Month: June 2021

Many of the threats humanity faces come from ourselves. If we were to list them we would include tribalism, greed, and the fact that we are evolved primates and that our brains have much in common with animal brains. Our animal brain exposes us to many of the same destructive emotions and impulses that animals experience. We wage war and get caught up in generational conflicts. There are genocides, pogroms, doomed shiploads of migrants and horrific mashups of all three.

Isn’t humanity having fun?

But not all threats we face are as persistent as our internal ones. Some threats are external and we can use our technologies and knowledge of nature to fight them. Case in point: asteroids.

NASA can’t do much about our own destructive impulses, but they are definitely able to protect us from dangerous asteroids and comets. These objects are called Near-Earth Objects or NEOs. In 2005, the US Congress passed the NASA Authorization Act of 2005.

Under its requirements, it obliges NASA to step up their game when it comes to detecting NEOs. It states in part that NASA “… should recognize, track, catalog and characterize the physical properties of near-earth objects with a size of 140 meters or more …” In addition, NASA instructs NASA to carry out a surveying program that “… 90 Percent “will achieve completion of its catalog of near-earth objects (based on statistically predicted populations of near-earth objects) within 15 years of the coming into force of this law.”

NASA has made progress in this area and has so far found around 40% of objects 40 meters or more in size. And they get a new tool that they can use to fill out their survey. Called the NEO Surveyor, it is an infrared space telescope designed to find, track, and characterize NEOs. The University of Arizona will lead this new mission, led by Amy Mainzer. Mainzer is an expert in infrared astronomy and a professor at the Lunar and Planetary Laboratory at the University of Arizona.

“Even asteroids as dark as a piece of coal cannot hide from our infrared eyes.”

Professor Amy Mainzer, University of Arizona.

NASA only approved the preliminary design phase at this point, so many details could change between now and the spacecraft’s planned deployment in 2026. But here’s what we know so far.

The spacecraft will carry out its survey in the infrared. Earth-based telescopes have found most of the NEOs cataloged to date, but finding the rest in visible light is extremely difficult. According to a press release, this would take decades. Finding them in the infrared will be much more efficient, but that cannot be done from Earth. A spaceship is needed for this.

Infrared observation is vital to the mission as NEOs happen as they approach the inner solar system. They are heated by the sun, and the NEO Surveyor will detect this heat. Even the blackest, least reflective asteroids are visible in the infrared. In a press release, Mainzer said: “Asteroids and comets approaching Earth are heated by the sun and give off heat that the NEO Surveyor mission can absorb. Even asteroids as dark as a piece of coal cannot hide from our infrared eyes. “

Artistic illustration of the NEO Surveyor, a space telescope used to track down and catalog NEOs. Image source: NASA / JPL

The artist’s illustration above gives us an idea of ​​how NEOs will appear to the NEO Surveyor. Their faint heat signatures appear as strips of dots, which are shown in red in this image for simplicity. Therefore, they are different from the background stars, which are coded blue in this picture. Hunting for NEOs in the infrared will also allow scientists to determine not only the position and trajectory of the objects, but also their size. And it’s their size that determines how devastating they could be if they hit Earth.

“Impact energy is highly dependent on the size of a single asteroid, so NEO Surveyor’s infrared observations will greatly expand our ability to predict the behavior of some of Earth’s neighbors who might be on a trajectory to pay us a surprise visit.” says Mainzer said.

The NEO Surveyor will build on the success of the Near-Earth Object Wide-Field Infrared Sensor (NEOWISE). NEOWISE was a predecessor of the NEO Surveyor. It was a four-month mission extension to the WISE mission conducted when the mission ran out of coolant. Professor Mainzer is the lead scientist at NEOWISE.

This graphic shows asteroids and comets observed by NASA’s Near-Earth Object Wide-field Survey Explorer (NEOWISE) mission. Photo credit: NASA / JPL-Caltech / UCLA / JHU

The University of Arizona will handle all mission management, including the design and construction of the infrared detectors themselves. The university will also oversee the mission and manage the investigations and overall operations of the team. The U of A has a successful track record in this regard, including its participation in the OSIRIS-REx mission and its management of the HiRISE (High-Resolution Imaging Science Experiment) camera on the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO).

