James Webb Space Telescope 1st Image: It Blows Hubble Space Telescope Away

July 12th, 2022 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

There was no way to tell from yesterday’s White House press conference release of the first JWST “sea of galaxies” image whether it was any better or different from Hubble Space Telescope (HST) views of the same region.

In my opinion, this was a missed opportunity to wow the public.

But since then, amateur astronomer Nicholas Eggleston has stepped up with an overlay of the two telescopes’ images, aligned to view the same region. We all know how wonderful the HST views have been, even resolving individual stars in the distant Andromeda galaxy. Well, the James Webb Space Telescope (in addition to being infrared) has now demonstrated its resolution blows HST away. Check out the light arcs due to gravitational lensing (click on his page link so you can use the slider functionality, which probably won’t work on smart phones):


If you cannot see the 2 images with a slider separating them, here is an animated GIF I put together:

Comparison of first Webb Space Telescope image to Hubble Space Telescope view of the same region.

If you want higher resolution, right-click the animated GIF and download it (“Save image as…”) to your desktop. Then you can view it at full resolution.

159 Responses to “James Webb Space Telescope 1st Image: It Blows Hubble Space Telescope Away”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. Fred M says:

    The Hubble image also took many hours of gathering photons from the same region to compile enough light to make the image. Do we know how long it took Webb to gather that image?

    • Brooklyn says:

      I actually have made $18k within a calendar month via working easy jobs from a laptop~ni185~As I had lost my last business, I was so upset and thank God I searched this simple job achieving this Im ready to achieve thousand of dollars just from my home~ni185~All of you can certainly join this best job and could collect extra money on-line visiting this site> http://lifechange.gq

      • Spam Bot says:

        ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ P A T H E T I C S P A M ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

      • Kelsey Holt says:

        I’m ready to make $200/h to get done with few tasks on home PC. Ive never believed that its even reachable however my dearest friend acquiring $25k just in the span of five weeks basically working this driving undertaking and she had persuaded me to joinDiscover additional subtleties by going following connection https://www.worksful.com

  2. Fred M says:

    NASA says 12.5 hours for Webb vs weeks for Hubble.

    “This deep field, taken by Webbs Near-Infrared Camera (NIRCam), is a composite made from images at different wavelengths, totaling 12.5 hours achieving depths at infrared wavelengths beyond the Hubble Space Telescopes deepest fields, which took weeks.”


    • gbaikie says:

      And due it’s 90 min orbit, Hubble could only look north or south for long duration. Webb other direction of small region of Sun, can look anywhere for long duration.

      • stephen p anderson says:

        I’m not that impressed but hopefully, the images will get better over time. Need more photons.

      • gbaikie says:

        They will clean up pictures, but they don’t with first light type pictures.

      • stephen p anderson says:

        Seemed like Biden was pretty eager to get some positive news out.

      • Anglia says:

        I simply create $32,000-$38,000 monthly simply by doing an easy home business. This job is on-line and might be done terribly easily part-time or full-time,t1 though no specific expertise is needed for this job.-op+105 Anyone can be part of this work currently and begin earning like me.
        Follow the link. >>>> http://smartcash244.blogspot.com/

  3. gbaikie says:

    “Video of testing activities at SpaceXs Starbase complex at Boca Chica, Texas, showed a burst of flames at the base of the Super Heavy booster called Booster 7 around 5:20 p.m. Eastern. Later, at least one fire was seen in the vicinity of the pad, presumably triggered by the incident, sending a plume of black smoke into the air.”

    –Its not clear yet what caused the anomaly. SpaceX had not issued warnings that it would attempt a static-fire test of Booster 7. Such a test, involving some or all of the 33 Raptor engines in the booster, is a major milestone before the vehicles first orbital launch attempt.

    In a series of tweets, Elon Musk, SpaceX founder and chief executive, said the company was planning a spin start test of the engines, one that did not involve ignition of the engines. Raptor has a complex start sequence, he wrote. Going forward, we wont do a spin start test with all 33 engines at once.

    While Musk acknowledged the incident was not good, it was not clear what damage it did to the booster itself. Base of the vehicle seems ok by flashlight, he said in a late-night tweet. Will know more in the morning.–

    I assume hot carbon will explode in environment of pure cold oxygen.
    And I would guess, a “spin start test” will add hot carbon which includes CO.
    And CO is rocket fuel.
    So it appeared one saw all engines firing [in very short time period, and exhaust is H20 and CO [which becomes CO2. But rocket exhaust moves fast and cold pure O2 moves slower. So, C could be becoming CO and O2 could become O and CO2, and you might have not “fully formed H2O doing all kind of stuff. But all you need is some CO.
    But considering the apparent force of the explosion, it could be more complicated than CO is a rocket fuel.

    • gbaikie says:

      Btw with rockets, you looking for something which make a very violent explosion [and controlling it in way does destroy the rocket engine].

      This big explosion could be related to why Raptors are a good rocket engine- and it’s possible might lead to improving it.

    • stephen p anderson says:

      Never considered carbon monoxide as rocket fuel.

      • gbaikie says:

        Topic: Carbon Monoxide for fuel on Mars (Read 58268 times)

        “A LOx/CO rocket has low Isp (~290s), but can be quite easily produced anywhere on Mars. Logistically, it’s simple. But we have very little experience with carbon monoxide as a fuel.”

        290 ISP is about what we used to get off the Moon with Apollo.
        Kerosene and LoX is not much better in terms of ISP, but kerosene
        is denser fuel and what falcon 9 uses.
        Hmm CO is dense, not sure haw cold and/or high pressure it needs to be liquid:
        Molecular weight: 28.011 Critical temperature: 133.16 K
        Melting point: 68.16 K Critical pressure: 3.498 MPa
        Normal boiling point: 81.66K Critical density: 301 kg/m3

        It lethal stuff, which could explain why not used on earth- otherwise
        you use it for cars. But on Mars, that not really an issue.

    • Entropic man says:

      Watching the video there was an extra pulse of vapour just before the explosion. Look at the left hand edge of the launch platform about half a second before ignition.

  4. Stephen Richards says:

    I can see some lensing in that JW picture

    • Bindidon says:

      Stephen Richards

      Me too, and like me you probably won’t see this lens flare in the Hubble image either.

      This lens flare very probably comes from magnification by nearby galaxies, and our ability to discern it might indicate how sharp the JW images are compared to Hubble’s.

  5. Norman says:

    Wow on the drastic resolution increase. Who knows what amazing discoveries await to be found with this new tool. Good to look outward for a bit. I think too focused on the human problems just drags one down. The majesty of such a vast Universe can really humble the arrogant mind.

    Really like the slider link.

  6. Swenson says:

    Not so sure about a “dramatic resolution increase”.

    According to NASA, “Despite its larger size, Webb will deliver about the same resolution in near-infrared light as Hubble attains in visible light. A telescopes resolution, the amount of discernable detail, is proportional to mirror size, and inversely proportional to the wavelength of the light observed.”

    Webb has a larger effective mirror size, but is focussed on longer wavelengths, so it need a bigger mirror to obtain the same resolution.

    Just basic physics again.

    Still a technological marvel, no doubt of that. At least NASA don’t have to blame a failure by whining that the Chinese “stole the technology”.

    • gbaikie says:

      It’s like [Webb] was designed to study Uranuss atmosphere it’s fabulous, Heidi Hammel, an interdisciplinary scientist on the James Webb Space Telescope project, tells Inverse. I used to tease my extra-galactic colleagues, thank you so much for building this camera designed to do Uranus work!

      Its not just Uranus. Around 7 percent of the observing time in Webbs first year is dedicated to Solar System science, with 22 proposals from the planets science community to train Webb on everything from asteroids to the Jovian cloud tops. And as an interdisciplinary scientist involved with Webb since the early 2000s, Hammel has 100 hours of guaranteed observing time to herself, and shes going to make a grand tour.

