart attacks and asthma attacks have dropped significantly in the last decade.

Smoking isn’t a done deal

Yes, we’ve come a long way from when you couldn’t take your kids out for a meal without a side order of second-hand smoke. But we’re far from being done.

Smoking is at its lowest level on record in this country, but if you take a closer look at the figures, smoking rates vary a lot across the UK. For example, in Harrow in London, 7.4% of people smoke. But take a train a couple hours north to Blackpool and 3 times as many people smoke. Yet the Stop Smoking Service in Blackpool is being closed due to cuts to funding.

And new stats out this week show that areas with higher numbers of smokers generally are more deprived and have a lower healthy life expectancy.

Tobacco is still the biggest preventable cause of cancer in the UK, with more than 1 in 4 cancer deaths caused by smoking. Smoking not only costs lives, it also costs money. Each year in England, the estimated costs of smoking to society exceed £12 billion, which includes a £2 billion bill for the NHS and £1.4 billion in social care costs.

We need the Government to do more

Unless the Government commits to doing more, our goal of seeing fewer than 5% of people smoking by 2035, no matter where they’re from, will remain out of reach.

The Government’s previous plans for how it will commit to reducing smoking expired well over a year ago.

There’s a lot going on politics right now. But we can’t let this distract the Government from its commitments.

Theresa May, has committed to “fighting against the burning injustice that, if you’re born poor, you will die on average 9 years earlier than others”. Tobacco is to blame for half of this difference in life expectancy between the rich and the poor. And since the last tobacco control plan expired we’ve seen no action to address it.

In 2014 the NHS called for a “radical upgrade in prevention and public health”. But since then there have been some big cuts to public health budgets.

The progress that has been made in reducing smoking has only happened alongside a government with clear plans on how to tackle tobacco. So we need the Government to publish its long-awaited Tobacco Control Plan for England immediately. We want to see ambitious targets for lowering smoking rates, action to close the gap between rich and poor, and a commitment to providing sustainable funding for Stop Smoking Services.

It’s time for the Government to show it’s serious about a tobacco-free future for the next generation.

And we need your help to get them to do this.

By clicking here you can email your local MP to tell the Minister of Health to publish the new Tobacco Control Plan for England now.

Let’s not allow 10 years of progress, and the fresh smell of clean clothes, to go stale again.

Alyssa

from Cancer Research UK – Science blog http://ift.tt/2u92T5R

It’s 10 years since a trip to your local would leave you smelling like an ashtray.

And if you can remember smoking in pubs, clubs and restaurants, turning back time might not be high on your agenda – our poll shows more than 8 in 10 people don’t want to go back to those days.

The poll also shows that the number one difference people mention following the ban is that their clothes no longer smell of smoke after a night out. This is a sign that you’ve not been exposed to second hand smoke, which can increase a non-smoker’s risk of getting lung cancer by a quarter, and may also increase the risk of cancers of the larynx (voice box) and pharynx (upper throat).

So with ‘Eau de Ashtray’ firmly out of fashion, what other benefits has the smoking ban brought? The Smokefree policy, which made smoking in enclosed workplaces and public places illegal, has had one of the biggest influences on public health over the last decade.

Benefits of smokefree

Since it came into force, the number of smokers in the UK has dropped by almost 2 million. Other policies have played a big part in driving down smoking rates, like tax increases on tobacco, media campaigns helping smokers to quit, and a ban on point of sale advertising.

The question now is: what next?

Since the smoking ban exposure to tobacco smoke, which contains more than 70 chemicals that may cause cancer, has significantly reduced in public places.

Laws like this have been linked to lower rates of preterm births and severe cases of asthma in children. And hospital admissions for heart attacks and asthma attacks have dropped significantly in the last decade.

Smoking isn’t a done deal

Yes, we’ve come a long way from when you couldn’t take your kids out for a meal without a side order of second-hand smoke. But we’re far from being done.

Smoking is at its lowest level on record in this country, but if you take a closer look at the figures, smoking rates vary a lot across the UK. For example, in Harrow in London, 7.4% of people smoke. But take a train a couple hours north to Blackpool and 3 times as many people smoke. Yet the Stop Smoking Service in Blackpool is being closed due to cuts to funding.

And new stats out this week show that areas with higher numbers of smokers generally are more deprived and have a lower healthy life expectancy.

Tobacco is still the biggest preventable cause of cancer in the UK, with more than 1 in 4 cancer deaths caused by smoking. Smoking not only costs lives, it also costs money. Each year in England, the estimated costs of smoking to society exceed £12 billion, which includes a £2 billion bill for the NHS and £1.4 billion in social care costs.

We need the Government to do more

Unless the Government commits to doing more, our goal of seeing fewer than 5% of people smoking by 2035, no matter where they’re from, will remain out of reach.

The Government’s previous plans for how it will commit to reducing smoking expired well over a year ago.

There’s a lot going on politics right now. But we can’t let this distract the Government from its commitments.

Theresa May, has committed to “fighting against the burning injustice that, if you’re born poor, you will die on average 9 years earlier than others”. Tobacco is to blame for half of this difference in life expectancy between the rich and the poor. And since the last tobacco control plan expired we’ve seen no action to address it.

In 2014 the NHS called for a “radical upgrade in prevention and public health”. But since then there have been some big cuts to public health budgets.

The progress that has been made in reducing smoking has only happened alongside a government with clear plans on how to tackle tobacco. So we need the Government to publish its long-awaited Tobacco Control Plan for England immediately. We want to see ambitious targets for lowering smoking rates, action to close the gap between rich and poor, and a commitment to providing sustainable funding for Stop Smoking Services.

It’s time for the Government to show it’s serious about a tobacco-free future for the next generation.

And we need your help to get them to do this.

By clicking here you can email your local MP to tell the Minister of Health to publish the new Tobacco Control Plan for England now.

Let’s not allow 10 years of progress, and the fresh smell of clean clothes, to go stale again.

Alyssa

from Cancer Research UK – Science blog http://ift.tt/2u92T5R

July guide to the bright planets

Look for the moon near the planet Jupiter and the star Spica on June 30, July 1 and 2. Read more.

Three of the five bright planets are easy to see in July, 2017: Jupiter, Saturn and Venus. Bright Jupiter is the first “star” to pop into view at nightfall and stays out until late night. Golden Saturn is up in the east at nightfall and stays out for most of the night. Elusive Mercury is not as easy to catch after sunset, because it appears low in the west at dusk. Brilliant Venus rises before the sun, shining in front of the constellation Taurus the Bull. Red Mars, buried deep in the glare of evening twilight, cannot be seen from Earth this month. Follow the links below to learn more about the planets in July 2017.

Jupiter brightest “star” in evening sky

Saturn out nearly all night

Venus, brilliant in east at morning dawn

Mars lost in the sun’s glare

Mercury briefly visible after sunset

Like what EarthSky offers? Sign up for our free daily newsletter today!

Astronomy events, star parties, festivals, workshops

Visit a new EarthSky feature – Best Places to Stargaze – and add your fav.

Look for the moon in the vicinity of Jupiter and the nearby star Spica for several days, centered on June 28. Read more.

Jupiter brightest “star” in evening sky. Jupiter reached opposition on April 7. That is, it was opposite the sun as seen from Earth then and so was appearing in our sky all night. The giant planet came closest to Earth for 2017 one day later, on April 8. So Jupiter shone at its brightest and best in April, never fear. It’ll still be blazing away in July! Jupiter beams as the third-brightest celestial body in the nighttime sky, after the moon and Venus. In July, Jupiter shines from dusk until late evening or around midnight; meanwhile, Venus appears only before dawn.

Click here for an almanac telling you Jupiter’s setting time and Venus’ rising time in your sky.

Watch for the moon to join up with Jupiter for several days, centered on or near July 28. See the above sky chart. Wonderful sight!

From the Northern Hemisphere, Jupiter appears in the southwestern sky first thing at dusk; and from the Southern Hemisphere, Jupiter appears high overhead at dusk or nightfall. From all of Earth, Jupiter sinks in a westerly direction throughout the night, as Earth spins under the sky. In early July, Jupiter sets in the west around local midnight (midway between sunset and sunrise); by the month’s end, Jupiter sets some two hours earlier than local midnight.

Jupiter shines in front of the constellation Virgo, near Virgo’s sole 1st-magnitude star, called Spica.

Fernando Roquel Torres in Caguas, Puerto Rico captured Jupiter, the Great Red Spot (GRS) and all 4 of its largest moons – the Galilean satellites – on the date of Jupiter’s 2017 opposition (April 7).

If you have binoculars or a telescope, it’s fairly easy to see Jupiter’s four major moons, which look like pinpricks of light all on or near the same plane. They are often called the Galilean moons to honor Galileo, who discovered these great Jovian moons in 1610. In their order from Jupiter, these moons are Io, Europa, Ganymede and Callisto.

These moons orbit Jupiter around the Jovian equator. In cycles of six years, we view Jupiter’s equator edge-on. So, in 2015, we were able to view a number of mutual events involving Jupiter’s moons, through high-powered telescopes. Starting in late 2016, Jupiter’s axis began tilting enough toward the sun and Earth so that the farthest of these four moons, Callisto, has not been passing in front of Jupiter or behind Jupiter, as seen from our vantage point. This will continue for a period of about three years, during which time Callisto is perpetually visible to those with telescopes, alternately swinging above and below Jupiter as seen from Earth.

Click here for a Jupiter’s moons almanac, courtesy of skyandtelescope.com.

James Martin in Albuquerque, New Mexico caught this wonderful photo of Saturn on its June 15, 2017 opposition.

Let the moon guide you to the star Antares and the planet Saturn on July 5 and 6, 2017. Read more.

Saturn out nearly all night long. Saturn reached its yearly opposition on June 15. At opposition, Saturn came closest to Earth for the year, shone brightest in our sky and stayed out all night. It was highest up at midnight (midway between sunset and sunrise).

In July 2017, Saturn shines higher in the sky at nightfall than it did in June. Moreover, Saturn transits – climbs its highest point for the night – a few hours earlier than it did in June 2017. So, if you’re not a night owl, July actually presenst a better month for viewing Saturn, which is still shining at better than first-magnitude brightness.

Click here to find out Saturn’s transit time, when Saturn soars highest up for the night.

Look for Saturn above the horizon as soon as darkness falls. It’s in the southeast as seen from Earth’s Northern Hemisphere and more due east from the Southern Hemisphere. But your best view of Saturn, from either the Northern or Southern Hemisphere, is around 11 p.m. local time (midnight local daylight saving time) in early July and around 9 p.m. (10 p.m. daylight saving time) by the month’s end. That’s when Saturn climbs highest up for the night.

Be sure to let the moon guide you to Saturn (and the nearby star Antares) on July 5, July 6 and July 7.

Saturn, the farthest world that you can easily view with the eye alone, appears golden in color. It shines with a steady light.

Binoculars don’t reveal Saturn’s gorgeous rings, by the way, although binoculars will enhance Saturn’s color. To see the rings, you need a small telescope. A telescope will also reveal one or more of Saturn’s many moons, most notably Titan.

Saturn’s rings are inclined at nearly 27^o from edge-on, exhibiting their northern face. In October 2017, the rings will open most widely for this year, displaying a maximum inclination of 27^o.

