Your Jargon-Busting Guide to the Paris Climate Change Talks

It’s all about the brackets.

chungking/Shutterstock

 

On Monday, more than 140 world leaders will gather in Paris to kick off tense two-week treaty negotiations over the fate of a planet in crisis. If this were about any topic other than climate change, it might even make the news.

Granted, there’s been a lot of other news out of France recently—a major climate-themed march in Paris will be canceled for security concerns. And there is going to be a lot of coverage of the Paris climate talks. But it will be nothing compared to the attention that would be paid to a last-ditch meeting to avoid a nuclear standoff—even though climate change is no less dangerous. As Climate Home previews, “a treaty at this scale has never been accomplished before, and the one under construction will affect the way the entire global economy operates.”

Maybe climate change tends to take a back seat because the talks themselves are a jargon-filled monstrosity of diplomatic protocol, which means no one—not even the diplomats themselves!—understands what’s happening half of the time.

Read the rest at Slate.

 

from Climate Desk http://ift.tt/1XsILYt

It’s all about the brackets.

chungking/Shutterstock

 

On Monday, more than 140 world leaders will gather in Paris to kick off tense two-week treaty negotiations over the fate of a planet in crisis. If this were about any topic other than climate change, it might even make the news.

Granted, there’s been a lot of other news out of France recently—a major climate-themed march in Paris will be canceled for security concerns. And there is going to be a lot of coverage of the Paris climate talks. But it will be nothing compared to the attention that would be paid to a last-ditch meeting to avoid a nuclear standoff—even though climate change is no less dangerous. As Climate Home previews, “a treaty at this scale has never been accomplished before, and the one under construction will affect the way the entire global economy operates.”

Maybe climate change tends to take a back seat because the talks themselves are a jargon-filled monstrosity of diplomatic protocol, which means no one—not even the diplomats themselves!—understands what’s happening half of the time.

Read the rest at Slate.

 

from Climate Desk http://ift.tt/1XsILYt

Food banks use technology to fight hunger [The Pump Handle]

As many of us indulged in Thanksgiving meals last week, NPR’s Planet Money podcast and WAMU’s Metro Connection shared stories on ways food banks are using technology to improve food distribution.

The Planet Money story focuses on how Feeding America, a nationwide network of food banks, distributes the donated food it gets from farmers, manufacturers, retailers, and government organizations. Until a few years ago, the headquarters staff didn’t know enough about what kinds of food local organizations most needed or could arrange to get – which is why a food bank in Alaska missed out on a shipment of oranges they could have arranged to transport, but ended up with a truckload of pickles.

The solution, explains the Planet Money story, was an online auction site where local food banks can submit sealed bids. The local organizations receive daily allotments of virtual dollars, and the amount they bid on a particular lot of food signals how much they need it. It’s unlikely that a bank will bid on food it can’t use (like potatoes in Idaho, where the food bank already has plenty of potato donations), so waste is reduced.

As the story makes clear, the Feeding America system relies on the efficiency of a market. Like most US households, local food banks don’t have enough virtual dollars to get all the food they could possibly want, so they have to plan and prioritize. But Feeding America’s system is different from a typical market in one crucial way: The food banks that serve the most people get the most virtual dollars. The full 18-minute Planet Money episode is well worth a listen.

One of Feeding America’s members, the Capital Area Food Bank in Washington, DC, has figured out an additional way to use technology to serve food-insecure families efficiently. In a July 2015 story that ran again Thanksgiving weekend, Lauren Ober of WAMU’s Metro Connection explained how the Capital Area Food Bank’s Hunger Heat Map lets the organization find areas of unmet need. It combines census data on poverty and food insecurity with information on where food is already being distributed. Ober gives an example:

If you’re driving on Jefferson Davis Highway in Woodbridge, Virginia, it’s easy to miss the Marumsco Mobile Home Park. First, there’s no signage or street address out front. Second, it’s basically hidden in a gully behind an Auto Zone and a taco joint on the busy road.

Because of its location, the kids who live at Marumsco are basically trapped in the park during the summer. Most are children of Latino immigrants and many live in poverty. They need the services that the food bank provides, but they can’t get to them.

“This is a remote location for them,” said Amanda Brundidge, the mobile meals program coordinator for the Capital Area Food Bank. “They can’t cross the main street. And they have barriers that prevent them from going to the mobile sites.”

After recognizing this unmet need, the Capital Area Food Bank started sending a Kids Food Bus to four new locations, including the Marumsco Mobile Home Park.

In the US, 48 million people – approximately one in seven – face food insecurity. I hope that shameful number will decline, but in the meantime it’s a good thing we have so many creative, committed people tackling the problem.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1OAjSlT

As many of us indulged in Thanksgiving meals last week, NPR’s Planet Money podcast and WAMU’s Metro Connection shared stories on ways food banks are using technology to improve food distribution.

The Planet Money story focuses on how Feeding America, a nationwide network of food banks, distributes the donated food it gets from farmers, manufacturers, retailers, and government organizations. Until a few years ago, the headquarters staff didn’t know enough about what kinds of food local organizations most needed or could arrange to get – which is why a food bank in Alaska missed out on a shipment of oranges they could have arranged to transport, but ended up with a truckload of pickles.

The solution, explains the Planet Money story, was an online auction site where local food banks can submit sealed bids. The local organizations receive daily allotments of virtual dollars, and the amount they bid on a particular lot of food signals how much they need it. It’s unlikely that a bank will bid on food it can’t use (like potatoes in Idaho, where the food bank already has plenty of potato donations), so waste is reduced.

As the story makes clear, the Feeding America system relies on the efficiency of a market. Like most US households, local food banks don’t have enough virtual dollars to get all the food they could possibly want, so they have to plan and prioritize. But Feeding America’s system is different from a typical market in one crucial way: The food banks that serve the most people get the most virtual dollars. The full 18-minute Planet Money episode is well worth a listen.

One of Feeding America’s members, the Capital Area Food Bank in Washington, DC, has figured out an additional way to use technology to serve food-insecure families efficiently. In a July 2015 story that ran again Thanksgiving weekend, Lauren Ober of WAMU’s Metro Connection explained how the Capital Area Food Bank’s Hunger Heat Map lets the organization find areas of unmet need. It combines census data on poverty and food insecurity with information on where food is already being distributed. Ober gives an example:

If you’re driving on Jefferson Davis Highway in Woodbridge, Virginia, it’s easy to miss the Marumsco Mobile Home Park. First, there’s no signage or street address out front. Second, it’s basically hidden in a gully behind an Auto Zone and a taco joint on the busy road.