      It’s basically a sampler of everything in the Solar System, she says.”

  7. gbaikie says:

    Solar wind
    speed: 511.0 km/sec
    density: 8.54 protons/cm3
    Daily Sun: 13 Jul 22
    Thermosphere Climate Index
    today: 13.86×10^10 W Neutral
    Oulu Neutron Counts
    Percentages of the Space Age average:
    today: +1.8% Elevated
    48-hr change: -3.1%

    Neutral count down a lot

  8. Afterthought says:

    It’s pretty underwhelming.

  9. Eben says:

    The two images are basically identical , the effect of one appertaining better was achieved by brightening one and dimming the other ,
    You people are being had again .

    • Bindidon says:

      ” the effect of one appertaining better was achieved by brightening one and dimming the other ”

      And the babbling Edog claims to be a ‘pilot’, and to be ‘involved’ in aircraft design.

      Even the few people who claim on this blog that the Moon doesn’t rotate on its polar axis don’t say such ignorant things.

      • Eben says:

        Here comes Bindiclown with ad hominems and Moon psychobable.

        Even with the few responses here I’m like a the fourth guy who noticed the same thing, so people are catching on this pretty quickly.

    • WizGeek says:

      @Eben: Childish and baseless instigations are unproductive. To wit, please enjoy Monty Python’s “Argument Clinic”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ

  10. TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

    Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. July 12th, 2022

    While the public are wowed by the beautiful pictures and stunning resolution, the real beauty is in the spectra such as shown here: https://stsci-opo.org/STScI-01G7NJ4EV8BM2YP522D9EGGMMD.png where we see the distinctive fingerprints of hydrogen and oxygen from a galaxy 13.1 billion years away.

    Light is a conscientious messenger, carrying information from one point of the Universe to another. Atoms in stars speak the language of light to atoms in eyes. Why should we move when light can bring this wealth to us? But do we have the ingenuity required to extract the full panoply of secrets from each passing photon?

  11. Markku Save says:

    Why the stars have “horns” on the photo? And what makes the number of horns?

  12. Anglia says:

    I simply create $32,000-$38,000 monthly simply by doing an easy home business. This job is on-line and might be done terribly easily part-time or full-time,t1 though no specific expertise is needed for this job.-op+105 Anyone can be part of this work currently and begin earning like me.
    Follow the link. >>>> http://smartcash244.blogspot.com/

  13. Clint R says:

    According to NASA website, JWST only images down to 0.6μ. Yet I’m definitely seeing colors, even beyond red. Does anyone know if NASA is colorizing the images?

    • gbaikie says:

      Even shortwave IR can not be seen, so yes colors are assigned to the IR detected. They could be any color, but red is probably colder.
      But telescope is collecting visible light.
      Or have normal telescope on earth, and with it’s collected visible light you also get some IR, but being under the atmosphere, some IR is blocked. And being in space, it’s not blocked.
      So it “sees” both visible and IR light. And both of them are not blocked or diffuse/scattered by the atmosphere.
      But if depicting IR, it has to assign a “false color”.

      This picture I believe is looking a dark area of sky, so it see further away.
      They talking taking pictures of Jupiter and the problem is jupiter light would blinding the Telescope. But our Moon is quite bright with modest telescope. Hubble also took picture of our Moon, but had to careful doing it. Or can’t take a long exposure to Jupiter.
      Anyways since comparing to Hubble, it seems they would included the Light Hubble could see and plus light Webb can see.

      • stephen p anderson says:

        Red is colder?

      • gbaikie says:

        A red star is a colder sun and blue star is hotter.

        Our green sun:

      • Entropic man says:

        Nobody has asked the obvious question.

        If the brightest part of sunlight is green, then why do plants reflect green light instead of absorbing and using it.

        The first photosynthesis mechanism was evolved by purple bacteria which absorbed green light. They reflected blue and red, hence their purple colour.

        They lived in the ocean. The second mechanism was evolved by a different group of microbes. To avoid competition they evolved pigments to absorb the light the purple bacteria reflected, namely blue and red. They reflected the wavelengths in between and looked green.

        The third mechanism evolved from green anaerobic bacteria by what later became algae and plants. It was more efficient because they used water instead of H2S to get their hydrogen and released oxygen instead of sulphur.

        The oxygen was toxic and drove the previous anaerobic types into the few remaining oxygen free environments. Green algae conquered the Earth.

      • gbaikie says:

        — Entropic man says:
        July 14, 2022 at 1:59 AM

        Nobody has asked the obvious question.

        If the brightest part of sunlight is green, then why do plants reflect green light instead of absorbing and using it.–

        Plants need UV light. And since plants can live underwater and some
        UV light goes deep underwater. It seems good guess is the UV light which can go deep under water is the UV light plants use.

        Plants don’t need much energy, but a longer portion of day of getting sunlight would more important then shorter time period getting more energy per day.
        Kind of the same as solar panels work better on Mars, Mars gets less intense sunlight but one can get larger portion of day of getting solar power [needing less battery storage- and plants need to store energy, also].
        Mars 12 hours at 500 watts, 6000 watt hours. Earth 900 watts for 6 hours, 5400 watt hours.
        Of course Germany is hopeless and get on average about 2000 watt hours per day. And not many places on Earth get more then 6 kw hours of sunlight on average per day. And places on Mars where could get more and one with fairly short distance make grid which give more constant electrical energy from solar energy.
        Of course lunar polar region is a lot better in every respect than Mars. But with Mars, solar energy could be viable, unlike Earth.

      • gbaikie says:

        “Mars 12 hours at 500 watts, 6000 watt hours. Earth 900 watts for 6 hours, 5400 watt hours.”

        Please explain, why Mars 12 hours and Earth 6 hours?


      • Clint R says:

        Some more sci-fi from Ent.

        I can see a new sci-fi comedy movie — “Green Algae Conquers Earth”.

        (The sad part is Ent actually believes all the nonsense he spews.)

      • Entropic man says:

        Too late, ClintR.

        Larry Niven has already written the short story.

        It is called “The Green Marauder” and you’ll find it in his Draco Tavern collection.

  14. TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

    Webb isn’t simply a bigger and more powerful telescope than Hubble. While it is both those things – with more than two and a half times the diameter and a hundred times the sensitivity – at its heart the JWST is a different type of instrument altogether.

    Ordinary optical telescopes see in the same part of the spectrum as our own eyes, covering a range of wavelengths between roughly 380 and 740 nanometers (nm). Hubble spanned all of this, plus a little way into the ultraviolet at shorter wavelengths and infrared at longer ones.

    But the JWST will primarily be an infrared telescope, optimized for 600 to 28,000 nm.

    For many astronomical objects, including star-forming regions, exoplanets and the most distant galaxies, these very long wavelengths are more useful to astronomers than the visible spectrum. But infrared poses problems for Earth-based telescopes, because much of it is blocked by our planet’s atmosphere.

    On top of that, the Earth produces its own infrared emissions via heat radiation, which tend to swamp the fainter astronomical sources. So the best place for an infrared telescope is out in space, as far as possible from the Earth and all its unwanted sources of heat.

    Located nearly 1 million miles (1.5 million kilometers) from Earth at the L2 point, Webb has a much clearer view of the universe than the one Hubble has in low-Earth orbit.

  15. gbaikie says:

    — Christos Vournas says:
    July 14, 2022 at 6:56 AM

    gbaikie says:

    Mars 12 hours at 500 watts, 6000 watt hours. Earth 900 watts for 6 hours, 5400 watt hours.

