Tag: science

Water Ice in Shackleton Crater?

9:58 am

Ice in Shackleton?

New results from the radar instrument on Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) has found evidence of water-ice on the slopes of Shackleton Crater, located at the Moon’s south pole. The paper, published on Saturday in Geophysical Research Letters – Planets, suggested that about 5 to 10 percent of the weight of the material on the slopes of the crater is comprised of water ice, to depths of 6 to 10 feet.

The box on the upper left in the image to the right shows the data from a radar sweep of the crater taken on April 18, 2010, and compares that to five computer models. As you can see, the data here most closely matches the 5% ice model. Two other sweeps showed similar results.

The water-ice, if there, is not in slabs of ice, as sometimes portrayed in the press, but would be mixed into the Moon’s regolith, or “topsoil”, and would have to be processed out like ore to be useful. Or to quote the paper’s conclusion:

The fundamental conclusions made with high resolution, ground based radar of Shackleton remain unaltered — that no large-scale, meters thick ice deposits are evident within the crater. Rather, Mini-RF data are consistent with roughness effects or with a small percentage of water-ice deposits admixed into the uppermost 1-2 meters of silicate regolith within Shackleton, possibly accounting for the observations made by the Clementine bistatic experiment.

Several points:
» Read more

Leave a comment

most of the weather stations in the US are so poorly sited that their temperature data is unreliable.

7:28 pm

“Most of the weather stations in the US are so poorly sited that their temperature data is unreliable.”

The article describes a new paper which analyzed the reliability of the weather stations in the U.S. and found that NOAA not only favored the data from the more untrustworthy stations — which also happened to have a warming bias — they then adjusted the overall data upward even more.

In other words, any temperature data from the last few decades cannot be trusted.

The full details can be found at Watts Up With That, but I haven’t given that as the main link because the page takes so long to load due to the many comments. You can also go here for additional information.

One comment

Water on the Moon? The battle continues

2:18 pm

LEND data of lunar south pole

A little over a month ago I reported here on Behind the Black some recent results from the LEND instrument on Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) that had found significantly less water in the permanently shadowed craters at the lunar poles than previously thought. To quote again from that paper’s abstract, which I will henceforth refer to as Sanin, et al:

This means that all [permanently shadowed regions], except those in Shoemaker, Cabeus and Rozhdestvensky U craters, do not contain any significant amount of hydrogen in comparison with sunlit areas around them at the same latitude.

And from the paper’s conclusion:

[E]ven now the data is enough for definite conclusion that [permanently shadowed regions] at both poles are not reservoirs of large deposits of water ice.

Paul Spudis of the Lunar and Planetary Institute in Houston, Texas and one of the world’s top lunar scientists then commented as follows:

You neglect to mention yet another possibility — that this paper and its conclusions are seriously flawed in almost every respect. The veracity of the LRO collimated neutron data [produced by the LEND instrument] have been questioned on serious scientific grounds. Other data sets (spectral, radar) suggest significant amounts of water at both poles, billions of metric tons in total.

Spudis also discussed this scientific dispute at length on his own blog.

When I read Dr. Spudis’s comment I immediately emailed William Boynton of the Lunar and Planetary Laboratory at the University of Arizona, one of the authors of the Sanin et al paper, to get his reaction. Today he sent me the following detailed explanation, describing the basis of the controversy and why he believes the LEND data is valid.
» Read more

18 comments

This year there will be more cases of whooping cough in fifty years.

10:09 pm

Not good: This year there will be the most cases of whooping cough in more than a half century.

The CDC is trying to figure out what’s going on, but Schuchat said a couple of factors are clearly at work. The formulation for the whooping cough vaccine was changed in 1997, and kids hitting age 13 and 14 now are the first to have been fully vaccinated with five doses of the new vaccine. The new formulation causes less of a reaction, but it may also wear off sooner, Schuchat said.

The older vaccine was made using a whole pertussis bacterium. It was very effective, but it did cause swelling in some kids who got it, and sometimes caused a fever — something that scared parents. It also was widely blamed for causing rare but serious neurological reactions, although Schuchat said studies have not confirmed this.

I imagine the formulation was changed because of the uproar in the 1990s about the dangers of the old vaccine.

Leave a comment

Astronomers have discovered the first exoplanet smaller than Earth.

9:19 am

Astronomers have discovered the first exoplanet smaller than Earth.

The University of Central Florida has detected what could be its first planet, only two-thirds the size of Earth and located right around the corner, cosmically speaking, at a mere 33-light years away. The exoplanet candidate called UCF 1.01, is close to its star, so close it goes around the star in 1.4 days. The planet’s surface likely reaches temperatures of more than 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The discoverers believe that it has no atmosphere, is only two-thirds the gravity of Earth and that its surface may be volcanic or molten.