As with so much in space (and on Earth), the appearance of Saturn’s rings from Earth is cyclical. In the year 2025, the rings will appear edge-on as seen from Earth. After that, we’ll begin to see the south side of Saturn’s rings, to increase to a maximum inclination of 27^o by May 2032.

Click here for recommended almanacs; they can help you know when the planets rise, transit and set in your sky.

Jenney Disimon in Sabah, Borneo captured Venus before dawn.

Let the moon guide you to Venus and the star Aldebaran on July 19, 20 and 21. Read more.

Venus, brilliant in east at morning dawn Venus is always brilliant and beautiful, the brightest celestial body to light up our sky besides the sun and moon. If you’re an early bird, you can count on Venus to be your morning companion until nearly the end of 2017.

Venus reached a milestone as the morning “star” when it swung out to its greatest elongation from the sun on June 3, 2017. At this juncture, Venus was farthest from the sun on our sky’s dome, and the telescope showed Venus as half-illuminated in sunshine, like a first quarter moon. For the rest of the year, Venus will wax toward full phase.

Click here to know Venus’s present phase, remembering to select Venus as your object of interest.

Enjoy the picturesque coupling of the waning crescent moon and Venus in the eastern sky before sunrise on July 19 and July 20.

From mid-northern latitudes (U.S. and Europe), Venus rises about two and one-half hours before the sun. By the month’s end, it’ll increase to about three hours before sunrise.

At temperate latitudes in the Southern Hemisphere (Australia and South Africa), Venus rises about three and one-half hours before sunup in early July. By the month’s end that’ll taper to about two and one-half hours.

Click here for an almanac giving rising times of Venus in your sky.

The chart below helps to illustrate why we sometimes see Venus in the evening, and sometimes before dawn.

The Earth and Venus orbit the sun counterclockwise as seen from earthly north. When Venus is to the east (left) of the Earth-sun line, we see Venus as an evening “star” in the west after sunset. After Venus reaches its inferior conjunction, Venus then moves to the west (right) of the Earth-sun line, appearing as a morning “star” in the east before sunrise.

Mars, Mercury, Earth’s moon and the dwarf planet Ceres. Mars is smaller than Earth, but bigger than our moon. Image via NASA/JPL-Caltech/UCLA.

Mars lost in the sun’s glare. Mars, though nominally an evening object, is edging closer to the sunset day by day. Mars will transition out of the evening sky and into the morning sky on July 27, 2017, at which juncture Mars will be on the far side of the sun at what astronomers call superior conjunction.

Look for Mars to emerge in the east before dawn in late September or October 2017. The conjunction of Mars and Venus on October 5, 2017, will likely present the first view of Mars in the morning sky for many skywatchers.

Exactly one year after Mars’s superior conjunction on July 27, 2017, Mars will swing to opposition on July 27, 2018. This will be Mars’s best opposition since the historically close opposition on August 28, 2003. In fact, Mars will become the fourth-brightest heavenly body to light up the sky in July 2018, after the sun, moon and the planet Venus. It’s not often that Mars outshines Jupiter, normally the four-brightest celestial object.

Wow! Wonderful shot of Mercury – over the Chilean Andes – January 2017, from Yuri Beletsky Nightscapes.

For a challenge, try to catch the young moon, the planet Mercury and the star Regulus at dusk on July 24 and 25. Binoculars could come in handy! Click here for an almanac giving you the setting time of the sun, moon and Mercury in your sky. Read more.

Mercury briefly visible after sunset. When we say Mercury is visible at only evening dusk, we’re really talking about the Northern Hemisphere. For the Southern Hemisphere, it’ll be the best evening apparition of Mercury for the year, with Mercury staying out until after nightfall at southerly latitudes. Look for Mercury low in the west, a good ways below Jupiter, as the evening twilight is giving way to nightfall.

Mercury is tricky. If you look too soon after sunset, Mercury will be obscured by evening twilight; if you look too late, it will have followed the sun beneath the horizon. Watch for Mercury low in the sky, and near the sunset point on the horizon, being mindful of Mercury’s setting time.

Throughout July, Mercury will move farther east of the setting sun day by day, and will reach its greatest eastern elongation as an evening “star” on July 30, 2017.

For a fun sky watching challenge, try to glimpse the young moon and Mercury in the western dusk on July 24 and July 25.

What do we mean by bright planet? By bright planet, we mean any solar system planet that is easily visible without an optical aid and that has been watched by our ancestors since time immemorial. In their outward order from the sun, the five bright planets are Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. These planets actually do appear bright in our sky. They are typically as bright as – or brighter than – the brightest stars. Plus, these relatively nearby worlds tend to shine with a steadier light than the distant, twinkling stars. You can spot them, and come to know them as faithful friends, if you try.

This image is from February 8, 2016. It shows all 5 bright planets at once. Photo by our friend Eliot Herman in Tucson, Arizona.

Skywatcher, by Predrag Agatonovic.

Bottom line: In July 2017, Three of the five bright planets appear in the evening sky: Mercury, Jupiter and Saturn. Venus is found exclusively in the morning sky. Mars is lost in the sun’s glare.

Don’t miss anything. Subscribe to EarthSky News by email

Enjoy knowing where to look in the night sky? Please donate to help EarthSky keep going.

from EarthSky http://ift.tt/IJfHCr

Look for the moon near the planet Jupiter and the star Spica on June 30, July 1 and 2. Read more.

Three of the five bright planets are easy to see in July, 2017: Jupiter, Saturn and Venus. Bright Jupiter is the first “star” to pop into view at nightfall and stays out until late night. Golden Saturn is up in the east at nightfall and stays out for most of the night. Elusive Mercury is not as easy to catch after sunset, because it appears low in the west at dusk. Brilliant Venus rises before the sun, shining in front of the constellation Taurus the Bull. Red Mars, buried deep in the glare of evening twilight, cannot be seen from Earth this month. Follow the links below to learn more about the planets in July 2017.

Jupiter brightest “star” in evening sky

Saturn out nearly all night

Venus, brilliant in east at morning dawn

Mars lost in the sun’s glare

Mercury briefly visible after sunset

Like what EarthSky offers? Sign up for our free daily newsletter today!

Astronomy events, star parties, festivals, workshops

Visit a new EarthSky feature – Best Places to Stargaze – and add your fav.

Look for the moon in the vicinity of Jupiter and the nearby star Spica for several days, centered on June 28. Read more.

Jupiter brightest “star” in evening sky. Jupiter reached opposition on April 7. That is, it was opposite the sun as seen from Earth then and so was appearing in our sky all night. The giant planet came closest to Earth for 2017 one day later, on April 8. So Jupiter shone at its brightest and best in April, never fear. It’ll still be blazing away in July! Jupiter beams as the third-brightest celestial body in the nighttime sky, after the moon and Venus. In July, Jupiter shines from dusk until late evening or around midnight; meanwhile, Venus appears only before dawn.

Click here for an almanac telling you Jupiter’s setting time and Venus’ rising time in your sky.

Watch for the moon to join up with Jupiter for several days, centered on or near July 28. See the above sky chart. Wonderful sight!

From the Northern Hemisphere, Jupiter appears in the southwestern sky first thing at dusk; and from the Southern Hemisphere, Jupiter appears high overhead at dusk or nightfall. From all of Earth, Jupiter sinks in a westerly direction throughout the night, as Earth spins under the sky. In early July, Jupiter sets in the west around local midnight (midway between sunset and sunrise); by the month’s end, Jupiter sets some two hours earlier than local midnight.

Jupiter shines in front of the constellation Virgo, near Virgo’s sole 1st-magnitude star, called Spica.

Fernando Roquel Torres in Caguas, Puerto Rico captured Jupiter, the Great Red Spot (GRS) and all 4 of its largest moons – the Galilean satellites – on the date of Jupiter’s 2017 opposition (April 7).

If you have binoculars or a telescope, it’s fairly easy to see Jupiter’s four major moons, which look like pinpricks of light all on or near the same plane. They are often called the Galilean moons to honor Galileo, who discovered these great Jovian moons in 1610. In their order from Jupiter, these moons are Io, Europa, Ganymede and Callisto.

These moons orbit Jupiter around the Jovian equator. In cycles of six years, we view Jupiter’s equator edge-on. So, in 2015, we were able to view a number of mutual events involving Jupiter’s moons, through high-powered telescopes. Starting in late 2016, Jupiter’s axis began tilting enough toward the sun and Earth so that the farthest of these four moons, Callisto, has not been passing in front of Jupiter or behind Jupiter, as seen from our vantage point. This will continue for a period of about three years, during which time Callisto is perpetually visible to those with telescopes, alternately swinging above and below Jupiter as seen from Earth.

Click here for a Jupiter’s moons almanac, courtesy of skyandtelescope.com.

James Martin in Albuquerque, New Mexico caught this wonderful photo of Saturn on its June 15, 2017 opposition.

Let the moon guide you to the star Antares and the planet Saturn on July 5 and 6, 2017. Read more.

Saturn out nearly all night long. Saturn reached its yearly opposition on June 15. At opposition, Saturn came closest to Earth for the year, shone brightest in our sky and stayed out all night. It was highest up at midnight (midway between sunset and sunrise).

In July 2017, Saturn shines higher in the sky at nightfall than it did in June. Moreover, Saturn transits – climbs its highest point for the night – a few hours earlier than it did in June 2017. So, if you’re not a night owl, July actually presenst a better month for viewing Saturn, which is still shining at better than first-magnitude brightness.

Click here to find out Saturn’s transit time, when Saturn soars highest up for the night.

Look for Saturn above the horizon as soon as darkness falls. It’s in the southeast as seen from Earth’s Northern Hemisphere and more due east from the Southern Hemisphere. But your best view of Saturn, from either the Northern or Southern Hemisphere, is around 11 p.m. local time (midnight local daylight saving time) in early July and around 9 p.m. (10 p.m. daylight saving time) by the month’s end. That’s when Saturn climbs highest up for the night.

Be sure to let the moon guide you to Saturn (and the nearby star Antares) on July 5, July 6 and July 7.

Saturn, the farthest world that you can easily view with the eye alone, appears golden in color. It shines with a steady light.

Binoculars don’t reveal Saturn’s gorgeous rings, by the way, although binoculars will enhance Saturn’s color. To see the rings, you need a small telescope. A telescope will also reveal one or more of Saturn’s many moons, most notably Titan.

Saturn’s rings are inclined at nearly 27^o from edge-on, exhibiting their northern face. In October 2017, the rings will open most widely for this year, displaying a maximum inclination of 27^o.

As with so much in space (and on Earth), the appearance of Saturn’s rings from Earth is cyclical. In the year 2025, the rings will appear edge-on as seen from Earth. After that, we’ll begin to see the south side of Saturn’s rings, to increase to a maximum inclination of 27^o by May 2032.

Click here for recommended almanacs; they can help you know when the planets rise, transit and set in your sky.

Jenney Disimon in Sabah, Borneo captured Venus before dawn.

Let the moon guide you to Venus and the star Aldebaran on July 19, 20 and 21. Read more.

