New Raspberry Pi Projects Kit

The activities paired with the new Raspberry Pi Projects Kit from the Science Buddies Store enable kids to work on creative projects that blend computer programming, electronics circuit building, and art to produce exciting interactive creations. Does your artwork light up when the room dims at the end of the day? Transforming traditional art with electronics and programming opens up all kinds of room for students to experiment and innovation!

For a look at all eight of the projects you can do with the new Raspberry Pi Projects Kit from the Science Buddies Store, check out the full list and overview video on the Creative Raspberry Pi Projects for Beginners page.

The Raspberry Pi Projects Kit was developed with a lead investment from Symantec and additional funding from the Best Buy Foundation, Raspberry Pi Foundation, Oracle Foundation, and Google RISE.

Raspberry Pi is a trademark of the Raspberry Pi Foundation.

from Science Buddies Blog http://ift.tt/1HSlgOk

The activities paired with the new Raspberry Pi Projects Kit from the Science Buddies Store enable kids to work on creative projects that blend computer programming, electronics circuit building, and art to produce exciting interactive creations. Does your artwork light up when the room dims at the end of the day? Transforming traditional art with electronics and programming opens up all kinds of room for students to experiment and innovation!

For a look at all eight of the projects you can do with the new Raspberry Pi Projects Kit from the Science Buddies Store, check out the full list and overview video on the Creative Raspberry Pi Projects for Beginners page.

The Raspberry Pi Projects Kit was developed with a lead investment from Symantec and additional funding from the Best Buy Foundation, Raspberry Pi Foundation, Oracle Foundation, and Google RISE.

Raspberry Pi is a trademark of the Raspberry Pi Foundation.

from Science Buddies Blog http://ift.tt/1HSlgOk

Study: Families struggling with financial burden of dental care costs [The Pump Handle]

The association between financial hardship and medical care isn’t new. Even in wealthy countries such as the U.S., medical bills contribute to a large percentage of personal bankruptcies. Now, a new global study finds that dental care can also contribute to families falling into poverty and being left with fewer financial resources for basic necessities.

In a study published today in the journal PLOS ONE, researchers found that up to 7 percent of households surveyed in 41 low- and middle-income countries had experienced catastrophic dental care expenditures in the last month. To conduct the study, researchers analyzed data from more than 182,000 respondents ages 18 and older in 41 countries and who participated the World Health Organization’s World Health Survey. Spending on dental health care was defined as “catastrophic” if the expenditure was equal to or higher than 40 percent of the household capacity to pay for the care.

The study found that wealthier, urban and larger households as well as more economically developed countries had higher odds of experiencing catastrophic dental care expenditures, while in low- and middle-income countries, the use of dental care was more typically associated with the ability to pay than with a person’s oral health needs. Study authors Mohd Masood, Aubrey Sheiham and Eduardo Bernabe write:

Treating oral diseases is costly, even in high-income countries where 5–10% of public health spending is used for dental care. Although there is no equivalent data for low-income countries, it has been estimated that treating (tooth decay) in children would cost between $1,618 and $3,513 per 1,000 children of mixed ages from 6 to 18 years, an amount that exceeds the available resources for the provision of an essential public health care package for the children of most low-income countries. Those needing dental treatment face two important economic consequences: the high direct costs of the service (out-of-pocket expenditure) and the indirect loss of income and productivity to attend services.

Researchers found that the proportion of households experiencing catastrophic dental care expenditures in the prior four weeks ranged from 0.1 percent in Namibia and Lao to 6.8 percent in Ukraine. In a separate analysis that excluded households with no dental spending, the percentage of households whose expenditures on dental care in the prior four weeks was defined as “catastrophic” ranged from 2.8 percent in Swaziland to 35 percent in Ukraine.

In addition, households with three or more children faced lower odds of experiencing catastrophic dental care expenditures than those with no kids, while households with three or more adults faced higher odds of catastrophic dental care expenditures than single adult households. Overall, catastrophic dental care expenditures were more likely in urban areas than in rural areas. At the country-level, the odds of facing catastrophic dental care expenditures rose 1.17 times for every $1,000 increase in gross domestic product per capita.

While it seems somewhat backward that catastrophic expenditures were more likely in higher-income nations, the study authors explained that dental care in lower-income countries is primarily financed through out-of-pocket spending, while people in wealthier, more urban households are more likely to take advantage of high-cost, private dental care providers. As for the lower risk among households with children, the study noted that most developing countries offer publicly funded health services for children, which decreases the financial burden on families. The researchers added that stronger social norms around the appearance of a person’s teeth might also contribute to more dental care spending in higher-income countries.

The study authors concluded: “There is an opportunity for dental public health advocates and international dental organizations to incorporate dental care in current discussions about universal health coverage and its role in achieving equity in the use of health services.”

In a study published last month in the Journal of Dental Research, researchers estimated that untreated tooth decay, which can lead to infections, chronic pain and disease, affected more than 2.4 billion people globally in 2010, making it the most prevalent health condition in the world. In the U.S., tooth decay is the most prevalent chronic disease among children and adults, even though it’s totally preventable.

To download a full copy of the dental care expenditure study, visit PLOS ONE.

Kim Krisberg is a freelance public health writer living in Austin, Texas, and has been writing about public health for more than a decade.

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

The association between financial hardship and medical care isn’t new. Even in wealthy countries such as the U.S., medical bills contribute to a large percentage of personal bankruptcies. Now, a new global study finds that dental care can also contribute to families falling into poverty and being left with fewer financial resources for basic necessities.

