What order should you watch Star Wars in? [Greg Laden's Blog]

With the imminent release of Star Wars: The Force Awakens, you might want to refresh your memory by watching the earlier Star Wars films, or even the films and other related productions.

There are two or three philosophies on this. The most obvious is to watch the films in chronological order, or story order, so you are seeing the historical development of the things that happened. This is simple. Watch Episode I first, and work your way in order through Episode VI.

There are objections to this method, however, because the way the story was told, out of historical sequence, involves certain reveals that would be ruined if you watched them in historical order.

The release order of the films, which presumably reflects the intentions of the artist, is:

Episode IV
Episode V
Episode VI
Episode I
Episode II
Episode III

Then, of course, Episode VII, and eventually Episodes VIII and IX

Software expert Rod Hilton developed what come to be known as the “Machete Order” (called that because his blog is named “Absolutely No Machete Juggling”). Hiton argues, as noted, that the historical order (he calls it the “episode order”) ruins a key reveal that so and so is so and so’s father. Hilton rightly notes that this is a key feature of the entire story, and it is not a good idea to ruin that. If anyone watching the films does not know about this reveal, then watching them in historical, or episode, order is the wrong thing to do.

He also argues that the release order is fine for the first three films has its problems as well. His suggestion is a different order from either historical or episode, and it runs like this:

Episode IV
Episode V
Episode II
Episode III
Episode VI

Notably, you don’t watch Episode I at all. The reason? It sucks. Read the original (well, updated) blog post for all the reasons.

Another dude, Ernest Rister, suggests the same order but he leaves in Episode I, so you get this:

1. Episode IV: A New Hope
2. Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back
3. Episode I: The Phantom Menace
4. Episode II: Attack of the Clones
5. Episode III: Revenge of the Sith
6. Episode VI: Return of the Jedi

You can get the digital version of the existing films at Amazon: Star Wars: The Digital Movie Collection, or if you prefer hard copies, Star Wars: The Complete Saga (Episodes I-VI) in Blu-ray. There is also a non blue-ray version but since it is an import, I’m not sure if you want that for your DVD player.

You might want to go totally crazy and also watch and read the other things that are parts of the story but not in those movies, such as the TV series Star Wars: The Clone Wars, or the book A New Dawn. If you want to get those things in the right order, Tech Times has a list.

By the way, John Abraham wrote a review of the recently published novel, “Dark Disciple,” which fits near the beginning of the cannon, here.

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

With the imminent release of Star Wars: The Force Awakens, you might want to refresh your memory by watching the earlier Star Wars films, or even the films and other related productions.

There are two or three philosophies on this. The most obvious is to watch the films in chronological order, or story order, so you are seeing the historical development of the things that happened. This is simple. Watch Episode I first, and work your way in order through Episode VI.

There are objections to this method, however, because the way the story was told, out of historical sequence, involves certain reveals that would be ruined if you watched them in historical order.

The release order of the films, which presumably reflects the intentions of the artist, is:

Episode IV
Episode V
Episode VI
Episode I
Episode II
Episode III

Then, of course, Episode VII, and eventually Episodes VIII and IX

Software expert Rod Hilton developed what come to be known as the “Machete Order” (called that because his blog is named “Absolutely No Machete Juggling”). Hiton argues, as noted, that the historical order (he calls it the “episode order”) ruins a key reveal that so and so is so and so’s father. Hilton rightly notes that this is a key feature of the entire story, and it is not a good idea to ruin that. If anyone watching the films does not know about this reveal, then watching them in historical, or episode, order is the wrong thing to do.

He also argues that the release order is fine for the first three films has its problems as well. His suggestion is a different order from either historical or episode, and it runs like this:

Episode IV
Episode V
Episode II
Episode III
Episode VI

Notably, you don’t watch Episode I at all. The reason? It sucks. Read the original (well, updated) blog post for all the reasons.

Another dude, Ernest Rister, suggests the same order but he leaves in Episode I, so you get this:

1. Episode IV: A New Hope
2. Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back
3. Episode I: The Phantom Menace
4. Episode II: Attack of the Clones
5. Episode III: Revenge of the Sith
6. Episode VI: Return of the Jedi

You can get the digital version of the existing films at Amazon: Star Wars: The Digital Movie Collection, or if you prefer hard copies, Star Wars: The Complete Saga (Episodes I-VI) in Blu-ray. There is also a non blue-ray version but since it is an import, I’m not sure if you want that for your DVD player.

You might want to go totally crazy and also watch and read the other things that are parts of the story but not in those movies, such as the TV series Star Wars: The Clone Wars, or the book A New Dawn. If you want to get those things in the right order, Tech Times has a list.

By the way, John Abraham wrote a review of the recently published novel, “Dark Disciple,” which fits near the beginning of the cannon, here.

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

Scientists Develop Solar-Powered, Non-Fossil Fuel ‘Hydrogen Sponge’

Photovoltaic cells offer a green source of energy for hydrogen gas generation.

By Patric Petrie

Carbon dioxide from fossil fuel combustion is a trending news topic amid concerns about climate change and global warming, and is the largest contributor to U.S. carbon dioxide emissions.

According to the Institute for Energy Research, 82 percent of America’s energy is produced from the combustion of fossil fuels.

It is believed that hydrogen gas is an ideal replacement for fossil fuels; however, hydrogen gas is difficult to safely store and currently either produced from fossil fuel processes or captured as a byproduct from natural gas and petroleum conversion. Both processes contribute to global carbon emissions.