Venus, brilliant in east at morning dawn Venus is always brilliant and beautiful, the brightest celestial body to light up our sky besides the sun and moon. If you’re an early bird, you can count on Venus to be your morning companion until nearly the end of 2017.

Venus reached a milestone as the morning “star” when it swung out to its greatest elongation from the sun on June 3, 2017. At this juncture, Venus was farthest from the sun on our sky’s dome, and the telescope showed Venus as half-illuminated in sunshine, like a first quarter moon. For the rest of the year, Venus will wax toward full phase.

Click here to know Venus’s present phase, remembering to select Venus as your object of interest.

Enjoy the picturesque coupling of the waning crescent moon and Venus in the eastern sky before sunrise on July 19 and July 20.

From mid-northern latitudes (U.S. and Europe), Venus rises about two and one-half hours before the sun. By the month’s end, it’ll increase to about three hours before sunrise.

At temperate latitudes in the Southern Hemisphere (Australia and South Africa), Venus rises about three and one-half hours before sunup in early July. By the month’s end that’ll taper to about two and one-half hours.

Click here for an almanac giving rising times of Venus in your sky.

The chart below helps to illustrate why we sometimes see Venus in the evening, and sometimes before dawn.

The Earth and Venus orbit the sun counterclockwise as seen from earthly north. When Venus is to the east (left) of the Earth-sun line, we see Venus as an evening “star” in the west after sunset. After Venus reaches its inferior conjunction, Venus then moves to the west (right) of the Earth-sun line, appearing as a morning “star” in the east before sunrise.

Mars, Mercury, Earth’s moon and the dwarf planet Ceres. Mars is smaller than Earth, but bigger than our moon. Image via NASA/JPL-Caltech/UCLA.

Mars lost in the sun’s glare. Mars, though nominally an evening object, is edging closer to the sunset day by day. Mars will transition out of the evening sky and into the morning sky on July 27, 2017, at which juncture Mars will be on the far side of the sun at what astronomers call superior conjunction.

Look for Mars to emerge in the east before dawn in late September or October 2017. The conjunction of Mars and Venus on October 5, 2017, will likely present the first view of Mars in the morning sky for many skywatchers.

Exactly one year after Mars’s superior conjunction on July 27, 2017, Mars will swing to opposition on July 27, 2018. This will be Mars’s best opposition since the historically close opposition on August 28, 2003. In fact, Mars will become the fourth-brightest heavenly body to light up the sky in July 2018, after the sun, moon and the planet Venus. It’s not often that Mars outshines Jupiter, normally the four-brightest celestial object.

Wow! Wonderful shot of Mercury – over the Chilean Andes – January 2017, from Yuri Beletsky Nightscapes.

For a challenge, try to catch the young moon, the planet Mercury and the star Regulus at dusk on July 24 and 25. Binoculars could come in handy! Click here for an almanac giving you the setting time of the sun, moon and Mercury in your sky. Read more.

Mercury briefly visible after sunset. When we say Mercury is visible at only evening dusk, we’re really talking about the Northern Hemisphere. For the Southern Hemisphere, it’ll be the best evening apparition of Mercury for the year, with Mercury staying out until after nightfall at southerly latitudes. Look for Mercury low in the west, a good ways below Jupiter, as the evening twilight is giving way to nightfall.

Mercury is tricky. If you look too soon after sunset, Mercury will be obscured by evening twilight; if you look too late, it will have followed the sun beneath the horizon. Watch for Mercury low in the sky, and near the sunset point on the horizon, being mindful of Mercury’s setting time.

Throughout July, Mercury will move farther east of the setting sun day by day, and will reach its greatest eastern elongation as an evening “star” on July 30, 2017.

For a fun sky watching challenge, try to glimpse the young moon and Mercury in the western dusk on July 24 and July 25.

What do we mean by bright planet? By bright planet, we mean any solar system planet that is easily visible without an optical aid and that has been watched by our ancestors since time immemorial. In their outward order from the sun, the five bright planets are Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. These planets actually do appear bright in our sky. They are typically as bright as – or brighter than – the brightest stars. Plus, these relatively nearby worlds tend to shine with a steadier light than the distant, twinkling stars. You can spot them, and come to know them as faithful friends, if you try.

This image is from February 8, 2016. It shows all 5 bright planets at once. Photo by our friend Eliot Herman in Tucson, Arizona.

Skywatcher, by Predrag Agatonovic.

Bottom line: In July 2017, Three of the five bright planets appear in the evening sky: Mercury, Jupiter and Saturn. Venus is found exclusively in the morning sky. Mars is lost in the sun’s glare.

Don’t miss anything. Subscribe to EarthSky News by email

Enjoy knowing where to look in the night sky? Please donate to help EarthSky keep going.

from EarthSky http://ift.tt/IJfHCr

Trump fact check: Climate policy benefits vastly exceed costs

When people who benefit from maintaining the status quo argue against climate policies, they invariably use two misleading tactics: exaggerating the costs of climate policies, and ignoring their benefits—economic and otherwise. In justifying his historically irresponsible decision to withdraw America from the Paris Agreement on climate change, President Trump followed this same playbook, falsely claiming: “The cost to the economy at this time would be close to $3 trillion in lost GDP [gross domestic product].”

That statistic originated from a report by National Economic Research Associates, Inc., which explicitly notes that it “does not take into account potential benefits from avoided emissions. The study results are not a benefit-cost analysis of climate change.” As Yale economistKenneth Gillingham noted, the report’s cost estimates are also based on one specific set of policy actions that the United States could implement to meet its Paris pledges. But there’s an infinite combination of possible climate policy responses, with some costing more than others.

For example, a revenue-neutral carbon tax is the proposed policy that currently has the most widespread support. One such proposal by the Climate Leadership Council has been endorsed by a broad coalition that includes Stephen Hawking, ExxonMobil, the Nature Conservancy, and George Shultz. And the Citizens’ Climate Lobby—a nonpartisan grassroots organization advocating for a similar policy—recently sent over 1,000 volunteers to lobby members of Congress in Washington, DC.

Regional Economic Modeling, Inc. (REMI) evaluated how the Citizens’ Climate Lobby’s proposed policy would impact the US economy. The REMI report concluded that implementing a rising price on carbon pollution and returning 100 percent of the revenue equally to American taxpayers would grow the economy and modestly increase personal disposable income, employment, and gross domestic product—the total of all goods and services produced within a nation’s borders. And the REMI report didn’t even include the financial benefits of slowing climate change and curbing its harmful economic impacts.

Those benefits are potentially massive. In terms of climate change, many of the benefits are realized in avoided costs. For example, the 2006 Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change found that unabated climate change would cost the world 5 to 20 percent of GDP by 2100. The economic picture could be even bleaker yet—most economic modeling assumes that economic growth will continue steadily regardless of climate change, but in reality, climate impacts are likely to slow economic growth. That was the finding of two papers published in 2015 by researchers from Stanford and the University of California at Berkeley.

The second paper found that there’s a sweet spot average temperature of around 13 degrees Celsius (55 degrees Fahrenheit) at which economic productivity is highest. The United States and much of Europe currently have climates in that optimal range, but many countries near the equator—which happen to predominantly be poorer, developing countries—already have temperatures above the sweet spot. As global warming causes temperatures to rise, the climates of the United States and Europe will slip out of the economically optimal temperature range, and that same temperature rise will push those poorer countries even further into the realm of economy-crippling heat. As a result, global warming will hamper economic growth. The researchers estimated that this would amplify the costs of climate change by at least 2.5 times more than previous estimates.

Tackling global warming will certainly come with costs. Although a revenue-neutral carbon tax would benefit the economy, that one policy by itself won’t be enough to solve the problem. We would still need to invest in and deploy low-carbon technologies like renewable energy and electric vehicles. However, looking at those costs in isolation without considering their benefits, as President Trump did, paints a misleading and inaccurate picture.

For example, Citibank—America’s third-largest bank—published a report in 2015 looking at both the costs and benefits of climate action and inaction scenarios. The report found that inaction actually had higher investment costs than the action scenario—such as cost-saving investments in energy efficiency, for example. 

Click here to read the rest

from Skeptical Science http://ift.tt/2sZsP5x

When people who benefit from maintaining the status quo argue against climate policies, they invariably use two misleading tactics: exaggerating the costs of climate policies, and ignoring their benefits—economic and otherwise. In justifying his historically irresponsible decision to withdraw America from the Paris Agreement on climate change, President Trump followed this same playbook, falsely claiming: “The cost to the economy at this time would be close to $3 trillion in lost GDP [gross domestic product].”

That statistic originated from a report by National Economic Research Associates, Inc., which explicitly notes that it “does not take into account potential benefits from avoided emissions. The study results are not a benefit-cost analysis of climate change.” As Yale economistKenneth Gillingham noted, the report’s cost estimates are also based on one specific set of policy actions that the United States could implement to meet its Paris pledges. But there’s an infinite combination of possible climate policy responses, with some costing more than others.

For example, a revenue-neutral carbon tax is the proposed policy that currently has the most widespread support. One such proposal by the Climate Leadership Council has been endorsed by a broad coalition that includes Stephen Hawking, ExxonMobil, the Nature Conservancy, and George Shultz. And the Citizens’ Climate Lobby—a nonpartisan grassroots organization advocating for a similar policy—recently sent over 1,000 volunteers to lobby members of Congress in Washington, DC.

Regional Economic Modeling, Inc. (REMI) evaluated how the Citizens’ Climate Lobby’s proposed policy would impact the US economy. The REMI report concluded that implementing a rising price on carbon pollution and returning 100 percent of the revenue equally to American taxpayers would grow the economy and modestly increase personal disposable income, employment, and gross domestic product—the total of all goods and services produced within a nation’s borders. And the REMI report didn’t even include the financial benefits of slowing climate change and curbing its harmful economic impacts.

Those benefits are potentially massive. In terms of climate change, many of the benefits are realized in avoided costs. For example, the 2006 Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change found that unabated climate change would cost the world 5 to 20 percent of GDP by 2100. The economic picture could be even bleaker yet—most economic modeling assumes that economic growth will continue steadily regardless of climate change, but in reality, climate impacts are likely to slow economic growth. That was the finding of two papers published in 2015 by researchers from Stanford and the University of California at Berkeley.

The second paper found that there’s a sweet spot average temperature of around 13 degrees Celsius (55 degrees Fahrenheit) at which economic productivity is highest. The United States and much of Europe currently have climates in that optimal range, but many countries near the equator—which happen to predominantly be poorer, developing countries—already have temperatures above the sweet spot. As global warming causes temperatures to rise, the climates of the United States and Europe will slip out of the economically optimal temperature range, and that same temperature rise will push those poorer countries even further into the realm of economy-crippling heat. As a result, global warming will hamper economic growth. The researchers estimated that this would amplify the costs of climate change by at least 2.5 times more than previous estimates.

Tackling global warming will certainly come with costs. Although a revenue-neutral carbon tax would benefit the economy, that one policy by itself won’t be enough to solve the problem. We would still need to invest in and deploy low-carbon technologies like renewable energy and electric vehicles. However, looking at those costs in isolation without considering their benefits, as President Trump did, paints a misleading and inaccurate picture.