In a study published today in the journal PLOS ONE, researchers found that up to 7 percent of households surveyed in 41 low- and middle-income countries had experienced catastrophic dental care expenditures in the last month. To conduct the study, researchers analyzed data from more than 182,000 respondents ages 18 and older in 41 countries and who participated the World Health Organization’s World Health Survey. Spending on dental health care was defined as “catastrophic” if the expenditure was equal to or higher than 40 percent of the household capacity to pay for the care.

The study found that wealthier, urban and larger households as well as more economically developed countries had higher odds of experiencing catastrophic dental care expenditures, while in low- and middle-income countries, the use of dental care was more typically associated with the ability to pay than with a person’s oral health needs. Study authors Mohd Masood, Aubrey Sheiham and Eduardo Bernabe write:

Treating oral diseases is costly, even in high-income countries where 5–10% of public health spending is used for dental care. Although there is no equivalent data for low-income countries, it has been estimated that treating (tooth decay) in children would cost between $1,618 and $3,513 per 1,000 children of mixed ages from 6 to 18 years, an amount that exceeds the available resources for the provision of an essential public health care package for the children of most low-income countries. Those needing dental treatment face two important economic consequences: the high direct costs of the service (out-of-pocket expenditure) and the indirect loss of income and productivity to attend services.

Researchers found that the proportion of households experiencing catastrophic dental care expenditures in the prior four weeks ranged from 0.1 percent in Namibia and Lao to 6.8 percent in Ukraine. In a separate analysis that excluded households with no dental spending, the percentage of households whose expenditures on dental care in the prior four weeks was defined as “catastrophic” ranged from 2.8 percent in Swaziland to 35 percent in Ukraine.

In addition, households with three or more children faced lower odds of experiencing catastrophic dental care expenditures than those with no kids, while households with three or more adults faced higher odds of catastrophic dental care expenditures than single adult households. Overall, catastrophic dental care expenditures were more likely in urban areas than in rural areas. At the country-level, the odds of facing catastrophic dental care expenditures rose 1.17 times for every $1,000 increase in gross domestic product per capita.

While it seems somewhat backward that catastrophic expenditures were more likely in higher-income nations, the study authors explained that dental care in lower-income countries is primarily financed through out-of-pocket spending, while people in wealthier, more urban households are more likely to take advantage of high-cost, private dental care providers. As for the lower risk among households with children, the study noted that most developing countries offer publicly funded health services for children, which decreases the financial burden on families. The researchers added that stronger social norms around the appearance of a person’s teeth might also contribute to more dental care spending in higher-income countries.

The study authors concluded: “There is an opportunity for dental public health advocates and international dental organizations to incorporate dental care in current discussions about universal health coverage and its role in achieving equity in the use of health services.”

In a study published last month in the Journal of Dental Research, researchers estimated that untreated tooth decay, which can lead to infections, chronic pain and disease, affected more than 2.4 billion people globally in 2010, making it the most prevalent health condition in the world. In the U.S., tooth decay is the most prevalent chronic disease among children and adults, even though it’s totally preventable.

To download a full copy of the dental care expenditure study, visit PLOS ONE.

Kim Krisberg is a freelance public health writer living in Austin, Texas, and has been writing about public health for more than a decade.

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

What does “scientific consensus” mean? (Synopsis) [Starts With A Bang]

“Those who know that the consensus of many centuries has sanctioned the conception that the earth remains at rest in the middle of the heavens as its center, would, I reflected, regard it as an insane pronouncement if I made the opposite assertion that the earth moves.” –Nicolaus Copernicus

There are certain words that simply get people’s hackles raised, shutting off the part of their brain that normally responds to reason and instead results in an emotional response taking over. For some, that word is “theory,” one of the words with the biggest gap between its colloquial and scientific uses.

Image credit: cartoonist Ramirez of the Weekly Standard, via http://ift.tt/1ihIiny.

But another such term is “consensus.” You might have grown up — like me — believing that doing something yourself is the only way to ensure it gets done correctly. But when it comes to science, not only is that not the case at all, but a scientific consensus isn’t the conclusion, but rather the starting point.

Image credit: MacLeod / Union of Concerned Scientists.

Come find out what it’s all about, and learn what the term you’ve probably even used before — scientific consensus — actually means!

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

“Those who know that the consensus of many centuries has sanctioned the conception that the earth remains at rest in the middle of the heavens as its center, would, I reflected, regard it as an insane pronouncement if I made the opposite assertion that the earth moves.” –Nicolaus Copernicus

There are certain words that simply get people’s hackles raised, shutting off the part of their brain that normally responds to reason and instead results in an emotional response taking over. For some, that word is “theory,” one of the words with the biggest gap between its colloquial and scientific uses.

Image credit: cartoonist Ramirez of the Weekly Standard, via http://ift.tt/1ihIiny.

But another such term is “consensus.” You might have grown up — like me — believing that doing something yourself is the only way to ensure it gets done correctly. But when it comes to science, not only is that not the case at all, but a scientific consensus isn’t the conclusion, but rather the starting point.

Image credit: MacLeod / Union of Concerned Scientists.

Come find out what it’s all about, and learn what the term you’ve probably even used before — scientific consensus — actually means!

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

Protect the Earth, Dignify Humanity. The Moral Dimensions of Climate Change and Sustainable Humanity? [Stoat]

It am de Pope, he be at it agen. Dere be no stopping dis righteous Pontifex. Just for the moment, he’s saying things that I broadly agree with, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to start being happy with religious authority.