Researchers at the Navy’s Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center Pacific (SSC Pacific) have developed a solar-powered, non-fossil fuel means of generating, safely storing, and recovering hydrogen gas, the “Hydrogen Sponge.”

SSC Pacific’s patented hydrogen sponge concept can be used to generate and safely store hydrogen gas for use in and integrated or stand-alone fuel cell as well as other hydrogen-based technologies, without the use of fossil fuel energy. The sponge consists of a modified version of a standard solar cell mated with a uniquely designed silicon substrate.

The substrate consists of micro-chambers that provide micro-structure for both

A newly developed silicon substrate fabrication process provides the micro-structure needed to generate and safely store hydrogen.

electrodes, and reservoirs for the collection and safe storage of hydrogen gas.

The micro-chambers are engineered to allow hydrogen gas to be collected and stored without compression to minimize the risk of combustion due to impact or spark.

When the sponge is placed in sunlight and an ionic fluid (such as seawater, catalyzed greywater or wastewater), it uses solar-powered water electrolysis to generate and safely store hydrogen gas in its substrate micro-chambers. The stored hydrogen can then be released as needed by increasing pressure in the micro-chambers through mechanical, electrical or thermal means.

In theory, a nine inch array of solar cells integrated with the substrate micro-chambers can generate and store sufficient hydrogen for use in a fuel cell providing 2.5 joules of useable power each second. This number could be increased by stacking multiple wafers, optimizing the micro-chamber size, or engineering more micro-chambers per square inch on a wafer.

SSC Pacific scientist Russel Clement and his research team began working with the Marine Corps in January 2015 to develop new expeditionary energy concepts. These concepts include technologies to forage and better manage energy in expeditionary theaters of operation. The idea is that this type of technology can be used to generate and safely store energy in the form of hydrogen without a significant logistics trail.

As Clement explains, in theater, the Marines would be supplied with a compact, light-weight system for generating and safely storing hydrogen from saltwater, wastewater, greywater, brackish water, or water they couldn’t otherwise drink or use.

“You’d put a little of powdered material in the water to make it ionic, if needed,” Clement explains. “And then you use this device to separate hydrogen and oxygen. The stored hydrogen could then be used by a compact fuel cell to generate electricity.  Beneficial by-products of the fuel cell would also include fresh water and residual heat.”

The device is designed to be modular and stackable, capable of inexpensively storing and generating a significant amount of energy in a much lighter and safer manner than lithium battery technology.

SSC Pacific is also looking for opportunities to commercialize the technology.

Aside from meeting the expeditionary energy needs, obvious commercial applications include everything from products for camping survivalist-type activities to a safe method of residential energy storage. Hydrogen sponge technology would allow the homeowner to place devices in a reservoir of water (such as an under-utilized swimming pool,) for storing energy from roof-mounted solar panels and then reclaiming it when needed. Clement envisions his device as a residential energy storage alternative to Elon Musk’s proposed home battery storage technology.

The Way Ahead

Within the next three years, Clement and his team intend to develop a small business research effort, such as a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) or a Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) contract, to get the prototype designed and built. Larger scale demonstrations and engineering/production prototypes would then follow that lead to a fully commercialized family of hydrogen generation and storage products for both military and civilian use.

Follow us on Twitter for military science and technology updates!

Disclaimer: Re-published content may have been edited for length and clarity. The appearance of hyperlinks does not constitute endorsement by the Department of Defense. For other than authorized activities, such as, military exchanges and Morale, Welfare and Recreation sites, the Department of Defense does not exercise any editorial control over the information you may find at these locations. Such links are provided consistent with the stated purpose of this DoD website.

from Armed with Science http://ift.tt/1QqtwuS

Photovoltaic cells offer a green source of energy for hydrogen gas generation.

By Patric Petrie

Carbon dioxide from fossil fuel combustion is a trending news topic amid concerns about climate change and global warming, and is the largest contributor to U.S. carbon dioxide emissions.

According to the Institute for Energy Research, 82 percent of America’s energy is produced from the combustion of fossil fuels.

It is believed that hydrogen gas is an ideal replacement for fossil fuels; however, hydrogen gas is difficult to safely store and currently either produced from fossil fuel processes or captured as a byproduct from natural gas and petroleum conversion. Both processes contribute to global carbon emissions.

Researchers at the Navy’s Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center Pacific (SSC Pacific) have developed a solar-powered, non-fossil fuel means of generating, safely storing, and recovering hydrogen gas, the “Hydrogen Sponge.”

SSC Pacific’s patented hydrogen sponge concept can be used to generate and safely store hydrogen gas for use in and integrated or stand-alone fuel cell as well as other hydrogen-based technologies, without the use of fossil fuel energy. The sponge consists of a modified version of a standard solar cell mated with a uniquely designed silicon substrate.

The substrate consists of micro-chambers that provide micro-structure for both

A newly developed silicon substrate fabrication process provides the micro-structure needed to generate and safely store hydrogen.

electrodes, and reservoirs for the collection and safe storage of hydrogen gas.

The micro-chambers are engineered to allow hydrogen gas to be collected and stored without compression to minimize the risk of combustion due to impact or spark.

When the sponge is placed in sunlight and an ionic fluid (such as seawater, catalyzed greywater or wastewater), it uses solar-powered water electrolysis to generate and safely store hydrogen gas in its substrate micro-chambers. The stored hydrogen can then be released as needed by increasing pressure in the micro-chambers through mechanical, electrical or thermal means.