Because of its location, the kids who live at Marumsco are basically trapped in the park during the summer. Most are children of Latino immigrants and many live in poverty. They need the services that the food bank provides, but they can’t get to them.

“This is a remote location for them,” said Amanda Brundidge, the mobile meals program coordinator for the Capital Area Food Bank. “They can’t cross the main street. And they have barriers that prevent them from going to the mobile sites.”

After recognizing this unmet need, the Capital Area Food Bank started sending a Kids Food Bus to four new locations, including the Marumsco Mobile Home Park.

In the US, 48 million people – approximately one in seven – face food insecurity. I hope that shameful number will decline, but in the meantime it’s a good thing we have so many creative, committed people tackling the problem.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1OAjSlT

On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit [Greg Laden's Blog]

A new paper out in the journal Judgement and Decision Making by Gordon Pennycook, James Cheyne, Nathaniel Barr, Derek Koehler, and Jonathan Fugelsang. The abstract:

Although bullshit is common in everyday life and has attracted attention from philosophers, its reception (critical or ingenuous) has not, to our knowledge, been subject to empirical investigation. Here we focus on pseudo-profound bullshit, which consists of seemingly impressive assertions that are presented as true and meaningful but are actually vacuous. We presented participants with bullshit statements consisting of buzzwords randomly organized into statements with syntactic structure but no discernible meaning (e.g., “Wholeness quiets infinite phenomena”). Across multiple studies, the propensity to judge bullshit statements as profound was associated with a variety of conceptually relevant variables (e.g., intuitive cognitive style, supernatural belief). Parallel associations were less evident among profundity judgments for more conventionally profound (e.g., “A wet person does not fear the rain”) or mundane (e.g., “Newborn babies require constant attention”) statements. These results support the idea that some people are more receptive to this type of bullshit and that detecting it is not merely a matter of indiscriminate skepticism but rather a discernment of deceptive vagueness in otherwise impressive sounding claims. Our results also suggest that a bias toward accepting statements as true may be an important component of pseudo-profound bullshit receptivity.

Keywords: bullshit, bullshit detection, dual-process theories, analytic thinking, supernatural beliefs, religiosity, conspiratorial ideation, complementary and alternative medicine.

The paper is here.

Hat tip: Stephan Lewandowsky

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1RhdAue

A new paper out in the journal Judgement and Decision Making by Gordon Pennycook, James Cheyne, Nathaniel Barr, Derek Koehler, and Jonathan Fugelsang. The abstract:

Although bullshit is common in everyday life and has attracted attention from philosophers, its reception (critical or ingenuous) has not, to our knowledge, been subject to empirical investigation. Here we focus on pseudo-profound bullshit, which consists of seemingly impressive assertions that are presented as true and meaningful but are actually vacuous. We presented participants with bullshit statements consisting of buzzwords randomly organized into statements with syntactic structure but no discernible meaning (e.g., “Wholeness quiets infinite phenomena”). Across multiple studies, the propensity to judge bullshit statements as profound was associated with a variety of conceptually relevant variables (e.g., intuitive cognitive style, supernatural belief). Parallel associations were less evident among profundity judgments for more conventionally profound (e.g., “A wet person does not fear the rain”) or mundane (e.g., “Newborn babies require constant attention”) statements. These results support the idea that some people are more receptive to this type of bullshit and that detecting it is not merely a matter of indiscriminate skepticism but rather a discernment of deceptive vagueness in otherwise impressive sounding claims. Our results also suggest that a bias toward accepting statements as true may be an important component of pseudo-profound bullshit receptivity.

Keywords: bullshit, bullshit detection, dual-process theories, analytic thinking, supernatural beliefs, religiosity, conspiratorial ideation, complementary and alternative medicine.

The paper is here.

Hat tip: Stephan Lewandowsky

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1RhdAue

Obama Just Called Saving the Planet an “Act of Defiance” Against Terror

As major UN talks kick off in Paris, the president acknowledged America’s role in causing global warming.

A major two-week summit on climate change opened on Monday in Paris, and President Barack Obama was there to urge world leaders to push for a strong international agreement to slow global warming.

In his speech (video above), the president also offered a rebuke to the terrorists behind the November 13 attacks in the French capital that left 130 people dead.

The summit, he said, is “an act of defiance that proves nothing will deter us from building the future we want for our children.”

Obama acknowledged America’s unique responsibility for ensuring success at the talks, which are designed to produce an unprecedented agreement between nearly 200 nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and prepare for the impacts of climate change. It’s the first time nations have tried to reach that goal since the last major climate summit, in 2009 in Copenhagen, crumbled over disagreements between the United States, China, and developing nations.

In his second term, Obama has sought to make action on climate change a central part of his legacy; a strong agreement in Paris would be a vital component to that. “I’ve come here personally, as the leader of the world’s largest economy and the second-largest emitter,” Obama said, “to say that the United States of America not only recognizes our role in creating this problem, we embrace our responsibility to do something about it.”

Prior to the speech, Obama met privately with Chinese President Xi Jinping. The two leaders have worked closely over the last year to advance a joint climate agenda. Xi also gave a speech, in which he said it was “very important for China and the United States to be firmly committed to the right direction of building a new model of major country relations.”

Obama’s remarks come a day after the White House announced a sweeping initiative to double public-sector investment in clean energy research and development from $5 billion to $10 billion by 2020. That new program, known as Mission Innovation, also includes more than a dozen major private-sector investors, including Bill Gates, Richard Branson, and Mark Zuckerberg.

Finance for clean energy and for climate change adaptation is likely to be a major issue at the talks, as vulnerable nations in Africa, Southeast Asia, and elsewhere urge the United States and other major emitters to pony up more cash. At the last major climate summit in Copenhagen, countries agreed to raise $100 billion per year for a UN-administered climate adaptation fund. That goal is only about two-thirds met.

from Climate Desk http://ift.tt/1NE2Iqq

As major UN talks kick off in Paris, the president acknowledged America’s role in causing global warming.

A major two-week summit on climate change opened on Monday in Paris, and President Barack Obama was there to urge world leaders to push for a strong international agreement to slow global warming.

In his speech (video above), the president also offered a rebuke to the terrorists behind the November 13 attacks in the French capital that left 130 people dead.

