"Widespread environmental damage" seen from shuttle

[movielib]

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/news...CE-SHUTTLE.xml

Widespread environmental damage seen from shuttle

Thu Aug 4, 2005 5:53 PM BST

By Jeff Franks

HOUSTON (Reuters) - Commander Eileen Collins said astronauts on shuttle Discovery had seen widespread environmental destruction on Earth and warned on Thursday that greater care was needed to protect natural resources.

Her comments came as NASA pondered whether to send astronauts out on an extra spacewalk to repair additional heat-protection damage on the first shuttle mission since the 2003 Columbia disaster.

Discovery is linked with the International Space Station and orbiting 220 miles (352 km) above the Earth.

"Sometimes you can see how there is erosion, and you can see how there is deforestation. It's very widespread in some parts of the world," Collins said in a conversation from space with Japanese officials in Tokyo, including Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi.

"We would like to see, from the astronauts' point of view, people take good care of the Earth and replace the resources that have been used," said Collins, who was standing with Japanese astronaut Soichi Noguchi in front of a Japanese flag and holding a colorful fan.

Collins, flying her fourth shuttle mission, said the view from space made clear that Earth's atmosphere must be protected, too.

"The atmosphere almost looks like an eggshell on an egg, it's so very thin," she said. "We know that we don't have much air, we need to protect what we have."
...

Let's see:

* Edgar Mitchell does ESP experiments from orbit.

* Neil Armstrong blows one of the biggest lines of the 20th century from the moon.

* Eileen Collins imparts 4th grade level environmental propaganda from orbit.

Perhaps space travel destroys brain cells.

[Giantrobo]

Shouldn't they be more worried about that Foam shit hangin' from the shuttle? I have no doubt that stuff if toxic and at the very least...bad for an Astronaught's health

[al_bundy]

Investor's Business Daily had an editotrial about this a few days ago. The old toxic foam was a lot better at protecting the shuttle than the new greenie friendly foam they use.

[Ranger]

I do think erosion is a problem though not a major one, I'm not sure how she would be able to tell that from the shuttle. At least try bring up specific examples and their land chart comparsions. I'd like to think that they might be able to take damn good pictures from the shuttle of a possible erosion problem area and simply compare the size from past pictures.

[Ranger]

Originally Posted by al_bundy

Investor's Business Daily had an editotrial about this a few days ago. The old toxic foam was a lot better at protecting the shuttle than the new greenie friendly foam they use.

You mean they actually changed the foam? I thought all the shuttles were using their original foam shell with a few modern patches.

[shaun3000]

1. What did Niel Armstrong screw up?

2. What's so wrong with talking about the environmental damage? We hear about it all the time, she's just confirming it.

3. What foam on the Shuttle? Do you mean on the External Fuel Tank?

[al_bundy]

Originally Posted by Ranger

You mean they actually changed the foam? I thought all the shuttles were using their original foam shell with a few modern patches.

forgot the details, but yes they did change how they make the foam a few years ago. And they knew that the the earth friendly foam wasn't as good as the killer stuff at protecting the shuttle.

[asabase]

Originally Posted by shaun3000

1. What did Niel Armstrong screw up?

His line when he stepped on the moon. He left out an 'a'.

[Duran]

Originally Posted by shaun3000

1. What did Niel Armstrong screw up?

2. What's so wrong with talking about the environmental damage? We hear about it all the time, she's just confirming it.

1. Neil screwed up his "One small step..." line.

2. She's talking out of her ass, that's why. She can see erosion from space? Huh? When compared with what? Deforestation? Again, compared with what?

[Jason]

Originally Posted by shaun3000

2. What's so wrong with talking about the environmental damage? We hear about it all the time, she's just confirming it.

You have to remember, in the anti-science world we live in, there is no such thing as environmental damage. It's all a scheme by america-hating-communist-pinko-wackos who want to see us all living in caves and eating bean sprouts.

[shaun3000]

Originally Posted by Duran

2. She's talking out of her ass, that's why. She can see erosion from space? Huh? When compared with what? Deforestation? Again, compared with what?

Ah. Guess you can't really see erosion from space. I don't think giant chunks of continents are melting away...

But deforestation should be easy enough, though. It's a known fact that lots of forests are being clearcut to make way for farmland. Should be easy to see in South America.

[al_bundy]

Originally Posted by Jason

You have to remember, in the anti-science world we live in, there is no such thing as environmental damage. It's all a scheme by america-hating-communist-pinko-wackos who want to see us all living in caves and eating bean sprouts.

so when deforestation happened a few million years ago in africa and caused monkeys to evolve into humans was this also bad? If you believe in science and evolution than you are looking at it happen before your eyes. Natural changes are taking place and this is going to cause living things to evolve to keep up with the changes.

[Cameron]

thats one small step for man. One giant leap for mankind.

When has he ever said he meant to say it differently...

[shaun3000]

Originally Posted by al_bundy

so when deforestation happened a few million years ago in africa and caused monkeys to evolve into humans was this also bad? If you believe in science and evolution than you are looking at it happen before your eyes. Natural changes are taking place and this is going to cause living things to evolve to keep up with the changes.

It isn't necessarily bad but there is a difference between happening naturally and happening because people are cutting them down.

[shaun3000]

Originally Posted by Cameron

thats one small step for man. One giant leap for mankind.

When has he ever said he meant to say it differently...

Agreed, I don't see what difference the 'a' makes.

[Myster X]

Eileen Collins is preparing herself for post astronaut life perhaps with the Sierra Club or Greenpeace.

