Gives perspective, the lights are galaxies — NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope has managed to capture the “deepest image” of the universe ever taken in near-infrared light.

The image was reportedly acquired in the same region as the Hubble Ultra Deep Field (HUDF), which was snapped in 2004 and is the deepest visible-light image of the universe.

“Hubble’s newly installed Wide Field Camera 3 (WFC3) collects light from near-infrared wavelengths and therefore looks even deeper into the universe, because the light from very distant galaxies is stretched out of the ultraviolet and visible regions of the spectrum into near-infrared wavelengths by the expansion of the universe,” NASA explained in a statement.

“The faintest and reddest objects seen in the image are galaxies that formed 600 million years after the Big Bang.”

Indeed, infrared light is invisible and therefore does not have colors that can be perceived by the human eye. As such, the colors in the image are assigned comparatively short, medium, and long, near-IR wavelengths (blue, 1.05 microns; green, 1.25 microns; red, 1.6 microns).

UPDATE: Probably realizing they didn’t have enough time to rig up new fake data, the UN IPCC today decided to delay for one year a new Kyoto style accord. From a tearful New York Times comes this: Leaders Will Delay Agreement on Climate. Of course it’s all the USA’s fault for the delay, despite having no proof that the AGW hoax was ever real.

Here is part 1 through 6 as a play list

The best take down of the AGW hoax ever. And it’s based on science fact, not fiction.

BTW: Did You know the United States has largest energy reserves on Earth, according to a report from the Congressional Research Service.  So what is this energy independence lie the Democrats are pushing on us about ? Lies, damn lies.

…

Eminent Professors of Science have taken the extraordinary step of writing another open letter to Congress to warn them again that there is no consensus about AGW and that they are being deceived. The brand name ‘Science’ is being used for a power grab. Decades of good-will has been stolen by the hunters from big finance and wannabe autocrats.

This is a very important time. After the House passed the 920-page H.R. 2454: American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 in June, a bill of the same name will soon be up for vote in the Senate.

As the nation is preoccupied with healthcare and the economy, Democrats are quietly pushing for the passage of S.1462 before the highly anticipated United Nations Climate Change Conference slated for December 7 through the 18th in Copenhage, Denmark.

The conference is expected to produce a new treaty to replace the Kyoto treaty, of which the United States was not a signator. Among other things, this treaty will install a global governance structure of taxation and resource allocation to be funded primarily by the slovenly climate sinners of the West and other developed nations.

This is something that must be resisted vigorously. These people aren’t out to save the earth, they’re out to control it.

…

The salient facts from their first letter:

The facts are:

The sky is not falling; the Earth has been cooling for ten years, without help. The present cooling was NOT predicted by the alarmists’ computer models, and has come as an embarrassment to them.

The finest meteorologists in the world cannot predict the weather two weeks in advance, let alone the climate for the rest of the century. Can Al Gore? Can John Holdren? We are flooded with claims that the evidence is clear, that the debate is closed, that we must act immediately, etc, but in fact

THERE IS NO SUCH EVIDENCE; IT DOESN’T EXIST.

The proposed legislation would cripple the US economy, putting us at a disadvantage compared to our competitors. For such drastic action, it is only prudent to demand genuine proof that it is needed, not just computer projections, and not false claims about the state of the science.

SCIENCE IS GUIDED BY PROOF, NOT CONSENSUS

Finally, climate alarmism pays well. Alarmists are rolling in wealth from the billions of dollars floating around for the taking, and being taken. It is always instructive to follow the money.

…

Science group ‘reviewing its stance on global warming’ after 160 physicists sign petition

Monday, November 02, 2009 – By Marc Morano –  Climate Depot

The following letter was sent to all 100 U.S. Senator’s on October 29, 2009 by a team of scientists. The letter is reproduced in full below:

A GAGGLE IS NOT A CONSENSUS

You have recently received a letter from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), purporting to convey a “consensus” of the scientific community that immediate and drastic action is needed to avert a climatic catastrophe.