The summit, he said, is “an act of defiance that proves nothing will deter us from building the future we want for our children.”

Obama acknowledged America’s unique responsibility for ensuring success at the talks, which are designed to produce an unprecedented agreement between nearly 200 nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and prepare for the impacts of climate change. It’s the first time nations have tried to reach that goal since the last major climate summit, in 2009 in Copenhagen, crumbled over disagreements between the United States, China, and developing nations.

In his second term, Obama has sought to make action on climate change a central part of his legacy; a strong agreement in Paris would be a vital component to that. “I’ve come here personally, as the leader of the world’s largest economy and the second-largest emitter,” Obama said, “to say that the United States of America not only recognizes our role in creating this problem, we embrace our responsibility to do something about it.”

Prior to the speech, Obama met privately with Chinese President Xi Jinping. The two leaders have worked closely over the last year to advance a joint climate agenda. Xi also gave a speech, in which he said it was “very important for China and the United States to be firmly committed to the right direction of building a new model of major country relations.”

Obama’s remarks come a day after the White House announced a sweeping initiative to double public-sector investment in clean energy research and development from $5 billion to $10 billion by 2020. That new program, known as Mission Innovation, also includes more than a dozen major private-sector investors, including Bill Gates, Richard Branson, and Mark Zuckerberg.

Finance for clean energy and for climate change adaptation is likely to be a major issue at the talks, as vulnerable nations in Africa, Southeast Asia, and elsewhere urge the United States and other major emitters to pony up more cash. At the last major climate summit in Copenhagen, countries agreed to raise $100 billion per year for a UN-administered climate adaptation fund. That goal is only about two-thirds met.

from Climate Desk http://ift.tt/1NE2Iqq

Army ants build living bridges

Army ants of the species Eciton hamatum move in columns over the forest floor of Central and South America, killing every insect in their path. If a chasm or gap disrupts the raiding swarm, the ants simply build a bridge — using their own bodies. Instinctively stretching across the opening, clinging on to one another, the ants pass over the living bridge even as they’re assembling it. Army ant swarms might form several bridges during a day, which can see the back-and-forth of thousands of ants.

New research, published November 23, 2015 by Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reports that these structures are more sophisticated than scientists knew. The ants form living bridges without any oversight from a “lead” ant, the researchers say. Instead, the action of each individual ant coalesces into a group unit, say the researchers, that adapts to the terrain and yet operates by a clear cost-benefit ratio. The ants will create a path over an open space up to the point when too many workers are being diverted from collecting food and prey.

Matthew Lutz, a graduate student in Princeton’s Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology is the study’s co-first author. Lutz said:

These ants are performing a collective computation. At the level of the entire colony, they’re saying they can afford this many ants locked up in this bridge, but no more than that. There’s no single ant overseeing the decision, they’re making that calculation as a colony.

Individual ants adjust to one another’s choices to create a successful structure, say the researchers, despite the fact that each ant doesn’t necessarily know everything about the size of the gap or the traffic flow. Co-author Iain Couzin is director of the Max Planck Institute for Ornithology and chair of biodiversity and collective behavior at the University of Konstanz in Germany. Couzin said:

They don’t know how many other ants are in the bridge, or what the overall traffic situation is. They only know about their local connections to others, and the sense of ants moving over their bodies. Yet, they have evolved simple rules that allow them to keep reconfiguring until, collectively, they have made a structure of an appropriate size for the prevailing conditions.

The researchers found that the ants, when confronted with an open space, start from the narrowest point of the expanse and work toward the widest point, expanding the bridge as they go to shorten the distance their compatriots must travel to get around the expanse. Previously, scientists thought that ant bridges were static structures.

Image credit: Matthew Lutz, Princeton University and Chris Reid, University of Sydney.

In robotics, say the researchers, understanding more about how these ants work could help with creating robots that don’t just rely on themselves, but can exploit the group to do more: Imagine simple robots able to navigate complex spaces singly, but could self-assemble into larger structures — bridges, towers, pulling chains, rafts — when they face something they individually did not have the ability to do.

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

Bottom line: According to research published November 23, 2015 by Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Army ants of the species Eciton hamatum form living bridges without any oversight from a “lead” ant. Instead, the action of each individual ant coalesces into a group unit that adapts to the terrain and yet operates by a clear cost-benefit ratio.

Read more from Princeton University

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

Army ants of the species Eciton hamatum move in columns over the forest floor of Central and South America, killing every insect in their path. If a chasm or gap disrupts the raiding swarm, the ants simply build a bridge — using their own bodies. Instinctively stretching across the opening, clinging on to one another, the ants pass over the living bridge even as they’re assembling it. Army ant swarms might form several bridges during a day, which can see the back-and-forth of thousands of ants.

New research, published November 23, 2015 by Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reports that these structures are more sophisticated than scientists knew. The ants form living bridges without any oversight from a “lead” ant, the researchers say. Instead, the action of each individual ant coalesces into a group unit, say the researchers, that adapts to the terrain and yet operates by a clear cost-benefit ratio. The ants will create a path over an open space up to the point when too many workers are being diverted from collecting food and prey.

Matthew Lutz, a graduate student in Princeton’s Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology is the study’s co-first author. Lutz said:

These ants are performing a collective computation. At the level of the entire colony, they’re saying they can afford this many ants locked up in this bridge, but no more than that. There’s no single ant overseeing the decision, they’re making that calculation as a colony.

Individual ants adjust to one another’s choices to create a successful structure, say the researchers, despite the fact that each ant doesn’t necessarily know everything about the size of the gap or the traffic flow. Co-author Iain Couzin is director of the Max Planck Institute for Ornithology and chair of biodiversity and collective behavior at the University of Konstanz in Germany. Couzin said:

They don’t know how many other ants are in the bridge, or what the overall traffic situation is. They only know about their local connections to others, and the sense of ants moving over their bodies. Yet, they have evolved simple rules that allow them to keep reconfiguring until, collectively, they have made a structure of an appropriate size for the prevailing conditions.

The researchers found that the ants, when confronted with an open space, start from the narrowest point of the expanse and work toward the widest point, expanding the bridge as they go to shorten the distance their compatriots must travel to get around the expanse. Previously, scientists thought that ant bridges were static structures.

Image credit: Matthew Lutz, Princeton University and Chris Reid, University of Sydney.