For example, Citibank—America’s third-largest bank—published a report in 2015 looking at both the costs and benefits of climate action and inaction scenarios. The report found that inaction actually had higher investment costs than the action scenario—such as cost-saving investments in energy efficiency, for example. 

Click here to read the rest

from Skeptical Science http://ift.tt/2sZsP5x

Navy Divers Stand Watch during International Submarine Races

Students test their science and technology skills underwater while Navy divers keep them safe.

from http://ift.tt/2u6m4gR

Students test their science and technology skills underwater while Navy divers keep them safe.

from http://ift.tt/2u6m4gR

Virtual Reality Stimulates Learning for Children of Wounded Warriors

The children of wounded warriors got the chance to learn how virtual and augmented reality innovations may someday improve the quality of life for their parents.

from http://ift.tt/2t86TmZ

The children of wounded warriors got the chance to learn how virtual and augmented reality innovations may someday improve the quality of life for their parents.

from http://ift.tt/2t86TmZ

Top 10 things to know about asteroids

Illustration of an asteroid passing near the Earth. Image via NASA.

In honor of International Asteroid Day today (June 30, 2017), NASA put together this list of 10 cool facts about asteroids that you might not know.

1. A place in space. Asteroids—named by British astronomer William Herschel from the Greek expression meaning “star-like”—are rocky, airless worlds that are too small to be called planets. But what they might lack in size they certainly make up for in number: An estimated 1.1 to 1.9 million asteroids larger than 1 kilometer are in the Main Belt between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter. And there are millions more that are smaller in size. Asteroids range in size from Vesta—the largest at about 329 miles (529 kilometers) wide—to bodies that are just a few feet across.

2. What lies beneath. Asteroids are generally categorized into three types: carbon-rich, silicate, or metallic, or some combination of the three. Why the different types? It all comes down to how far from the sun they formed. Some experienced high temperatures and partly melted, with iron sinking to the center and volcanic lava forced to the surface. The asteroid Vesta is one example we know of today.

The asteroid Eros as photographed by the NEAR Shoemaker spacecraft from an orbital altitude of about 200 kilometers (124 miles). Image via NASA.

3. Small overall. If all of the asteroids were combined into a ball, they would still be much smaller than the Earth’s moon.

4. Except for a big one. In 1801, Giuseppe Piazzi discovered the first and largest asteroid, Ceres, orbiting between Mars and Jupiter. Ceres is so large that it encompasses about one-fourth of the estimated total mass of all the asteroids in the asteroid belt. Today, it’s classified as a dwarf planet.

Enhanced-color view of Ceres. The largest object in the asteroid belt, Ceres is now classified as a dwarf planet. Image via NASA/JPL-Caltech/UCLA/MPS/DLR/IDA

5. Mission to a metal world. NASA’s Psyche mission will launch in 2022 to explore an all-metal asteroid—what could be the core of an early planet—for the very first time. And in October 2021, the Lucy mission will be the first to visit Jupiter’s swarms of Trojan asteroids.

6. Near-Earth asteroids. The term ‘near’ in near-Earth asteroid is actually a misnomer; most of these bodies do not come close to Earth at all. By definition, a near-Earth asteroid is an asteroid that comes within 28 million miles (44 million km) of Earth’s orbit. As of June 19, 2017, there are 16,209 known near-Earth asteroids, with 1,803 classified as potentially hazardous asteroids (those that could someday pose a threat to Earth).

7. Comin’ in hot. About once a year, a car-sized asteroid hits Earth’s atmosphere, creates an impressive fireball, and burns up before reaching the surface.

8. But we’re keeping an eye out. Ground-based observatories and facilities such Pan-STARRS, the Catalina Sky Survey, and ATLAS are constantly on the hunt to detect near-Earth asteroids. NASA also has a small infrared observatory in orbit about the Earth: NEOWISE. In addition to detecting asteroids and comets, NEOWISE also characterizes these small bodies.

9. Buddy system. Roughly one-sixth of the asteroid population have a small companion moon (some even have two moons). The first discovery of an asteroid-moon system was of asteroid Ida and its moon Dactyl in 1993.

10. Earthly visitors. Several NASA space missions have flown and observed asteroids. The NEAR Shoemaker mission landed on asteroid Eros in 2001 and NASA’s Dawn mission was the first mission to orbit an asteroid in 2011. In 2005, the Japanese spacecraft Hayabusa landed on asteroid Itokawa. Currently, NASA’s OSIRIS-REx is en route to a near-Earth asteroid called Bennu; it will bring a small sample back to Earth for study.

NASA has more asteroid info here.

Read more from NASA

Bottom line: 10 facts about asteroids from NASA.

from EarthSky http://ift.tt/2sXM6nO

Illustration of an asteroid passing near the Earth. Image via NASA.

In honor of International Asteroid Day today (June 30, 2017), NASA put together this list of 10 cool facts about asteroids that you might not know.

1. A place in space. Asteroids—named by British astronomer William Herschel from the Greek expression meaning “star-like”—are rocky, airless worlds that are too small to be called planets. But what they might lack in size they certainly make up for in number: An estimated 1.1 to 1.9 million asteroids larger than 1 kilometer are in the Main Belt between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter. And there are millions more that are smaller in size. Asteroids range in size from Vesta—the largest at about 329 miles (529 kilometers) wide—to bodies that are just a few feet across.

2. What lies beneath. Asteroids are generally categorized into three types: carbon-rich, silicate, or metallic, or some combination of the three. Why the different types? It all comes down to how far from the sun they formed. Some experienced high temperatures and partly melted, with iron sinking to the center and volcanic lava forced to the surface. The asteroid Vesta is one example we know of today.

The asteroid Eros as photographed by the NEAR Shoemaker spacecraft from an orbital altitude of about 200 kilometers (124 miles). Image via NASA.

3. Small overall. If all of the asteroids were combined into a ball, they would still be much smaller than the Earth’s moon.

4. Except for a big one. In 1801, Giuseppe Piazzi discovered the first and largest asteroid, Ceres, orbiting between Mars and Jupiter. Ceres is so large that it encompasses about one-fourth of the estimated total mass of all the asteroids in the asteroid belt. Today, it’s classified as a dwarf planet.

Enhanced-color view of Ceres. The largest object in the asteroid belt, Ceres is now classified as a dwarf planet. Image via NASA/JPL-Caltech/UCLA/MPS/DLR/IDA

5. Mission to a metal world. NASA’s Psyche mission will launch in 2022 to explore an all-metal asteroid—what could be the core of an early planet—for the very first time. And in October 2021, the Lucy mission will be the first to visit Jupiter’s swarms of Trojan asteroids.

6. Near-Earth asteroids. The term ‘near’ in near-Earth asteroid is actually a misnomer; most of these bodies do not come close to Earth at all. By definition, a near-Earth asteroid is an asteroid that comes within 28 million miles (44 million km) of Earth’s orbit. As of June 19, 2017, there are 16,209 known near-Earth asteroids, with 1,803 classified as potentially hazardous asteroids (those that could someday pose a threat to Earth).

7. Comin’ in hot. About once a year, a car-sized asteroid hits Earth’s atmosphere, creates an impressive fireball, and burns up before reaching the surface.

8. But we’re keeping an eye out. Ground-based observatories and facilities such Pan-STARRS, the Catalina Sky Survey, and ATLAS are constantly on the hunt to detect near-Earth asteroids. NASA also has a small infrared observatory in orbit about the Earth: NEOWISE. In addition to detecting asteroids and comets, NEOWISE also characterizes these small bodies.

9. Buddy system. Roughly one-sixth of the asteroid population have a small companion moon (some even have two moons). The first discovery of an asteroid-moon system was of asteroid Ida and its moon Dactyl in 1993.

10. Earthly visitors. Several NASA space missions have flown and observed asteroids. The NEAR Shoemaker mission landed on asteroid Eros in 2001 and NASA’s Dawn mission was the first mission to orbit an asteroid in 2011. In 2005, the Japanese spacecraft Hayabusa landed on asteroid Itokawa. Currently, NASA’s OSIRIS-REx is en route to a near-Earth asteroid called Bennu; it will bring a small sample back to Earth for study.

NASA has more asteroid info here.

Read more from NASA

Bottom line: 10 facts about asteroids from NASA.

from EarthSky http://ift.tt/2sXM6nO

Where’s the moon? 1st quarter

Our friend Patrick Casaert of the Facebook page La Lune The Moon caught the moon on May 1, 2017, when it was nearly 1st quarter.

The moon reaches its first quarter phase on July 1, 2017 at 0:51 UTC. At North American time zones, the moon’s first quarter phase happens on June 30, at 9:51 p.m ADT, 8:51 p.m. EDT, 7:51 p.m. CDT, 6:51 p.m. MDT 5:51 p.m. PDT and 4:51 p.m. AKDT.

A first quarter moon shows half of its lighted hemisphere – half of its day side – to Earth.

The Earth and moon are like mirrors to each other. If you were on the moon tonight, you’d see a last quarter Earth. Simulation of last quarter Earth as viewed from 1st quarter moon (2017 July 1 at 0:51 UTC). The terminator or shadow line represents Earth’s line of sunsets. Image via Fourmilab.

There will be a magnificent pairing of the first quarter moon and Jupiter as darkness falls on June 30. This planet ended its retrograde motion on June 10 and is now past its best time for viewing in 2017. But it’s the biggest planet in our solar system, and still dazzlingly bright!

Watch for the first quarter moon and Jupiter on June 30, 2017. Read more.

At quarter moon, the moon’s disk is half-illuminated by sunlight and half-immersed in the moon’s own shadow.

We call this moon a quarter and not a half because it is one quarter of the way around in its orbit of Earth, as measured from one new moon to the next. Also, although a first quarter moon appears half-lit to us, the illuminated portion we see of a first quarter moon truly is just a quarter. We’re now seeing half the moon’s day side, that is. Another lighted quarter of the moon shines just as brightly in the direction opposite Earth!

Here’s what a first quarter moon looks like. The terminator line – or line between light and dark on the moon – appears straight. Aqilla Othman in Port Dickson, Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia caught this photo on May 3, 2017. Notice that he caught Lunar X and Lunar V.

Here’s a closer look at Lunar X and Lunar V. Photo taken May 3, 2017 by Izaty Liyana in Port Dickson, Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia. What is Lunar X?

And what about the term half moon? That’s a beloved term, but not an official one.

A first quarter moon rises at noon and is highest in the sky at sunset. It sets around midnight. First quarter moon comes a week after new moon. Now, as seen from above, the moon in its orbit around Earth is at right angles to a line between the Earth and sun.

As the moon orbits Earth, it changes phase in an orderly way. Follow these links to understand the various phases of the moon.

Four keys to understanding moon phases

Where’s the moon? Waxing crescent
Where’s the moon? First quarter
Where’s the moon? Waxing gibbous
What’s special about a full moon?
Where’s the moon? Waning gibbous
Where’s the moon? Last quarter
Where’s the moon? Waning crescent
Where’s the moon? New phase

from EarthSky http://ift.tt/1GsHF3c

Our friend Patrick Casaert of the Facebook page La Lune The Moon caught the moon on May 1, 2017, when it was nearly 1st quarter.