We do not seek to make the scientific arguments here (we did that in an earlier letter, sent a couple of months ago), but simply to note that the claim of consensus is fake, designed to stampede you into actions that will cripple our economy, and which you will regret for many years. There is no consensus, and even if there were, consensus is not the test of scientific validity. Theories that disagree with the facts are wrong, consensus or no.

We know of no evidence that any of the “leaders” of the scientific community who signed the letter to you ever asked their memberships for their opinions, before claiming to represent them on this important matter.

You can do physics without climatology, but you can’t do climatology without physics.

We also note that the American Physical Society (APS, and we are physicists) did not sign the letter, though the scientific issues at stake are fundamentally matters of applied physics. You can do physics without climatology, but you can’t do climatology without physics.

The APS is at this moment reviewing its stance on so-called global warming, having received a petition from its membership to do so. That petition was signed by 160 distinguished members and fellows of the Society, including one Nobelist and 12 members of the National Academies. Indeed a score of the signers are Members and Fellows of the AAAS, none of whom were consulted before the AAAS letter to you.

Professor Hal Lewis, University of California, Santa Barbara

Professor Fred Singer, University of Virginia

Professor Will Happer, Princeton University

Professor Larry Gould, University of Hartford

Dr. Roger Cohen, retired Manager, Strategic Planning, ExxonMobil

List of 160 signers of the APS petition available at http://tinyurl.com/lg266u

Iguess the forecasts were wrong, again? So tell me, what makes El Nino run? why that would be heat from the sun, wouldn’t it? ACE is at a 30 year low.

With the peak of the season — late August to mid-October — now behind, the Atlantic-Caribbean basin has seen just two hurricanes and a total of eight tropical storms.

El Nino, the Pacific warm-water phenomenon that can produce destructive weather in other parts of the world, played a big role in suppressing Atlantic cyclones this year, experts said.

If the full season, which runs from June through November, ended today, it would be the lowest number of storms since 1997. The last time an Atlantic season produced only two hurricanes was 1982.

Here is the ACE plot through 2009 season:

ACE stands for Accumulated Cyclone Energy. The little wiggle at the end is because a few storms were tossed in that never even amounted to anything. They did not see to have tropical characteristics. hey, they got to do what they got to do, they get their funding from the same government sources as those perpetrating the hoax of AGW.

Remember the Apollo Missions? Mixed in along with the hoopla about sending men into space on huge, fire spewing rockets — There was some serious science done during the moon landing missions, little known is the batteries for the moon based experiments packages, Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Package(ALSEP).

Consider the engineering problem presented — The lunar night lasts for about 15 days; a solar panel with a battery back-up system would also be a bulky item. Sophisticated chemical storage batteries were considered, but quickly rejected based on their low energy density. A problem that still plagues battery designers today.

The chosen power source for ALSEP – the only one deemed capable of performing the required task – was a radioisotope thermal generator (RTG). The NASA designation for the devices that powered ALSEP for missions 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17 was SNAP-27 (Systems for Nuclear Auxiliary Power model number 27).

SNAP-27 Characteristics

The SNAP-27 power supply weighed about 20 kilograms, was 46 cm long and 40.6 cm in diameter. It consisted of a central fuel capsule surrounded by concentric rings of thermocouples. Outside of the thermocouples was a set of fins to provide for heat rejection from the cold side of the thermocouple.

Each of the SNAP-27 devices produced approximately 75 W of electrical power at 30 VDC. The energy source for each device was a rod of plutonium-238 weighing approximately 2.5 kilograms and providing a thermal power of approximately 1250 W.

Above photo of Apollo-14 SNAP-27 deployed on the moon …

Plutonium-238 is a non-fissile isotope of plutonium that decays by alpha particle emission with essentially zero associated gamma emissions. This characteristic was very important for the ALSEP powering application, both because the instruments would have been negatively affected by interference from a gamma emitter and because the devices required close handling by lunar astronauts.

Even though the only radiation from Pu-238 is alpha particles which require little shielding, it is necessary to use thick gloves when handling a 2.5 kilogram rod of Pu-238. The surface temperature will reach about 500 degrees C because of the energy being released by radioactive decay. After ten years of continuous power output, a Pu-238 based RTG will still produce 92% of its initial power.