There was a one-day “seminar” or “workshop” or “event”, Protect the Earth, Dignify Humanity. The Moral Dimensions of Climate Change and Sustainable Humanity on Tuesday the 28th (alas for them, and for numerous folk in Nepal, there was a disastrous earthquake the same day), hosted by The Pontifical Academy of Sciences (as they tastefully put it, Founded in Rome on 17 August 1603 as the first exclusively scientific academy in the world by Federico Cesi, Giovanni Heck, Francesco Stelluti and Anastasio de Filiis with the name Linceorum Academia, to which Galileo Galilei was appointed member on 25 August 1610, it was reestablished in 1847 by Pius IX with the name Pontificia Accademia dei Nuovi Lincei, without otherwise mentioning the G-word; and no, don’t try the G-comparison because you’ll certainly get it wrong).

As a one-day event it was no scientific heavyweight. There was a one and a half hour panel on “Evidence on social exclusion and climate science”, others on “Justice and Responsibility” and “Practical aspects from local to global” and finally on “Eliminate Human Trafficking and Resettle its Victims: Next Steps Towards Sustainable Development” which seems only peripherally connected to the main theme. As far as I can tell, the day was held not to reach conclusions – inevitably, those had been reached behind the scenes some time ago – but to bless the conclusions already made.

Which makes the antics of the denialists ever more weird. Marc Morano appears to think that the Pope might be listening to him. Of course he isn’t; he – or his advisers – have heard from the denialists before, and know full well that they have nothing to say. All that linked post shows is the surprising shallowness of the “skeptic” bench they were able to bring.

I ought to say something about “authority”. One of the best “FUD” tactics of the denialists is to insist that you can work all this stuff out for yourself. That you can start from first principles, sometimes even from raw data, and draw your own conclusions. That version is nonsense; the value of it is that people believe it out of ego, and when they find it leads nowhere they blame the science not themselves and end up “skeptical” of the science, which is the denialist goal. But even the version that says you can start off by just reading the raw research papers and form your own conclusions isn’t really believable for more than a tiny few outside the charmed circle of science. Most people are inevitably going to be accepting someone’s authority either for the whole thing, or for bits they don’t have much contact with. Sane people do that by reading, to a greater or lesser depth, the IPCC reports. Mad, lazy or ignorant people do it by reading newspapers. You can do it by reading blogs, of course, but only if you read the right ones :-). Or wikipedia in fact. And you can do it by reading what authorities that you trust have read; which is where da Pope comes in. But you’re still better off reading the IPCC than listening to him.

What did they say?

Oh come on, I didn’t read the details, but the closing statement is the thing, available from here (but that doesn’t copy well, so you may prefer this version):

considered the overwhelming scientific evidence regarding human-induced climate change, the loss of biodiversity, and the vulnerabilities of the poor to economic, social, and environmental shocks. In the face of the emergencies of human-induced climate change, social exclusion, and extreme poverty, we join together to declare that: Human-induced climate change is a scientific reality, and its decisive mitigation is a moral and religious imperative for humanity;

and so on; you get the idea, I’m sure. The rather more extended statement starts(my bold)

This century is on course to witness unprecedented environmental changes. In particular, the projected climate changes or, more appropriately, climate disruptions, when coupled with ongoing massive species extinctions and the destruction of ecosystems, will doubtless leave their indelible marks on both humanity and nature. As early as 2100, there will be a non-negligible probability of irreversible and catastrophic climate impacts that may last over thousands of years, raising the existential question of whether civilization as we know it can be extended beyond this century. Only a radical change in our attitude towards Creation and towards our fellow humans, complemented by transformative technological innovations, could reverse the dangerous trends that have already been set into motion inadvertently.

That’s all a bit over-emotional for the likes of me, though doubtless others will like it.

What to do?

There’s a section of a fuller statement called “Recommended measures: climate mitigation”. Most people tend to get mitigation a bit wrong, and forget what it is, and confuse it with adaption (mitigation is making the change itself smaller or less bad; adaption is making our responses less bad). The Vatican don’t disappoint in this regard, since point 3 of “Mitigation” is “Prepare especially the most vulnerable 3 billion people to adapt to the climate changes… that society will be unable to mitigate”. Oh well. Otherwise, its the usual, but they can’t bring themselves to mention Carbon Tax, which is a shame.

Winding up the wackos

Naturally enough this is winding up the wackos. There’s a long stream of posts at WUWT of which the most recent I’ve seen is To whom does a Christian owe their loyalty? which starts, in traditional fashion, by getting the G-story wrong and continues, well, it becomes less coherent after that. I think the Watties are underestimating the ability of religious folk to pick-n-choose; but there does seem to be a certain desperation in evidence; is it possible that Catholics might choose to trust da Pope, rather than putting their trust in his holiness Anthony Watts? Is it even possible that AW is feeling some discomfort in holding so clearly at variance with the head of what he tells us is his faith? Well, never mind. We can always wait for the promised encyclical.

Remember, the G-problem was timing (well, amongst other things). The church, at the time, would have had no great problem switching from geocentrism to heliocentrism, had there been incontrovertible proof, which there wasn’t. Had there been no risk of proof of the correctness of geocentrism, which at the time there was no certainty of absence, if you see what I mean. What they didn’t want to do was switch to heliocentrism, then flip back again; that would have been like mega-embarrassing. The last thing they need is another such episode, which is why they’ll want to be absolutely sure of what they end up encycling.

I’ve just noticed a bit in the Beeb article which speaks to this point: Bishop Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo, who heads the Academy, said the Encyclical would not be the highest level of proclamation from the Pope, which is reserved for issues of Faith. But he said it was important for all the world’s 1.2 billion Catholics to take it seriously. If any Catholic wanted to ignore it they would need “very good reasons – based not on personal or political opinion, but on science”.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1P7JPHD

It am de Pope, he be at it agen. Dere be no stopping dis righteous Pontifex. Just for the moment, he’s saying things that I broadly agree with, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to start being happy with religious authority.