In theory, a nine inch array of solar cells integrated with the substrate micro-chambers can generate and store sufficient hydrogen for use in a fuel cell providing 2.5 joules of useable power each second. This number could be increased by stacking multiple wafers, optimizing the micro-chamber size, or engineering more micro-chambers per square inch on a wafer.

SSC Pacific scientist Russel Clement and his research team began working with the Marine Corps in January 2015 to develop new expeditionary energy concepts. These concepts include technologies to forage and better manage energy in expeditionary theaters of operation. The idea is that this type of technology can be used to generate and safely store energy in the form of hydrogen without a significant logistics trail.

As Clement explains, in theater, the Marines would be supplied with a compact, light-weight system for generating and safely storing hydrogen from saltwater, wastewater, greywater, brackish water, or water they couldn’t otherwise drink or use.

“You’d put a little of powdered material in the water to make it ionic, if needed,” Clement explains. “And then you use this device to separate hydrogen and oxygen. The stored hydrogen could then be used by a compact fuel cell to generate electricity.  Beneficial by-products of the fuel cell would also include fresh water and residual heat.”

The device is designed to be modular and stackable, capable of inexpensively storing and generating a significant amount of energy in a much lighter and safer manner than lithium battery technology.

SSC Pacific is also looking for opportunities to commercialize the technology.

Aside from meeting the expeditionary energy needs, obvious commercial applications include everything from products for camping survivalist-type activities to a safe method of residential energy storage. Hydrogen sponge technology would allow the homeowner to place devices in a reservoir of water (such as an under-utilized swimming pool,) for storing energy from roof-mounted solar panels and then reclaiming it when needed. Clement envisions his device as a residential energy storage alternative to Elon Musk’s proposed home battery storage technology.

The Way Ahead

Within the next three years, Clement and his team intend to develop a small business research effort, such as a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) or a Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) contract, to get the prototype designed and built. Larger scale demonstrations and engineering/production prototypes would then follow that lead to a fully commercialized family of hydrogen generation and storage products for both military and civilian use.

Follow us on Twitter for military science and technology updates!

Disclaimer: Re-published content may have been edited for length and clarity. The appearance of hyperlinks does not constitute endorsement by the Department of Defense. For other than authorized activities, such as, military exchanges and Morale, Welfare and Recreation sites, the Department of Defense does not exercise any editorial control over the information you may find at these locations. Such links are provided consistent with the stated purpose of this DoD website.

from Armed with Science http://ift.tt/1QqtwuS

Global Warming In November [Greg Laden's Blog]

The NASA GISS global temperature anomaly for November has been published.

October’s value was originally reported as 104, but has been corrected (it is normal to have small corrections on an ongoing basis) to 106. November’s value, just out, is 105.

This is hundreds of a degree C anomaly, the standard number used to report, off of a baseline. The baseline in the case of NASA GISS is 1951-1980, which does not represent pre-industrial levels.

The huge uptick we saw during the last part of the current year is the result of global warming, which has been pushing temperatures up, and the current El Nino, which probably started to affect these measurements in late September. Over the next few months or so, El Nino proper will start to decline, but the surface temperatures will remain elevated by El Nino (there is a lag). After that, we should see monthly temperature readings being to drop, but the overall trend is likely to continue.

The graphic at the top of the page is the 12 month moving average from the NASA GISS data base, up through November. Notice that since the 1960s there has been a very steady upward trend, with some variation. Most of the big upward spikes you see are El Nino years, and the lower troughs are typically periods with one or more La Nina events. These variations reflect the interaction between surface (air and sea surface) and the ocean, mainly the Pacific.

2015 is currently the warmest year on record, and 2014 is the second warmest year. It is virtually impossible for 2015 to drop below warmest once December values are added in. Likely, the spread between warmest and second warmest year will increase.

November 2015 is the second warmest month-by-anomaly (not actual temperature, but relative to other instances of the same month) and November 2015 is the second warmest. All the other warmest months in the top 10 are from the 90s or 80s, found during El Nino years.

As the effects of the current El Nino peak and decline, we will see the “warmest month” thing fade away until the next El Nino, but the 12 month moving average will continue to rise for quite some time, then level off, then likely decline somewhat. But overall, the trend is expected to be on average upward because, ladies and gentlemen, anthropogenic global warming is real and is happening now.

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

The NASA GISS global temperature anomaly for November has been published.

October’s value was originally reported as 104, but has been corrected (it is normal to have small corrections on an ongoing basis) to 106. November’s value, just out, is 105.

This is hundreds of a degree C anomaly, the standard number used to report, off of a baseline. The baseline in the case of NASA GISS is 1951-1980, which does not represent pre-industrial levels.

The huge uptick we saw during the last part of the current year is the result of global warming, which has been pushing temperatures up, and the current El Nino, which probably started to affect these measurements in late September. Over the next few months or so, El Nino proper will start to decline, but the surface temperatures will remain elevated by El Nino (there is a lag). After that, we should see monthly temperature readings being to drop, but the overall trend is likely to continue.

The graphic at the top of the page is the 12 month moving average from the NASA GISS data base, up through November. Notice that since the 1960s there has been a very steady upward trend, with some variation. Most of the big upward spikes you see are El Nino years, and the lower troughs are typically periods with one or more La Nina events. These variations reflect the interaction between surface (air and sea surface) and the ocean, mainly the Pacific.

