Denver’s April 2013 Climate Summary With A Bonus

During the month of April 2013, Denver, CO (link updated monthly) recorded a 74°F difference between maximum and minimum temperatures.  This fact tells us nothing about how temperatures compare to climatological norms however.  For the entire month, Denver was 5.7°F below normal (41.7°F vs. 46.4°F).  The maximum temperature of 80°F was recorded on the 29th while the minimum temperature of 6°F was recorded on the 10th.  Here is the time series of Denver temperatures in April 2013:

Figure 1. Time series of temperature at Denver, CO during April 2013.  Daily high temperatures are in red, daily low temperatures are in blue, daily average temperatures are in green, climatological normal (1981-2010) high temperatures are in light gray, and normal low temperatures are in dark gray. [Source: NWS]

There is a big disparity between 2013 temperatures and normal temperatures, especially daily maxima.  Three outbreaks of Arctic air impacted Denver during the month, which set record low temperatures on four different days.  This graph also shows something else that is eye-opening: five daily maximum temperatures were equal to or lower than the climatological daily minimum temperature!  As someone who was ready for spring to spring, April was a disappointing weather month.

But it also got me to thinking about the difference between spring 2013 and spring 2012.  As many of us remember, temperatures in the US in 2012 were very warm compared to climatological norms.  So how different were temperatures in Denver in February-March-April 2013 versus 2012?  I decided to take a look.  Let’s start with extending the dates in Figure 1 back to the beginning of February 2013:

Figure 2. Time series of temperature at Denver, CO during February-April 2013.  Daily high temperatures are in red, daily low temperatures are in blue, climatological normal (1981-2010) high temperatures are the top dark gray line, and normal low temperatures are the bottom dark gray line. [Source: NWS]

This graphic simply demonstrates the same story that I wrote above as well as in my March and February Denver Climate Summary posts.  February was obviously colder than normal due to extended cold air masses over the area.  March and April were also colder than normal, but this was due to vigorous mid-latitude cyclones that brought Arctic air masses south over the area.  This is evident by the significant dips in both maximum and minimum daily temperatures: there was one in the beginning of March, another in the end of March, and three in April.

With this chart in mind, let’s look at the difference between 2012 and 2013.  First, daily maximum temperatures:

Figure 3. Time series of maximum temperature at Denver, CO during February-April 2012 and 2013.  2013 temperatures are in brick-red, 2012 temperatures are in red, and climatological normal (1981-2010) high temperatures are the dark gray line with green crosses. [Source: NWS]

My memory of 2012′s maximum temperatures was close to reality.  February 2012 was colder than I remember, but this was likely affected by the warmth of April 2012 and the record-setting daily highs in the summer of 2012.  Figure 3 shows a very large difference between daily maximum temperatures in 2012 and 2013, especially after the 22nd of March.  I didn’t remember the cold snap on April 3, 2012.  This graphic shows, by proxy, the lack of spring synoptic storms in 2012.  Daily maximum temperatures rarely fell below the normal for the date.  Instead, April temperatures were as much as 20°F warmer than normal on some dates, but regularly 10°F warmer than normal.  In contrast, 2013 temperatures were often 25-30°F colder than normal.  The difference between two years’ temperatures is a measure of interannual weather variability.  I have more on that below.

Figure 4. Time series of minimum temperature at Denver, CO during February-April 2012 and 2013.  2013 temperatures are in blue, 2012 temperatures are in green, and climatological normal (1981-2010) high temperatures are the dark gray line with brown pluses. [Source: NWS]

Again, February 2012′s temperatures were similar to February 2013′s.  The specific dates of temperature swings obviously varies between the two years.  March 2012 and March 2013 also look similar, up until the 22nd of March (see maximum temperatures above also).  Thereafter, the time series diverge with much colder air in place over Denver four different times through the end of April.  2012 had warmer than normal minimum temperatures through most of April.  The combination of warmer than normal nights and days, combined with a relative lack of precipitation in 2012 set the stage for the record-setting warmth in the summer as well as the rapid decline in drought conditions, which are still largely present now.