There was a one-day “seminar” or “workshop” or “event”, Protect the Earth, Dignify Humanity. The Moral Dimensions of Climate Change and Sustainable Humanity on Tuesday the 28th (alas for them, and for numerous folk in Nepal, there was a disastrous earthquake the same day), hosted by The Pontifical Academy of Sciences (as they tastefully put it, Founded in Rome on 17 August 1603 as the first exclusively scientific academy in the world by Federico Cesi, Giovanni Heck, Francesco Stelluti and Anastasio de Filiis with the name Linceorum Academia, to which Galileo Galilei was appointed member on 25 August 1610, it was reestablished in 1847 by Pius IX with the name Pontificia Accademia dei Nuovi Lincei, without otherwise mentioning the G-word; and no, don’t try the G-comparison because you’ll certainly get it wrong).

As a one-day event it was no scientific heavyweight. There was a one and a half hour panel on “Evidence on social exclusion and climate science”, others on “Justice and Responsibility” and “Practical aspects from local to global” and finally on “Eliminate Human Trafficking and Resettle its Victims: Next Steps Towards Sustainable Development” which seems only peripherally connected to the main theme. As far as I can tell, the day was held not to reach conclusions – inevitably, those had been reached behind the scenes some time ago – but to bless the conclusions already made.

Which makes the antics of the denialists ever more weird. Marc Morano appears to think that the Pope might be listening to him. Of course he isn’t; he – or his advisers – have heard from the denialists before, and know full well that they have nothing to say. All that linked post shows is the surprising shallowness of the “skeptic” bench they were able to bring.

I ought to say something about “authority”. One of the best “FUD” tactics of the denialists is to insist that you can work all this stuff out for yourself. That you can start from first principles, sometimes even from raw data, and draw your own conclusions. That version is nonsense; the value of it is that people believe it out of ego, and when they find it leads nowhere they blame the science not themselves and end up “skeptical” of the science, which is the denialist goal. But even the version that says you can start off by just reading the raw research papers and form your own conclusions isn’t really believable for more than a tiny few outside the charmed circle of science. Most people are inevitably going to be accepting someone’s authority either for the whole thing, or for bits they don’t have much contact with. Sane people do that by reading, to a greater or lesser depth, the IPCC reports. Mad, lazy or ignorant people do it by reading newspapers. You can do it by reading blogs, of course, but only if you read the right ones :-). Or wikipedia in fact. And you can do it by reading what authorities that you trust have read; which is where da Pope comes in. But you’re still better off reading the IPCC than listening to him.

What did they say?

Oh come on, I didn’t read the details, but the closing statement is the thing, available from here (but that doesn’t copy well, so you may prefer this version):

considered the overwhelming scientific evidence regarding human-induced climate change, the loss of biodiversity, and the vulnerabilities of the poor to economic, social, and environmental shocks. In the face of the emergencies of human-induced climate change, social exclusion, and extreme poverty, we join together to declare that: Human-induced climate change is a scientific reality, and its decisive mitigation is a moral and religious imperative for humanity;

and so on; you get the idea, I’m sure. The rather more extended statement starts(my bold)

This century is on course to witness unprecedented environmental changes. In particular, the projected climate changes or, more appropriately, climate disruptions, when coupled with ongoing massive species extinctions and the destruction of ecosystems, will doubtless leave their indelible marks on both humanity and nature. As early as 2100, there will be a non-negligible probability of irreversible and catastrophic climate impacts that may last over thousands of years, raising the existential question of whether civilization as we know it can be extended beyond this century. Only a radical change in our attitude towards Creation and towards our fellow humans, complemented by transformative technological innovations, could reverse the dangerous trends that have already been set into motion inadvertently.

That’s all a bit over-emotional for the likes of me, though doubtless others will like it.

What to do?

There’s a section of a fuller statement called “Recommended measures: climate mitigation”. Most people tend to get mitigation a bit wrong, and forget what it is, and confuse it with adaption (mitigation is making the change itself smaller or less bad; adaption is making our responses less bad). The Vatican don’t disappoint in this regard, since point 3 of “Mitigation” is “Prepare especially the most vulnerable 3 billion people to adapt to the climate changes… that society will be unable to mitigate”. Oh well. Otherwise, its the usual, but they can’t bring themselves to mention Carbon Tax, which is a shame.

Winding up the wackos

Naturally enough this is winding up the wackos. There’s a long stream of posts at WUWT of which the most recent I’ve seen is To whom does a Christian owe their loyalty? which starts, in traditional fashion, by getting the G-story wrong and continues, well, it becomes less coherent after that. I think the Watties are underestimating the ability of religious folk to pick-n-choose; but there does seem to be a certain desperation in evidence; is it possible that Catholics might choose to trust da Pope, rather than putting their trust in his holiness Anthony Watts? Is it even possible that AW is feeling some discomfort in holding so clearly at variance with the head of what he tells us is his faith? Well, never mind. We can always wait for the promised encyclical.

Remember, the G-problem was timing (well, amongst other things). The church, at the time, would have had no great problem switching from geocentrism to heliocentrism, had there been incontrovertible proof, which there wasn’t. Had there been no risk of proof of the correctness of geocentrism, which at the time there was no certainty of absence, if you see what I mean. What they didn’t want to do was switch to heliocentrism, then flip back again; that would have been like mega-embarrassing. The last thing they need is another such episode, which is why they’ll want to be absolutely sure of what they end up encycling.

I’ve just noticed a bit in the Beeb article which speaks to this point: Bishop Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo, who heads the Academy, said the Encyclical would not be the highest level of proclamation from the Pope, which is reserved for issues of Faith. But he said it was important for all the world’s 1.2 billion Catholics to take it seriously. If any Catholic wanted to ignore it they would need “very good reasons – based not on personal or political opinion, but on science”.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1P7JPHD

Latest New Horizons images of Pluto

Notice the bright spot on Pluto at about 3 o’clock. That spot corresponds to the location of a pole on Pluto. Is the bright spot an ice cap at Pluto’s pole? Time will tell.