    Please explain, why Mars 12 hours and Earth 6 hours?–

    If you are a planet and want to harvest solar energy and you lack much of atmosphere. Or a Moon. The best place is the polar regions.
    So, our Moon, Mercury, or Mars for example. But near polar region on our cold planet, it’s the worse place to harvest solar energy, because of our 1 atm atmosphere. And what we call this is peak solar hours, which is the few hours before and after noon and it’s about 6 hours. And with Mars 24 hour day, it’s peak hours is 12 hours.
    Now, clouds are also a problem on Earth and Mars has global dust storm. Now on Mars if you remove the settled dust on our solar panels and global dust storm is less of problem. Or with robotic missions sometimes a dust devil will remove our dust, but it’s lucky chance.
    Though with helicopter you might be able to do it.
    So Earth gets about 25% of it’s yearly time where is can harvest solar energy, Mars about 50% [assuming you track the sun- which Mars robots don’t generally do. And with lunar polar region you area where there is never any sunlight and area where about 80% of time during a year.

      • gbaikie says:

        On average Mars daylight is about 12 Earth hours or very similar
        to Earth:
        –Length of day (hrs) 24.6597 Mars 24.0000 Earth–

        On Earth as on Mars one can topographic advantages which allow longer
        daylight hours. But Mars particularly nearer the polar regions would have greater topographic advantages as compared to Earth.
        And of daylight hours, Mars has more hours where sunlight is about the same as compared to when the sun is at Zenith.
        Earth get 1050 watts of direct sunlight and 1120 of direct and indirect sunlight when the Sun is at or close to zenith and a clear sky. The tropics is only place the sun every gets at zenith though
        up to say 40 degree latitude north or south, in summer, the sun can near zenith at noon.
        Or Canada or Germany never get 1050 watts of direct sunlight.
        With Mars thin atmosphere everywhere when sun is above the horizon, it gets direct sunlight and of intensity as where on Mars where one has the sun at zenith. Because roughly speaking Mars is in a vacuum- or very thin atmosphere {you need a pressure suit to breathe- if Mars atmosphere was 10 times greater, you would still need a pressure suit to have enough pressure to breathe].
        Or Mars if pointing at the sun, has at least 12 hours of peak solar hours per it’s 24.6597 Earth hour day.
        And Mars polar region is quite a bit smaller than Earth polar region, you can encircle this smaller perimeter at the “arctic circle” and get constant solar energy for this grid. Of course during winter it’s not a lot power. And nearer summer it is a lot.

      • gbaikie says:

        With Earth when sun is 30 degree above horizon, the sunlight passes thru 2 atm of atmosphere. And it can be daylight before disk lowers
        to the horizon where sunlight is going thru 10 atm of atmosphere.

        When sun disk is still above the horizon, the sunlight can go thru 10 times a Mars atmosphere- which compared Earth, is far less than 1 Earth atmosphere. Of course if in a Mars global dust storm, the sunlight at that low angle could blocked a quite a bit. Or it’s sort of like having 10 times as much of a global dust storm.
        But even is a severe global dust storm, Mars gets more solar energy than Earth.

  16. gbaikie says:

    –Despite rhetoric to the contrary, there is still plenty of sea ice over Arctic regions this summer, supplying feeding platforms for polar bears, ice-dependent seals, and walrus cows nursing their young calves. Forget about whether the numbers are below or above some short-term average, there is no catastrophe in the making for marine mammals in the Arctic at this time.–

    • Entropic man says:

      You are looking at extent 10% below the 1981-2010 average.


      (Remove *** before linking)

      It’s also early. The real problems for the wildlife come in September.

      • stephen p anderson says:

        Eman worships the Flying Spaghetti Monster. He throws enough noodles around and hopes some of them stick. Recently, the sea level rise, now Arctic sea ice, and the poor wildlife.

      • Entropic man says:

        He’s a proper God, not like your puny Jehovah.(smile emoji)

  17. stephen p anderson says:

    Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling eliminates mail-in drop boxes against the wishes of the Wisconsin Election Commission and several Democrat groups.

    • Entropic man says:

      A deliberate tactic to make it harder for the poor to vote.

      It demonstrates why it is a bad idea to put the conduct of elections in the hands of politicians who then adjust the rules in their own party’s favour.

      Those who claim that the US has the best electoral system in the world should be squirming in embarrassment and shame.

      • stephen p anderson says:

        You might be thinking of the poor there in Wales. In the US, even poor people have cars, refrigerators, air conditioning, and TVs. Also, poor people have IDs. Just ask them. So we should put election decisions in the hands of unelected officials like the Wisconsin Election Commission instead of the legislature? I like our Constitution the way it is.

      • stephen p anderson says:

        Also, you’ll notice the Wisconsin Election Commission had aligned itself with the desires of the Democrats. Also, the Supreme Court ruled no more ballot harvesting. If you watched 2000mules, you can see ballot harvesting is rife with corruption. Is that what you do in the UK?

      • Entropic man says:

        “So we should put election decisions in the hands of unelected officials like the Wisconsin Election Commission instead of the legislature? ”

        It’s called objectivity. In the UK elections are run by the Electoral Commission which is required by law to be politically neutral.

        What you call the legislature is always controlled by one political party and, considering how corrupt your political system is, should not be allowed anywhere near the electoral process.

        I read the judgement, accessed from here. It was interesting to note that the plaintiff side mostly had Republican links and the defendants linked to the Democrats.

        Clearly the presence of drop boxes increases the % Democrat vote and their absence increases the % Republican vote. This was well known by the Republican majority among the judges.

        They have previous form. They allowed the Republicans to gerrymander electoral districts.


      • stephen p anderson says:

        > Its called objectivity. In the UK elections are run by the Electoral Commission which is required by law to be politically neutral.

        Oh, required by law to be politically neutral? Unelected bureaucrats are never politically neutral. They are usually controlled by the media. And, we all know what side most of the media is on. In Wisconsin’s case, the WEC sided with the Democrats, imagine that. There’s nothing about your government that is better than our Constitution. The legislature is elected by the people. They exercise the will of the people. Yes, it is the Legislatures whom I want to make decisions. Not your group of Objective bureaucrats.

        What you call the legislature is always controlled by one political party and, considering how corrupt your political system is, should not be allowed anywhere near the electoral process.

        Most of the corruption in our elections have been Democrats and historically, it has been Democrats. That’s not to say you can’t find an odd Republican here and there who’s tried corruption during an election, but the vast majority historically has been Democrats. Democrats are career politicians and supporters of the Deep State. The UK has no protection against the Deep State. Your Constitution sucks.

        I read the judgment, accessed from here. It was interesting to note that the plaintiff side mostly had Republican links and the defendants linked to the Democrats.

        The plaintiffs were two citizens. The defendants WEC, et.al. tried everything they could to claim the plaintiffs had no standing. That was bizarre. The judge said they not only had standing but represented every voter in Wisconsin.

        Clearly the presence of drop boxes increases the % Democrat vote and their absence increases the % Republican vote. This was well known by the Republican majority among the judges.

        No it didn’t increase Democrat participation, it increased violation of election law. It allowed Democrats to steal the election-Mark Zuckerberg and his ilk. Wisconsin election law is very clear, no ballot harvesting, no mail-in drop boxes, and no mass mailing of ballots. The Wisconsin Supreme Court restored the Wisconsin election law and integrity.

        They have previous form. They allowed the Republicans to gerrymander electoral districts.

        Gerrymandering is allowed. It is in the Constitution, read it. You don’t believe the Democrats gerrymander in blue states? However, since the majority of the state legislatures are now red, the will of the people is being heard. That’s what’s great about our system. I know you Brits love command central, but sorry, we don’t. Georgia has also voted in a new election integrity law and Arizona is not far behind. That would have made the last election 269 even, Trump wins. Hmmm, wonder what’s happening in Michigan and Pennsylvania?

      • stephen p anderson says:

        Oh wait, I forgot, you believe the IPCC is objective. It’s like a commission, isn’t it? And the EPA? They’re objective too, right?