Interannual Variability

I have written hundreds of posts on the effects of global warming and the evidence within the temperature signal of climate change effects.  This series of posts takes a very different look at conditions.  Instead of multi-decadal trends, this series looks at highly variable weather effects on a very local scale.  The interannual variability I’ve shown above is a part of natural change.  Climate change influences this natural change – on long time frames.  The climate signal is not apparent in these figures because they are of too short duration.  The climate signal is instead apparent in the “normals” calculation, which NOAA updates every ten years.  The most recent “normal” values cover 1981-2010.  The temperature values of 1981-2000 are warmer than the 1971-2000 values, which are warmer than the 1961-1990 values.  The interannual variability shown in the figures above will become a part of the 1991-2020 through 2011-2040 normals.

Precipitation

Precipitation was above normal again during April 2013, extending this new trend to three months.  During the month, 1.87″ of liquid water equivalent precipitation fell, compared to 1.71″ normally.  The wettest April on record was in 1983 when 4.56″ of precipitation fell.  There were three notable weather events during April: a 6″+ snowstorm on the 9th, a 7″+ snowstorm on the 15th, and a 5″+ snowstorm on the 22nd.  In total, the NWS recorded 20.4″ of snow.

The recent precipitation surplus reduced northeast CO drought severity in the last three m months, but did not break it yet.  Above-average precipitation will have to fall for longer than three months for that to happen.  The NWS expects continued drought conditions across most of Colorado through the next three months.  Additional improvement in eastern Colorado might occur, but NOAA and the CPC expects western Colorado drought  to remain the same or worsen.

Denver’s March 2013 Climate Summary

During the month of March 2013, Denver, CO (link updated monthly) recorded a 74°F difference between maximum and minimum temperatures.  This fact tells us nothing about how temperatures compare to climatological norms however.  For the entire month, Denver was 2.7°F below normal (37.7°F vs. 40.4°F).  The maximum temperature of 76°F was recorded on the 15th while the minimum temperature of 2°F was recorded on the 25th.

Figure 1. Time series of temperature at Denver, CO during March 2013.  Daily high temperatures are in red, daily low temperatures are in blue, daily average temperatures are in green, climatological normal (1981-2010) high temperatures are in light gray, and normal low temperatures are in dark gray. [Source: NWS]

Precipitation was above normal again during March 2013, making a two-month trend.  During the month, 1.47″ of liquid water equivalent precipitation fell, compared to 0.92″ normally.  The wettest March on record was in 1983 when 4.56″ of precipitation fell.  There were two notable weather events during March: a 6″+ snowstorm on the 9th and the 23rd.  In total, the NWS recorded 23.5″ of snow, 13.5″ more than the normal of 10.0″ for the month.

While more precipitation fell than normal during the month, the drought impacting the region was still not broken.  Above-average precipitation will have to fall for longer than one month for that to happen.  The NWS expects continued drought conditions across most of Colorado through the next three months.  Some improvement in northeast Colorado might occur.  In contrast to February and March, the NWS projects warmer and drier than normal conditions over Colorado during the next three months.

Extreme Weather, Climate Change, and Public Reporting

If you have had any exposure to this subject, you probably already have your mind made up about my title. As I’ve gained exposure, via multiple disciplines, I’ve changed my mind. And that allows me to look at climate reporting in new ways.  Take this article and interview for instance. It’s meta-related, masked by the climate’s relationship to extreme weather. There are thousands of examples of conservatives ignoring science when it suits them. Doing so actually has more to do with conservatives operating from their value system. Are there similar examples of others ignoring science when it similarly suits them? I think it would be foolhardy to assume otherwise. Here is what I think about this article.

First, the mask: climate-extreme weather. There is no documented causal relationship between the two. In fact, the number of identified causal relationships between climate change and anything is still relatively small. There is a strong temperature signal. There is a growing ocean acidification signal. The sea level change signal is small but present and growing. How about precipitation? Nothing definitive. How about snowstorms? Nothing definitive.

But those signals are small against much stronger climate signals. Would something like drought or hurricanes or floods or tornadoes exhibit a stronger signal. In a word, no. There simply is not a detectable climate and extreme weather link today. That is not to say a future signal will not exist – there very well might be. But as of today, there is not. What science backs up that claim? The 2008 U.S. Climate Change Science Program’s Synthesis Report for starters (p.42; 2.2.2.1):

When averaged across the entire United States (Figure 2.6), there is no clear tendency for a trend based on the PDSI. Similarly, long-term trends (1925-2003) of hydrologic droughts based on model derived soil moisture and runoff show that droughts have, for the most part, become shorter, less frequent, and cover a smaller portion of the U. S. over the last century (Andreadis and Lettenmaier, 2006).