Members of the Pluto science team were clearly excited today (April 29, 2015) during a NASA teleconference announcing the first detection by the New Horizons spacecraft of surface features on Pluto. The movie above shows Pluto’s moon Charon orbiting the dwarf planet, with surface features on Pluto clearly visible. The high-resolution LORRI – or LOng-Range Reconnaissance Imager – aboard the New Horizons spacecraft obtained the images to make this movie this month. Alan Stern, New Horizons principal investigator, said:

These images were … my ‘meet-Pluto’ moment … An emotional moment.

New Horizons has been journeying toward Pluto since 2006 and is now only 11 weeks from sweeping closest to Pluto on July 14, 2015. The science team said that we can expect even better images of Pluto in the weeks ahead.

One thing to notice already is that the brightness of the large moon Charon is not varying in the same way that Pluto’s is. So, even though we are not seeing surface features on Charon yet, the absence of brightness variations across Charon’s surface indicates its surface is different from Pluto’s.

Stern noted that Pluto – much like the planet Uranus – has an axis of rotation that is tipped on its side with respect to the planet of the solar system. He said that in the new images, Pluto is rotating on its side “like a chicken over a barbeque” pit.

Pluto and Charon are a double world, the only true double world beyond Earth ever visited by a spacecraft. The two worlds orbit each other. In the movie at the top of this post, Pluto is shown as still so you can see it better, as Charon orbits around it. But, in reality, Pluto and Charon tug on each other’s positions in space, as you can more clearly see in this movie

A timeline of New Horizons’ epic journey to Pluto and beyond. Image via NASA.

He noted with some surprise that we can already see broad surface markings on Pluto, and a wide range of reflected brightnesses (known as albedos to astronomers).

Notice that, as Pluto rotates, you’re seeing a changing brightness across its surface. But, in 3 o’clock position on Pluto, that part of the image always remain bright. That’s a pole on Pluto, and what we’re seeing here may indicate a polar cap.

After 114 months traveling toward Pluto – and just 2 months left to go before the Pluto encounter – Stern said he and his team felt:

… like ocean mariners. We can finally see the shore.

When New Horizons is closest to Pluto, it’ll be able to see details on Pluto’s surface similar to what we see in this image of Earth. The inset shows New York City. If you look closely, you can see Central Park – even some of the ponds in Central Park. We’ll see Pluto at this resolution in July, 2015. Image via NASA

Stern also commented that, by the time we reach Pluto in July, we’ll be seeing images that are literally thousands of times better than any seen so far. He added that the surface markings seen already on Pluto are a promising sign, saying:

It’s rare to see any planet in the solar system at this resolution displaying such strong surface markings. You wouldn’t see similar markings on Mercury, or Mars, for example, at this distance with the LORRI camera. That is very promising for the kinds of images we’ll see as we get closer to Pluto. We don’t know if the markings are caused by geography or topography … but those are just the kinds of questions we’ll be able to answer as New Horizons gets closer.

Bottom line: On April 29, 2015, at a NASA teleconference, the Pluto science team sounded very excited about the latest images of Pluto, which show surface features on Pluto’s surface.

from EarthSky http://ift.tt/1GIxYR5

Notice the bright spot on Pluto at about 3 o’clock. That spot corresponds to the location of a pole on Pluto. Is the bright spot an ice cap at Pluto’s pole? Time will tell.

Members of the Pluto science team were clearly excited today (April 29, 2015) during a NASA teleconference announcing the first detection by the New Horizons spacecraft of surface features on Pluto. The movie above shows Pluto’s moon Charon orbiting the dwarf planet, with surface features on Pluto clearly visible. The high-resolution LORRI – or LOng-Range Reconnaissance Imager – aboard the New Horizons spacecraft obtained the images to make this movie this month. Alan Stern, New Horizons principal investigator, said:

These images were … my ‘meet-Pluto’ moment … An emotional moment.

New Horizons has been journeying toward Pluto since 2006 and is now only 11 weeks from sweeping closest to Pluto on July 14, 2015. The science team said that we can expect even better images of Pluto in the weeks ahead.

One thing to notice already is that the brightness of the large moon Charon is not varying in the same way that Pluto’s is. So, even though we are not seeing surface features on Charon yet, the absence of brightness variations across Charon’s surface indicates its surface is different from Pluto’s.

Stern noted that Pluto – much like the planet Uranus – has an axis of rotation that is tipped on its side with respect to the planet of the solar system. He said that in the new images, Pluto is rotating on its side “like a chicken over a barbeque” pit.

Pluto and Charon are a double world, the only true double world beyond Earth ever visited by a spacecraft. The two worlds orbit each other. In the movie at the top of this post, Pluto is shown as still so you can see it better, as Charon orbits around it. But, in reality, Pluto and Charon tug on each other’s positions in space, as you can more clearly see in this movie

A timeline of New Horizons’ epic journey to Pluto and beyond. Image via NASA.

He noted with some surprise that we can already see broad surface markings on Pluto, and a wide range of reflected brightnesses (known as albedos to astronomers).

Notice that, as Pluto rotates, you’re seeing a changing brightness across its surface. But, in 3 o’clock position on Pluto, that part of the image always remain bright. That’s a pole on Pluto, and what we’re seeing here may indicate a polar cap.

After 114 months traveling toward Pluto – and just 2 months left to go before the Pluto encounter – Stern said he and his team felt:

… like ocean mariners. We can finally see the shore.