      • Entropic man says:

        “Gerrymandering is allowed. It is in the Constitution, ”

        Manipulating elections by changing the rules in your favour is in the Constitution.

        I rest my case.

      • stephen p anderson says:

        Gerrymandering isn’t manipulating elections. Gerrymandering is redrawing Congressional districts. That’s the purview of the state legislatures according to the Constitution. Using mules is manipulating elections. What Biden is trying to do with his directive to 600 Federal agencies to get out the vote is manipulating elections. By the way, several states have now outlawed Zuckerberg’s operation. That was manipulating elections.

      • stephen p anderson says:

        Oh, and by the way, the Democrats controlled state legislatures for almost 50 years in this Country and redrew Congressional districts every election. The Republicans are doing it to a much less degree than the Democrats. We see that Gerrymandering doesn’t work and can’t keep up with changing demographics, and the people’s will is eventually heard.

      • stephen p anderson says:

        A woman in Norway is facing jail time for stating that biological men can’t be lesbians. She is being charged with hate speech. Don’t you love how socialist European governments are objective and promote free speech? Doesn’t the UK have hate speech laws also? Is hate speech determined by objective commissions?

      • Entropic man says:

        There’s a lot of quite confusing semantics here.

        I am attracted to women. If you surgically turned me into a transgender woman I would still be attracted to women.

        Would that make me a lesbian?

      • stephen p anderson says:

        I can answer that as long as I don’t live in Norway.

      • stephen p anderson says:

        DOJ suing Arizona to stop their new voter ID law.

  18. gbaikie says:

    In a war between Earth microbes and Mars microbes and war is on Planet Mars, who do want to win?

    It seems we could lose whether either win, or there is a truce or
    them ending up “working together”.
    Or seems for Humans it could be no win situation.

    Microbes could blaze a trail for farmers on Mars

    “An experiment thats on its way to the International Space Station focuses on a subject thats as common as dirt, but could be the key to growing crops in space.”

    So, this doesn’t I am against this “blazing a trail for farmers on Mars”.
    I just think it could be dangerous for alien microbes to battle Earth microbes, as could have lethal effect upon humans and/or other “higher lifeforms”.
    And I suppose it could have “good results” or no effects.
    And it seems to me there is only say, a 60% chance there is any kind of life on Mars, and might not find it anytime soon, and it might not be actually alien- just Earth like life on Mars. And/or there already alien microbial on Earth- which are apparently have not had “any noticeable effect”.
    And tend to think there higher chance of life on the Jupiter moons.

  19. Sasso says:

    This is all fake, even more fake than the moon landing. The liberals are trying to fool you into thinking that something good has happened during idiot Biden’s presidency.

    Real MAGAs know that the universe is less than 5,000 years old. God has a plan, and Q has proof that the government knows the plan, if we can just get rid of the liberal deep state traitors

    • Bindidon says:

      Thank you for bringing us the best possible proof of the incredibly stupid obscurity of mind of all MAGA and Q people.

      • Clint R says:

        No Bin, that’s likely one of your cult idiots pretending. He makes too many obvious mistakes to be real. He’s probably trying to cover up for the nonsense your cult spews, like:

        * Ice cubes can boil water
        * a ball-on-a-sting is not a suitable model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”
        * Sun could raise Earth’s temperature to 800,000K
        * Sun only brings 163 W/m^2 to Earth’s surface
        * Atmosphere brings 340 W/m^2 to Earth’s surface
        * Earth has a “real 255K surface”
        * passenger jets fly backwards
        * gravity can exert a torque on Moon
        * a hot vacuum tube burning your had proves the GHE
        * flux can be used for an “energy balance”
        * Earth can be compared to a imaginary sphere“

        Need I continue?

      • Entropic man says:

        Please continue.

        You’ve just given eleven demonstrations of your lack of understanding.

        Bet you can’t reach twenty. (Smile emoji)

      • Clint R says:

        Your perversions of reality ain’t science, Ent.

        Explain again how passenger jets fly backwards when they circumnavigate Earth. That was some great sci-fi — one of your best examples of made-up science.

      • Entropic man says:


        A passenger jet flies Eastwards along the Equator at 600mph.

        The Earth’s rotation carries it Eastwards at 1200 mph.

        The Earth’s orbital motion carries it Westwards at 66,600 mph.

        Thus the aircraft is facing Eastwards while travelling Westwards at 66,600-1200-600 = 64,800 mph.

        For the lurkers, note Clint R’s lack of understanding. He is incapable of thinking beyond a purely Earth centred reference frame.

        His lack of understanding extends across many fields so he should not be regarded as a reliable source.

      • Entropic man says:

        The above describes the vectors acting on the aircraft at local noon.

        At local midnight the aircraft is still flying Eastwards at 600 mph with a 1200mph boost from Earth’s rotation.

        The aircraft is now pointing in the direction of the Earth’s orbital motion so the vectors add rather than subtract. The aircraft is moving forwards at 66,600+1200+600 = 68,400 mph.

        Vectors and reference frames are fun. Pity Clint R does not understand them.

      • Clint R says:

        Thanks Ent. That’s another perfect example of how your cult perverts reality. Sometimes, I think people assume I’m exaggerating when I describe your aversion to reality.

        If you have time, feel free to chose more of the nonsense from the list above, to blather on about. “Ice cubes can boil water” is a current issue. I’m sure you would like to “justify” that rubbish.

      • stephen p anderson says:

        Sasso is Bindiot’s alter ego.

  20. TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

    JWST is a very big spacecraft, its sunshield about the size of a tennis court. That means the solar radiation pressure on it is relatively significant.

    But if the center of light pressure & the center of mass of the spacecraft are offset, then the radiation pressure can also cause a torque, leading to rotation of the spacecraft. This isn’t good if you’re trying to keep the telescope steady to observe a piece of the sky.

    This is where the JWST Momentum Management system comes in. Momentum is managed by a hierarchy of the aft momentum flap, the spacecraft’s reaction wheels, and by using onboard propellant.

  21. Swenson says:


    Copying and pasting doesn’t necessarily mean you understand what you are posting.

    Here’s a little quote from your source –

    “Orbit perturbations along the Sun-L2 axis have the greatest impact on orbit stability.”

    Would you care to expound on chaos, and explain why climate cranks refuse to accept that the atmosphere is chaotic in nature, and thus unpredictable by the application of physical laws?

    JWST shows what can be achieved by scientists, engineers, and technicians who actually know what they are doing. On the other hand, “climate scientists” have achieved precisely nothing, because they refuse to accept reality.

    For example, sea levels have varied by more than 10 km in the past, based on marine fossil remains found both above and below present sea levels. “Climate scientists” pretend that sea level variations less than the thickness of a human hair (a laughably fake measurement anyway), are cause for panic!

    What a pack of pretentious dimwits!

    Carry on.

  22. TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

    “Here’s a little quote from your source…”

    Wrong Swenson, that “little quote” is from your own source here: https://jwst-docs.stsci.edu/jwst-observatory-characteristics/jwst-orbit which you conveniently, and deceptively, didn’t link to and discusses how JWST maintains its orbit around L2.

    My post is about another important matter: how JWST counteracts the torque produced by radiation pressure which, if left unchecked, would cause the spacecraft to rotate during an observation task.

    You are guilty of (1) copying and pasting something you don’t understand, and (2) of “accusing the other side of that which you are guilty.”

    Regarding the confused and inconsequential bit about chaos, climate science, etc., I’ll remind you that you are responsible for your own education. I can point you in the direction of some good online courses and textbooks if you want to do the work. If you don’t want to do the work, that’s fine too.

    • Swenson says:


      Oh dear, I have been judged and found guilty, have I?

      A jolly good thing that you are completely powerless and inconsequential, then.