2015 is currently the warmest year on record, and 2014 is the second warmest year. It is virtually impossible for 2015 to drop below warmest once December values are added in. Likely, the spread between warmest and second warmest year will increase.

November 2015 is the second warmest month-by-anomaly (not actual temperature, but relative to other instances of the same month) and November 2015 is the second warmest. All the other warmest months in the top 10 are from the 90s or 80s, found during El Nino years.

As the effects of the current El Nino peak and decline, we will see the “warmest month” thing fade away until the next El Nino, but the 12 month moving average will continue to rise for quite some time, then level off, then likely decline somewhat. But overall, the trend is expected to be on average upward because, ladies and gentlemen, anthropogenic global warming is real and is happening now.

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

Myles Allen: Can we hold global warming to 1.5°C?

This is a re-post from Carbon Brief

A guest post from Prof Myles Allen, a professor of geosystem science at the Environmental Change Institute, School of Geography and the Environment and Department of Physics, University of Oxford, and Director of the Oxford Martin Net Zero Carbon Investment Initiative.

The negotiators in Paris appear to have agreed to aim to limit warming to “well below” 2C, and even “to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5C”. But given the most likely value of human-induced warming is over 0.9C already and increasing at almost 0.2C per decade, is stabilising at 1.5C realistically possible?

On one level, the answer is very simple: if 2C is possible, then so is 1.5C, albeit less likely, because we do not know precisely how the climate system will respond to future emissions, and still less how future emissions will respond to mitigation policies. If reducing emissions turns out to be easier than many people fear, or the response of the climate system turns out to be at the lower end of the current range of uncertainty, then the policies that would have limited warming to 2C might well buy us 1.5C instead.

But what are the chances of meeting this new 1.5C goal? Some simple round numbers may help to put this question in perspective. Cumulative emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant driver of long-term temperatures. Past emissions, amounting to about 2tn tonnes of CO2, have already committed us to about 1C of warming. If we limit net future emissions to another trillion tonnes of CO2, which the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report considers to be technically feasible, that gets us close to 1.5C of warming due to CO2 alone.

At one level, the challenge is very simple. Stabilising temperatures requires net zero CO2 emissions. So to stabilise at 2C, emissions need to peak now and fall, on average, by 10% of their peak value for every tenth of a degree of warming from now on. To stabilise at 1.5C, they need to fall, on average, by 20% per tenth of a degree of future warming. Right now, the world is warming by a tenth of a degree every 5-10 years, but of course that would slow as emissions fall.

And CO2 is not the only pollutant causing warming, although it is the most persistent. Almost all the IPCC’s scenarios project that other sources of pollution (methane, soot and the like) will add at least another 0.5C to this, taking the total to 2C. But we are only just beginning to work out how to reduce these other emissions, and in any case, it is the warming caused by CO2 that is particularly dangerous because it is so hard to reverse.

This is illustrated by the figure, adapted from figure 2 of a recent Policy Brief, published by the Oxford Martin School. Drawing on the modelling tools used in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, it shows that if we follow the IPCC’s most aggressive mitigation path (“RCP3PD”) for CO2 – adjusted to begin reductions today – then on a mid-range estimate of the climate response, temperatures stabilise around 2C. If, in addition, we take immediate action to reduce methane and soot emissions, which UNEP and others have argued is not only possible but would bring significant health benefits as well, it is possible to stabilise temperatures at 1.5C.

Red line: Mid-range warming response to the IPCC’s RCP3PD most aggressive mitigation scenario, which involves reducing CO2 emissions to zero and below in the second half of the 20th century. Blue line: Mid-range warming response to RCP3PD supplemented by rapid reductions in “Short-lived Climate Pollutant” (SLCP, including methane and soot) emissions over the period 2015-2035. Source: Oxford Martin School.

Possible does not mean straightforward. The RCP3PD scenario involves a substantial element of industrial-scale CO2 disposal: rapid deployment of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) on fossil fuel plants, followed by large-scale deployment of Biomass Energy with CCS to draw CO2 out of the atmosphere in the second half of this century. It still has not been demonstrated that CO2 disposal on this kind of scale is even possible, and early progress in CCS deployment has been slow.

Likewise, Rogelj et al. (2015) argue that reducing non-CO2 human-induced warming below that in RCP3PD may not be possible, but options for reducing methane and soot emissions have been explored much less thoroughly than CO2. But if, once CO2 emissions are firmly on a path to net zero, we also succeed in substantially reducing methane and soot emissions, and the climate system response turns out to be in the lower half of the current range of uncertainty, then stabilising temperatures at 1.5C, while far from guaranteed, is clearly not out of the question.

from Skeptical Science http://ift.tt/1lLM6RF

This is a re-post from Carbon Brief

A guest post from Prof Myles Allen, a professor of geosystem science at the Environmental Change Institute, School of Geography and the Environment and Department of Physics, University of Oxford, and Director of the Oxford Martin Net Zero Carbon Investment Initiative.

The negotiators in Paris appear to have agreed to aim to limit warming to “well below” 2C, and even “to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5C”. But given the most likely value of human-induced warming is over 0.9C already and increasing at almost 0.2C per decade, is stabilising at 1.5C realistically possible?