“The university’s leadership in infrared astronomy and asteroid research makes it uniquely suited to lead this next-generation infrared sky survey,” said Elizabeth “Betsy” Cantwell, senior vice president of research and innovation at the University of Arizona.

Professor Mainzer and her team will supply eight infrared detectors for the space probe’s camera. Each of the eight offers a resolution of 4 megapixels. That is enough resolution for the NEO Surveyor to recognize the tiny infrared light spots from NEOs. As part of their job, they test various infrared detector assemblies and select the best eight for the telescope.

Like its big brother, the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), which is also an infrared riflescope, the NEO Surveyor will use a heat shield to protect it from the heat of the sun. For infrared detectors to work well, they must be operated at a cold temperature. The shield will handle the sun’s heat as the 20 foot (6 meters) long spacecraft follows an orbit that takes it outside of the moon’s orbit. The observatory continuously scans the sky. It will particularly carefully observe areas near the Sun where asteroids tend to originate on possible earthbound trajectories.

Of course, it is not enough just to find them. One of the main ideas behind the NEO Surveyor is the advance warning. “With NEO Surveyor we want to detect potentially dangerous NEOs when they are years or decades away from possible effects,” said Mainzer. “The whole idea is to give as much time as possible to developing containment measures that will allow us to get them out of the way.” NASA is already working on potential mitigation measures for dangerous asteroids, especially with its Double Asteroid Redirection Mission or DART Mission. DART will test a kinetic impactor to deflect dangerous asteroids away from Earth.

NASA cannot save us from ourselves. But maybe they can protect us from nature. Who knows? Perhaps their efforts will give humanity the time it needs to sort ourselves down here on earth. As Steven Pinker points out in his book The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined, humanity is waging fewer and fewer wars, and those we are waging are becoming smaller and more limited.

It would be a shame if an asteroid ended humanity and even life on Earth while we were still struggling to reliably become peaceful. If NASA can do its part, maybe we can.

More:

Like this:

To like Loading…

Researchers analyze the benefits of withdrawal as a proactive option in the face of climate change

UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI ROSENSTIEL SCHOOL OF MARINE & ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES

Research news

PICTURE: MANAGED RETREAT IS THE PURPOSE OF MOVING PERSONS, BUILDINGS AND INFRASTRUCTURES OUT OF AREAS THAT ARE AVAILABLE FOR OVER SWIMMING, SLOPE LEVEL OR OTHER HAZARDS OF CLIMATE CHANGE ARE STRATEGICALLY USED.

MIAMI – In a new analysis of managed retreats – the response to climate change to get people and property out of the way – researchers examine what it takes for a managed retreat to support people and their priorities. An important starting point is withdrawal alongside other measures such as coastal armor and not just as a last resort.

In a new article in Science magazine, Katharine Mach, a researcher at the University of Miami (UM) Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, argues that managed withdrawal should be viewed as a proactive option that can support communities and livelihoods in the face of climate change.

“Managed retreats can be more effective at reducing risk – in a socially just and economically efficient way – when it is a proactive part of climate-induced transformations,” said Mach, associate professor in the Department of Environmental Science and Policy at UM Rosenstiel School. “It can be used to address climate risks along with other types of responses like building levees or limiting new developments in vulnerable regions.”

In the review, Mach and her colleague AR Siders from the University of Delaware reviewed the existing literature on the subject to argue that societies will be better prepared for the intensification of climate change – such as more frequent and severe storms, floods, and sea levels. Promotion – when considering the potential role of strategic and controlled retreat.

“Towns, cities, towns, and cities are now making decisions that affect the future,” said Siders, a core faculty member at the UD’s Disaster Research Center and assistant professor at the Biden School of Public Policy and Administration and Geography and Spatial Sciences. “As we make these decisions now, we should also consider all the options that are on the table now, not just the ones that are keeping people in place.”

In the United States and in many parts of the world, a retreat is already taking place in the face of relatively moderate climate change and has occurred throughout human history.

“Early discussions about a controlled retreat – and where, when and why its use may or may not be considered acceptable – significantly increases the likelihood that a future climate retreat will benefit societal goals,” said Mach.

VIDEO:

In a related study in the Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Mach and UM PhD student Carolien Kraan provided an initial comprehensive overview of equity concerns expressed in voluntary property purchases and offered policy options to address these concerns.