In robotics, say the researchers, understanding more about how these ants work could help with creating robots that don’t just rely on themselves, but can exploit the group to do more: Imagine simple robots able to navigate complex spaces singly, but could self-assemble into larger structures — bridges, towers, pulling chains, rafts — when they face something they individually did not have the ability to do.

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

Bottom line: According to research published November 23, 2015 by Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Army ants of the species Eciton hamatum form living bridges without any oversight from a “lead” ant. Instead, the action of each individual ant coalesces into a group unit that adapts to the terrain and yet operates by a clear cost-benefit ratio.

Read more from Princeton University

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

LISA Pathfinder launch timeline

On Wednesday, a Vega rocket will boost LISA Pathfinder into space to pave the way to a future mission for detecting gravitational waves. Once aloft, ESA’s mission control teams will pace the ultra high-tech spacecraft through the critical first days of the journey to its final destination.

At 04:15 GMT (05:15 CET) on Wednesday, 2 December, ESA’s LISA Pathfinder is set to lift off on a 30 m-tall Vega rocket from Europe’s Spaceport in Kourou, French Guiana, for a 105-minute ride into orbit.

LISA Pathfinder is a demonstrator to help open up a completely new window into the Universe: it will test new technologies needed to measure gravitational waves in space. Predicted by Albert Einstein, these waves are ripples in the curvature of spacetime produced by massive celestial events, such as the merging of black holes.

Detecting gravitational waves would be an additional confirmation of General Relativity, and greatly improve our knowledge of the most powerful phenomena in the Universe.
Ariane 5 flight V188 rises above ESA's Estrack station in Kourou, French Guyana
Kourou tracking station

Separation from Vega is expected at 06:00 GMT (07:00 CET), marking the moment when controllers at ESA’s ESOC operations centre in Darmstadt, Germany, take over the satellite.

First contact is expected two minutes later, around 06:02 GMT (07:02 CET) via the ground station at Kourou.

After confirming LISA Pathfinder’s status and overall health, ground teams will start an intensive cycle of crucial and complex orbit-raising manoeuvres.

These will include firing the mission’s propulsion module six times during 6–11 December to raise its initial orbit, before beginning a six-week cruise phase to its operational orbit some 1.5 million km from Earth in a sunward direction.

After arriving at the final working orbit, the propulsion module will be discarded in later January, and, after about three months of setting-up and calibration, the science mission will begin in March.

The liftoff will be streamed live via two separate programmes on Wednesday: launch webcast live from Kourou, 03:55 GMT (04:55 CET) start; and a media briefing live from ESOC, 05:45 GMT (06:45 CET) start (links to each via http://www.esa.int).

The timeline below is subject to change. An expanded version is available on ESA’s Rocket Science blog.

1-2 December 2015

 

MET	GMT	CET	Vega VV06	LISA Pathfinder/ESOC	Tracking stations
L-09:10:00	19:05:00	20:05:00		Flight Control Team ‘on console’ in ESOC Main Control Room; start of prelaunch activities (B-section)
L-09:00:00	19:15:00	20:15:00		ESOC teams begin monitoring spacecraft and ground systems, receiving live telemetry from LISA Pathfinder on top of Vega via umbilical
L-08:00:00	20:15:00	21:15:00	Start of Vega countdown
L-06:00:00	22:15:00	23:15:00		Start of ESOC network countdown; mission controllers continue monitoring LISA Pathfinder	Ground tracking stations: Start of dedicated LPF launch support. Begin station check outs at ESA 15m stations at Perth (Aus), Maspalomas (Spain), Kourou (F. Guiana) plus ASI station Malindi (Kenya)
L-05:45:00	22:30:00	23:30:00		ESOC starts a series of data flow tests to confirm primary & backup data links between ESOC and tracking stations	Data flow tests KRU, MAS, PER, MAL-X
L-05:30:00	22:45:00	23:45:00	Activation of Vega Multi Function Unit - MFU controls the launcher's critical systems (incl power distribution & pyrotechnics)
L-05:10:00	23:05:00	00:05:00	"Vega Inertial Reference System on; Vega telemetry starts flowing"
L-05:05:00	23:10:00	00:10:00		ESOC Flight Director conducts first formal check of ground segment launch readiness: confirms that teams, systems and stations are ready	Data flow tests contiune: test back-up links to stations
L-04:55:00	23:20:00	00:20:00		ESOC Flight Director reports ground segment status to Kourou launch control centre
L-04:50:00	23:25:00	00:25:00	Activation of Vega Safeguard Master Unit - SMU controls safety self-destruct, which can be commanded by ground or autonomously in case of degraded flight behaviour
L-04:20:00	23:55:00	00:55:00	Activation of Vega onboard computer and loading of flight program
L-03:45:00	00:30:00	01:30:00			End of data flow tests via back-up station links. Links now configured for actual LPF TM. Begin data flow tests on primary links.
L-02:40:00	01:35:00	02:35:00	Mobile gantry withdrawal (45 mins)
L-02:30:00	01:45:00	02:45:00			End of data flow tests via primary station links. Links now configured for actual LPF TM. All data flow tests complete; ground segment configured for actual LPF TM
L-02:00:00	02:15:00	03:15:00		Mission Control Team handover in ESOC MCR. A-Section engineers briefed by B-Section counterparts.
L-01:45:00	02:30:00	03:30:00		A-Section of Mission Control Team now on console in MCR	Station engineer team at Kourou depart for safe area. From now until launch, KRU station operated remotely from ESOC.
L-01:55:00	02:20:00	03:20:00	Alignment and checks of Inertial Reference System (after withdrawal of gantry)
L-01:15:00	03:00:00	04:00:00	Vega telemetry transmitter on (after withdrawal of gantry) Vega transponders on
L-00:55:00	03:20:00	04:20:00		ESA Flight Director conducts Go/NoGo roll call in Main Control Room
L-00:35:00	03:40:00	04:40:00		ESOC Spacecraft Operations Manager conducts final briefing with ground tracking stations	All stations in conference with ESOC
L-00:34:00	03:41:00	04:41:00	Launcher system ready
L-00:25:00	03:50:00	04:50:00		ESOC Flight Director conducts final formal check of ground segment launch readiness: confirms that teams, systems and stations are ready
L-00:15:00	04:00:00	05:00:00	LISA Pathfinder on internal power	ESOC Flight Director confirms ground segment ready for launch to Kourou launch control centre
L-00:10:00	04:05:00	05:05:00	Last Kourou weather report before launch
L-00:04:00	04:11:00	05:11:00	Start of Vega synchronized sequence
L-00:00:08	04:14:52	05:14:52	Last possible launch abort
00:00:00	04:15:00	05:15:00	Vega first stage ignition
00:00:01	04:15:01	05:15:01	LIFT OFF
L+00:01:53	04:16:53	05:16:53	Separation of first stage
L+00:01:54	04:16:54	05:16:54	Second stage ignition
L+00:02:30	04:17:30	05:17:30			All tracking stations configured for AOS - first acquisition of signal
L+00:03:37	04:18:37	05:18:37	Separation of second stage
L+00:03:49	04:18:49	05:18:49	Third stage ignition
L+00:04:03	04:19:03	05:19:03	Fairing jettisoned
L+00:06:30	04:21:30	05:21:30	Separation of third stage
L+00:07:29	04:22:29	05:22:29	Fourth stage first burn
L+00:16:23	04:31:23	05:31:23	Fourth stage shutdown
L+01:41:19	05:56:19	06:56:19	Fourth stage second burn
L+01:42:53	05:57:53	06:57:53	Fourth stage second shutdown
L+01:45:33	06:00:33	07:00:33	LISA Pathfinder release command
L+01:45:33	06:00:33	07:00:33	SEPARATION	LISA Pathfinder separates from fourth stage; begins automatic sequence
L+01:47:03	06:02:03	07:02:03	Acquisition of signal (earliest) from satellite via Kourou station	KRU AOS LPF
L+01:48:00	06:03:00	07:03:00		ESOC issues test command	"KRU transmits test command KRU starts ranging & Doppler for orbit determination"
L+01:55:10	06:10:10	07:10:10	Fourth stage third burn, for deorbiting
L+01:55:17	06:10:17	07:10:17	Fourth stage shutdown
L+02:10:00	06:25:00	07:25:00		LISA Pathfinder end of automatic sequence. In stable, Sun-pointing mode. ESOC teams continue checkout