The moon reaches its first quarter phase on July 1, 2017 at 0:51 UTC. At North American time zones, the moon’s first quarter phase happens on June 30, at 9:51 p.m ADT, 8:51 p.m. EDT, 7:51 p.m. CDT, 6:51 p.m. MDT 5:51 p.m. PDT and 4:51 p.m. AKDT.

A first quarter moon shows half of its lighted hemisphere – half of its day side – to Earth.

The Earth and moon are like mirrors to each other. If you were on the moon tonight, you’d see a last quarter Earth. Simulation of last quarter Earth as viewed from 1st quarter moon (2017 July 1 at 0:51 UTC). The terminator or shadow line represents Earth’s line of sunsets. Image via Fourmilab.

There will be a magnificent pairing of the first quarter moon and Jupiter as darkness falls on June 30. This planet ended its retrograde motion on June 10 and is now past its best time for viewing in 2017. But it’s the biggest planet in our solar system, and still dazzlingly bright!

Watch for the first quarter moon and Jupiter on June 30, 2017. Read more.

At quarter moon, the moon’s disk is half-illuminated by sunlight and half-immersed in the moon’s own shadow.

We call this moon a quarter and not a half because it is one quarter of the way around in its orbit of Earth, as measured from one new moon to the next. Also, although a first quarter moon appears half-lit to us, the illuminated portion we see of a first quarter moon truly is just a quarter. We’re now seeing half the moon’s day side, that is. Another lighted quarter of the moon shines just as brightly in the direction opposite Earth!

Here’s what a first quarter moon looks like. The terminator line – or line between light and dark on the moon – appears straight. Aqilla Othman in Port Dickson, Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia caught this photo on May 3, 2017. Notice that he caught Lunar X and Lunar V.

Here’s a closer look at Lunar X and Lunar V. Photo taken May 3, 2017 by Izaty Liyana in Port Dickson, Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia. What is Lunar X?

And what about the term half moon? That’s a beloved term, but not an official one.

A first quarter moon rises at noon and is highest in the sky at sunset. It sets around midnight. First quarter moon comes a week after new moon. Now, as seen from above, the moon in its orbit around Earth is at right angles to a line between the Earth and sun.

As the moon orbits Earth, it changes phase in an orderly way. Follow these links to understand the various phases of the moon.

Four keys to understanding moon phases

Where’s the moon? Waxing crescent
Where’s the moon? First quarter
Where’s the moon? Waxing gibbous
What’s special about a full moon?
Where’s the moon? Waning gibbous
Where’s the moon? Last quarter
Where’s the moon? Waning crescent
Where’s the moon? New phase

from EarthSky http://ift.tt/1GsHF3c

Today in science: Tunguska explosion

Fallen trees at Tunguska. This image is from 1927, when Russian scientists were finally able to get to the scene. Photograph from the Soviet Academy of Science 1927 expedition led by Leonid Kulik.

June 30, 1908 In a remote part of Russia, a fireball was seen streaking across the daytime sky. Within moments, something exploded in the atmosphere above Siberia’s Podkamennaya Tunguska River in what is now Krasnoyarsk Krai, Russia.

This event – now widely known as the Tunguska event – is believed to have been caused by an incoming asteroid (or comet), which never actually struck Earth but instead exploded in the atmosphere, causing what is known as an air burst, three to six miles (5–10 kilometers) above Earth’s surface.

The explosion released enough energy to kill reindeer and flatten trees for many kilometers around the blast site. But no crater was ever found.

At the time, it was difficult to reach this remote part of Siberia. It wasn’t until 1927 that Leonid Kulik led the first Soviet research expedition to investigate the Tunguska event. He made a initial trip to the region, interviewed local witnesses and explored the region where the trees had been felled. He became convinced that they were all turned with their roots to the center. He did not find any meteorite fragments, and he did not find a meteorite crater.

Map showing the approximate location of the Tunguska event of 1908.

Over the years, scientists and others concocted fabulous explanations for the Tunguska explosion. Some were pretty wild – such as the encounter of Earth with an alien spacecraft, or a mini-black-hole, or a particle of antimatter.

The truth is much more ordinary. In all likelihood, a small icy comet or stony asteroid collided with Earth’s atmosphere on June 30, 1908. If it were an asteroid, it might have been about a third as big as a football field – moving at about 15 kilometers (10 miles) per second.

Because the explosion took place so long ago, we might never know for certain whether it was an asteroid or comet. But in recent decades astronomers have come to take the possibility of comet and asteroid impacts more seriously. They now have regular observing programs to watch for Near-Earth Objects, as they’re called. They also meet regularly to discuss what might happen if we did find an object on a collision course with Earth.

Enjoying EarthSky? Sign up for our free daily newsletter today!

Photo of an air burst, in this case from a U.S. Navy submarine-launched Tomamhawk cruise missile. An air burst from an incoming comet or asteroid is thought to have flattened trees in Siberia in 1908. Image via Wikimedia Commons

Bottom line: On June 30, 1908, an object from space apparently exploded in the atmosphere above Siberia. The explosion killed reindeer and flattened trees, in what has become known as the Tunguska event.

from EarthSky http://ift.tt/Y6G1jA

Fallen trees at Tunguska. This image is from 1927, when Russian scientists were finally able to get to the scene. Photograph from the Soviet Academy of Science 1927 expedition led by Leonid Kulik.

June 30, 1908 In a remote part of Russia, a fireball was seen streaking across the daytime sky. Within moments, something exploded in the atmosphere above Siberia’s Podkamennaya Tunguska River in what is now Krasnoyarsk Krai, Russia.

This event – now widely known as the Tunguska event – is believed to have been caused by an incoming asteroid (or comet), which never actually struck Earth but instead exploded in the atmosphere, causing what is known as an air burst, three to six miles (5–10 kilometers) above Earth’s surface.

The explosion released enough energy to kill reindeer and flatten trees for many kilometers around the blast site. But no crater was ever found.

At the time, it was difficult to reach this remote part of Siberia. It wasn’t until 1927 that Leonid Kulik led the first Soviet research expedition to investigate the Tunguska event. He made a initial trip to the region, interviewed local witnesses and explored the region where the trees had been felled. He became convinced that they were all turned with their roots to the center. He did not find any meteorite fragments, and he did not find a meteorite crater.

Map showing the approximate location of the Tunguska event of 1908.

Over the years, scientists and others concocted fabulous explanations for the Tunguska explosion. Some were pretty wild – such as the encounter of Earth with an alien spacecraft, or a mini-black-hole, or a particle of antimatter.

The truth is much more ordinary. In all likelihood, a small icy comet or stony asteroid collided with Earth’s atmosphere on June 30, 1908. If it were an asteroid, it might have been about a third as big as a football field – moving at about 15 kilometers (10 miles) per second.

Because the explosion took place so long ago, we might never know for certain whether it was an asteroid or comet. But in recent decades astronomers have come to take the possibility of comet and asteroid impacts more seriously. They now have regular observing programs to watch for Near-Earth Objects, as they’re called. They also meet regularly to discuss what might happen if we did find an object on a collision course with Earth.

Enjoying EarthSky? Sign up for our free daily newsletter today!

Photo of an air burst, in this case from a U.S. Navy submarine-launched Tomamhawk cruise missile. An air burst from an incoming comet or asteroid is thought to have flattened trees in Siberia in 1908. Image via Wikimedia Commons

Bottom line: On June 30, 1908, an object from space apparently exploded in the atmosphere above Siberia. The explosion killed reindeer and flattened trees, in what has become known as the Tunguska event.

from EarthSky http://ift.tt/Y6G1jA

1st quarter moon with Jupiter June 30

Tonight – June 30, 2017 – be sure to watch the magnificent pairing of the moon and Jupiter as darkness falls. The moon and Jupiter rank as the brightest and third-brightest heavenly bodies of nighttime. What’s the second-brightest? It’s the blazing planet Venus, which resides exclusively in the morning sky for the rest of 2017.

Also, look for a bright star near Jupiter and the moon. This star is Spica – near Jupiter throughout 2017 – brightest light in the constellation Virgo.

The moon reaches its first quarter phase on July 1, 2017 at 0:51 UTC. Converting Universal Time to the clock time at North American time zones, the moon’s first quarter phase happens on June 30, at 9:51 p.m ADT, 8:51 p.m. EDT, 7:51 p.m. CDT, 6:51 p.m. MDT 5:51 p.m. PDT and 4:51 p.m. AKDT.

The Earth and moon are like mirrors to each other. If you were on the moon tonight, you’d see a last quarter Earth. Simulation of last quarter Earth as viewed from 1st quarter moon (2017 July 1 at 0:51 UTC). The terminator or shadow line represents Earth’s line of sunsets. Image via Fourmilab.

At quarter moon, the moon’s disk is half-illuminated by sunlight and half-immersed in the moon’s own shadow. The lunar terminator – the shadow line crossing between the moon’s day and night sides – shows you where it’s sunrise on the waxing first quarter moon. The moon is said to be at first quarter because, in its cycle of phases, the moon is one quarter the way from one new moon to the next.

Read more: Understanding moon phases

Enjoying EarthSky so far? Sign up for our free daily newsletter today!

As always, the moon moves eastward in front of the constellations of the zodiac. Watch for the moon over the next several nights, as its distance from Jupiter on our sky’s dome increases. You’ll really be watching the moon’s own motion in orbit around Earth.

Jupiter ended its retrograde motion earlier this month (June 10), which means the best time of 2017 for viewing this dazzling planet has ended.

Thus Jupiter is now moving eastward along the ecliptic again – going toward Spica, Virgo’s brightest star. Keep watching as Jupiter moves toward Spica, to pass 3^o north of this star on September 5, 2017.

Because Jupiter is roughly in the same area of sky as the moon this evening, you might expect this world to exhibit a similar phase to tonight’s moon. Not so. Jupiter is so far distant from Earth that it always appears nearly 100% illuminated from our earthly perspective.

Bottom line: The dazzling planet Jupiter is near the first quarter moon on June 30. Enjoy the waxing moon and Jupiter on July 1, too!

EarthSky astronomy kits are perfect for beginners. Order today from the EarthSky store

Donate: Your support means the world to us

from EarthSky http://ift.tt/2tnHKXz

Tonight – June 30, 2017 – be sure to watch the magnificent pairing of the moon and Jupiter as darkness falls. The moon and Jupiter rank as the brightest and third-brightest heavenly bodies of nighttime. What’s the second-brightest? It’s the blazing planet Venus, which resides exclusively in the morning sky for the rest of 2017.

Also, look for a bright star near Jupiter and the moon. This star is Spica – near Jupiter throughout 2017 – brightest light in the constellation Virgo.

The moon reaches its first quarter phase on July 1, 2017 at 0:51 UTC. Converting Universal Time to the clock time at North American time zones, the moon’s first quarter phase happens on June 30, at 9:51 p.m ADT, 8:51 p.m. EDT, 7:51 p.m. CDT, 6:51 p.m. MDT 5:51 p.m. PDT and 4:51 p.m. AKDT.

The Earth and moon are like mirrors to each other. If you were on the moon tonight, you’d see a last quarter Earth. Simulation of last quarter Earth as viewed from 1st quarter moon (2017 July 1 at 0:51 UTC). The terminator or shadow line represents Earth’s line of sunsets. Image via Fourmilab.