For example, they suggest that local governments involve residents in the buying process from the very beginning and provide homeowners with professional assistance to guide them through the process to reduce frustrations.

“The article offers practitioners and researchers a synthesis of policy options aimed at improving social justice outcomes in voluntary property purchase programs,” said Kraan, a PhD student at the UM Abess Center for Ecosystem Science and Policy.

###

The review, titled Reframing Strategic, Managed Retreat for Transformative Climate Adaptation, was published in Science on June 18.

The study, entitled “Promoting Equity in Retreat through Voluntary Property Buyout Programs,” was published on May 11 in the Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences. Authors include Jennifer Niemann from UM Rosenstiel School, AR Siders from the University of Delaware, and Miyuki Hino from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Both studies were funded by the Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science and the Leonard and Jayne Abess Center for Ecosystem Science and Policy.

About the Rosenstiel School of the University of Miami

The University of Miami is one of the largest private research institutions in the southeastern United States. The university’s mission is to provide quality education, attract and retain outstanding students, support the faculty and its research, and build a foundation for university initiatives. The Rosenstiel School of Marine & Atmospheric Science was founded in the 1940s and has developed into one of the world’s leading institutions for marine and atmospheric research. The Rosenstiel School offers dynamic interdisciplinary academics and aims to help communities better understand the planet, participate in setting environmental guidelines, and contribute to improving society and the quality of life. For more information, please visit: http://www.rsmas.miami.edu and Twitter @UMiamiRSMAS

From EurekAlert!

Like this:

To like Loading…

connected

Internal geological processes on the moon are almost non-existent. However, when hit by a space rock, its surface can change dramatically. Debris from this impact can also travel long distances and transplant material from an impact site hundreds of kilometers away, where it can remain untouched in its inert environment for billions of years.

When Apollo 17 astronauts took regolith samples at their landing site near the Serenitatis Basin, they were not only collecting rocks from the basin itself, but also from other impacts that had occurred billions of years ago. It has proven difficult to distinguish material that actually formed part of the pool from material that landed there after an impact.

The Apollo 17 astronaut Harrison Schmitt collects a soil sample in the Serenitatis Basin, his spacesuit is covered with dust.
Photo credit: NASA

A nearby impact in particular caused problems – material from the impact that created the Imbrium Basin made up the majority of the samples taken by the Apollo 17 astronauts. This basin is slightly northwest of Serenitatis and was caused by a much larger impact that is also much younger than the one that created Serenitatis.

Despite this age difference, it is difficult to distinguish rocks from one basin or another just by looking at them. One particular rock stood out, however – known as Station 8 from the geological station it was found next to, it formed as part of the Serenitatis Basin rather than its younger neighbor. It also surprised scientists with its age.

Image of the Station 8 Boulder from the Apollo 17 archives. It turns out to be the oldest sample collected by Apollo 17 astronauts.
Credit – NASA

Previous estimates of the age of the basin are between 3.8 and 3.9 billion years. However, analysis of the phosphate material in the sample returned from the boulder at Station 8 shows that its age is closer to 4.2 billion years. This would make it one of the oldest craters on the moon, which only formed about 300 million years after the moon itself.

With many manned lunar missions on the horizon, this will certainly not be the last time samples will be taken from the basin. And the techniques used by the scientists, led by a team from the Open University, are also applicable to other missions, such as the sample retrieval mission currently on its way back from Bennu. Perhaps in the future a crater older than Serenitatis will be found – but right now it looks like we already have a sample of some of the oldest possible rocks from the moon.

Learn more:
The Open University – Moon samples record an impact 4.2 billion years ago that may have formed one of the oldest craters on the moon
NASA – NASA opens a previously unopened Apollo sample prior to the Artemis missions
UT – NASA has a new challenge in bringing frozen samples from the moon back to Earth

Mission statement:
Image of the moon highlighted with the two basins mentioned in the article. Serenitatis is shown with the demarcated landing area of ​​Apollo 17.
Source: Wikipedia

Like this:

To like Loading…

Reposted from the NoTricksZone

By P. Gosselin on June 19, 2021

An outstanding essay …

An extremely dangerous political development is in full swing in Europe: courts are now deciding for themselves on scientific issues.
===============================================

Europe’s climate courts violate the freedom of science

While they keep claiming that they are “following the science,” the climate change advocates are actually suppressing them.