      If you believe that “climate scientists” have achieved anything comparable to any of the many components comprising the JWST, you might care to specify why. I know you don’t want to accept that the same physical laws apply to “climate science” as they do to real science, but they do.

      The difference is that scientists involved in the JWST accept the reality of chaotic perturbations in things such as orbits, whereas “climate scientists” believe that their bizarre notions of the magical heating abilities of CO2 and so on, are superior to reality, and not constrained by the laws which apply to everyone else.

      You may choose to reject reality, but it makes no difference. As Richard Feynman said “Nature cannot be fooled”, but you are free to try. You’ll lose.

      As to your complaint that I quoted from some other source than the one you linked to, maybe you should actually read the content of your authorities. Try it, and let others see you don’t even read what you link to.

      Carry on.

      • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

        Here’s my link: https://jwst-docs.stsci.edu/jwst-observatory-hardware/jwst-momentum-management#JWSTMomentumManagement-Managingmomentum

        Where on that page does it say: “Orbit perturbations along the Sun-L2 axis have the greatest impact on orbit stability” as you claim to have quoted.

        Maybe you should actually read the content of your authorities.

      • Swenson says:


        You initially linked to jwsr-docs.stci.edu. Maybe you should read it in full.

        If you take the time, you will note that I quoted correctly from your source. If you don’t want anybody to read any other part of the document to which you link, why not just say so?

        It may be of interest to others to read the background to the matter you consider to be so important that you made comment about it here. I, and others, might be interested in the reasons for the need for the mechanism to which you referred.

        Are you going to post more interesting things about which you understand very little? For example, will chaotic orbital perturbations or photon pressure require more thruster use to correct? Or are you just plucking snippets from the documentation in the hope that someone will think you are a very clever chap?

      • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

        “…It may be of interest to others to read the background to the matte…”

        Thanks for making my point.

      • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

        P.s.:“I, and others, might be interested in the reasons for the need for the mechanism to which you referred.”

        The mechanism to which I referred is the cancelling of some of the torque, i.e. momentum management. You have been talking about orbit maintenance around L2, aka station-keeping. That is a different question.

      • Swenson says:


        If you want to show your cleverness by obsessing about torque cancellation, be my guest.

        If you want to disregard all the other aspects of keeping the JWST pointing at a particular point in the heavens, fair enough. It shows the same mindset as climate cranks who fixate on near ground air temperatures as a measurement of climate.

        Carry on.

      • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

        Swenson, you are a narcissist with a deep seated inferiority complex. You’ve been personally attacking me for three days now about my post on JWST Torque Management, for no [apparent] good reason whatsoever.

        Saddest part is you’ve contributed nothing to the headline subject of Dr Roy Spencer’s post.

      • Swenson says:

        It beats me how I could personally attack an anonymous commenter. Maybe you believe you are so important that I really know who you are. I don’t – nor do I care.

        There are many facets to the operation of the JWST, and you are free to concentrate on those you wish.

        And presumably, you support my freedom to comment on those aspects which I find applicable to other fields, such as chaos.

        Fair enough?

  23. Eben says:

    You can see how the blackness of the black space itself lightens up as the images flip, all object are visible on both just the same , sure there might well be small improvement but most of the effect is just processing to impress the masses. If after all the hype this is the best they got.


    • gbaikie says:

      You missing how short the duration difference was- and this is rather important:
      –With merely 12.5 hours of exposure time in its first deep-field image, the James Webb Space Telescope has truly ushered in an entirely new era in astronomy and astrophysics. Despite devoting just 1/50th of the time that went into Hubble’s deepest image of the Universe, the Hubble eXtreme Deep Field, JWST has revealed details we’ve never seen before. —

      • gbaikie says:

        Also it difference of orbits the telescope are in, if you put Hubble in L-2, it would be a far better telescope [see more in short period of operational life of the telescope.
        Or in the 10 year lifetime of Webb in L-2 it should more then Hubble did in decades in LEO.

  24. gbaikie says:

    I am going blame my interest [which is small] in the climate emergency religion, has cause me to think about too far in the future.
    I think a better habit, is consider what could happen within the next 10 years.
    But in terms of global climate, basically everyone agree, nothing much is going to change. Though policies about it could change and these governmental changes have a disaster for people- continue to kill and make people poorer.
    Or global climate is actually all about the average temperature of our ocean, and it doesn’t change in a mere 10 years.

    In 10 years is seems global internet from low orbit satellites will make a big difference for everyone in the world. And it’s good thing it’s not being done by a totalitarian state.

    That could be done in less than 5 years [or being done right now, but within 10 years it will have a greater effect.

    I don’t think we will have Power satellites in orbit providing any significant amount electrical power to Earth surface within 10 year, but Musk will have completed his satellite network and making power satellite network work for Earth, would/could be useful for Mars. So small scale on Earth and/or for Mars could start within 10 years.

  25. Eben says:

    We live in the era of fake scientific discoveries made by incredibly expensive but useless equipment searching for nonexistent things .
    The Higgs boson totally fake , no detection of it ever occurred, only constructed by computer model
    Gravitational wave detection totally fake , just pulled imaginary signal from noise.
    Black hole image totally fake , artifact pulled from random noise by computer antilogarithm


    • gbaikie says:

      Webb telescope was expensive.
      But I like Webb more than I like SLS.
      I waited forever for Webb and quite happy it actually got to orbit
      and appears to work. Hubble was quite expensive and didn’t work- it had to be fixed [adding to it’s costs and time before it worked].
      Anyhow, if SLS was to be cancelled it should been in first 5 years of failure, and now I want it launched. And if it blows uo, I want another attempt at launching this hideous thing. Though I don’t know about third try- though I doubt Boeing would want a third try. Webb was similar, in first few years, it looked close to being cancelled.
      I was against ISS, it to was way over budget- [and 51 inclination was in the wrong orbit]. But once ISS was ready to launch, I wanted it launched. About the best thing about ISS, is lead to COTS, which lead SpaceX and all other private launch, excitement. Which was not “the plan” but shit happens.

  26. Bindidon says:

    Who doesn’t know anything about

    Pierre Marie Robitaille, PhD | Ohio State College of Medicine

    should watch


    • gbaikie says:

      The Sun is very big, and it’s surface is very hot, and it’s surface has to be plasma.
      I listened to whole thing.

      I did find not anything particular wrong with it, but it seem more matter of Pierre Marie Robitaille, PhD being a crack pot rather then pseudo science.
      Though perhaps cult or religion is maybe applicable.
      I would say Eben is quite mistaken in linking to this character- unless it was some kind of strange humor.

      Or Pierre Marie Robitaille appears indefensible.

      But if Eben wants to take this challenge…

      • Clint R says:

        gbaikie, what is wrong with what Robitaille said?

        You stated, “I did find not anything particular wrong with it..”

        You can’t find anything wrong with it, but you use “crack pot” without any qualms.

        (I reserve the right to not respond to your rambling off-topic nonsense.)

      • gbaikie says:

        gbaikie, what is wrong with what Robitaille said?

        In reference, to Bindidon link:

        I was overly long, but listened to it.
        It’s obviously one sided, was quite hostile to Robitaille.
        It might completely false.
        But that guy didn’t say anything I disagree with.
        I have some understanding about big bang. I think black
        holes exist. And etc.

      • Clint R says:

        So who’s the “crack pot” — You are “professor” Dave?

      • gbaikie says:

        One thing I was uncertain about, which he said, he said Sun makes oxygen.
        I don’t what sun exactlymakes, but it does make more than Helium.
        So I think Sun could make some oxygen but not certain, and Sun does spews a lot oxygen.
        And lots stars do make a lot oxygen- it’s very abundant in our universe.

      • Clint R says:

        So you don’t know anything about this except you can freely call someone crack pot?