Notes:

CET offset = 01:00:00
Vega launcher is also tracked by separate dedicated stations. These are not indicated in this timeline.

Abbreviations:

LCC: Launcher Control Centre, Jupiter Control Room, Kourou, French Guyana
ESOC: European Space Operations Centre, Darmstadt, Germany
OD: ESA Flight Operations Director in Main Control Room
VV06: Arianespace Vega launcher flight VV06
MET: Mission Elapsed Time - before/after liftoff times are -/+
LPF: LISA Pathfinder spacecraft
AOS: Acquisition of signal
LOS: Loss of signal
MCR: Main Control Room at ESOC
OM: ESA Ground Operations Manager in Main Control Room
SOM: ESA Spacecraft Operations Manager in Main Control Room

 

from Rocket Science » Rocket Science http://ift.tt/1OqEKxI
v

On Wednesday, a Vega rocket will boost LISA Pathfinder into space to pave the way to a future mission for detecting gravitational waves. Once aloft, ESA’s mission control teams will pace the ultra high-tech spacecraft through the critical first days of the journey to its final destination.

At 04:15 GMT (05:15 CET) on Wednesday, 2 December, ESA’s LISA Pathfinder is set to lift off on a 30 m-tall Vega rocket from Europe’s Spaceport in Kourou, French Guiana, for a 105-minute ride into orbit.

LISA Pathfinder is a demonstrator to help open up a completely new window into the Universe: it will test new technologies needed to measure gravitational waves in space. Predicted by Albert Einstein, these waves are ripples in the curvature of spacetime produced by massive celestial events, such as the merging of black holes.

Detecting gravitational waves would be an additional confirmation of General Relativity, and greatly improve our knowledge of the most powerful phenomena in the Universe.
Ariane 5 flight V188 rises above ESA's Estrack station in Kourou, French Guyana
Kourou tracking station

Separation from Vega is expected at 06:00 GMT (07:00 CET), marking the moment when controllers at ESA’s ESOC operations centre in Darmstadt, Germany, take over the satellite.

First contact is expected two minutes later, around 06:02 GMT (07:02 CET) via the ground station at Kourou.

After confirming LISA Pathfinder’s status and overall health, ground teams will start an intensive cycle of crucial and complex orbit-raising manoeuvres.

These will include firing the mission’s propulsion module six times during 6–11 December to raise its initial orbit, before beginning a six-week cruise phase to its operational orbit some 1.5 million km from Earth in a sunward direction.

After arriving at the final working orbit, the propulsion module will be discarded in later January, and, after about three months of setting-up and calibration, the science mission will begin in March.

The liftoff will be streamed live via two separate programmes on Wednesday: launch webcast live from Kourou, 03:55 GMT (04:55 CET) start; and a media briefing live from ESOC, 05:45 GMT (06:45 CET) start (links to each via http://www.esa.int).

The timeline below is subject to change. An expanded version is available on ESA’s Rocket Science blog.

1-2 December 2015

 