So as of the early 21st century, U.S. droughts have become less severe, not more. The IPCC’s global analysis on extreme events concurred (p.171):

There is not enough evidence at present to suggest high confidence in observed trends in dryness due to lack of direct observations, some geographical inconsistencies in the trends, and some dependencies of inferred trends on the index choice. There is medium confidence that since the 1950s some regions of the world have experienced more intense and longer droughts (e.g., southern Europe, west Africa) but also opposite trends exist in other regions (e.g., central North America, northwestern Australia).

One big impediment to our extreme event trend ascertainment is our basic inability to monitor events in the first place. But based on the observations made, there is, in the IPCC’s own language, only medium confidence that droughts in some areas of the world are increasing in severity while decreasing in other places. Is climate change increasing extreme events? Not droughts – not yet.

What about storms like Sandy or Katrina (note: the former was a tropical system that changed to an extratropical system at landfall while the latter was a full-fledged hurricane at landfall)? There is at this time no global trend in hurricane frequency or intensity that demonstrates a clear causal relationship to climate change. There are indexes that a few scientists have developed to examine the data in different ways with differing results, but they require fairly complex methodologies to calculate. If I created my own index that demonstrated a relationship between the type of food I ate and climate change, does one cause the other? Certainly not directly. The hurricane-climate change relationship should exhibit a detectable signal in 50 more years or so. Until then, scientists cannot confidently say the data supports such a relationship. Extratropical storms increased in strength a little over the past century, although the locations of increase are limited. Their frequency has not increased.

Quickly, the same thing holds for floods and tornadoes. Datasets are simply too limited in space and time to currently identify a robust relationship.

As I wrote above, there are clear signals that we have already detected. The effects of those signals are mostly well-known, although some surprises are certainly in store for the planet. Extreme weather is not one of those signals. At least, not yet. If people are concerned about the level of inaction taken on climate change to date, it is folly to chase down or exaggerate signals that do not yet exist. If arguments based on signals detected are not enough to propel action, then we need to address their sets of values and how we communicate them. Fear-mongering and purposeful ignorance of science are not adequate substitutes.

Finally, I question the following from the article:

“I quote the climate skeptics or deniers — whatever term you prefer — when they’re relevant. So when I’m doing a piece about the science itself and what the latest scientific findings are, especially if that’s a short piece, I don’t necessarily feel obliged to quote the climate skeptics the same way that if you were doing a story about evolution, a New York Times reporter wouldn’t feel obliged to call up a creationist and ask them what they think. On the other hand, the climate skeptics are politically relevant at this point in American history [in a way that] the creationists are not, for example. So we have a fair chunk of the Congress … that sees political traction right now in questioning climate science or purporting not to believe it, so in a political story or in a longer story, I usually do give some amount of space to the climate skeptics.”

This quote comes from Justin Gillis, who writes about climate change for The New York Times. Does any of the above evidence make it into his interview with NPR? Here is my question: is Mr. Gillis a climate change writer or a politics writer? Scientific climate change writers should focus on the science. If Mr. Gillis wants to be a political climate change writer, he and the NYT owe it to their readers to make that distinction clear. Especially when double standards are applied to a different type of science writing. I would argue that creationists have a considerable amount of political traction right now also. I do not agree with their viewpoint, but if Mr. Gillis and the NYT want to write comparison pieces and not news pieces, I do not see why that effort should stop at climate change.

Denver’s February 2013 Climate Summary

During the month of February 2013, Denver, CO recorded a 58°F difference between maximum and minimum temperatures (20°F less than January!).  This fact tells us nothing about how temperatures compare to climatological norms however.  For the entire month, Denver was 2.4°F below normal (30.1°F vs. 32.5°F).  The maximum temperature of 63°F was recorded on the 17th while the minimum temperature of 5°F was recorded on the 22nd.

Figure 1. Time series of temperature at Denver, CO during February 2013.  Daily high temperatures are in red, daily low temperatures are in blue, daily average temperatures are in green, climatological normal (1981-2010) high temperatures are in light gray, and normal low temperatures are in dark gray. [Source: NWS]

Precipitation was finally above normal again during February 2013.  During the month, 0.77″ of liquid water equivalent precipitation fell, compared to 0.37″ normally.  For the first time in my life, rain fell across the Denver metro area in February!  On the 6th, it rained very lightly, just enough to make the streets and plants wet.  To add to the oddity and rarity of the situation, the ground was still wet with liquid on the morning of the 7th – it wasn’t cold enough to freeze the rain overnight. A similar event occurred in late January.  Conditions returned to normal in the second half of the month.  Measurable snow finally fell on the 20th and 21st of the month.  Then a significant winter storm hit the area on the 24th, dropping ~9″ of snow across the metro area.  In total, the NWS recorded 14.1″ of snow, 8.2″ more than the normal of 5.9″ for the month.