      • gbaikie says:


        Which still didn’t answer my particulur question.
        An Elemental Problem with the Sun

        A decades-long dispute over how much carbon, nitrogen and oxygen lie within our closest star has implications for the entire universe,

        “Twenty years ago, astronomers expressed confidence in the numbers they had been working with. Now, not so much. The problem lies not in the far corners of the cosmos, but much closer to home. Astonishingly, scientists dont know exactly what the sun is made of. As a result, they dont know what the other stars are made of, either.”
        “Despite the controversy, everyone agrees on the basics: The sun consists mainly of hydrogen and helium, the two lightest elements. It generates energy at its center through nuclear reactions that convert hydrogen into helium. But because of Asplunds work, the amounts of the next most abundant elements are all in dispute.

        It matters hugely. Oxygen accounts for nearly half of all heavy atoms in the universe. Most of these atoms trace their birth to stars much more massive than the sun. Late in their bright but brief lives, these stars fuse four helium nuclei together to make oxygen. The stars eventually explode, shooting the life-giving element away. Just one supernova can eject more than a solar mass of oxygen. If the oxygen level in the sun and thus the whole universe is as low as Asplund believes, these massive oxygen-producing stars have been much less prolific than has been thought.”

        My understanding the Sun has oxygen, and emits oxygen, but probably makes very little as compared other elements.

      • gbaikie says:

        –So whos the crack pot You are professor Dave?–

        I have no interest in him, I saying he should not said crackpot and and in my opinion, he mostly wrongly called it pseudo science.

        My view, is I have no problem with crack pots, whereas pseudo science is an actual problem due it being all over place.

        For example, That people can not define a woman is result of pseudo science, not crack pots.

      • gbaikie says:

        I have no reason to be interested in Pierre Marie Robitaille, PhD,
        I did listen to video in which someone was excessively interested in Pierre Marie Robitaille, PhD.
        Who spend a long making a case against him.

        I await, any case, which is in his favor.

      • gbaikie says:

        I did find a claim that our sun makes Oxygen.
        But here another one:
        Q: Does the Sun contain elements other than helium, such as uranium and iron, in its core?

        Mike Burkhardt
        El Cajon, California

        A: Hydrogen and helium are by far the most abundant elements found in the Sun, making up about 98 percent of its mass, but other, heavier elements play an important role in the physical processes that occur in the Sun. The process of nuclear fusion combines hydrogen atoms to produce helium and the energy that keeps the Sun shining.

        The next three elements heavier than helium lithium, beryllium, and boron are sometimes formed as intermediate products during the fusion process. Elements even heavier than these are present throughout the Sun. They come not from nuclear fusion in our own Sun, but from previous generations of massive stars in the solar neighborhood, the remains of which have been scattered by supernova explosions. The same cloud of enriched material that formed the Sun also formed Earth and the other planets. Thus, the same naturally occurring elements that can be found on Earth, up to and including elements as heavy as uranium, are also present in the Sun.–


        I accept this as more correct.

        Though some have said the Sun makes [other helium} mostly oxygen.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Professor Dave, the narrow-minded idiot critiquing Robitaille, is the one to be examined. Besides being a plain idiot, he’s an obnoxious idiot. At the following link, Robitaille responds, exposing Dave as the idiot he is.

      The Professor failed to reveal that Robitaille has a Ph.D in Chemistry. He makes far more sense scientifically than the clown.


  27. Bindidon says:

    Dumb asses watch Robitaille’s dumb stuff.

    I prefer this:


  28. Eben says:

    Charlatans dressed up as scientists suck off billions on government teats for scams like the Crescent Dunes Solar Energy plan,
    but here is how gullible investors lose their money to fake cheap clean energy inventions.


  29. gbaikie says:

    –Clint R says:
    July 16, 2022 at 8:49 PM

    So you dont know anything about this except you can freely call someone crack pot?–

    I can freely call someone a crackpot.
    But I didn’t.

    in American English
    1. a person who is eccentric, unrealistic, or fanatical

    in British English
    1. an eccentric person; crank

    The Brits are known to be eccentric.
    In beginning of American Civil War, the ruling class was
    largely against the North, even though they against slavery
    for decades. They call President Lincoln a monster. Their law
    was to not get involved in any civil wars but they supported the South- and later paid a large fine for doing so.
    Monty Python had much humor about the Brits, but they also had a lot material to work with. It’s tends to the “upper class” where you find most of the crackpots.
    Though America also has a lot crackpots. And we seeing a lot fanatical behavior lately which appear also of the upper class.
    Now, I like the idea of open borders.
    But not favor of criminal organization controlling “the border”. This seems unrealistic and fanatical- AND very stupid. Far worse than a merely crackpot scheme.
    I would like to listen to crackpot explain how having criminal
    cartels controlling the border is a free border. Or somehow amounts to a good plan.
    And we have endless amounts crackpots on TV and in government.
    Or that is kind term to use.

    • Clint R says:

      Here’s your exact quote, gbaikie.

      “I did find not anything particular wrong with it, but it seem more matter of Pierre Marie Robitaille, PhD being a crack pot rather then pseudo science.

      • gbaikie says:

        Well he was wrong calling Pierre Marie Robitaille, PhD pseudo science.
        Him calling Pierre Marie Robitaille a crack pot would be more correct. And he said that a lot. But I don’t count that particular wrong. Whereas as I later said, saying Sun makes oxygen, I consider, a mistake, but otherwise I didn’t find anything particularly wrong, or he states things which is in accordance with what generally regarded as “correct”.
        Or he spend all the video comparing what he thought Pierre Marie Robitaille was claiming vs what Pierre Marie Robitaille was apparently arguing against {“the established view”].

        And this has nothing to do with my thoughts about how right or wrong
        I imagine the established view may or may mot be].
        I tend to we have a lot of things wrong, but seems to me star gazers
        are always changing minds about almost anything- or I don’t much of a beef with these explorers.

      • gbaikie says:

        The problem is I know nothing about what Pierre Marie Robitaille
        said, other than video than video, Eben linked:

        Which I didn’t regard as interesting- I did not have information nor
        much interest in picture of this blackhole,
        But after watching video, I find link about it, and posted it somewhere, here, I think.
        But according to that the video black hole image was made by interferometry with radio telescopes widely spaced on Earth.
        And the lady in video was excited getting wider spacing than just the size of Earth, such as radio telescope on the Moon, in order to get better images of distance objects
        One other advantage of radio telescope on the moon, it there is less radio noise if on the far side of the Moon.
        But I guess it could also be used by linking up earth radio telescopes for Interferometry use.
        And I am guessing the less polluted lunar signal might be helpful, but I don’t know much about how interferometry works. Wiki:
        But it seems all these Earth telescopes link up, would have deal with the radio pollution of the Earth environment which could complicate
        the received data.
        And don’t recall Pierre Marie Robitaille explaining this aspect.
        All I remember was it was suppose to taken up a lot disk space, which was fairly meaningless to me. How many hours of huge radio telescopes data was in it, for example. And as said I wouldn’t know much about
        what involved doing Interferometry,
        And I probably know a bit more than most people.
        Or I know basically nothing, and they would tend know less than nothing.

  30. gbaikie says:

    How much money do US spend on Space exploration:
    “NASA’s budget for financial year (FY) 2020 is $22.6 billion. It represents 0.48% of the $4.7 trillion the United States plans to spend in the fiscal year.”

    How much did NASA spend on James Webb Space Telescope?
    “NASA’s lifetime cost for the project is expected to be US$9.7 billion, of which US $8.8 billion was spent on spacecraft design and development and US$861 million is planned to support five years of mission operations.Representatives from ESA and CSA stated their project contributions amount to approximately 700 million and CA$200 million, respectively.”
    So, it’s planned for 10 years of use [or more] but 9.7 billion which includes 5 years of use, and not including Canada and EU cost of
    200 million Canadian dollars and 700 millions already spent and whatever they spend in the future.