On one level, the answer is very simple: if 2C is possible, then so is 1.5C, albeit less likely, because we do not know precisely how the climate system will respond to future emissions, and still less how future emissions will respond to mitigation policies. If reducing emissions turns out to be easier than many people fear, or the response of the climate system turns out to be at the lower end of the current range of uncertainty, then the policies that would have limited warming to 2C might well buy us 1.5C instead.

But what are the chances of meeting this new 1.5C goal? Some simple round numbers may help to put this question in perspective. Cumulative emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant driver of long-term temperatures. Past emissions, amounting to about 2tn tonnes of CO2, have already committed us to about 1C of warming. If we limit net future emissions to another trillion tonnes of CO2, which the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report considers to be technically feasible, that gets us close to 1.5C of warming due to CO2 alone.

At one level, the challenge is very simple. Stabilising temperatures requires net zero CO2 emissions. So to stabilise at 2C, emissions need to peak now and fall, on average, by 10% of their peak value for every tenth of a degree of warming from now on. To stabilise at 1.5C, they need to fall, on average, by 20% per tenth of a degree of future warming. Right now, the world is warming by a tenth of a degree every 5-10 years, but of course that would slow as emissions fall.

And CO2 is not the only pollutant causing warming, although it is the most persistent. Almost all the IPCC’s scenarios project that other sources of pollution (methane, soot and the like) will add at least another 0.5C to this, taking the total to 2C. But we are only just beginning to work out how to reduce these other emissions, and in any case, it is the warming caused by CO2 that is particularly dangerous because it is so hard to reverse.

This is illustrated by the figure, adapted from figure 2 of a recent Policy Brief, published by the Oxford Martin School. Drawing on the modelling tools used in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, it shows that if we follow the IPCC’s most aggressive mitigation path (“RCP3PD”) for CO2 – adjusted to begin reductions today – then on a mid-range estimate of the climate response, temperatures stabilise around 2C. If, in addition, we take immediate action to reduce methane and soot emissions, which UNEP and others have argued is not only possible but would bring significant health benefits as well, it is possible to stabilise temperatures at 1.5C.

Red line: Mid-range warming response to the IPCC’s RCP3PD most aggressive mitigation scenario, which involves reducing CO2 emissions to zero and below in the second half of the 20th century. Blue line: Mid-range warming response to RCP3PD supplemented by rapid reductions in “Short-lived Climate Pollutant” (SLCP, including methane and soot) emissions over the period 2015-2035. Source: Oxford Martin School.

Possible does not mean straightforward. The RCP3PD scenario involves a substantial element of industrial-scale CO2 disposal: rapid deployment of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) on fossil fuel plants, followed by large-scale deployment of Biomass Energy with CCS to draw CO2 out of the atmosphere in the second half of this century. It still has not been demonstrated that CO2 disposal on this kind of scale is even possible, and early progress in CCS deployment has been slow.

Likewise, Rogelj et al. (2015) argue that reducing non-CO2 human-induced warming below that in RCP3PD may not be possible, but options for reducing methane and soot emissions have been explored much less thoroughly than CO2. But if, once CO2 emissions are firmly on a path to net zero, we also succeed in substantially reducing methane and soot emissions, and the climate system response turns out to be in the lower half of the current range of uncertainty, then stabilising temperatures at 1.5C, while far from guaranteed, is clearly not out of the question.

from Skeptical Science http://ift.tt/1lLM6RF

Ceres blurs line between comet and asteroid

Ceres: a bright spot in planetary exploration Image Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/UCLA/MPS/DLR/IDA

By Monica Grady, The Open University

When Guiseppe Piazzi reported his observations of a minor planet in 1801, he originally thought it might be a comet. But follow-up observations by fellow astronomers suggested that Ceres was actually an asteroid. So it’s somewhat ironic that the latest results from NASA’s Dawn mission suggest this asteroid is confusingly similar to a comet.

Dawn has found a number of mysterious features on Ceres so far, including bright white spots on its surface. Its latest results suggest that these are salts left behind as ice vaporised from the surface by sublimation – a process often seen in comets. They also suggest Ceres may have formed far away from its current location in orbit between Mars and Jupiter. This would be surprising as many astronomers believe that a key difference between comets and asteroids is that asteroids form closer to the sun.

Mysterious spots

Ceres is the largest asteroid we know of – it is also classified as a dwarf planet. Its bright spots were first discovered when Dawn started orbiting Ceres in 2014, the largest at a latitude of around 25°N. There was intense speculation about what these features were, as they had the characteristics of ice. The Herschel Space Observatory later found that water vapour was being produced at specific locations on Ceres.

It therefore seemed that Ceres was acting like a comet, with ice-rich regions releasing dust and vapour during daylight hours. If that were the case, then ice might be a major component of the asteroid, buried below a surface of dust and rubble.

But the two new studies (see here and here), using information from different instruments on the Dawn spacecraft, did not record any ice on the surface. However, one article speculates that ice may still be buried just below the surface while the other suggests that water bound in minerals is abundant.

The researchers also investigated the bright feature at the bottom of Occator Crater, the brightest of the white spots, and concluded that they may be hydrated magnesium salts. The salts are deposits left behind from recent sublimation of water ice that have not yet been covered by soil. Other bright spots, although not as prominent, may also be salt deposits, but that material is likely to be older.

A Kuiper Belt Object?

The researchers also identified a mixture of minerals on the surface of Ceres, which they think are ammonia-bearing clay minerals and magnesium carbonate. The clay minerals could have been produced by silicates reacting with ammonia ice. However, if Ceres had formed where it is now, it would not have been able to pick up any ammonia ice to enable such a reaction, because the ice would not be stable.