At quarter moon, the moon’s disk is half-illuminated by sunlight and half-immersed in the moon’s own shadow. The lunar terminator – the shadow line crossing between the moon’s day and night sides – shows you where it’s sunrise on the waxing first quarter moon. The moon is said to be at first quarter because, in its cycle of phases, the moon is one quarter the way from one new moon to the next.

Read more: Understanding moon phases

Enjoying EarthSky so far? Sign up for our free daily newsletter today!

As always, the moon moves eastward in front of the constellations of the zodiac. Watch for the moon over the next several nights, as its distance from Jupiter on our sky’s dome increases. You’ll really be watching the moon’s own motion in orbit around Earth.

Jupiter ended its retrograde motion earlier this month (June 10), which means the best time of 2017 for viewing this dazzling planet has ended.

Thus Jupiter is now moving eastward along the ecliptic again – going toward Spica, Virgo’s brightest star. Keep watching as Jupiter moves toward Spica, to pass 3^o north of this star on September 5, 2017.

Because Jupiter is roughly in the same area of sky as the moon this evening, you might expect this world to exhibit a similar phase to tonight’s moon. Not so. Jupiter is so far distant from Earth that it always appears nearly 100% illuminated from our earthly perspective.

Bottom line: The dazzling planet Jupiter is near the first quarter moon on June 30. Enjoy the waxing moon and Jupiter on July 1, too!

EarthSky astronomy kits are perfect for beginners. Order today from the EarthSky store

Donate: Your support means the world to us

from EarthSky http://ift.tt/2tnHKXz

Why you need to ‘opt in’ to keep hearing from Cancer Research UK

Tomorrow is an important day for us. We will become an ‘opt in’ charity, meaning we’ll only contact supporters who have given specific permission for us to do so.

We’re doing this because we believe it’s the right thing to do. We want to communicate with our supporters in the way they want, and believe giving people a positive experience will help bring us closer to our ambitions as a charity.

Our move to opt in could lead to a short term dip in fundraising, which might affect the work we do in the future. But over time we believe this will shift, and we’ll see increased fundraising because we’ll only contact people who really want to hear from us.

In April last year we were one of the first charities to start the process of moving to opt in, asking all our new supporters to choose whether or not to receive marketing communications from us.

Tomorrow, this same process will apply to all our supporters, existing and new.

What will this mean?

In the past 12 months alone, thanks to our supporters, Cancer Research UK-funded scientists involved in the TRACERx lung cancer study found that a blood test could help predict if a patient’s cancer will come back after treatment earlier than scans. And results from the Cancer Research UK-supported ESPAC-4 clinical trial showed that giving pancreatic cancer patients who’ve had surgery two chemotherapy drugs instead of one greatly improves their chances of surviving for at least five years.

We also announced a £10 million investment in PRECISION-Panc, a study aiming to get pancreatic cancer patients on to clinical trials faster. And through our Grand Challenge awards we gave four international teams over £70 million to answer some of the biggest questions in cancer research.

We were also delighted that after years of campaigning around radiotherapy, and raising awareness that patients are missing out on the treatment, NHS England announced a £130 million investment in new radiotherapy machines.

This progress has only been possible because of our supporters. And being able to contact them, especially by post or telephone, plays a big part in that.

Back in the 1970s, just 1 in 4 people with cancer survived for 10 years or more. Thanks to our supporters, and the brilliant scientists, doctors and nurses we fund across the UK, that figure has doubled so that 2 in 4 people now survive for at least 10 years.

The progress we’ve made is phenomenal, yet we still have a long way to go. With people living longer and increased awareness leading to more diagnoses, 1 in 2 people in the UK born after 1960 will be diagnosed with cancer at some point in their lives. To keep making progress against cancer we need to be able to keep supporting the best research.

What happens now?

Inevitably, as of tomorrow, we will be reaching fewer people in our communications, which means we could take a financial hit. It costs money to make our vital work happen and to fund it we have to ask for support and donations.

That’s why we’re making a plea to those who might not know, may have forgotten that this is happening, or haven’t yet had a chance to tell us their preferences.

If you want to continue to hear from Cancer Research UK about news of our research progress, appeals and ways you can support, let us know.

Right now, 30 seconds of your time and a quick box tick will help you keep up to date with our work in any way that you would like.

Visit our website for more information and to tell us how you want to hear about ways you can support us. If you change your mind about how you want to hear from us at any time just go to our online form at cruk.org/tellus and update your preferences.

Ed Aspel, executive director of fundraising & marketing at Cancer Research UK

from Cancer Research UK – Science blog http://ift.tt/2uq3lMx

Tomorrow is an important day for us. We will become an ‘opt in’ charity, meaning we’ll only contact supporters who have given specific permission for us to do so.

We’re doing this because we believe it’s the right thing to do. We want to communicate with our supporters in the way they want, and believe giving people a positive experience will help bring us closer to our ambitions as a charity.

Our move to opt in could lead to a short term dip in fundraising, which might affect the work we do in the future. But over time we believe this will shift, and we’ll see increased fundraising because we’ll only contact people who really want to hear from us.

In April last year we were one of the first charities to start the process of moving to opt in, asking all our new supporters to choose whether or not to receive marketing communications from us.

Tomorrow, this same process will apply to all our supporters, existing and new.

What will this mean?

In the past 12 months alone, thanks to our supporters, Cancer Research UK-funded scientists involved in the TRACERx lung cancer study found that a blood test could help predict if a patient’s cancer will come back after treatment earlier than scans. And results from the Cancer Research UK-supported ESPAC-4 clinical trial showed that giving pancreatic cancer patients who’ve had surgery two chemotherapy drugs instead of one greatly improves their chances of surviving for at least five years.

We also announced a £10 million investment in PRECISION-Panc, a study aiming to get pancreatic cancer patients on to clinical trials faster. And through our Grand Challenge awards we gave four international teams over £70 million to answer some of the biggest questions in cancer research.

We were also delighted that after years of campaigning around radiotherapy, and raising awareness that patients are missing out on the treatment, NHS England announced a £130 million investment in new radiotherapy machines.

This progress has only been possible because of our supporters. And being able to contact them, especially by post or telephone, plays a big part in that.

Back in the 1970s, just 1 in 4 people with cancer survived for 10 years or more. Thanks to our supporters, and the brilliant scientists, doctors and nurses we fund across the UK, that figure has doubled so that 2 in 4 people now survive for at least 10 years.

The progress we’ve made is phenomenal, yet we still have a long way to go. With people living longer and increased awareness leading to more diagnoses, 1 in 2 people in the UK born after 1960 will be diagnosed with cancer at some point in their lives. To keep making progress against cancer we need to be able to keep supporting the best research.

What happens now?

Inevitably, as of tomorrow, we will be reaching fewer people in our communications, which means we could take a financial hit. It costs money to make our vital work happen and to fund it we have to ask for support and donations.

That’s why we’re making a plea to those who might not know, may have forgotten that this is happening, or haven’t yet had a chance to tell us their preferences.

If you want to continue to hear from Cancer Research UK about news of our research progress, appeals and ways you can support, let us know.

Right now, 30 seconds of your time and a quick box tick will help you keep up to date with our work in any way that you would like.

Visit our website for more information and to tell us how you want to hear about ways you can support us. If you change your mind about how you want to hear from us at any time just go to our online form at cruk.org/tellus and update your preferences.

Ed Aspel, executive director of fundraising & marketing at Cancer Research UK

from Cancer Research UK – Science blog http://ift.tt/2uq3lMx

Fourth of July Science for Family Fun

Take advantage of summer traditions to do hands-on with science with your kids!

from Science Buddies Blog http://ift.tt/2sWau9k

Take advantage of summer traditions to do hands-on with science with your kids!

from Science Buddies Blog http://ift.tt/2sWau9k

Climate scientists just debunked deniers' favorite argument

Whenever they hold one of their frequent hearings to reject and deny established climate science, congressional Republicans invariably trot out contrarian scientist John Christy, who disputes the accuracy of climate models. In doing so, Christy uses a cherry-picked, error riddled chart, but there’s a nugget of truth in his argument. Although the discrepancy isn’t nearly as large as Christy’s misleading chart suggests, atmospheric temperatures seem not to have warmed quite as fast since the turn of the century as climate model simulations anticipated they would.

Remote Sensing Systems estimate of the temperature of the middle troposphere compared to the CMIP5 multi-model average (top frame), and the difference between the two over time (bottom frame). Illustration: Santer et al. (2017), Nature Geoscience

How you react to this information is a good test of whether you’re a skeptic or a denier. A denier will declare “aha, the models are wrong, therefore we don’t need any climate policies!” A skeptic will ask what’s causing the difference between the observational estimates and model simulations.

There are many possible explanations. Maybe the tricky and often-adjusted estimates of the atmospheric temperature made by instruments on orbiting satellites are biased. Maybe there’s something wrong with the models, or our understanding of Earth’s atmosphere. Maybe the inputs used in the model simulations are flawed. The answer is likely a combination of these possibilities, but in congressional testimony earlier this year, Christy tried to place the blame entirely on the models, with a denier-style framing:

the average of the models is considered to be untruthful in representing the recent decades of climate variation and change, and thus would be inappropriate for use in predicting future changes in the climate or for related policy decisions.

And in testimony to Congress in December 2015, Christy offered his unsupported speculation that the discrepancy was a result of climate models being too sensitive to rising greenhouse gases:

Indeed, the theoretical (model) view as expressed in the IPCC AR5 in every case overestimated the bulk tropical atmospheric temperature response of extra greenhouse gases … indicating the theoretical understanding of the climate response is too sensitive to greenhouse gases.

New study tests and falsifies Christy’s assertions

In a new study, a team climate scientists led by Ben Santer sought to answer this question. They effectively disproved Christy’s assertion that the discrepancy was due to models being too sensitive to the increased greenhouse effect. Instead, the main culprit seems to be incorrect inputs used in the climate model simulations.

The issue is that climate model simulations are run using specific scenarios. These scenarios assume specific changes in factors that influence global temperature and climate changes (known as “forcings”), like rising levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases and changes in solar and volcanic activity. Climate models don’t make “predictions;” rather, they make “projections” of how temperatures and other climatological factors will change in response to those forcing input scenarios. There’s also a random component known as “internal variability” due to factors like unpredictable ocean cycles. 

An infamous example of deniers exploiting this wonky technical point to mislead policymaker happened in 1998. Congressional Republicans invited fossil fuel-funded Pat Michaels to testify ahead of the Kyoto international climate negotiations. In a shameless distortion of reality, Michaels evaluated a 1988 global temperature projection by James Hansen at NASA, but deleted all except the scenario that was the least like the actual forcing changes that had occurred over the prior decade. By only looking at Hansen’s model projection under a scenario where greenhouse gases rose much faster than they had in reality, Michaels deceptively made it appear as though Hansen’s climate model had vastly over-predicted global warming.