While more precipitation fell than normal during the month, the drought impacting the region was not broken.  Above-average precipitation will have to fall for longer than one month for that to happen.

El Niño and La Niña Redefined

This is the week to publish lots of interesting events and articles apparently.  I have a number of things I would love to post about, but only so much time.  Here is one that relates directly to something I posted on earlier: warmest La Niña years.  Just a few short weeks after NOAA operations wrote that 2012′s La Niña was the warmest on records, NOAA researchers announced they recalculated historical La Niñas because of warming global temperatures.  NOAA confirmed something that occurred to me while I was writing that post: eventually, historical El Niños will be cooler than future La Niñas.  How then will we compare events across time as the climate evolves?  The answer is simple: redefine El Niño and La Niña.  Instead of one climate period of record, compare historical ENSO events to their contemporary climate.  In other words, “each five-year period in the historical record now has its own 30-year average centered on the first year in the period”: compare 1950-1955 to the 1936-1965 average climate; compare 1956-1960 to the 1941-1970 average.  This is different from the previous practice in which NOAA compared 1950-1955 to 1981-2010 and compared 2013 to 1981-2010.  The 1950-1955 period existed in a different enough climate that it cannot be equitably compared to the most recent climatological period.

Figure 1. “The average monthly temperatures in the central tropical Pacific have been increasing. This graph shows the new 30-year averages that NOAA is using to calculate the relative strength of historic El Niño and La Niña events.”

I want to point out something on this graph.  Is long-term warming evident in this graph?  Yes, there is.  But note they plot the breakdown by month.  The difference between 1936-1965 and 1981-2010 in October is >1°F.  Meanwhile, the same difference in May is ~0.5°F.

Here is the effect of NOAA’s change:

Figure 2.  3-month temperature anomalies in the Nino-3.4 region.   (Top) Characterization of ENSO using 1971-2000 data.  (Bottom) Same as top, but using 1981-2010 data.

NOAA’s updated methodology resulted in the identification of two new La Niñas: 2005-06 and 2008-09.  The reason is warmer temperatures in the most recent decade than the 1970s (it sounds obvious when you say it like that).  That warming masked La Niñas with the old methodology.  It also means that the 2012 La Niña is no longer the warmest La Niña, as I related from the National Climatic Data Center last month:

Figure 3. Anomalies of annual global temperature as measured by NOAA.  Blue bars represent La Niña years, red bars represent El Niño years, and gray bars represent ENSO-neutral years.

That record will now go down as a tie between 2006 and 2009, with 2012 coming in a close third.  This situation is analogous to the different methodologies that NOAA and NASA use to compute global temperatures and where they rank individual years.  Records might differ because of methodological differences, but the larger picture remains intact: the globe warmed in the 20th and so far in the 21st centuries.  That signal is apparent in many datasets.  Within the week, I’m sure we’ll hear from GW skeptics that La Niña years have been getting cooler since 2006.  Here is what is most important: 2000s La Niñas were warmer than 1990 Niñas, which were warmer than 1980 Niñas, etc.

Denver’s January 2013 Climate Summary

During the month of January 2013, Denver, CO recorded a 78°F difference between maximum and minimum temperatures.  Does that tell you anything about whether it was warmer or colder than normal?  No, it does not.  For the entire month, Denver was 0.4°F below normal (30.3°F vs. 30.7°F).  But the maximum temperature of 66°F was recorded on the 24th while the minimum temperature of -12°F was recorded on the 12th.

Figure 1. Time series of temperature at Denver, CO during January 2013.  Daily high temperatures are in red, daily low temperatures are in blue, daily average temperatures are in green, climatological normal (1981-2010) high temperatures are in light gray, and normal low temperatures are in dark gray. [Source: NWS]

Precipitation was below normal again during January 2013.  0.31″ of liquid water equivalent precipitation fell during the month, compared to 0.41″ normally.  For the first time in my life, rain fell across the Denver metro area in January!  Two days after hitting the high for the month, the National Weather Service recorded 0.01″ of rain on the 26th.  I haven’t read anything regarding historical rain in Denver in January, but I think such an event is very rare indeed.  4.6″ of snow fell, which was 2.4″ below the normal of 7.0″.