MET	GMT	CET	Vega VV06	LISA Pathfinder/ESOC	Tracking stations
L-09:10:00	19:05:00	20:05:00		Flight Control Team ‘on console’ in ESOC Main Control Room; start of prelaunch activities (B-section)
L-09:00:00	19:15:00	20:15:00		ESOC teams begin monitoring spacecraft and ground systems, receiving live telemetry from LISA Pathfinder on top of Vega via umbilical
L-08:00:00	20:15:00	21:15:00	Start of Vega countdown
L-06:00:00	22:15:00	23:15:00		Start of ESOC network countdown; mission controllers continue monitoring LISA Pathfinder	Ground tracking stations: Start of dedicated LPF launch support. Begin station check outs at ESA 15m stations at Perth (Aus), Maspalomas (Spain), Kourou (F. Guiana) plus ASI station Malindi (Kenya)
L-05:45:00	22:30:00	23:30:00		ESOC starts a series of data flow tests to confirm primary & backup data links between ESOC and tracking stations	Data flow tests KRU, MAS, PER, MAL-X
L-05:30:00	22:45:00	23:45:00	Activation of Vega Multi Function Unit - MFU controls the launcher's critical systems (incl power distribution & pyrotechnics)
L-05:10:00	23:05:00	00:05:00	"Vega Inertial Reference System on; Vega telemetry starts flowing"
L-05:05:00	23:10:00	00:10:00		ESOC Flight Director conducts first formal check of ground segment launch readiness: confirms that teams, systems and stations are ready	Data flow tests contiune: test back-up links to stations
L-04:55:00	23:20:00	00:20:00		ESOC Flight Director reports ground segment status to Kourou launch control centre
L-04:50:00	23:25:00	00:25:00	Activation of Vega Safeguard Master Unit - SMU controls safety self-destruct, which can be commanded by ground or autonomously in case of degraded flight behaviour
L-04:20:00	23:55:00	00:55:00	Activation of Vega onboard computer and loading of flight program
L-03:45:00	00:30:00	01:30:00			End of data flow tests via back-up station links. Links now configured for actual LPF TM. Begin data flow tests on primary links.
L-02:40:00	01:35:00	02:35:00	Mobile gantry withdrawal (45 mins)
L-02:30:00	01:45:00	02:45:00			End of data flow tests via primary station links. Links now configured for actual LPF TM. All data flow tests complete; ground segment configured for actual LPF TM
L-02:00:00	02:15:00	03:15:00		Mission Control Team handover in ESOC MCR. A-Section engineers briefed by B-Section counterparts.
L-01:45:00	02:30:00	03:30:00		A-Section of Mission Control Team now on console in MCR	Station engineer team at Kourou depart for safe area. From now until launch, KRU station operated remotely from ESOC.
L-01:55:00	02:20:00	03:20:00	Alignment and checks of Inertial Reference System (after withdrawal of gantry)
L-01:15:00	03:00:00	04:00:00	Vega telemetry transmitter on (after withdrawal of gantry) Vega transponders on
L-00:55:00	03:20:00	04:20:00		ESA Flight Director conducts Go/NoGo roll call in Main Control Room
L-00:35:00	03:40:00	04:40:00		ESOC Spacecraft Operations Manager conducts final briefing with ground tracking stations	All stations in conference with ESOC
L-00:34:00	03:41:00	04:41:00	Launcher system ready
L-00:25:00	03:50:00	04:50:00		ESOC Flight Director conducts final formal check of ground segment launch readiness: confirms that teams, systems and stations are ready
L-00:15:00	04:00:00	05:00:00	LISA Pathfinder on internal power	ESOC Flight Director confirms ground segment ready for launch to Kourou launch control centre
L-00:10:00	04:05:00	05:05:00	Last Kourou weather report before launch
L-00:04:00	04:11:00	05:11:00	Start of Vega synchronized sequence
L-00:00:08	04:14:52	05:14:52	Last possible launch abort
00:00:00	04:15:00	05:15:00	Vega first stage ignition
00:00:01	04:15:01	05:15:01	LIFT OFF
L+00:01:53	04:16:53	05:16:53	Separation of first stage
L+00:01:54	04:16:54	05:16:54	Second stage ignition
L+00:02:30	04:17:30	05:17:30			All tracking stations configured for AOS - first acquisition of signal
L+00:03:37	04:18:37	05:18:37	Separation of second stage
L+00:03:49	04:18:49	05:18:49	Third stage ignition
L+00:04:03	04:19:03	05:19:03	Fairing jettisoned
L+00:06:30	04:21:30	05:21:30	Separation of third stage
L+00:07:29	04:22:29	05:22:29	Fourth stage first burn
L+00:16:23	04:31:23	05:31:23	Fourth stage shutdown
L+01:41:19	05:56:19	06:56:19	Fourth stage second burn
L+01:42:53	05:57:53	06:57:53	Fourth stage second shutdown
L+01:45:33	06:00:33	07:00:33	LISA Pathfinder release command
L+01:45:33	06:00:33	07:00:33	SEPARATION	LISA Pathfinder separates from fourth stage; begins automatic sequence
L+01:47:03	06:02:03	07:02:03	Acquisition of signal (earliest) from satellite via Kourou station	KRU AOS LPF
L+01:48:00	06:03:00	07:03:00		ESOC issues test command	"KRU transmits test command KRU starts ranging & Doppler for orbit determination"
L+01:55:10	06:10:10	07:10:10	Fourth stage third burn, for deorbiting
L+01:55:17	06:10:17	07:10:17	Fourth stage shutdown
L+02:10:00	06:25:00	07:25:00		LISA Pathfinder end of automatic sequence. In stable, Sun-pointing mode. ESOC teams continue checkout

Notes:

CET offset = 01:00:00
Vega launcher is also tracked by separate dedicated stations. These are not indicated in this timeline.

Abbreviations:

LCC: Launcher Control Centre, Jupiter Control Room, Kourou, French Guyana
ESOC: European Space Operations Centre, Darmstadt, Germany
OD: ESA Flight Operations Director in Main Control Room
VV06: Arianespace Vega launcher flight VV06
MET: Mission Elapsed Time - before/after liftoff times are -/+
LPF: LISA Pathfinder spacecraft
AOS: Acquisition of signal
LOS: Loss of signal
MCR: Main Control Room at ESOC
OM: ESA Ground Operations Manager in Main Control Room
SOM: ESA Spacecraft Operations Manager in Main Control Room

 

from Rocket Science » Rocket Science http://ift.tt/1OqEKxI
v

Matt Ridley and Benny Peiser’s Misleading Guide to the Climate Debate [Greg Laden's Blog]

This post was written by Peter Sinclair and Greg Laden in response to a recent Wall Street Journal Op Ed piece by Matt Ridley and Benny Peiser.

In a recent Wall Street Journal commentary, “Your Complete Guide to the Climate Debate,”
Matt Ridley and Benny Peiser ask what might make world leaders concerned about the security impacts of climate change. One answer might be the US Department of Defense.

In its 2010 Quadrennial Defense review, Pentagon experts wrote:

“…climate change could have significant geopolitical impacts around the world, contributing to poverty, environmental degradation, and the further weakening of fragile governments. Climate change will contribute to food and water scarcity, will increase the spread of disease, and may spur or exacerbate mass migration.”

If that sounds familiar, it’s because it’s today’s front page news. A 2014 Defense Department document underlined the message, calling climate warming “a threat multiplier.”

Ridley and Peiser ridicule President Obama over his “careless” statement that climate change is a greater threat than terrorism. Indeed, recent research indicates that the current Syrian refugee crisis is at least partly a result of climate change enhanced drought in the region.