This means that Ceres may have originally formed in the Kuiper Belt on the outskirts of the solar system and then scattered inwards as the giant planets migrated outwards. Alternatively, Ceres could have formed more or less where it is, and incorporated nitrogen-containing organic molecules, which, like the water ice, were transported inwards from beyond Neptune.

Did Ceres form in the main belt and incorporate ammonia from the outer solar system or did Ceres itself form there Image credit: L.Giacomini

While this might not sound all that significant, it does have quite profound ramifications for our understanding of how material has been mixed to form planets, minor planets, comets and Kuiper Belt Objects.

This year has been an amazing one for small icy bodies. Images from the New Horizons mission to Pluto have shown us the variety of landscapes that can be sculpted on an icy surface. Similarly, pictures of the surface of comet 67P Churyumov Gerasimenko taken by Rosetta have revealed canyons and pits probably caused by fracturing and ice sublimation.

Now we can add a third small body where a combination of ice, water and salts have left behind an environment in which there is the potential for an active, sub-surface chemistry that might, eventually, result in formation of complex molecules. It is also becoming more clear than ever that strict division between comets and asteroids is no longer realistic, and that they represent a spectrum of objects of varying activity and orbit.

Just one last word about the surface of Ceres. I might not be much of a farmer – but I’m fairly certain that magnesium salts and nitrogen-bearing clays are important ingredients in a good, rich soil for raising crops. So naming Ceres after a harvest deity was more appropriate than Piazzi could have imagined!

Monica Grady, Professor of Planetary and Space Sciences, The Open University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

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

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

Ceres: a bright spot in planetary exploration Image Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/UCLA/MPS/DLR/IDA

By Monica Grady, The Open University

When Guiseppe Piazzi reported his observations of a minor planet in 1801, he originally thought it might be a comet. But follow-up observations by fellow astronomers suggested that Ceres was actually an asteroid. So it’s somewhat ironic that the latest results from NASA’s Dawn mission suggest this asteroid is confusingly similar to a comet.

Dawn has found a number of mysterious features on Ceres so far, including bright white spots on its surface. Its latest results suggest that these are salts left behind as ice vaporised from the surface by sublimation – a process often seen in comets. They also suggest Ceres may have formed far away from its current location in orbit between Mars and Jupiter. This would be surprising as many astronomers believe that a key difference between comets and asteroids is that asteroids form closer to the sun.

Mysterious spots

Ceres is the largest asteroid we know of – it is also classified as a dwarf planet. Its bright spots were first discovered when Dawn started orbiting Ceres in 2014, the largest at a latitude of around 25°N. There was intense speculation about what these features were, as they had the characteristics of ice. The Herschel Space Observatory later found that water vapour was being produced at specific locations on Ceres.

It therefore seemed that Ceres was acting like a comet, with ice-rich regions releasing dust and vapour during daylight hours. If that were the case, then ice might be a major component of the asteroid, buried below a surface of dust and rubble.

But the two new studies (see here and here), using information from different instruments on the Dawn spacecraft, did not record any ice on the surface. However, one article speculates that ice may still be buried just below the surface while the other suggests that water bound in minerals is abundant.

The researchers also investigated the bright feature at the bottom of Occator Crater, the brightest of the white spots, and concluded that they may be hydrated magnesium salts. The salts are deposits left behind from recent sublimation of water ice that have not yet been covered by soil. Other bright spots, although not as prominent, may also be salt deposits, but that material is likely to be older.

A Kuiper Belt Object?

The researchers also identified a mixture of minerals on the surface of Ceres, which they think are ammonia-bearing clay minerals and magnesium carbonate. The clay minerals could have been produced by silicates reacting with ammonia ice. However, if Ceres had formed where it is now, it would not have been able to pick up any ammonia ice to enable such a reaction, because the ice would not be stable.

This means that Ceres may have originally formed in the Kuiper Belt on the outskirts of the solar system and then scattered inwards as the giant planets migrated outwards. Alternatively, Ceres could have formed more or less where it is, and incorporated nitrogen-containing organic molecules, which, like the water ice, were transported inwards from beyond Neptune.

Did Ceres form in the main belt and incorporate ammonia from the outer solar system or did Ceres itself form there Image credit: L.Giacomini

While this might not sound all that significant, it does have quite profound ramifications for our understanding of how material has been mixed to form planets, minor planets, comets and Kuiper Belt Objects.

This year has been an amazing one for small icy bodies. Images from the New Horizons mission to Pluto have shown us the variety of landscapes that can be sculpted on an icy surface. Similarly, pictures of the surface of comet 67P Churyumov Gerasimenko taken by Rosetta have revealed canyons and pits probably caused by fracturing and ice sublimation.

Now we can add a third small body where a combination of ice, water and salts have left behind an environment in which there is the potential for an active, sub-surface chemistry that might, eventually, result in formation of complex molecules. It is also becoming more clear than ever that strict division between comets and asteroids is no longer realistic, and that they represent a spectrum of objects of varying activity and orbit.

Just one last word about the surface of Ceres. I might not be much of a farmer – but I’m fairly certain that magnesium salts and nitrogen-bearing clays are important ingredients in a good, rich soil for raising crops. So naming Ceres after a harvest deity was more appropriate than Piazzi could have imagined!