NOAA Sea-Level Rise Report Issued – Dec 2012

This is a busy time of year for the sciences with the annual American Geophysical Union’s and the international Conference of Parties meetings occurring simultaneously.  NOAA has issued a number of reports in recent days, none of which are overflowing with good news.  Today, NOAA released their Global Sea Level Rise Scenarios for the United States National Climate Assessment.  It was produced in response to a request from the U.S. National Climate Assessment Development and Advisory Committee and consists of a review and synthesis of recent scientific publications examining global sea level change.

Why is this report important?  “More than 8 million people in the US live in areas at risk of coastal flooding. Along the Atlantic Coast alone, almost 60 percent of the land that is within a metre of sea level is planned for further development, with inadequate information on the potential rates and amount of sea level rise.”  The public, policymakers and planners need to know what to expect with respect to sea-level rise this century: where should development occur or be restricted and why?

The report is based on four plausible scenarios.  Scenario 1 is simply a linear extrapolation of the historical sea-level rise (SLR) rate out to 2100.  Scenario 2 is based only on projected ocean warming.  Scenario 3 builds on 2 by adding recent ice sheet loss (land-based).  Scenario 4 reflects ocean warming and the maximum plausible contribution of ice sheet loss and glacial melting.  Scenario 1 is appropriate for communities which can assume high risk or for short-term projects.  Scenario 4, in contrast, is meant for places which can’t accept risk.

Here are the scenario SLR values by 2100:

Note that these values are not predictions, but are projections.  That is, NOAA isn’t saying that if X and Y happen, then the Intermediate-High scenario is a prediction.  The scenarios present a framework for policymakers and the public to use to make decisions.

Here is a time series graph of historical and projected SLR:

The range of potential SLR shown in the table and figure above might lead some to conclude that ‘high confidence” in that range is misplaced by NOAA.  This is a gross misinterpretation of what is presented.  The level of uncertainty, which will always exist, is actually useful to policymakers.  Given this range of projections, people can leverage local and regional knowledge to come to better decisions than they would without this range.  Something quantified is better than a big shrug when planning, after all.

With the governors of New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut requesting $80 Billion to clean up and rebuild (better) after Hurricane Sandy, future projections of sea-level rise can obviously provide guidance regarding what and how to rebuild in addition to where to rebuild.  Policy development and planning will have to take these and other projections into heavier account this century than they did last century.  An estimate of how many billions of dollars can potentially be saved by incorporating this information would also be useful.

Denver Weather & Climate: July 2008, Take 2

I wrote about Denver’s temperature and precipitation status one week ago. There is more data now that continues the story set forth in that post. The record streak of 90 degree plus days has continued since then, including today’s ( 8/4/08 ) high of 95 degrees. The record: 23 consecutive days. Tomorrow’s high temperature is forecasted to be about 85 degrees, due to an expected cooler air mass to Denver’s north moving into northern Colorado.

In addition to the streak, which was just fun to keep track of and not really indicative of anything terribly substantial, Denver’s precipitation continues to threaten to set its own record. Through the end of July, we have the following information, provided by the Denver/Boulder NWS Forecast Office:

Jan 1 – Jul 31 2002; Jan 1 – Jul 31 2008

5.34 inches 3.28 inches

Difference: 2.06 inches

Normal (Jan 1 – Jul 31) 10.25 inches

What’s significant about 2002? It currently ranks as Denver’s all-time driest year on record, dating back to 1878. So through seven months of 2008, Denver’s official precipitation measurements add up to a mere 3.28″. As you can see, that’s ~3/10ths of the normal value. That’s more significant than the >90F temperature streak. The most recent month where precipitation was more than average was October 2007, which is quite a ways back now. This summer was forecasted to be drier than average in a general sense, which has unfortunately come true. And really, Denver hasn’t had the worst of it.

According to the U.S. Drought Monitor, the eastern half or so of Colorado is experiencing some level of drought. But look at the southeastern portion of the state. Seven counties (Cheyenne, Kiowa, Otero, Bent, Prowers, Las Animas and Baca) are experiencing Severe Drought, parts of four counties (Bent, Prowers, Las Animas and Baca) are experiencing Extreme Drought and the bottom portion of one county (Baca) is experiencing Exceptional Drought.