One measure of performance that is often used for chemical storage batteries is the amp-hour. A modern battery might have a capacity of 1.5 amp-hrs/kg. The SNAP-27 power supplies demonstrated the ability to provide more than 4380 amp-hrs/kg during the four years that their performance was monitored. Similar RTGs have produced 24,000 amp-hrs/kg during a 20 year operating life and are still going strong.

The purpose of this brief history lesson, Nuclear batteries are staging somewhat of a comeback.

LCROSS – Direct hit. Stay tuned for more, they might know the ‘moon water content story’ shortly. If they find water, it could alter NASA plans for colonies on the moon. Water would be a key ingredient in the success of that mission.

NASA hopes it will be a first step in the return of people to the moon, and that first step arrived just before dawn with a flash of energy and a plume of debris that could reveal whether there is significant amounts of water there.

A Silicon Valley-directed spacecraft intended to provide a cheap, fast — and spectacular — insight into the moon hurtled into the moon at five times the speed of a bullet, searching for water that could help support astronauts living on the lunar surface.

Watched by hundreds who turned out to NASA’s Ames Research Center to — a crowd that ranged from grade school students to Google co-founder Sergey Brin — the Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite hurtled into a crater near the moon’s south pole on schedule at 7:35 a.m. Eastern Time(11:30 UT), Friday.

UPDATE: NASA said the real-time video didn’t work, but pictures soon … So something went wrong.

TEHRAN (FNA)- New research by the National Space Institute in the Technical University of Denmark (DTU) validated 13 years of discoveries that point to a key role for cosmic rays in climate change.

Billions of tons of water droplets vanish from the atmosphere in events that reveal in detail how the Sun and the stars control our everyday clouds.

DTU Researchers have traced the consequences of eruptions on the Sun that screen the Earth from some of the cosmic rays – the energetic particles raining down on our planet from exploded stars.

“The Sun makes fantastic natural experiments that allow us to test our ideas about its effects on the climate,” lead author of a report newly published in Geophysical Research Letters Prof. Henrik Svensmark said.

When solar explosions interfere with the cosmic rays there is a temporary shortage of small aerosols, chemical specks in the air that normally grow until water vapor can condense on them, so seeding the liquid water droplets of low-level clouds.

Because of the shortage, clouds over the ocean can lose as much as 7 per cent of their liquid water within seven or eight days of the cosmic-ray minimum.

“A link between the Sun, cosmic rays, aerosols, and liquid-water clouds appears to exist on a global scale,” the report concludes.

This research, to which Torsten Bondo and Jacob Svensmark contributed, validates 13 years of discoveries that point to a key role for cosmic rays in climate change.

In particular, it connects observable variations in the world’s cloudiness to laboratory experiments in Copenhagen showing how cosmic rays help to make the all-important aerosols.

Other investigators have reported difficulty in finding significant effects of the solar eruptions on clouds, and Henrik Svensmark understands their problem.

“It’s like trying to see tigers hidden in the jungle, because clouds change a lot from day to day whatever the cosmic rays are doing,” he says.

The first task for a successful hunt was to work out when “tigers” were most likely to show themselves, by identifying the most promising instances of sudden drops in the count of cosmic rays, called Forbush decreases.

Previous research in Copenhagen predicted that the effects should be most notice-able in the lowest 3000 meters of the atmosphere. The team identified 26 Forbush decreases since 1987 that caused the biggest reductions in cosmic rays at low altitudes, and set about looking for the consequences.

The first global impact of the shortage of cosmic rays is a subtle change in the color of sunlight, as seen by ground stations of the aerosol robotic network AERONET.

By analyzing its records during and after the reductions in cosmic rays, the DTU team found that violet light from the Sun looked brighter than usual. A shortage of small aerosols, which normally scatter violet light as it passes through the air, was the most likely reason. The color change was greatest about five days after the minimum counts of cosmic rays.

Henrik Svensmark and his team were not surprised by it, because the immediate action of cosmic rays, seen in laboratory experiments, creates micro-clusters of sulphuric acid and water molecules that are too small to affect the AERONET observations.