What is especially remarkable about this discovery is that the scientists used the Spitzer Space Telescope to do it, detecting the planet’s transits across the star’s face, just like Kepler. Spitzer was not designed to be able to do this.

One comment

A review by the IPCC of its earlier reports has admitted to serious problems and fundamental biases.

9:51 am

A review by the IPCC of its earlier reports has admitted that the manner in which the reports were produced had serious problems and fundamental biases.

The IAC reported that IPCC lead authors fail to give “due consideration … to properly documented alternative views” (p. 20), fail to “provide detailed written responses to the most significant review issues identified by the Review Editors” (p. 21), and are not “consider[ing] review comments carefully and document[ing] their responses” (p. 22). In plain English: the IPCC reports are not peer-reviewed.

The IAC found that “the IPCC has no formal process or criteria for selecting authors” and “the selection criteria seemed arbitrary to many respondents” (p. 18). Government officials appoint scientists from their countries and “do not always nominate the best scientists from among those who volunteer, either because they do not know who these scientists are or because political considerations are given more weight than scientific qualifications” (p. 18). In other words: authors are selected from a “club” of scientists and nonscientists who agree with the alarmist perspective favored by politicians.

The rewriting of the Summary for Policy Makers by politicians and environmental activists — a problem called out by global warming realists for many years, but with little apparent notice by the media or policymakers — was plainly admitted, perhaps for the first time by an organization in the “mainstream” of alarmist climate change thinking. “[M]any were concerned that reinterpretations of the assessment’s findings, suggested in the final Plenary, might be politically motivated,” the IAC auditors wrote. The scientists they interviewed commonly found the Synthesis Report “too political” (p. 25). [emphasis mine]

The sad part is that almost none of these problems have been addressed by the IPCC in producing its next report, due out sometime in 2013 or 2014.

3 comments

The field of clinical psychology is in an uproar over the resignation of two members of the group revising the field’s basic manual for diagnosing mental disorders.

9:37 am

But is it science? The field of clinical psychology is in an uproar over the resignation of two members of the group revising the field’s basic manual for diagnosing mental disorders.

As the article notes, “An inaccurate [manual] could lead to misdiagnosed patients receiving useless or even harmful treatments.” The protest letter, written by the two resigning members, also includes this gem:

As it stands now, the [manual’s] personality section is not readable, much less usable. It will be ignored by clinicians and will do grave harm to research. This is the sad product of small group of cloistered … “experts” stubbornly ignoring the sharp criticism from within their own group and the near universal rejection of their proposals by everyone else in the field.

Kind of reminds me of climategate. I wonder who is funding this working group.

One comment

Democrats in Congress proposed on Friday creating a federal program to develop and implement “forensic science standards.”

9:04 am

Democrats in Congress proposed on Friday creating a federal program to develop and implement “forensic science standards.”

The bill calls for the creation of a forensic science committee chaired by the National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST), which would assess how to best handle material from a crime scene, for example, and issue guidelines. Meanwhile, basic research into new forensic science tools and techniques might fall under the guise of a proposed National Forensic Science Coordinating Office, housed at the National Science Foundation (NSF). Over the next five years, the bill would provide $200 million in grants for forensic science research, and $100 million for the development of forensic science standards.

Two new federal agencies, costing millions. Gee, I wonder where these Democrats think the money will come from? And that ignores the more fundamental question of what business is it of the federal government to do this? Law enforcement is a state issue.

If this bill passes (which I suspect is quite unlikely), all it will probably accomplish is to create a new bureaucracy in Washington (jobs for the buddies of these politicians!).

Leave a comment

A new study suggests that the glaciers in the Himalayas are shrinking, with different regions shrinking much faster than others.

11:59 am

The uncertainty of science: A new study suggests that the glaciers in the Himalayas are shrinking, with different regions shrinking much faster than others.

This study both supplements and contrasts other work which suggested that the western Himalayan glaciers were not shrinking.

It is interesting that the article above does not give any specifics on the rate of shrinkage, other than to say it is getting faster in some areas. Instead, the focus of this work centers more on the discovery that India’s monsoon winds have a significant influence on glacier growth or retreat.

2 comments

Another psychologist has resigned amid questions over the validity of his research.

5:38 pm

Another psychologist has resigned amid questions over the validity of his research.

This and other recent cases (here, here, here, here, here, here) are more evidence that the peer review process in some fields is badly broken, that the reviewers are too often not doing the reviewing they are supposed to, and in some cases might very well be participating in scientific fraud themselves.

4 comments
1 … 212 213 214 215 216 … 271