Monica Grady, Professor of Planetary and Space Sciences, The Open University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

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

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

Bird Wintering: How Citizen Science Supports Climate Science

By Brittany Whited

This December, tens of thousands of individuals across the Americas will participate in the National Audubon Society’s Christmas Bird Count, the longest-running citizen science program in the world.

The first Christmas Bird Count took place in 1900 with just 27 individuals as a conservation-minded alternative to the “Christmas Side Hunt”- a hunt aimed at bagging feathered and furry creatures alike. Conservation was in its beginning stages at the turn of the century and citizens were growing concerned about declining bird populations.

Video still from Christmas Bird Count told by Chan Robbins
Photo: Camilla Cerea
National Audubon Society

Established in 1900 by ornithologist Frank Chapman, the Christmas Bird Count is now organized by the National Audubon Society.
Photo: Camilla Cerea National Audubon Society

The new tradition struck a chord. One-hundred and fifteen years later, the Christmas Side Hunt has faded from our nation’s memory and the Christmas Bird Count boasts 70,000+ participants spread over 2,000 locations. At each location, birdwatchers tally the number and type of species they see and hear over a 24-hour period and report their results back to the Audubon Society.

In the 1930s, this act of citizen science helped scientists better understand the decline of wild turkey populations. At that time, the US had only an estimated 30,000 birds. Today, after notable conservation efforts, the US is home to about 7 million of the gobbling creatures.

The Christmas Bird Count continues to produce valuable information. For example, data collected by dedicated individualshas revealed that, among 305 widespread North American bird species, the average winter “center of abundance” moved northward by more than 40 miles between 1966 and 2013. The center of abundance is a point on the map that represents the midpoint of each species’ distribution. If a population of birds were to shift northward, so would the center of abundance.

Trends in the center of abundance moving northward can be closely related to increasing winter temperatures. This indicator is now used as one of the EPA’s Climate Change Indicators in the United States.

Some birds have moved farther than others- a total of 48 species have moved northward by more than 200 miles. For example, the Pine Siskin moved 288 miles north in the last 40 years.

Source: Climate Change Indicators in the United States, 2014 –Third Edition, US EPA
Data source: National Audubon Society, 2014

The Christmas Bird Count is free and open to all regardless of experience. Each group of birdwatchers will have at least one skilled birder to assist in identifying birds. For dates, registration information, and the person of contact in your area, click here.

If birds aren’t your style, or you simply aren’t one to spend a day braving the December cold, there are many other opportunities to be a citizen scientist with your smartphone. There are a multitude of citizen-science apps sure to suit even the choosiest naturalist – mPING, from NOAA, lets you submit reports on the weather in your area to improve weather report predictions. Check your app store for more citizen science opportunities. Anyone with a smartphone can quickly contribute to science through data gathering – making reporting much easier than it was during the first Christmas Bird Count 115 years ago.

About the Author: Brittany Whited is an Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) participant hosted by the Climate Science and Impacts Branch in the EPA’s Office of Atmospheric Programs.

from The EPA Blog http://ift.tt/1RPuMXK

By Brittany Whited

This December, tens of thousands of individuals across the Americas will participate in the National Audubon Society’s Christmas Bird Count, the longest-running citizen science program in the world.

The first Christmas Bird Count took place in 1900 with just 27 individuals as a conservation-minded alternative to the “Christmas Side Hunt”- a hunt aimed at bagging feathered and furry creatures alike. Conservation was in its beginning stages at the turn of the century and citizens were growing concerned about declining bird populations.

Video still from Christmas Bird Count told by Chan Robbins
Photo: Camilla Cerea
National Audubon Society

Established in 1900 by ornithologist Frank Chapman, the Christmas Bird Count is now organized by the National Audubon Society.
Photo: Camilla Cerea National Audubon Society

The new tradition struck a chord. One-hundred and fifteen years later, the Christmas Side Hunt has faded from our nation’s memory and the Christmas Bird Count boasts 70,000+ participants spread over 2,000 locations. At each location, birdwatchers tally the number and type of species they see and hear over a 24-hour period and report their results back to the Audubon Society.

In the 1930s, this act of citizen science helped scientists better understand the decline of wild turkey populations. At that time, the US had only an estimated 30,000 birds. Today, after notable conservation efforts, the US is home to about 7 million of the gobbling creatures.

The Christmas Bird Count continues to produce valuable information. For example, data collected by dedicated individualshas revealed that, among 305 widespread North American bird species, the average winter “center of abundance” moved northward by more than 40 miles between 1966 and 2013. The center of abundance is a point on the map that represents the midpoint of each species’ distribution. If a population of birds were to shift northward, so would the center of abundance.

Trends in the center of abundance moving northward can be closely related to increasing winter temperatures. This indicator is now used as one of the EPA’s Climate Change Indicators in the United States.

Some birds have moved farther than others- a total of 48 species have moved northward by more than 200 miles. For example, the Pine Siskin moved 288 miles north in the last 40 years.

Source: Climate Change Indicators in the United States, 2014 –Third Edition, US EPA
Data source: National Audubon Society, 2014

The Christmas Bird Count is free and open to all regardless of experience. Each group of birdwatchers will have at least one skilled birder to assist in identifying birds. For dates, registration information, and the person of contact in your area, click here.