When New Horizons is closest to Pluto, it’ll be able to see details on Pluto’s surface similar to what we see in this image of Earth. The inset shows New York City. If you look closely, you can see Central Park – even some of the ponds in Central Park. We’ll see Pluto at this resolution in July, 2015. Image via NASA

Stern also commented that, by the time we reach Pluto in July, we’ll be seeing images that are literally thousands of times better than any seen so far. He added that the surface markings seen already on Pluto are a promising sign, saying:

It’s rare to see any planet in the solar system at this resolution displaying such strong surface markings. You wouldn’t see similar markings on Mercury, or Mars, for example, at this distance with the LORRI camera. That is very promising for the kinds of images we’ll see as we get closer to Pluto. We don’t know if the markings are caused by geography or topography … but those are just the kinds of questions we’ll be able to answer as New Horizons gets closer.

Bottom line: On April 29, 2015, at a NASA teleconference, the Pluto science team sounded very excited about the latest images of Pluto, which show surface features on Pluto’s surface.

from EarthSky http://ift.tt/1GIxYR5

Gangs in #Baltimore Did Not Band Together To Go After Cops [Greg Laden's Blog]

You all heard that gangs in Baltimore had banded together to go after cops. But if you did hear that, you heard wrong. Gangs are universally vilified, and the term “gang” is also used by law enforcement and their other as a euphemism. (For people it is OK to shoot, apparently.) The reality of gangs is far more complex than usually understood.

Anyway, I thought you might like to see this:

Originally posted by WBALTV 11: Members of the Black Guerrilla Family, the Bloods and the Crips talk to 11 News, saying they did not make a truce to harm police officers.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1PZ4DDr

You all heard that gangs in Baltimore had banded together to go after cops. But if you did hear that, you heard wrong. Gangs are universally vilified, and the term “gang” is also used by law enforcement and their other as a euphemism. (For people it is OK to shoot, apparently.) The reality of gangs is far more complex than usually understood.

Anyway, I thought you might like to see this:

Originally posted by WBALTV 11: Members of the Black Guerrilla Family, the Bloods and the Crips talk to 11 News, saying they did not make a truce to harm police officers.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1PZ4DDr

Comparing models and empirical estimates Part II: interview with Brown [Greg Laden's Blog]

I recently posted an overview of a new climate study, Comparing the model-simulated global warming signal to observations using empirical estimates of unforced noise, by Patrick T. Brown, Wenhong Li, Eugene C. Cordero & Steven A. Mauget. That study is potentially important because of what it says about how to interpret the available data on global warming caused by human generated greenhouse gas pollution. Also, the since publication the study has been rather abused by climate contrarians who chose to interpret it very inaccurately. This is addressed in this item by Media Matters.

My post on the paper describes the basic findings, but at the time I wrote that, I had a number of questions for the study authors. I sent the questions off noting that there was not a big hurry to get back to me, since the climate wasn’t going anywhere any time soon. Lead Author, Patrick Brown, in the mean time, underwent something of a trial by fire when the denialosphere went nuts in the effort to misinterpret the study’s results. I guess I can’t blame them. There is no actual science to grab on to in the effort to deny the reality or importance of anthropogenic climate change, so why not just make stuff up?

Anyway, Patrick Brown addressed all the questions I sent him, and I thought the best way to present this information is as a straight forward interview. As follows.

Amidst the reactions I’ve seen on social media, blogs, etc. to your paper, I see the idea that your study suggests a downward shift in the (severity of, literally, GMT) resulting from greenhouse gas pollution than what was previously thought. However, I don’t think your paper actually says that. Can you comment?

Reply: You are correct, our paper does not say that. How much warming you get for a given change in greenhouse gasses is termed ‘climate sensitivity’ and our study does not address climate sensitivity at all. In fact, the words ‘climate sensitivity’ do not even appear in the study so we are a little frustrated with this interpretation.

It seems to me that between RCP 4.5, 6 and 8.5, you are suggesting that they differ in their ability to predict, with 6 being the best, 4.5 not as good (but well within the range) and 8.5 as being least good, possible but depending on conditions maybe rejectable.

Reply: Yes and this is just over the recent couple decades, our study does not address how likely these scenarios will be by next year or 2050 or 2100.

At this point I think the following characterizes your work; 1) Taking a somewhat novel look at models and data, what we were thinking before seems by and large confirmed by your work; The central trend of warming with increased greenhouse gas is confirmed in that models and data are by and large aligned in both central tendency (the trend line) and variation. Is this correct?

Reply: We found that models largely get the ‘big picture’ correct when it comes to how large the natural chaotic variability is. We already knew the multi-model mean was not getting the trend correct over the past decade-or-so but we knew that this could have been due to random natural variation. Our study just quantified how large the underlying global warming progression could be given that we saw little warming over the recent past.

Your paper seems to confirm that the more likely scenarios are more likely and the less likely scenarios are as previously thought, possible but less likely. More extreme scenarios have not been taken off the table, though there may be refinement in how we view them. Is that a fair characterization?

Reply: Yes.

The amount of noise in the climate system (EUN) is sufficiently high that much of the observed squiggling around a central trend line is accounted for by that noise and does not require questioning the models (that is my rewrite of "We find that the empirical EUN is wide enough so that the interdecadal variability in the rate of global warming over the 20th century does not necessarily require corresponding variability in the rate-of-increase of the forced signal” in your paper) Is it correct to say that unforced squiggling/EUN/noise would naturally go away with longer sampling intervals (going from years to decades, for example) but these results suggest that even interdecadal variability is likely a result of noise, not forcing.

Reply: Yes, we do not rule out that forcing may be responsible but we are saying that this inderdecadal variability doesn’t necessarily require forcing.