By Fred F. Müller

This is blatantly shown by a ruling by the Karlsruhe Federal Constitutional Court on March 24, 2021. “Climate Chancellor” Angela Merkel had the opportunity for many years to fill this court with her loyal supporters. The latest ruling by the federal government on the Climate Protection Act will certainly set an example in history. Although the word “climate” is nowhere to be found in the current version of the German Basic Law, “climate protection” and even “creating climate neutrality” have been elevated to constitutional articles. According to the highest German court, compliance with the “2-degree target” and, if possible, even the “1.5-degree target” of the Paris Climate Agreement even justifies considerable state intervention in the civil liberties enshrined in the Basic Law.

The first freedom right that is now being marginalized is the freedom of research and teaching, as documented in the written statement of court president Stephan Harbarth and his seven fellow judges in the first chamber: The Federal Constitutional Court sees itself as empowered to decide on scientific issues by judgment rather than scientific evidence, as is usually the case. This could be viewed as a kind of throwback to the Middle Ages, when people who relied on their own intellect were considered a thorn in the side of the religious and political rulers of that time. Such independent spirits dared to question everything that was presented to the people by princes and priests.

In the centuries of conflict between the natural sciences on the one hand and the religious and secular elites on the other, the judgment of the Catholic Inquisition against Galileo Galilei – an outstanding founder of modern science – marked a turning point in some ways. In his trial it was essentially about whether a subject was allowed to clarify the processes in nature through experiment and logic or whether the rulers – at that time the Catholic Church with the help of inquisition courts, which also exercised secular power up to the stake or imprisonment – had the last word on this matter too. After the scandalous verdict against Galileo, the church lost more and more of its reputation.

The natural sciences, on the other hand, were able to gradually prevail in a long, hard struggle, although it took the Catholic Church until 1992 before Galileo Galilei was officially rehabilitated. Secular courts, on the other hand, were much more reluctant to attempt to legally “clarify” scientific questions. It was traditionally accepted that in physics, chemistry or mathematics neither majority nor court rulings apply, only logic, experiment and evidence.

illustration 1. Henry’s Law in action: CO2 dissolved under pressure in sparkling water degasses when pouring and forms bubbles (Photo: Author)

It is all the more surprising when today a secular court wants to elevate the views of only two scientific bodies to quasi-binding constitutional requirements. First and foremost is the IPCC (UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), which has been presented as the global authority on climate issues for years. The second source of justification for this epoch-making decision is the Advisory Council for Environmental Issues (SRU). This body has been staffed by the government with hand-picked specialists, all of whom have professor titles. They have expertise in numerous areas such as medicine, biology, waste and recycling, environmental law and research, and political science. Only one member – a physicist and geographer – has the necessary background to assess climate science issues. The deputy chairman of the SRU is Prof. Kemfert. This telegenic economist and staunch supporter of “climate change” was hailed as a media and talk show star. Although she is presented there as highly competent in energy issues, she is de facto just a staunch lobbyist for the solar and wind energy industry. She occasionally draws attention to herself with terms from the vocabulary of an obscure neo-Marxist sect.

Henry’s law declared irrelevant

The scientific victim of the Karlsruhe judgment is the Heinrichsgesetz, which hardly anyone could describe if asked about it on the street. But its effect is well known, because every time you open a bottle of mineral water or a can of soft drink, it is visible and audible: gas bubbles form in the drink over a long period of time with an intense hissing sound. This gas is CO2, which the bottler has previously added to the drink under high pressure, causing it to dissolve in the liquid. When the bottle is opened, this pressure drops and the CO2 is pushed out of the liquid again in the form of gas bubbles.

Figure 2. This statement by the Federal Constitutional Court contradicts Henry’s law

Henry’s Law also explains why fish suffocate in midsummer because the oxygen content of the warming water drops below the minimum threshold, or why divers can suffer serious health damage from nitrogen bubbles in the blood if they appear too quickly.