If birds aren’t your style, or you simply aren’t one to spend a day braving the December cold, there are many other opportunities to be a citizen scientist with your smartphone. There are a multitude of citizen-science apps sure to suit even the choosiest naturalist – mPING, from NOAA, lets you submit reports on the weather in your area to improve weather report predictions. Check your app store for more citizen science opportunities. Anyone with a smartphone can quickly contribute to science through data gathering – making reporting much easier than it was during the first Christmas Bird Count 115 years ago.

About the Author: Brittany Whited is an Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) participant hosted by the Climate Science and Impacts Branch in the EPA’s Office of Atmospheric Programs.

from The EPA Blog http://ift.tt/1RPuMXK

A New Name, Same Important Mission

By Mathy Stanislaus, Assistant Administrator, Office of Land and Emergency Response

Over the last year, my staff and I have been working diligently to identify a new name for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER). We wanted a name that reflects the breadth and depth of our programmatic footprint in protecting human health and the environment. We asked for input from our personnel and key regional staff. After compiling and reviewing responses, I am pleased to share that the new name is the Office of Land and Emergency Management (OLEM) with the unchanged mission of restoring land, preventing releases, and conserving resources.

The evolution of the “waste office’s” work has resulted in an office that not only addresses waste issues but one that protects human health and the environment through diverse ways. These are some examples of our work and how we’ve grown:

• We advance recycling and adopting a sustainable materials management approach. Sustainable materials management (SMM) represents a change in how our society thinks about the use of natural resources and environmental protection. Partnerships with the public and private sector have helped EPA launch innovative recycling initiatives such as the Electronics Challenge, the Food Recovery Challenge, and the Federal Green Challenge. We’ve also gone global and are working with the world’s leading economic countries to advance SMM through the G7 Alliance for Resource Efficiency.
• We invest in efforts that create sustainable community revitalization. For nearly two decades, we have been on the forefront of transforming communities. We have established critical relationships with local government leaders, local residents, community organizations, and local businesses to convert blighted properties into economic and social opportunities. Additionally, through programs like the Investing in Manufacturing Communities initiative, we are leveraging the financial and technical resources of federal agency partners to breathe new life into growing and thriving American neighborhoods in a way that’s environmentally and economically sustainable. Learn about land revitalization, brownfields, using cleanups for alternative energy, and other cleanup programs such as Superfund, RCRA Corrective Action, and cleaning up underground storage tank releases.
• We enhance the agency’s emergency preparedness and response capabilities to better ensure the safety of communities. Most recently, through Executive Order (EO) 13650 “Improving Chemical Facility Safety and Security”, we are strengthening the capacity of the emergency response community, enhancing coordination with federal partners, modernizing rules and regulation, and remaining in close dialogue with stakeholders involved in emergency management.

These are, of course, examples: there is so much more we are called to do. I want to reiterate that while our name has changed, our mission has not.

More information about the name change is on our website. In the meantime, be sure to follow us on twitter @EPALand to stay up to date on all the great work we’re doing! You can also learn more about our impact by viewing our interactive FY14 Accomplishments Report.

from The EPA Blog http://ift.tt/1RPuK2f

By Mathy Stanislaus, Assistant Administrator, Office of Land and Emergency Response

Over the last year, my staff and I have been working diligently to identify a new name for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER). We wanted a name that reflects the breadth and depth of our programmatic footprint in protecting human health and the environment. We asked for input from our personnel and key regional staff. After compiling and reviewing responses, I am pleased to share that the new name is the Office of Land and Emergency Management (OLEM) with the unchanged mission of restoring land, preventing releases, and conserving resources.

The evolution of the “waste office’s” work has resulted in an office that not only addresses waste issues but one that protects human health and the environment through diverse ways. These are some examples of our work and how we’ve grown:

• We advance recycling and adopting a sustainable materials management approach. Sustainable materials management (SMM) represents a change in how our society thinks about the use of natural resources and environmental protection. Partnerships with the public and private sector have helped EPA launch innovative recycling initiatives such as the Electronics Challenge, the Food Recovery Challenge, and the Federal Green Challenge. We’ve also gone global and are working with the world’s leading economic countries to advance SMM through the G7 Alliance for Resource Efficiency.
• We invest in efforts that create sustainable community revitalization. For nearly two decades, we have been on the forefront of transforming communities. We have established critical relationships with local government leaders, local residents, community organizations, and local businesses to convert blighted properties into economic and social opportunities. Additionally, through programs like the Investing in Manufacturing Communities initiative, we are leveraging the financial and technical resources of federal agency partners to breathe new life into growing and thriving American neighborhoods in a way that’s environmentally and economically sustainable. Learn about land revitalization, brownfields, using cleanups for alternative energy, and other cleanup programs such as Superfund, RCRA Corrective Action, and cleaning up underground storage tank releases.
• We enhance the agency’s emergency preparedness and response capabilities to better ensure the safety of communities. Most recently, through Executive Order (EO) 13650 “Improving Chemical Facility Safety and Security”, we are strengthening the capacity of the emergency response community, enhancing coordination with federal partners, modernizing rules and regulation, and remaining in close dialogue with stakeholders involved in emergency management.

These are, of course, examples: there is so much more we are called to do. I want to reiterate that while our name has changed, our mission has not.

More information about the name change is on our website. In the meantime, be sure to follow us on twitter @EPALand to stay up to date on all the great work we’re doing! You can also learn more about our impact by viewing our interactive FY14 Accomplishments Report.

from The EPA Blog http://ift.tt/1RPuK2f