Ridley and Peiser claim that global temperatures have risen only slowly. This is simply untrue. The upward march of global surface temperatures varies, as expected for any natural system such as this, but continues on an upward trend. Contrarian claims of an extended pause in global warming have been debunked over recent months by at least a half dozen studies. (See: this, this, this, this, and this.)

Ridley and Peiser also suggest that surface temperatures have risen less than earlier climate modeling had projected. This is simply untrue. Global surface temperatures have risen at a pace of about 0.15 degrees C per decade since 1990, which is within the range of earlier IPCC projections.

Ridley/Peiser suggest that current record smashing weather events are due to El Nino, not climate change.

Wrong for two reasons.

First, many of the record breaking events we have experienced over recent years happened when there was no El Nino.

Second, records that are set during an El Nino period are, obviously, compared to all other prior El Nino periods as well. This year’s El Nino is exceeding earlier El Nino years in heat and tropical storm activities precisely because of a continued rise in planetary heat.

Ridley and Peiser claim that it has been warmer at times during the last 10,000 years. This statement is not supportable. While scientists know that orbitally caused warming occurred some 8000 years ago, the most current research suggests that today’s surface temperature exceed those values, or will shortly under current trends.

It is incorrect to assert that there have been no changes in extreme storms, or flooding. In the past week we have seen a new annual northern hemisphere record in major hurricanes, with 30 storms category 3 and above this year, literally blowing away the old record of 23, with the season not yet over.

Every year for the last three years, careful and conservative researchers at the US Bureau of Meteorology have studied the contribution of global warming to major weather events around the world. Every year the number of events attributed to global warming goes up. (See these three reports.)

The US Global Change Research Program has documented the increase in extreme precipitation events across the country, and in recent weeks, the east and gulf coast of the US have been inundated by a “1000 year rain event”, as well as a new phenomenon, coastal flooding not associated with any storm, merely the regular pull of the tides, on an ocean that has risen several inches since 1950.

Miami taxpayers are currently spending 500 million dollars on pumps and other infrastructure to remedy the flooding Peiser and Ridley say does not exist.

Ridley and Peiser make the claim that tropical storms can’t be as much of a problem now as they were in the past because the number of deaths attributed to natural disasters is reduced. The irony of this statement is stunning. The reason there are fewer deaths due to weather related natural disasters is precisely because climate science and meteorology have developed methods and models to predict and warn. That very same science is telling us about the recent, ongoing, and future changes in climate due to the burning of coal, oil, and natural gas.

Ridley and Peiser seek to confuse by conflating Arctic and Antarctic sea ice, without mentioning that the small increase in Antarctic sea ice, along with the large loss of Arctic ice, is predicted from our understanding of the global warming process, and that, globally, sea ice area is clearly in a multi-decadal decline, the very reason that our giant oil companies are lobbying so intensely for access to polar regions they know are thawing.

Similarly deceptive is the claim that “Antarctica is gaining land based ice”. Here they cite a one-off outlier study, not the other dozen studies completed since 2012 by groups from NASA, the European Space Agency and others, most using more recent data than the cited piece, and all of which show overall Antarctic land ice loss. Moreover, the author of the study cited has said that
if the sea level rise does not come from Antarctica, it obviously must be undercounted elsewhere, such as Alpine glaciers, Greenland, or thermal expansion of the oceans – since observed sea level rise is unequivocal.

That sea level rise is also the most unambiguous indicator of a warming planet. The relentless and accelerating observed rise of the seas supports the half dozen recent studies showing that global warming has not halted or paused, and continues apace.

Ridley and Peiser claim that research is increasingly showing climate sensitivity to be low. This is entirely the opposite of what has been happening. The most likely range of values of climate sensitivity (the amount of increase in surface temperature that eventually occurs as a result of the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere) was established over a century ago. Recently revealed documents show that Exxon Mobil Corporation itself studied climate science as early as the late 70’s, and its findings were in clear agreement with the National Academy of Science 1979 report, which estimated a climate sensitivity of 3°C, plus or minus 1.5° C. Tables in Exxon’s 1982 Climate Change “Primer” for executives show predictions for 2015 markedly similar to contemporary estimates by NASA, and NOAA.

Meanwhile, the solutions for climate change are at hand.

Solar and wind energy have grown faster, and costs have plummeted further, than even most fervent supporters would have predicted a few years ago. Wind and solar are now out-competing coal and nuclear everywhere, and even gas in many markets. Recent volatility in oil and gas prices make the predictable zero cost of renewables all the more attractive, as more and more major corporations are signing power purchase agreements for renewable energy, based on markets, not political correctness.

In a recent article in Scientific American, Engineers Mark Jacobsen and Mark Deluchi have shown how 139 countries can generate their total energy needs by 2050 from wind, solar, and water technologies.

Today’s average cost of large-scale solar in the U.S. is 5 cents/kWh. The installed cost of solar is down by half since 2009. The cost of wind in the U.S. is 2.5 cents per kWh, and efficiency is about the same, and sometimes below 1 cent/kWh. (See this.)

Denmark, Scotland, Spain, and Portugal are now producing more than half their electricity from renewable sources, Germany is close to a third – and the German grid is 10 times more reliable than the US grid.(See this)

In 20 US states, contractors will put solar panels on your roof for free – and in San Antonio Texas, the utility will pay you for the privilege of putting those panels on, and lowering your utility bill. (See this and this)

It’s a business model that will spread, sooner than coal barons like Matt Ridley would like you to believe.

Polling shows again and again that large majorities of Americans across all demographics favor rapid development of renewable energy, and tough regulations for greenhouse gases.

In addition, most importantly, a large majority of Americans now believe that climate change is a moral issue that obligates government officials, and private citizens, to take action.

The tactics of confusion and distortion are losing their effectiveness, as more and more Americans experience the effects of a climate altered world first hand. It’s time to stop denying the science, and begin discussing the solutions.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1IvOoJc

This post was written by Peter Sinclair and Greg Laden in response to a recent Wall Street Journal Op Ed piece by Matt Ridley and Benny Peiser.

In a recent Wall Street Journal commentary, “Your Complete Guide to the Climate Debate,”
Matt Ridley and Benny Peiser ask what might make world leaders concerned about the security impacts of climate change. One answer might be the US Department of Defense.

In its 2010 Quadrennial Defense review, Pentagon experts wrote:

“…climate change could have significant geopolitical impacts around the world, contributing to poverty, environmental degradation, and the further weakening of fragile governments. Climate change will contribute to food and water scarcity, will increase the spread of disease, and may spur or exacerbate mass migration.”