Santer’s team found a similar issue in comparing simulated and observed changes in atmospheric temperatures over the past few decades:

There are known systematic errors in these forcings in model simulations performed in support of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. These errors arise in part because the simulations were performed before more reliable estimates of early 21st century forcing became available. The net effect of the forcing errors is that the simulations underestimate some of the cooling influences contributing to the observed “slowdown”.

For example, were Christy right that models are too sensitive to rising greenhouse gases, they should be systematically wrong during the entire period for which we have observational data. On the contrary, aside from a small discrepancy in the late 20th century that can be explained by natural internal variability, Santer’s team showed that the difference between model simulations and observations only begins around 1998. A problem with model sensitivity would also show up in studies looking at global temperature changes in response to large volcanic eruptions, which create a big change in forcing and temperature. But those studies rule out the low climate sensitivities that Christy favors, and as Santer’s team notes:

there are no large systematic model errors in tropospheric cooling following the eruptions of El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991.

On the other hand, research has identified a number of real-world cooling influences in the early 21st century that weren’t accurately represented in the climate model simulation scenarios. The sun went into an unusually quiet cycle, there was a series of moderate volcanic eruptions, and the boom in Chinese coal power plants added sunlight-blocking pollution to the atmosphere. Using statistical tests, Santer’s team showed that those unexpected cooling effects combined with shifts in ocean cycles best explained the model-data discrepancy in atmospheric temperatures over the past 20 years.

Deniers respond by turning on the spin cycle

Unsurprisingly, in blogs and on Twitter, deniers tried to spin the results of this study in their favor. Some claimed that the paper admitted there was a “pause” or “hiatus” in global warming. In reality, the paper used neither term, but did use the phrase “slowdown” 15 times, including explicitly clarifying that it was a “temporary” slowdown. In other words, the study clearly rejected the myth that global warming “paused;” instead, the rise in atmospheric temperatures temporarily slowed due to the aforementioned decline in solar activity, increase in pollution from coal plants and volcanic eruptions, and shifts on ocean cycles.

Other contrarians have exhibited their confirmation bias by claiming the paper is an admission that climate models are wrong. As statistician George Box said, “all models are wrong, but some are useful.” Declaring that climate models are wrong and tossing them in the waste bin is a brain-dead denial move. What any skeptical scientific mind should want to know is why they’re imperfect – what’s causing the difference between simulations and reality, and what can we learn from that?

Click here to read the rest

from Skeptical Science http://ift.tt/2t4M2Rw

Whenever they hold one of their frequent hearings to reject and deny established climate science, congressional Republicans invariably trot out contrarian scientist John Christy, who disputes the accuracy of climate models. In doing so, Christy uses a cherry-picked, error riddled chart, but there’s a nugget of truth in his argument. Although the discrepancy isn’t nearly as large as Christy’s misleading chart suggests, atmospheric temperatures seem not to have warmed quite as fast since the turn of the century as climate model simulations anticipated they would.

Remote Sensing Systems estimate of the temperature of the middle troposphere compared to the CMIP5 multi-model average (top frame), and the difference between the two over time (bottom frame). Illustration: Santer et al. (2017), Nature Geoscience

How you react to this information is a good test of whether you’re a skeptic or a denier. A denier will declare “aha, the models are wrong, therefore we don’t need any climate policies!” A skeptic will ask what’s causing the difference between the observational estimates and model simulations.

There are many possible explanations. Maybe the tricky and often-adjusted estimates of the atmospheric temperature made by instruments on orbiting satellites are biased. Maybe there’s something wrong with the models, or our understanding of Earth’s atmosphere. Maybe the inputs used in the model simulations are flawed. The answer is likely a combination of these possibilities, but in congressional testimony earlier this year, Christy tried to place the blame entirely on the models, with a denier-style framing:

the average of the models is considered to be untruthful in representing the recent decades of climate variation and change, and thus would be inappropriate for use in predicting future changes in the climate or for related policy decisions.

And in testimony to Congress in December 2015, Christy offered his unsupported speculation that the discrepancy was a result of climate models being too sensitive to rising greenhouse gases:

Indeed, the theoretical (model) view as expressed in the IPCC AR5 in every case overestimated the bulk tropical atmospheric temperature response of extra greenhouse gases … indicating the theoretical understanding of the climate response is too sensitive to greenhouse gases.

New study tests and falsifies Christy’s assertions

In a new study, a team climate scientists led by Ben Santer sought to answer this question. They effectively disproved Christy’s assertion that the discrepancy was due to models being too sensitive to the increased greenhouse effect. Instead, the main culprit seems to be incorrect inputs used in the climate model simulations.

The issue is that climate model simulations are run using specific scenarios. These scenarios assume specific changes in factors that influence global temperature and climate changes (known as “forcings”), like rising levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases and changes in solar and volcanic activity. Climate models don’t make “predictions;” rather, they make “projections” of how temperatures and other climatological factors will change in response to those forcing input scenarios. There’s also a random component known as “internal variability” due to factors like unpredictable ocean cycles. 

An infamous example of deniers exploiting this wonky technical point to mislead policymaker happened in 1998. Congressional Republicans invited fossil fuel-funded Pat Michaels to testify ahead of the Kyoto international climate negotiations. In a shameless distortion of reality, Michaels evaluated a 1988 global temperature projection by James Hansen at NASA, but deleted all except the scenario that was the least like the actual forcing changes that had occurred over the prior decade. By only looking at Hansen’s model projection under a scenario where greenhouse gases rose much faster than they had in reality, Michaels deceptively made it appear as though Hansen’s climate model had vastly over-predicted global warming.

Santer’s team found a similar issue in comparing simulated and observed changes in atmospheric temperatures over the past few decades:

There are known systematic errors in these forcings in model simulations performed in support of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. These errors arise in part because the simulations were performed before more reliable estimates of early 21st century forcing became available. The net effect of the forcing errors is that the simulations underestimate some of the cooling influences contributing to the observed “slowdown”.

For example, were Christy right that models are too sensitive to rising greenhouse gases, they should be systematically wrong during the entire period for which we have observational data. On the contrary, aside from a small discrepancy in the late 20th century that can be explained by natural internal variability, Santer’s team showed that the difference between model simulations and observations only begins around 1998. A problem with model sensitivity would also show up in studies looking at global temperature changes in response to large volcanic eruptions, which create a big change in forcing and temperature. But those studies rule out the low climate sensitivities that Christy favors, and as Santer’s team notes:

there are no large systematic model errors in tropospheric cooling following the eruptions of El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991.

On the other hand, research has identified a number of real-world cooling influences in the early 21st century that weren’t accurately represented in the climate model simulation scenarios. The sun went into an unusually quiet cycle, there was a series of moderate volcanic eruptions, and the boom in Chinese coal power plants added sunlight-blocking pollution to the atmosphere. Using statistical tests, Santer’s team showed that those unexpected cooling effects combined with shifts in ocean cycles best explained the model-data discrepancy in atmospheric temperatures over the past 20 years.

Deniers respond by turning on the spin cycle

Unsurprisingly, in blogs and on Twitter, deniers tried to spin the results of this study in their favor. Some claimed that the paper admitted there was a “pause” or “hiatus” in global warming. In reality, the paper used neither term, but did use the phrase “slowdown” 15 times, including explicitly clarifying that it was a “temporary” slowdown. In other words, the study clearly rejected the myth that global warming “paused;” instead, the rise in atmospheric temperatures temporarily slowed due to the aforementioned decline in solar activity, increase in pollution from coal plants and volcanic eruptions, and shifts on ocean cycles.

Other contrarians have exhibited their confirmation bias by claiming the paper is an admission that climate models are wrong. As statistician George Box said, “all models are wrong, but some are useful.” Declaring that climate models are wrong and tossing them in the waste bin is a brain-dead denial move. What any skeptical scientific mind should want to know is why they’re imperfect – what’s causing the difference between simulations and reality, and what can we learn from that?

Click here to read the rest

from Skeptical Science http://ift.tt/2t4M2Rw

SkS Analogy 9 - The greenhouse effect is a stack of blankets

Tag Line

The greenhouse effect is like a stack of blankets on a winter night.

Elevator Statements

1. More blankets = more warmth: The greenhouse effect is like blankets warming the Earth. If it is -18°C (0°F) in your bedroom, you need a few blankets to keep yourself warm. More blankets = more warming. Too many blankets and you sweat. So the point is that the greenhouse effect is a good thing, up to a point.
2. More blankets means warmer inside, cooler outside: With an increasing number of blankets, the temperature above the blankets gets cooler, because more energy is trapped below the blankets. With increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) in Earth’s atmosphere, the upper atmosphere gets progressively cooler, because more energy is trapped in the lower layers of the atmosphere. This is one way that scientists know that the recent warming is due to greenhouse gases and not due to increasing solar output. In the sleeping analogy, if you turned up the temperature in the room, it would get warmer both above and below the blankets. If the recent warming was due to a hotter sun, then both the upper and lower atmosphere would warm. But the upper atmosphere is getting colder, just as the top of the outer blanket covering you gets colder when you add more blankets but leave the room temperature the same. See the SkS article "Is the CO₂ effect saturated?"
3. It is not the rate at which you put blankets on, but the total number of blankets that determines your final warmth. CO₂ emission rates don’t mean anything, except that if we slow the emission rates it buys us more time. It is the total CO₂ emitted that matters, just like it is only the total number of blankets over you that matters, and not the rate at which you put them on. Carbon budgets refer to the total amount of CO₂ we can emit before we exceed a dangerous level of warming, just as a blanket budget represents the total number of blankets we can tolerate before we start to sweat and overheat. Some skeptics refer to a time about 600 million years ago, during the late Ordovician when CO₂ levels were higher, but earth was the same temperature as now, or cooler. They point to this time to imply that CO₂ levels do not correlate to temperature. But 600 million years ago the sun was cooler (like a colder bedroom), so that the colder bedroom combined with more blankets = similar temperature as today. If you turn down the heat in your room, you need an extra blanket or two. Thus, with a colder room, your blanket budget is higher.

Climate Science

On the topic of the blanket budget, assuming that we warm 3°C for every doubling of CO₂ (this is the average climate sensitivity used by the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]), this corresponds to the following temperature increase for given CO₂ atmospheric concentrations. Each of these atmospheric concentrations roughly corresponds to a particular CO₂ budget.
•    350 ppm CO₂ = 1°C warming
•    445 ppm CO₂ = 2°C warming (2°C is the target agreed to by the Paris Agreement)
•    560 ppm CO₂ = 3°C warming
•    700 ppm CO₂ = 4°C warming (considered by many Climate Scientists to be unbearable)
We are currently at about 406 ppm, increasing at about 2 ppm/year. This means that at the current emission rates we will have reached our budget for 2°C by the year 2035 and crossed into really dangerous territory. This is why Climate Scientists are saying that there is no time to waste for cutting our carbon emissions.

The budgets used by the IPCC  are based on scenarios more complex than the simple math above, but IPCC budget estimates also often assume that we will be able to suck CO₂ out of the air and bury it in the ground … at some time in the future. My simple estimate uses a climate sensitivity of 3°C/doubling of CO₂, and assumes that we will not be successful at sucking CO₂ out of the atmosphere and storing it underground. After all, to bring CO₂ concentrations down means that we have to suck all of the CO₂ emitted in a given year + an extra amount. Is that feasible? Great if we succeed, but at current emission rates we will be at our budget limit by 2035, and the planet will be warming while we are trying to bring these massive negative emissions technologies online. A good read on the subject is Kevin Anderson, or if you can watch him as well.

from Skeptical Science http://ift.tt/2t4JzXd

Tag Line

The greenhouse effect is like a stack of blankets on a winter night.