    “A study in 1984 by the Space Science Board estimated that to build a next-generation infrared observatory in orbit would cost US$4 billion (US$7B in 2006 dollars, or $10B in 2020 dollars).While this came close to the final cost of JWST, the first NASA design considered in the late 1990s was more modest, aiming for a $1 billion price tag over 10 years of construction. Over time this design expanded, added funding for contingencies, and had scheduling delays.”
    When first consider in 1984 they got correct number, but later redesigned in late 1990’s with lower number.
    “By 2008, when the project entered preliminary design review and was formally confirmed for construction, over US$1 billion had already been spent on developing the telescope, and the total budget was estimated at about US$5 billion (equivalent to $6.94 billion in 2021)” So, making it 2008 to 2022. 14 years less than 1 billion per year. A large NASA project.
    But Shuttle program was about 5 billion per year and went on decades total costs of hundreds billion and ISS has total cost of about 200 billion again over decades of time and still flying and will have future costs.
    US spend a lot more on Space per year in terms military use
    of space.
    Dept of Education spends 260.45 billion in 2021.
    Dept of Energy spends: $31.7 billion in 2020
    Of course 50 states actually pay for public education and it totals somewhere around trillion dollars per year.
    Neither dept energy or education is making energy or actually doing any educating.
    State Dept: $40.8 billion in 2021 again not doing much- other causing wars 🙂
    Like all these bureaucracies including NASA and lot money spent on the bureaucracies.
    Oh What dept of Agriculture [which also doesn’t farm]
    “Approximately 80% of the USDA’s $141 billion budget goes to the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) program.”
    So, leaves 141 times .2 = 28.2 billion not involved giving food stamps.
    Not giving out food stamps costs more than NASA per year.

  31. gbaikie says:

    –Key points

    Multiple lines of evidence indicate that the Antarctic Ice Sheet (AIS) underwent periods of ice volume loss and gain in the Holocene that affected global sea levels.

    Rapid ice loss occurred in all ice sheet sectors during the Early to Mid Holocene, contributing between 2.4 and 12 m to the rise in global mean sea level (GMSL).

    Ice sheet readvance occurred in two sectors during the Holocene, which might have caused a fall in global sea levels of 0.35 m, or possibly 1.2 m.

    The ice sheet was mostly at or near its present-day geometry by the Late Holocene, but ice loss and gain continued in some areas into the industrial era.

    Ice loss was likely caused by oceanic warming, sea-level rise, retrograde bed topography and atmospheric changes, and ice gain was possibly caused by glacial isostatic adjustment and/or climate variability.

    Improved understanding of the AIS in the Holocene will be achieved through targeted data collection, and developments in chronological techniques and numerical modelling.–
    Linked from:

  32. gbaikie says:

    The Two Degree Temperature Target is Arbitrary and Untethered

    A close look at the origins of the 2C target of the Paris Climate Agreement leads to a surprising conclusion
    Roger Pielke Jr.
    Jul 15

    Linked from:

    Is it actually surprising?
    If bat shit crazy is surprising.

  33. Ken says:

    Question about CO2 concentrations.

    Currently its 410 ppm.

    The reconstructions point to concentrations higher than 5000 ppm. Does that mean there was more CO2 in the atmosphere as now or does that mean there was less atmosphere and CO2 made up a larger percentage because there was less O2 and N2?

    How do we know that there was 1 atmosphere of pressure a million years ago and more?

    • gbaikie says:

      We are in the late Cenozoic Ice Age, “began 33.9 million years ago at the Eocene-Oligocene Boundary and is ongoing.”
      Ice Ages are also called ice house global climate.
      Warmest global climates are called Greenhouse global climates.
      Greenhouse global climates have average temperature temperatures of
      about 10 C or warmer.
      Our ocean average temperature is about 3.5 C and roughly been around temperature for last 5000 years [and will probably remain around that temperature for next 1000 years.
      When I say about 3.5 C, I mean 3.5 +/- .2 C
      And +/- .2 C can have large effect. It’s unlikely the little ice age had ocean .2 C colder than our ocean temperature. And adding .2 C to our ocean temperature might cause ice free polar sea ice in the summer. And adding .5 C, would be more certainly cause ice free polar sea in summmer [and a lot less in winter].
      And during the Cenozoic Ice Age the average temperature of ocean has been cold. 6 C would count as cold. But during last 1 million years
      the warmest time of interglacial periods has been an ocean with average temperature of 4 C [or warmer, but as warm as 5 C or warmer.
      Or having 6 C ocean is very warm compared to last couple million years.
      Anyhow ice house climate with ocean of 6 C or colder, would have a low CO2 level. And 500 ppm is what I mean by low.
      Or you can’t have 5000 ppm in an ice house global climate.
      You have look at periods in Earth history where there was a greenhouse global climate- probably with ocean of about 15 C or more.

    • Entropic man says:

      “How do we know that there was 1 atmosphere of pressure a million years ago and more? ”

      We don’t know.

      We can infer limits. If pressure or oxygen content gets too low animal breathing systems like lungs, gills and trachea cannot supply enough oxygen. Low oxygen levels may have contributed to mass extinctions. In at least one of them low oxygen tolerant genera survived better than those intolerant of low oxygen.

      During the Carboniferous there were some very large flying insects. These would have need a higher oxygen content to generate enough energy and a higher atmospheric pressure to make flight aerodynamically possible.

  34. john says:

    nice work

  35. khan says:

    i want to share this in my circle

  36. gbaikie says:

    James Webb Space Telescope’s ‘jewel-filled’ photo is stunning. But what are we even looking at here?

    By Brandon Specktor published about 20 hours ago
    “”You start looking at this image and realize there’s no blank sky,” Scott Gaudi, a professor of astronomy at Ohio State University, told Live Science. “There’s something crazy happening everywhere.”

    To try and understand this historic image a little better, we asked Gaudi to walk us through the big, small and strange details of Webb’s deep field.”

  37. gbaikie says:

    ‘Needle in a haystack’ black hole discovered in neighboring galaxy

    By Robert Lea published 1 day ago

    The dormant stellar-mass black hole in the Large Magellanic Cloud is the first to be confirmed outside of the Milky Way.

    “Discovering VFTS 243 required the team to scrutinize six years’ worth of data collected the Very Large Telescope (VLT), which is located in the Atacama Desert region of Northern Chile. In this data, the scientists probed 1,000 massive stars in the Tarantula Nebula region of the Large Magellanic Cloud to discover if any of these stars could have a dormant black hole companion. “

  38. gbaikie says:

    Webb telescope may have already found most distant known galaxy
    By Issam AHMED
    Washington (AFP) July 20, 2022
    ” Just a week after its first images were shown to the world, the James Webb Space Telescope may have found a galaxy that existed 13.5 billion years ago, a scientist who analyzed the data said Wednesday.

    Known as GLASS-z13, the galaxy dates back to 300 million years after the Big Bang, about 100 million years earlier than anything previously identified, Rohan Naidu of the Harvard Center for Astrophysics told AFP.

    “We’re potentially looking at the most distant starlight that anyone has ever seen,” he said.”

    • gbaikie says:

      At all times there is dust traveling thru space, but during meteor showers there a lot more of it [and why people watch the skies for the shooting stars at those times]. And if you had planet between you [in LEO], you get less {get 1/2}, James Webb doesn’t have any planet between it- and they going make an effort reduce their cross section to the direction of future meteor showers in future.
      Also since mirror has segments, it seems to me, it could make more survivable.

      An issue with space stations and settlements in open space, is we have not really worked out the technology, yet, on how make them survive long period [say 50 to 100 years] and one of issue is dealing with micrometeorites.
      [Perhaps, small bots which “3 D print” repairs??]

  39. Gordon Robertson says:

    Polio is back with a whole lot of modern propaganda to go with it, like people showing no symptoms can infect others.