[Giantrobo]

Originally Posted by Jason

You have to remember, in the anti-science world we live in, there is no such thing as environmental damage. It's all a scheme by america-hating-communist-pinko-wackos who want to see us all living in caves and eating bean sprouts.

Nonsene. People don't mind talking about it and hearing about it. But when some of the science is questionable and FORCED down our throats and drilled into our kids's heads in school like a Religion with little or no alternative theory it gets hard to give a shit after a awhile.


i.e. They say the "Greenhouse efect is bad". But from what I understand it's keeping us from being in an Ice Age. So it would seem the "GE" isn't as bad as they make it out to be. But you'll never hear that taught to the kids in school.

[msdmoney]

Originally Posted by Jason

You have to remember, in the anti-science world we live in, there is no such thing as environmental damage. It's all a scheme by america-hating-communist-pinko-wackos who want to see us all living in caves and eating bean sprouts.

I don't question science, I question her use of the scientific method.

[Duran]

Originally Posted by Cameron

thats one small step for man. One giant leap for mankind.

When has he ever said he meant to say it differently...

That quote, as said, makes no sense. "Man" and "mankind" as used in English at that time meant the same thing.

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/onesmall.asp

Originally Posted by shaun3000

But deforestation should be easy enough, though. It's a known fact that lots of forests are being clearcut to make way for farmland. Should be easy to see in South America.

You can't simply look at earth from space and see deforestation. Deforestation means the removal of forests from where they formerly existed. That means there has to be a before and after comparison. Unless she's been hanging around up there a decade or so, I doubt it.

This is much more likely she knows the "fact" that forests are being clearcut, so she interprets what she sees as deforestation. As far as science is concerned, that's talking out of your ass.

[Ranger]

Originally Posted by Duran

2. She's talking out of her ass, that's why. She can see erosion from space? Huh? When compared with what? Deforestation? Again, compared with what?

Still, this is just a short article with a few quotes, it doesn't include any details of scientific data such as land measurement comparsion concerning erosion and so on. I would think that'd surely be one of the things NASA has been researching on for some time.

[NCMojo]

What I don't get it why this is such a big news story. We have satellite imagery that shows deforestation and erosion. It's not like it is a huge freakin' secret.

And if someone in a very public position wants to talk about these issues... well, good for her. She's right. Anyone who says there hasn't been massive deforestation and erosion over the past 50 years is clearly mistaken. At least she is drawing some attention to these issues, which has to be a good thing.

Why call her crazy and lump her in with Edgar Mitchell and his ESP reports?

[Mark_vdH]

Originally Posted by Duran

You can't simply look at earth from space and see deforestation. Deforestation means the removal of forests from where they formerly existed. That means there has to be a before and after comparison. Unless she's been hanging around up there a decade or so, I doubt it.

[shaun3000]

Originally Posted by Duran

You can't simply look at earth from space and see deforestation. Deforestation means the removal of forests from where they formerly existed. That means there has to be a before and after comparison. Unless she's been hanging around up there a decade or so, I doubt it.

You're right, you can't see deforestation taking place from space.

But you CAN see the result:
http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=-12.6...5212&t=k&hl=en
Holygeezbabaganoushwouldjalookatthat!?!

[Myster X]

Ever heard of junk science?

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/050707/344/fmtbd.html

Earth is getting warmer and darker

Getting rid of pollutants from the atmosphere may speed up the rate of global warming, according to a report.

The investigation by science and technology magazine "BBC Focus" highlights evidence from a range of international studies, looking at the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth's surface and the effect on our climate.

"Global dimming" is thought to be caused by atmospheric pollution.

Sunlight is bounced back into space after hitting particles created by car fumes, aerosols and high flying aeroplanes, or because clouds are made more effective by the presence of the particles.

The pollution effectively blocks out sunlight, keeping the climate cool. Tragedy lent weight to the theory.

After the 2001 World Trade Centre terrorist attacks on New York, when air traffic was banned from US skies, scientists noticed that the absence of aircraft condensation trails - "contrails" - coincided with brighter days and cooler nights.

Peter Cox, the Science Director for Climate Change at the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology in Dorset, told BBC Focus that the 30-year-decline in sunlight may have been keeping global warming in check.

But he warned that this effect will be lost as anti pollution measures start to cleanse Earth's skies.

"If global dimming and global warming have been cancelling each other out then we should soon see an acceleration in the amount of global warming." he said

Michael Roderick, an Australian climate scientist, said it was an area that needed more investigation. "It is time for scientists to stand up and say that the measurements just aren't good enough," he said.

http://www.phschool.com/science/plan...mo1052105.html

Earth is Getting Brighter

Earth's surface is getting brighter. That's the conclusion reached by a team of scientists studying solar energy reaching the planet's surface.

It's been brightening for over ten years, reversing the dimming trend observed for three decades before that. Overall, Earth's land brightened by about four percent over the past decade. The study didn't collect any data over the world's oceans.

Some of the sunlight that streams into Earth's atmosphere is either absorbed or reflected by clouds. The solar energy that gets through the atmosphere heats the surface. As more solar energy reaches the surface and radiates back into the atmosphere, the warmer the atmosphere gets. In this way, the brightening is linked to global warming.

Some of the data is puzzling. From the 1960s through the 1990s, the amount of sunlight reaching the surface dropped by 4 to 6 percent. But at the same time, global temperatures rose. Why was that?

Another big question is what drives the cycle of dimming and brightening. The researchers aren't sure but suspect aerosols may have something to do with it. These are liquid or solid particles suspended in the air that absorb much of the solar radiation.

[shaun3000]