***

I forgot to mention that Denver hasn’t officially received any rain yet in August either. A trace was recorded on the 3rd, but what little precip did fall didn’t measure up to 0.01″ or more. The NWS only discussed data through the end of July, so I’m not sure how things compare through yesterday. I’ll bring in more information as the NWS records it.

Denver Weather & Climate: July 2008

Crossposted at SquareState.

I’m sure those of us in the Denver metro area have noticed that July has been pretty warm this year. For those that are interested in details, a large ridge has established itself over these and other parts (a ridge is the opposite of a trough; troughs move air-masses around and ridges keep them in place). The result has been higher than climatological average temperatures and less than average precipitation.
The local NWS office has officially recorded 15 consecutive days of high temperatures of 90 degrees or more for Denver (at DIA). The record streak for Denver is 18 days. I’ve seen observations over 90 at Denver today, so add one to the streak. The high temperature should exceed 90 the rest of this week, so the record could be broken in a big way. Before I count those chickens, however, it’s instructive to look at the years still officially with longer streaks: 1987 (16 days), 2000 (17 days), 1874 and 1901 (18 days each). 2000 had a second streak later the same summer of 12 consecutive days of 90+ degrees.

If you were around in 2005, you probably remember July of that year was warmer overall. It didn’t have very long streaks of high temperatures, but it did have the most 100+ degree days in Denver history with seven, five of which happened in a row. Ugh!

What about precipitation? That’s not looking so good for Denver (again, officially at DIA now). As of the beginning of this year, 2002 stands as the driest year in Denver’s history. So far, this year is drier. And not only is it drier, it’s significantly drier. Take a look:

2002 2008 (inches)

Jan 0.48 0.08

Feb 0.32 0.18

Mar 0.53 0.17

Apr 0.23 0.32

May 0.94 1.56

Jun 1.45 0.73

July thru 26th 1.39 0.24

————————————————————————————-
Total 5.34 3.28

Difference -2.06

Keep this in mind: one or two storms can make up this entire difference. A heavy rainstorm or snowstorm right over the station at DIA can significantly add to this year’s total. 2008′s numbers aren’t the end of the world. But they’re definitely worth noting.

I’m also left wishing once again for a robust mechanism to get town-by-town results from across Colorado. How do Durango, Grand Junction, Pueblo and Greeley compare, for instance? Such things take money and time, though…

Some Space-Related News

NASA, Europe Explore Joint Mission to Outer Planets. Currently, the Cassini spacecraft continues to examine the Saturnian system. NASA and the European Space Agency are considering a probe to either Jupiter or Saturn. The Jupiter mission would also send a secondary probe to Europa. The Saturn mission would send a secondary probe to Titan. Both Europa and Titan are interesting targets in the quest to understand solar system formation dynamics as well as potential sites where life might exist. Russia has expressed interest in joining the Jupiter mission.

Space Station Commander Sets New U.S. Record. Peggy Whitson has set the U.S. record for most cumulative time spent in orbit: 377 days over two spaceflights. She landed back on Earth this past Saturday. She also holds the world record for most spacewalking time by a female astronaut. The 377 days in orbit places her 20th on the world-wide list of most experienced spaceflyers. The all-time leader? Sergei Krikalev has spent over 803 days in space!

Spaceship Prototype Flown in New Mexico. A new type of automated and reusable spaceship is a step closer to being able to transport payloads into space in the near future. Lockheed Martin, the designer and operator, recently inked a Memo of Understanding with the New Mexico Spaceport Authority to carry out future testing at the spaceport. It is high time for private companies to develop and deploy space payload delivery systems.

Earth to Mars Missions Continue Development. Just over one month from now (May 25th), the Phoenix Lander will land at the north pole of Mars. The next probe being readied for launch is NASA’s Mars Science Laboratory. It should arrive in 2010. The European Space Agency is getting in on the act with their ExoMars mission scheduled for touchdown in 2014. When Spirit and Opportunity landed at Mars, I went to the Denver Museum of Nature and Science. They had set up live feeds from NASA as the landings occurred. In an incredible display of support for science, the two original rooms were filled beyond capacity hours before the official landing even occurred. Museum officials were scrambling to set up people in other rooms across the museum with additional TVs and such. I can’t wait to see the crowds for Phoenix!