Elevator Statements

1. More blankets = more warmth: The greenhouse effect is like blankets warming the Earth. If it is -18°C (0°F) in your bedroom, you need a few blankets to keep yourself warm. More blankets = more warming. Too many blankets and you sweat. So the point is that the greenhouse effect is a good thing, up to a point.
2. More blankets means warmer inside, cooler outside: With an increasing number of blankets, the temperature above the blankets gets cooler, because more energy is trapped below the blankets. With increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) in Earth’s atmosphere, the upper atmosphere gets progressively cooler, because more energy is trapped in the lower layers of the atmosphere. This is one way that scientists know that the recent warming is due to greenhouse gases and not due to increasing solar output. In the sleeping analogy, if you turned up the temperature in the room, it would get warmer both above and below the blankets. If the recent warming was due to a hotter sun, then both the upper and lower atmosphere would warm. But the upper atmosphere is getting colder, just as the top of the outer blanket covering you gets colder when you add more blankets but leave the room temperature the same. See the SkS article "Is the CO₂ effect saturated?"
3. It is not the rate at which you put blankets on, but the total number of blankets that determines your final warmth. CO₂ emission rates don’t mean anything, except that if we slow the emission rates it buys us more time. It is the total CO₂ emitted that matters, just like it is only the total number of blankets over you that matters, and not the rate at which you put them on. Carbon budgets refer to the total amount of CO₂ we can emit before we exceed a dangerous level of warming, just as a blanket budget represents the total number of blankets we can tolerate before we start to sweat and overheat. Some skeptics refer to a time about 600 million years ago, during the late Ordovician when CO₂ levels were higher, but earth was the same temperature as now, or cooler. They point to this time to imply that CO₂ levels do not correlate to temperature. But 600 million years ago the sun was cooler (like a colder bedroom), so that the colder bedroom combined with more blankets = similar temperature as today. If you turn down the heat in your room, you need an extra blanket or two. Thus, with a colder room, your blanket budget is higher.

Climate Science

On the topic of the blanket budget, assuming that we warm 3°C for every doubling of CO₂ (this is the average climate sensitivity used by the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]), this corresponds to the following temperature increase for given CO₂ atmospheric concentrations. Each of these atmospheric concentrations roughly corresponds to a particular CO₂ budget.
•    350 ppm CO₂ = 1°C warming
•    445 ppm CO₂ = 2°C warming (2°C is the target agreed to by the Paris Agreement)
•    560 ppm CO₂ = 3°C warming
•    700 ppm CO₂ = 4°C warming (considered by many Climate Scientists to be unbearable)
We are currently at about 406 ppm, increasing at about 2 ppm/year. This means that at the current emission rates we will have reached our budget for 2°C by the year 2035 and crossed into really dangerous territory. This is why Climate Scientists are saying that there is no time to waste for cutting our carbon emissions.

The budgets used by the IPCC  are based on scenarios more complex than the simple math above, but IPCC budget estimates also often assume that we will be able to suck CO₂ out of the air and bury it in the ground … at some time in the future. My simple estimate uses a climate sensitivity of 3°C/doubling of CO₂, and assumes that we will not be successful at sucking CO₂ out of the atmosphere and storing it underground. After all, to bring CO₂ concentrations down means that we have to suck all of the CO₂ emitted in a given year + an extra amount. Is that feasible? Great if we succeed, but at current emission rates we will be at our budget limit by 2035, and the planet will be warming while we are trying to bring these massive negative emissions technologies online. A good read on the subject is Kevin Anderson, or if you can watch him as well.

from Skeptical Science http://ift.tt/2t4JzXd

Why do quasars twinkle?

Globules of hydrogen gas in the Helix Nebula, imaged with the Hubble Space Telescope. Image via C. R. O’Dell/, K. Handron/ NASA/ Manly Astrophysics.

Australian astronomers said on June 27, 2016 that they might have solved the 30-year-old mystery of why quasars twinkle. You know how stars twinkle as seen from Earth’s surface, but not from space? The reason stars twinkle relates to their tiny size as seen from Earth; stars appear as pinpoints, even through earthly telescopes. Earth’s atmosphere is what causes these pinpoint stars to twinkle. Likewise, say these astronomers, the tiny sizes of quasars in space might be related to their twinkling as seen from Earth. But it’s not Earth’s atmosphere causing the twinkling. These astronomers think the cause is gas filaments surrounding stars:

…like the strands of a pompom.

Dr Mark Walker (Manly Astrophysics) and collaborators at Caltech, Manly Astrophysics and CSIRO (the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation) published their conclusions about the twinkling of quasars on June 27 in the peer-reviewed Astrophysical Journal. Their evidence comes from research done with CSIRO’s Compact Array radio telescope in eastern Australia.

Walker’s team was studying quasars – powerful, distant galaxies – when they saw one called PKS 1322–110 start to dim and brighten wildly at radio wavelengths over just a few hours.

“This quasar was twinkling violently,” Walker said.

Quasar radio twinkling was recognized in the 1980s. Most often it is gentle – small, slow changes in radio brightness. Violent twinkling is rare and unpredictable.

Stars in the night sky twinkle when currents of air in our atmosphere focus and defocus their light. In the same way, quasars twinkle when streams of warm gas in interstellar space focus and defocus their radio signals.

But until now it was a mystery what those streams were and where they lay.

The first sign that stars are involved came when the team prepared to look at their twinkling quasar, PKS 1322–110, with one of the 10-m Keck optical telescopes in Hawai’i.

“At that point we realised this quasar is very close on the sky to the hot star Spica,” co-author Dr Vikram Ravi (Caltech) said.

Walker remembered that another violently twinkling quasar, J1819+3845, is close on the sky to the hot star Vega – something previously noted by other researchers. Two hot stars, two twinkling quasars: is this just a coincidence?

Further work suggested it’s not.

Schematic graphic of quasar twinkling. Image via M. Walker/ CSIRO/ Manly Astrophysics.

Walker’s team re-examined earlier data on J1819+3845 and another violent twinkler, PKS 1257–326. They found that this second quasar lies close on the sky to a hot star called Alhakim.

The chance of having both twinkling quasars near hot stars is one in ten million, the researchers calculated.

“We have very detailed observations of these two sources,” co-author Dr Hayley Bignall (CSIRO) said. “They show that the twinkling is caused by long, thin structures.”

The team suggests that every hot star is surrounded by a throng of warm gas filaments, all pointing towards it.

“We think these stars look like the Helix Nebula,” Walker said.

In the Helix a star sits in a swarm of cool globules of molecular hydrogen gas, each about as big as our solar system. Ultraviolet radiation from the star blasts the globules, giving each one a skin of warm gas and a long gas tail flowing outwards.

The star in the Helix is in its death throes, and astronomers usually assume that the globules arose late in the star’s life. But Walker thinks such globules might be present around younger, mainstream stars. “They might date from when the stars formed, or even earlier,” he said.

“Globules don’t emit much light, so they could be common yet have escaped notice so far,” he added.

“Now we’ll turn over every rock to find more signs of them.”

CSIRO’s Australia Telescope Compact Array. Image via D. Smyth/ Manly Astrophysics.

Bottom line:

Via Manly Astrophysics

from EarthSky http://ift.tt/2tnF2St

Globules of hydrogen gas in the Helix Nebula, imaged with the Hubble Space Telescope. Image via C. R. O’Dell/, K. Handron/ NASA/ Manly Astrophysics.

Australian astronomers said on June 27, 2016 that they might have solved the 30-year-old mystery of why quasars twinkle. You know how stars twinkle as seen from Earth’s surface, but not from space? The reason stars twinkle relates to their tiny size as seen from Earth; stars appear as pinpoints, even through earthly telescopes. Earth’s atmosphere is what causes these pinpoint stars to twinkle. Likewise, say these astronomers, the tiny sizes of quasars in space might be related to their twinkling as seen from Earth. But it’s not Earth’s atmosphere causing the twinkling. These astronomers think the cause is gas filaments surrounding stars:

…like the strands of a pompom.

Dr Mark Walker (Manly Astrophysics) and collaborators at Caltech, Manly Astrophysics and CSIRO (the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation) published their conclusions about the twinkling of quasars on June 27 in the peer-reviewed Astrophysical Journal. Their evidence comes from research done with CSIRO’s Compact Array radio telescope in eastern Australia.

Walker’s team was studying quasars – powerful, distant galaxies – when they saw one called PKS 1322–110 start to dim and brighten wildly at radio wavelengths over just a few hours.

“This quasar was twinkling violently,” Walker said.

Quasar radio twinkling was recognized in the 1980s. Most often it is gentle – small, slow changes in radio brightness. Violent twinkling is rare and unpredictable.

Stars in the night sky twinkle when currents of air in our atmosphere focus and defocus their light. In the same way, quasars twinkle when streams of warm gas in interstellar space focus and defocus their radio signals.

But until now it was a mystery what those streams were and where they lay.

The first sign that stars are involved came when the team prepared to look at their twinkling quasar, PKS 1322–110, with one of the 10-m Keck optical telescopes in Hawai’i.

“At that point we realised this quasar is very close on the sky to the hot star Spica,” co-author Dr Vikram Ravi (Caltech) said.

Walker remembered that another violently twinkling quasar, J1819+3845, is close on the sky to the hot star Vega – something previously noted by other researchers. Two hot stars, two twinkling quasars: is this just a coincidence?

Further work suggested it’s not.

Schematic graphic of quasar twinkling. Image via M. Walker/ CSIRO/ Manly Astrophysics.

Walker’s team re-examined earlier data on J1819+3845 and another violent twinkler, PKS 1257–326. They found that this second quasar lies close on the sky to a hot star called Alhakim.

The chance of having both twinkling quasars near hot stars is one in ten million, the researchers calculated.

“We have very detailed observations of these two sources,” co-author Dr Hayley Bignall (CSIRO) said. “They show that the twinkling is caused by long, thin structures.”

The team suggests that every hot star is surrounded by a throng of warm gas filaments, all pointing towards it.

“We think these stars look like the Helix Nebula,” Walker said.

In the Helix a star sits in a swarm of cool globules of molecular hydrogen gas, each about as big as our solar system. Ultraviolet radiation from the star blasts the globules, giving each one a skin of warm gas and a long gas tail flowing outwards.

The star in the Helix is in its death throes, and astronomers usually assume that the globules arose late in the star’s life. But Walker thinks such globules might be present around younger, mainstream stars. “They might date from when the stars formed, or even earlier,” he said.

“Globules don’t emit much light, so they could be common yet have escaped notice so far,” he added.

“Now we’ll turn over every rock to find more signs of them.”

CSIRO’s Australia Telescope Compact Array. Image via D. Smyth/ Manly Astrophysics.

Bottom line:

Via Manly Astrophysics

from EarthSky http://ift.tt/2tnF2St