  40. Bindidon says:

    A bit more real info concerning micrometeorite impacts on JWST’s mirror, from


    Characterization of JWST science
    performance from commissioning

    4.7 Micrometeoroids

    Inevitably, any spacecraft will encounter micrometeoroids. During commissioning, wavefront sensing recorded six localized surface deformations on the primary mirror that are attributed to impact by

    These occurred at a rate (roughly one per month) consistent with pre-launch expectations. Each micrometeoroid caused degradation in the wavefront of the impacted mirror segment, as measured during regular wavefront sensing.

    Some of the resulting wavefront degradation is correctable
    through regular wavefront control; some of it comprises high spatial frequency terms that cannot be corrected. There should also be a small effect on the telescope throughput, which is not yet measurable.

    Of the six micrometeoroid strikes detected thus far through wavefront sensing, five had negligible effects, contributing a combined total of < 1 nm to the overall wavefront error.

    By contrast, the micrometeoroid which hit segment C3 in the period 2224 May 2022 UT caused significant uncorrectable change in the overall figure of that segment. However, the effect was small at the full telescope level because only a small portion of the telescope area was affected.

    After two subsequent realignment steps, the telescope was aligned to a minimum of 59 nm rms, which is about 5-10 nm rms above the previous best wavefront error rms values .

    It should be noted that the drifts and stability levels of the telescope mean that science observations will typically see telescope contribution between 60 nm rms (minimum) and 80 nm rms (where WF control will typically be performed).

    Further, the telescope WFE combines with the science instrument WFE to yield total observatory levels in the range 70-130 nm (see Table 2), so the slight increase to telescope WFE from this strike has a relatively smaller effect on total observatory WFE.

    Imaging of the primary using the NIRCam pupil imaging lens is sensitive to changes from smaller impacts, below the threshold to be detectable by wavefront sensing. Comparison of pupil images taken 23 Feb and 26 May 2022 show evidence for 19 such minor strikes over that 92 day period. Regular monitoring of the pupil may help constrain the micrometeoroid hit rate and power spectrum.

    It is not yet clear whether the May 2022 hit to segment C3 was a rare event (i.e. an unlucky early strike by a high kinetic energy micrometeoroid that statistically might occur only once in several years), or whether the telescope may be more susceptible to damage by micrometeoroids than pre-launch modeling predicted.

    The project team is conducting additional investigations into the micrometeoroid population, how impacts affect beryllium mirrors, and the efficacy and efficiency tradeoffs of potential mitigations
    such as pointing restrictions that would minimize time spent looking in the direction of orbital motion, which statistically has higher micrometeoroid rates and energies.

    • Eben says:

      Why don’t you just copy/paste the whole internet in here

      • Bindidon says:

        Why are you, babbling Edog, asking useless questions all the time?

        Why don’t you simply keep silent, instead of disturbing me?

        You copy/paste only short links, but the contents they refer to is 100% bullshit.

  41. Eben says:

    Here is another epic scam sucking off millions for dreamed up nonexistent dark matter because they can’t figure out how galaxies spin


  42. Gordon Robertson says:

    gbaikie posted a link above related to black holes. I got this link from his link…

    It starts by claiming that black holes ‘may’ seem like science fiction. No…they are science fiction. The evidence presented to support the theory in this article is science fiction. There’s no proof for any of it.

    I learned the theory of how a black hole is allegedly formed in a first year astronomy course. The explanation is repeated in this article but not in as much detail as I learned it. Basically, a star at the end of its life can go in three different ways. One way is to explode as a supernova. Another way is to collapse into a neutron star. A third way is for the neutron star to collapse into a black hole.

    This is all sci-fi bs. For one, there is no reason why a star should have only neutrons left since the only neutrons available are in Helium. Hydrogen, making up most of the star has no neutrons unless they are isotopes. Surely, if a star burns out without exploding, there will be scads of electrons and protons left, far more than the number of neutrons.

    No one has every seen neutrons collapse into a super-dense mass and there is no reason why they should. If they could form a super dense neutron star why should they suddenly disappear into the nothingness of a black hole? No one has ever seen that happen either.

    Astronomers are claiming that gamma rays, well beyond the visible spectrum are coming from an apparent nothingness, which they have called a black hole. That’s why they are astronomers, their work is based largely on speculation for the simple reason they have no physical reality to test.

    In the article, they cite Schwarzschild, a wannabee physicist hung up on the stupid thought experiments emanating from Einstein’s theory of relativity. He had garnered fleeting fame by applying Einstein’s nonsense about time dilation and space-time curvature. Later Penrose and Hawking added to the idiocy by claiming a star could collapse to nothingess, producing a singularity in which physics did not apply.

    Why does anyone listen to these idiots? This is simply the Big Bang in reverse, the difference being, with the BB, the entire universe collapses into a singularity, then rebounds out of nothingness to produce the present mass of the universe.

    There is not a shred of proof in science to back this idiocy.

    A brainchild of another astronomer, Chandrasekhar, was that a collapsing star could go through a final collapse in a few seconds leading to a strong burst of gamma rays. Is no one in astronomy capable of seeing that gamma rays are well beyond the visible spectrum? Therefore the detection of them from a location in space does not mean the presence of a black hole. It simply means whatever is generating them cannot be seen by the naked eye on an optical telescope.

    Most observations in physics are not done with optical telescopes, they are done with radio-telescopes that produce spectra and no visible imagery. Concluding that radiation from a part of the universe, received by a radio telescope, that cannot be seen on an optical telescope, has to be a black hole, is just plain stupid.

    There is no doubt phenomena in the universe of which we are totally ignorant. It does not help when scientists offer idiotic explanations for what they don’t understand. One of the more idiotic, Carl Sagan, could not bring himself to offer the BB theory as a theory. When he spoke about the BB, he claimed, ‘when the Big Bang happened…”.

    Of course, Sagan was known as a blowhard who denigrated fellow scientists without cause. He was very ambitious and hated competitors. He was the idiot who proposed the runaway greenhouse effect on Venus, which was adapted by James Hansen of NASA GISS for Earth’s atmosphere. That is largely why we have the current AGW idiocy.

    • gbaikie says:

      Earth’s radius is about 6371 km and surface area of 5.110^8 square km. If square km of earth surface was cubic km of water, a cubic km of water is 1 billion tons or 1 x 10^12 kg time 5.1 x10^8 is
      5.1 x 10^20 kg of water added
      And Earth mass is 5.9722 x 10^24
      Instead 1 km deep, make it 10 km deep and change earth radius to around number of 6380 km radius giving 5.1210^8 square km
      and water added is about 5.1 x 10^21 kg
      And now add 20 km deep of water, 6400 km radius: 5.1510^8
      Or about 1.2 x 10^22 kg water added.
      And increase radius to 6500 km, but call it 6450 is 5.2310^8 square km, add 5.23 x 10^22, total of 6.43 x 10^22
      Or a small portion of Earth’s mass.
      But have ocean depths of +120 km deep and each 10 meters is 1 atm
      or +12,000 atm pressure
      “It takes around 2,500 degrees Fahrenheit and 825,000 pounds per square inch in pressure. Add in the carbon and the diamond seed that provides the foundation, to form a raw diamond.”
      And got 14.7 times +12,000 atm = 176,400 psi
      Or I need deeper water to make diamonds.
      How much pressure needed to compress “incomprehensible” water:

      “The highest I have ever seen a water jet cutting machine work at is around 160,000 psi. At that pressure water compresses >16% by volume. Most water jets work at less than half that pressure around 60,000 psi and 11% compression.”
      So my 6500 km radius Earth with a lot water on it would have a bit less radius because the water would compress in the deeper ocean depths.
      Now add +500 km of water it, so it compress water more and has enough pressure to makes diamonds and adds a significant amount gravity to Earth.