Figure 3. Henry recognized that there is a constant exchange of gas molecules at the interface between water and air, which leads to an equilibrium between the “internal pressure” of the gas in the liquid and its partial pressure in the atmosphere (graphic: author)

The basics of Henry’s Law are easy to understand: The interface between water and air is well permeable to gas molecules that are constantly migrating from the atmosphere into the water and vice versa from the water into the atmosphere. After a while, an equilibrium is established in which the number of molecules migrating in each direction per unit of time becomes the same. The whole thing can be imagined in such a way that the gas in the liquid is under an “internal pressure” that balances out its pressure component (partial pressure) in the atmosphere. For example, if the nitrogen content of the atmosphere were to increase suddenly, additional nitrogen would dissolve in the water until a new equilibrium is established. This law also applies to all other gases in the atmosphere. The results can be calculated very easily with the help of the so-called Henry constant.

These relationships were recognized and scientifically examined by the English doctor and chemist William Henry (1774 to 1836) as early as 1802/03. Henry’s law describes the influence of pressures and temperatures on the amount of gases dissolved in water. He could never have imagined that his findings would be challenged by top courts in distant Europe more than 200 years later. But that is exactly what happened in Karlsruhe.

Figure 4. This court testimony also contradicts the findings of William Henry.

Key messages of the Karlsruhe judgment

The key statements in the Karlsruhe judgment are:

– Only small proportions of anthropogenic emissions are absorbed by the oceans and the terrestrial biosphere …

– Most of the rest of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions, however, remain in the atmosphere in the long term, accumulate, contribute to increasing the CO2 concentration and thus affect the temperature of the earth.

– In contrast to other greenhouse gases, CO2 does not leave the earth’s atmosphere naturally for a period of time that is relevant to humanity. Any additional amount of CO2 that penetrates the earth’s atmosphere and is not artificially withdrawn from it, thus permanently increases its CO2 concentration and leads to a further rise in temperature.

The more water there is, the more gas it can hold

The ratio of the total amounts of a given gas in the atmosphere and in the ocean depends on the total amounts thereof in the water and in the atmosphere. This is easy to understand: as you increase the amount of water, you also increase the amount of gas it must hold in order to restore pressure equilibrium at the same pressure and temperature conditions. Since our oceans are huge in relation to the atmosphere, they contain many times more gas than the atmosphere itself.

Figure 5. The more water there is, the more gas has to dissolve in the oceans before equilibrium is restored (graphic: author)

Figure 6. With its testimony, the Karlsruhe court contradicts not only Henry’s law, but also statements such as the NOAA (US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Organization)

Since it is known which amounts of CO2 are contained in the atmosphere or in the ocean, assuming constant temperature and air pressure conditions, it is easy to calculate which proportions of an additional amount of CO2 are released into the atmosphere by humans and remain in the atmosphere how much of it dissolves in the ocean. In 2008, the earth’s atmosphere contained around 3,000 gigatons of CO2 (1 gigatonne = 1 billion tons). The equilibrium amount of CO2 dissolved in the oceans is around 140,000 gigatons, around a factor of 50 higher. This results in a ratio of 98 to 2. According to Henry’s Law, approx. 98% or 980 kg of each additional ton of CO2 released into the atmosphere is permanently dissolved in the oceans. Claims about a climate catastrophe due to “pollution of the atmosphere with CO2” by humans, which leads to a “self-immolation” of mankind, as well as calculations of “residual CO2 households” on the basis of this false claim contradict elementary scientific knowledge. This misjudgment is also the basis of the most recent judgment of a Dutch court against Shell. And more lawsuits of this caliber are pending, Europe thought.

Figure 7: The exchange of CO2 between the ocean and the atmosphere is assessed quite differently by scientists such as Prof. Andrew Watson than by the Federal Constitutional Court, which, however, has given its interpretation quasi constitutional status.

Swell:

• https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/DE/2021/03/rs20210324_1bvr265618.html
• www.gesetze-im-internet.de/gg/BJNR000010949.html
• https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/international/negotiations/paris_de
• https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/climate-change
• https://www.ipcc.ch
• https://www.umweltrat.de/DE/SRU/Ratslösungen/ratsträger_node.html
• https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
• https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry-Gesetz
• https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Carbon+Uptake#:~:text=It%20takes%20about%20one%20year%20to%20equilibrate%20CO,the%20oceans%20due%20to % 20biology% 20and% 20ocean% 20circulation
• https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlenstoffdioxid_in_der_Erdatmosph%C3%A4re
• https://phys.org/news/2020-09-ocean-carbon-uptake-widely-underestimated.html
• https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:5339

Like this:

To like Loading…

connected