Would it be accurate to say that your paper speaks mainly to the nature of variation observed temperature over time, the squiggling of the signal up and down along a trend line, in relation to variation that is seen in models?

Reply: Just to clarify, in the paper we refer to the component of GMT change that is due to external radiative forcings (e.g., greenhouse gasses) as the ‘signal’ and the component due to chaotic unforced variability as ‘noise’. We don’t necessarily expect either of these to be linear or to follow a trend line. We estimated how large the noise was and used this estimate to see what we might be able to infer regarding the underlying signal, given recent observations.

Noise in this signal is presumably dampened by averaging out the numbers over time (widening the sampling interval, if you will) so as we go from years to decades we get a straighter line that should be more in accord with the correct model. Your paper seems to be suggesting that natural/internal variation (EUN, noise) often operates at a scale larger than we would dampen by looking at the data at the decade-long scale. Is that correct? If so, is it the case that an excursion (such as the so called pause/hiatus) that is 10–20 years long does not fall out of the range of expectations (of noise effects) according to your work?

Reply: Yes. No recent trend was completely outside of the range of possibility – even for RCP8.5. However, it’s naturally the case that a steeper signal (like RCP8.5) is less likely than a slower progressing signal (like RCP6.0) over a time period of no warming.

There seems to be some confusion about your conclusions regarding RCP8.5. Does this paper suggest that RCP8.5 should be rejected? Or does it suggest that it is less likely than previous work suggests?

Reply: First it must be said that we were not looking at how likely RCP8.5 is in the long run. We are simply asking the question “if it hasn’t warmed in 11 years (2001–2013) how likely is it that we have been on RCP 8.5 during that time? We find that it is not very likely but still possible.

Asking this a slightly different way (to address the confusion that is out there) does your paper confirm that 8.5 is less likely than RCP 6.0 as previously thought? If RCP 8.5 is less likely than previously thought does this mean that the entire probability distribution estimate for climate sensitivity needs to be shifted downward, or, alternatively, does it only mean that the upper tail is less fat than previously thought, and if so, how much less fat?

Reply: We may have seen less warming than RCP8.5 because the forcings have been overestimated in RCP8.5 relative to reality over the past decade. If forcings have been overestimed than we expect less warming, even with high climate sensitivity. Because of this possibility, our study cannot make conclusions about the climate sensitivity distribution.

Schurer et al did something similar to what you’ve done here a couple of years ago. Comparing their work and yours the question arises, can you get adequate constraint on the forced and internal variability separately from the paleodata and paleo-forced simulations? Or is there too much noise in the two systems that differencing between two noisy data sets is affected by too much noise amplification? In other words, you have partitioned the problem into model outputs vs. empirical, while Shurer separate between forced and internal. Does your (relatively orthogonal) take an additional risk?

Reply: It is certainly a challenge to know how much can be inferred from the paleo record. Our goal, however, was simply to use the paleo-record in a sensible way to estimate the magnitude of unforced variability. We feel that we adequately account for uncertainty in this estimation as we came up with over 15,000 different estimates which sampled uncertainty in different parameters.

Finally, your study goes up to 2013. The year 2013 (or thereabouts) may be considered as part of a sequence of years with little increase in surface temperature. However, starting in March 2014 we have seen only very warm months (starting earlier than that, but excluding February). Predictions on the table suggest 2015 will be warm, and actually, 2016 as well. If it turns out that 2014, 2015, and 2016 are each warmer than the previous year, and your entire study was redone to go to the end of 2016, would your results change? If so, how? (I?m thinking not because the time scale of your work is so large, but I need to ask!)

Reply: The study was submitted before the 2014 datpoint was added to the record which is why it stops there. If by 2016, we are back in the middle of the distribution for RCP8.5 then it would imply that we might be back on the RCP8.5 scenario. This wouldn’t actually change the results of the study since the study was only concerned with what had already occurred. New data will not change that it did not warm from 2002–2013 so our probability calculations of how likely it was that we are on RCP8.5 over those 11 years would not change.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1GIguV2

I recently posted an overview of a new climate study, Comparing the model-simulated global warming signal to observations using empirical estimates of unforced noise, by Patrick T. Brown, Wenhong Li, Eugene C. Cordero & Steven A. Mauget. That study is potentially important because of what it says about how to interpret the available data on global warming caused by human generated greenhouse gas pollution. Also, the since publication the study has been rather abused by climate contrarians who chose to interpret it very inaccurately. This is addressed in this item by Media Matters.

My post on the paper describes the basic findings, but at the time I wrote that, I had a number of questions for the study authors. I sent the questions off noting that there was not a big hurry to get back to me, since the climate wasn’t going anywhere any time soon. Lead Author, Patrick Brown, in the mean time, underwent something of a trial by fire when the denialosphere went nuts in the effort to misinterpret the study’s results. I guess I can’t blame them. There is no actual science to grab on to in the effort to deny the reality or importance of anthropogenic climate change, so why not just make stuff up?

Anyway, Patrick Brown addressed all the questions I sent him, and I thought the best way to present this information is as a straight forward interview. As follows.

Amidst the reactions I’ve seen on social media, blogs, etc. to your paper, I see the idea that your study suggests a downward shift in the (severity of, literally, GMT) resulting from greenhouse gas pollution than what was previously thought. However, I don’t think your paper actually says that. Can you comment?

Reply: You are correct, our paper does not say that. How much warming you get for a given change in greenhouse gasses is termed ‘climate sensitivity’ and our study does not address climate sensitivity at all. In fact, the words ‘climate sensitivity’ do not even appear in the study so we are a little frustrated with this interpretation.

It seems to me that between RCP 4.5, 6 and 8.5, you are suggesting that they differ in their ability to predict, with 6 being the best, 4.5 not as good (but well within the range) and 8.5 as being least good, possible but depending on conditions maybe rejectable.