If that sounds familiar, it’s because it’s today’s front page news. A 2014 Defense Department document underlined the message, calling climate warming “a threat multiplier.”

Ridley and Peiser ridicule President Obama over his “careless” statement that climate change is a greater threat than terrorism. Indeed, recent research indicates that the current Syrian refugee crisis is at least partly a result of climate change enhanced drought in the region.

Ridley and Peiser claim that global temperatures have risen only slowly. This is simply untrue. The upward march of global surface temperatures varies, as expected for any natural system such as this, but continues on an upward trend. Contrarian claims of an extended pause in global warming have been debunked over recent months by at least a half dozen studies. (See: this, this, this, this, and this.)

Ridley and Peiser also suggest that surface temperatures have risen less than earlier climate modeling had projected. This is simply untrue. Global surface temperatures have risen at a pace of about 0.15 degrees C per decade since 1990, which is within the range of earlier IPCC projections.

Ridley/Peiser suggest that current record smashing weather events are due to El Nino, not climate change.

Wrong for two reasons.

First, many of the record breaking events we have experienced over recent years happened when there was no El Nino.

Second, records that are set during an El Nino period are, obviously, compared to all other prior El Nino periods as well. This year’s El Nino is exceeding earlier El Nino years in heat and tropical storm activities precisely because of a continued rise in planetary heat.

Ridley and Peiser claim that it has been warmer at times during the last 10,000 years. This statement is not supportable. While scientists know that orbitally caused warming occurred some 8000 years ago, the most current research suggests that today’s surface temperature exceed those values, or will shortly under current trends.

It is incorrect to assert that there have been no changes in extreme storms, or flooding. In the past week we have seen a new annual northern hemisphere record in major hurricanes, with 30 storms category 3 and above this year, literally blowing away the old record of 23, with the season not yet over.

Every year for the last three years, careful and conservative researchers at the US Bureau of Meteorology have studied the contribution of global warming to major weather events around the world. Every year the number of events attributed to global warming goes up. (See these three reports.)

The US Global Change Research Program has documented the increase in extreme precipitation events across the country, and in recent weeks, the east and gulf coast of the US have been inundated by a “1000 year rain event”, as well as a new phenomenon, coastal flooding not associated with any storm, merely the regular pull of the tides, on an ocean that has risen several inches since 1950.

Miami taxpayers are currently spending 500 million dollars on pumps and other infrastructure to remedy the flooding Peiser and Ridley say does not exist.

Ridley and Peiser make the claim that tropical storms can’t be as much of a problem now as they were in the past because the number of deaths attributed to natural disasters is reduced. The irony of this statement is stunning. The reason there are fewer deaths due to weather related natural disasters is precisely because climate science and meteorology have developed methods and models to predict and warn. That very same science is telling us about the recent, ongoing, and future changes in climate due to the burning of coal, oil, and natural gas.

Ridley and Peiser seek to confuse by conflating Arctic and Antarctic sea ice, without mentioning that the small increase in Antarctic sea ice, along with the large loss of Arctic ice, is predicted from our understanding of the global warming process, and that, globally, sea ice area is clearly in a multi-decadal decline, the very reason that our giant oil companies are lobbying so intensely for access to polar regions they know are thawing.

Similarly deceptive is the claim that “Antarctica is gaining land based ice”. Here they cite a one-off outlier study, not the other dozen studies completed since 2012 by groups from NASA, the European Space Agency and others, most using more recent data than the cited piece, and all of which show overall Antarctic land ice loss. Moreover, the author of the study cited has said that
if the sea level rise does not come from Antarctica, it obviously must be undercounted elsewhere, such as Alpine glaciers, Greenland, or thermal expansion of the oceans – since observed sea level rise is unequivocal.

That sea level rise is also the most unambiguous indicator of a warming planet. The relentless and accelerating observed rise of the seas supports the half dozen recent studies showing that global warming has not halted or paused, and continues apace.

Ridley and Peiser claim that research is increasingly showing climate sensitivity to be low. This is entirely the opposite of what has been happening. The most likely range of values of climate sensitivity (the amount of increase in surface temperature that eventually occurs as a result of the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere) was established over a century ago. Recently revealed documents show that Exxon Mobil Corporation itself studied climate science as early as the late 70’s, and its findings were in clear agreement with the National Academy of Science 1979 report, which estimated a climate sensitivity of 3°C, plus or minus 1.5° C. Tables in Exxon’s 1982 Climate Change “Primer” for executives show predictions for 2015 markedly similar to contemporary estimates by NASA, and NOAA.

Meanwhile, the solutions for climate change are at hand.

Solar and wind energy have grown faster, and costs have plummeted further, than even most fervent supporters would have predicted a few years ago. Wind and solar are now out-competing coal and nuclear everywhere, and even gas in many markets. Recent volatility in oil and gas prices make the predictable zero cost of renewables all the more attractive, as more and more major corporations are signing power purchase agreements for renewable energy, based on markets, not political correctness.

In a recent article in Scientific American, Engineers Mark Jacobsen and Mark Deluchi have shown how 139 countries can generate their total energy needs by 2050 from wind, solar, and water technologies.

Today’s average cost of large-scale solar in the U.S. is 5 cents/kWh. The installed cost of solar is down by half since 2009. The cost of wind in the U.S. is 2.5 cents per kWh, and efficiency is about the same, and sometimes below 1 cent/kWh. (See this.)

Denmark, Scotland, Spain, and Portugal are now producing more than half their electricity from renewable sources, Germany is close to a third – and the German grid is 10 times more reliable than the US grid.(See this)

In 20 US states, contractors will put solar panels on your roof for free – and in San Antonio Texas, the utility will pay you for the privilege of putting those panels on, and lowering your utility bill. (See this and this)

It’s a business model that will spread, sooner than coal barons like Matt Ridley would like you to believe.

Polling shows again and again that large majorities of Americans across all demographics favor rapid development of renewable energy, and tough regulations for greenhouse gases.

In addition, most importantly, a large majority of Americans now believe that climate change is a moral issue that obligates government officials, and private citizens, to take action.

The tactics of confusion and distortion are losing their effectiveness, as more and more Americans experience the effects of a climate altered world first hand. It’s time to stop denying the science, and begin discussing the solutions.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1IvOoJc