Only when they have spent a few days growing in size should they begin to show up, or else be noticeable by their absence. The evidence from the aftermath of the Forbush decreases, as scrutinized by the Danish team, gives aerosol experts valuable information about the formation and fate of small aerosols in the Earth’s atmosphere.

Although capable of affecting sunlight after five days, the growing aerosols would not yet be large enough to collect water droplets. The full impact on clouds only becomes evident two or three days later.

It takes the form of a loss of low-altitude clouds, because of the earlier loss of small aerosols that would normally have grown into “cloud condensation nuclei” capable of seeding the clouds.

“Then it’s like noticing bare patches in a field, where a farmer forgot to sow the seeds,” Svensmark explains. “Three independent sets of satellite observations all tell a similar story of clouds disappearing, about a week after the minimum of cosmic rays.”

Averaging satellite data on the liquid-water content of clouds over the oceans, for the five strongest Forbush decreases from 2001 to 2005, the DTU team found a 7 per cent decrease, as mentioned earlier.

That translates into 3 billion tons of liquid water vanishing from the sky. The water remains the-re in vapor form, but unlike cloud droplets it does not get in the way of sunlight trying to warm the ocean. After the same five Forbush decreases, satellites measuring the extent of liquid-water clouds revealed an average reduction of 4 per cent. Other satellites showed a similar 5 per cent reduction in clouds below 3200 meters over the ocean.

“The effect of the solar explosions on the Earth’s cloudiness is huge,” Henrik Svensmark comments.

“A loss of clouds of 4 or 5 per cent may not sound very much, but it briefly increases the sunlight reaching the oceans by about 2 watt per square meter, and that’s equivalent to all the global warming during the 20th Century.”

The Forbush decreases are too short-lived to have a lasting effect on the climate, but they dramatize the mechanism that works more patiently during the 11-year solar cycle.

When the Sun becomes more active, the decline in low-altitude cosmic radiation is greater than that seen in most Forbush events and the loss of low cloud cover persists for long enough to warm the world.

That explains, according to the DTU team, the alternations of warming and cooling seen in the lower atmosphere and in the oceans during solar cycles.

The director of the Danish National Space Institute, DTU, Eigil Friis-Christensen, was co-author with Svensmark of an early report on the effect of cosmic rays on cloud cover, back in 1996.

Commenting on the latest paper he said, “The evidence has piled up, first for the link between cosmic rays and low-level clouds and then, by experiment and observation, for the mechanism involving aerosols. All these consistent scientific results illustrate that the current climate models used to predict future climate are lacking important parts of the physics”.

Translated from Far News:

Planning a trip to Mars? Take plenty of shielding. According to sensors on NASA’s ACE (Advanced Composition Explorer) spacecraft, galactic cosmic rays have just hit a Space Age high.

“In 2009, cosmic ray intensities have increased 19% beyond anything we’ve seen in the past 50 years,” says Richard Mewaldt of Caltech.

Source ACE/NASA:

CO2 an atmospheric trace gas, does not cause any such thing as warming, but it is the very substance for all life on earth. Without atmospheric CO2 there would be no life on earth.

How do we know that the current CO2 level (about 350 parts per million) in the atmosphere isn’t enough, instead of too much? How would we know?

And now watch this post’s video for the summary.

Let’s just put this on the table straight up, the AGW hoax is all about guilt-tripping you into being willing to pay extremely high taxes with no real gain — Save the earth and all that crap. I like to describe it as such — Pay higher taxes to the government, so government scientist can pretend to control the weather. We have enough evidence of government scientists, and scientists operating on grant money from the government, shall we say shading the truth? Or in many cases outright falsifying study results or the data.

It’s simply not true that man generated CO2 causes climate change. But if it did, you could easily check to see what was going on. How, simple actually and it;s already been done. All the computer models say there should be a ‘hot band’ around the earth between 15 degrees south and 15 degrees north, caused by CO2 in the atmosphere and trapping the heat from the sun.

Simple answer the Al Gore blanket is not there. Joe Bastardi has this short film to describe the results:

Earth’s climate always changes. Been doing so for eons.