Reply: Yes and this is just over the recent couple decades, our study does not address how likely these scenarios will be by next year or 2050 or 2100.

At this point I think the following characterizes your work; 1) Taking a somewhat novel look at models and data, what we were thinking before seems by and large confirmed by your work; The central trend of warming with increased greenhouse gas is confirmed in that models and data are by and large aligned in both central tendency (the trend line) and variation. Is this correct?

Reply: We found that models largely get the ‘big picture’ correct when it comes to how large the natural chaotic variability is. We already knew the multi-model mean was not getting the trend correct over the past decade-or-so but we knew that this could have been due to random natural variation. Our study just quantified how large the underlying global warming progression could be given that we saw little warming over the recent past.

Your paper seems to confirm that the more likely scenarios are more likely and the less likely scenarios are as previously thought, possible but less likely. More extreme scenarios have not been taken off the table, though there may be refinement in how we view them. Is that a fair characterization?

Reply: Yes.

The amount of noise in the climate system (EUN) is sufficiently high that much of the observed squiggling around a central trend line is accounted for by that noise and does not require questioning the models (that is my rewrite of "We find that the empirical EUN is wide enough so that the interdecadal variability in the rate of global warming over the 20th century does not necessarily require corresponding variability in the rate-of-increase of the forced signal” in your paper) Is it correct to say that unforced squiggling/EUN/noise would naturally go away with longer sampling intervals (going from years to decades, for example) but these results suggest that even interdecadal variability is likely a result of noise, not forcing.

Reply: Yes, we do not rule out that forcing may be responsible but we are saying that this inderdecadal variability doesn’t necessarily require forcing.

Would it be accurate to say that your paper speaks mainly to the nature of variation observed temperature over time, the squiggling of the signal up and down along a trend line, in relation to variation that is seen in models?

Reply: Just to clarify, in the paper we refer to the component of GMT change that is due to external radiative forcings (e.g., greenhouse gasses) as the ‘signal’ and the component due to chaotic unforced variability as ‘noise’. We don’t necessarily expect either of these to be linear or to follow a trend line. We estimated how large the noise was and used this estimate to see what we might be able to infer regarding the underlying signal, given recent observations.

Noise in this signal is presumably dampened by averaging out the numbers over time (widening the sampling interval, if you will) so as we go from years to decades we get a straighter line that should be more in accord with the correct model. Your paper seems to be suggesting that natural/internal variation (EUN, noise) often operates at a scale larger than we would dampen by looking at the data at the decade-long scale. Is that correct? If so, is it the case that an excursion (such as the so called pause/hiatus) that is 10–20 years long does not fall out of the range of expectations (of noise effects) according to your work?

Reply: Yes. No recent trend was completely outside of the range of possibility – even for RCP8.5. However, it’s naturally the case that a steeper signal (like RCP8.5) is less likely than a slower progressing signal (like RCP6.0) over a time period of no warming.

There seems to be some confusion about your conclusions regarding RCP8.5. Does this paper suggest that RCP8.5 should be rejected? Or does it suggest that it is less likely than previous work suggests?

Reply: First it must be said that we were not looking at how likely RCP8.5 is in the long run. We are simply asking the question “if it hasn’t warmed in 11 years (2001–2013) how likely is it that we have been on RCP 8.5 during that time? We find that it is not very likely but still possible.

Asking this a slightly different way (to address the confusion that is out there) does your paper confirm that 8.5 is less likely than RCP 6.0 as previously thought? If RCP 8.5 is less likely than previously thought does this mean that the entire probability distribution estimate for climate sensitivity needs to be shifted downward, or, alternatively, does it only mean that the upper tail is less fat than previously thought, and if so, how much less fat?

Reply: We may have seen less warming than RCP8.5 because the forcings have been overestimated in RCP8.5 relative to reality over the past decade. If forcings have been overestimed than we expect less warming, even with high climate sensitivity. Because of this possibility, our study cannot make conclusions about the climate sensitivity distribution.

Schurer et al did something similar to what you’ve done here a couple of years ago. Comparing their work and yours the question arises, can you get adequate constraint on the forced and internal variability separately from the paleodata and paleo-forced simulations? Or is there too much noise in the two systems that differencing between two noisy data sets is affected by too much noise amplification? In other words, you have partitioned the problem into model outputs vs. empirical, while Shurer separate between forced and internal. Does your (relatively orthogonal) take an additional risk?

Reply: It is certainly a challenge to know how much can be inferred from the paleo record. Our goal, however, was simply to use the paleo-record in a sensible way to estimate the magnitude of unforced variability. We feel that we adequately account for uncertainty in this estimation as we came up with over 15,000 different estimates which sampled uncertainty in different parameters.

Finally, your study goes up to 2013. The year 2013 (or thereabouts) may be considered as part of a sequence of years with little increase in surface temperature. However, starting in March 2014 we have seen only very warm months (starting earlier than that, but excluding February). Predictions on the table suggest 2015 will be warm, and actually, 2016 as well. If it turns out that 2014, 2015, and 2016 are each warmer than the previous year, and your entire study was redone to go to the end of 2016, would your results change? If so, how? (I?m thinking not because the time scale of your work is so large, but I need to ask!)

Reply: The study was submitted before the 2014 datpoint was added to the record which is why it stops there. If by 2016, we are back in the middle of the distribution for RCP8.5 then it would imply that we might be back on the RCP8.5 scenario. This wouldn’t actually change the results of the study since the study was only concerned with what had already occurred. New data will not change that it did not warm from 2002–2013 so our probability calculations of how likely it was that we are on RCP8.5 over those 11 years would not change.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1GIguV2