follow https://twitter.com/NASA_LSP for launch updates (including relevant links to NASA TV) to see if NASA can get it up (next time).
NASA's third attempt to bring some much-desired clarity to the debate over human-produced carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been postponed today after two previous rocket liftoffs ended in disaster. The space agency’s last effort to measure the CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere was the Glory satellite in 2011, which crashed into …
follow https://twitter.com/NASA_LSP for launch updates (including relevant links to NASA TV) to see if NASA can get it up (next time).
I am also very interested in what will happen if the results do not match the "warmers" expectations. I suspect that the howling will be deafening.
I anticipate that once CO2 maps are made, the climate-change deniers
"Climate-change deniers" are called "scientists".
>"Climate-change deniers" are called "scientists".
Really? Name even a half dozen that have published climate papers that have stood up to peer review. Bonus points if Koch Industries is not paying their salary.
AMEN! YouTube Rupert Sheldrake EU2013
or EU2014 to hear REAL scientists speak about the REAL issues with science that are being SILENCED by bullying.
REAL scientist? Really wow. The sad thing is not only was a Cambridge education wasted on this guy but I don't think you are just trolling. By the way publishing papers that have to stand up to peer review is not bullying. Its called science.
Short blurb from his bio:
Conceived during Sheldrake's time at Cambridge, morphic resonance posits that "memory is inherent in nature" and "natural systems, such as termite colonies, or pigeons, or orchid plants, or insulin molecules, inherit a collective memory from all previous things of their kind". Sheldrake proposes that it is also responsible for "telepathy-type interconnections between organisms". His advocacy of the idea encompasses paranormal subjects such as remote viewing, precognition, and the psychic staring effect as well as unconventional explanations of standard subjects in biology such as development, inheritance, and memory.
Wow after reading about this Rupert Sheldrake character some more it really is a sad indictment on the tenure system as it currently exists. This guy should be selling crap in an infomercial not pretending to do research.
It's the 'no true Scotsman' argument and there's jut no point arguing with people who deploy it.
It's an attempt to win the point by re-defining the terms - no real scientist would support AGW.
To that, we add a bit of crackpot defence, which is that mainstream science knows the problems but are keeping it all quiet and bullying anyone brave enough to ask the questions or 'tell the truth'. Complete woo.
The amusing thing about such claims is that it is just assumed that non-anthropogenic global warming is a brave theory that will eventually reach acceptance once the evil lords of science can be overthrown. The truth is that that was the view held by most people originally and AGW has presented enough evidence to supplant it, just as the Big Bang theory supplanted the Steady State theory, which was the heavy-weight of the day.
<i>I am also very interested in what will happen if the results do not match the "warmers" expectations. I suspect that the howling will be deafening.
Really? I suspect they'll look through, ignore, lose, finesse, or tell lies about the results (warmers, not NASA).
Then they'll change the terms of the debate slightly (MMGW became ACC when the warming they were so sure of didn't show up), and carry on as before.
Environmentalism is an industry as much as it is a religion. People have built whole careers on it. They're not just going to decide to do something useful instead, no matter what results are found or what proofs are offered. For the true believers, eivdence doesn't matter, it never did.
"Then they'll change the terms of the debate slightly (MMGW became ACC when the warming they were so sure of didn't show up), and carry on as before."
"(MMGW became ACC when the warming they were so sure of didn't show up)"
A question for you, LucreLout:
When did the IPCC change its name from the IPGW?
0.039 % CO2 makes up atmospheric gases... that's it...not much... maybe the vegetation could use a bit more... Liberals are pushing the Global Disruption BS to get another tax & spend scam...
It might save them a few bob if they first established whether CO2 is the cause or the effect of AGW. There is some evidence (e.g. Vostok ice cores) that CO2 lags warming by a few hundred years...
So what you're saying is that warming occurs, and then CO2 rises? Apart from the fact that Vostok (for example) stops around 1813, and so can't capture any modern warming (i.e. your argument is invalid in the modern regime), deniers need to find the warming necessary to cause CO2 levels to get to their present levels: "The highest pre-industrial value recorded in 800,000 years of ice-core record was 298.6 ppmv" (taken from http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/ice_core_co2.html).
TL;DR: CO2 has been pretty much confirmed as the cause of AGW.
"CO2 has been pretty much confirmed as the cause of AGW."
Likewise, the world is flat, and the shape of people's heads tells you whether they are criminals.
"CO2 has been pretty much confirmed as the cause of AGW."
Fact ONE: CO2 levels have risen at rates that often exceed what most of the climate models used to calculate our impending demise in the first place
Fact TWO: The world has not warmed one bit during the last 15-17 years while that was happening
Yet somehow, this is apparently proof positive that CO2 causes global warming.
Which measurement(s) are you using to justify so complete an assertion as: "The world has not warmed one bit during the last 15-17 years while that was happening"?
I ask because there is often a confusion of terms between increase in heat energy in the system and surface temperatures, which is simply one possible manifestation of that.
"the climate-change deniers"
I don't know anyone who denies climate change. I do know a few who believe that it happens naturally, though. After all, it always has.
If you can find someone who doesn't believe that climate change happens naturally then I would suggest you try to steer the discussion towards the latest trends in velcro shoes, digital watches and clip-on ties.
One big problem is the conflation of global warming and climate change.
Global warming is pretty much settled - it's happening.
The big questions are around what changes to the climate that warming will cause. This is where 'deniers' and 'skeptics' roam free. They see a prediction that sea levels will rise by X over Y period but instead they only rise by 0.7X. Or they see a prediction that there will be more storms but a study finds instead that there are a similar number of storms but some of these are more intense. Or that there will be a certain amount of land ice loss from a certain area but this was offset by larger-than expected sea ice gain in another area.
And so on.
Of course, there are many natural cycles affecting climate - not all of which we understand or even know about, and it all feeds back in on itself as well. This makes it difficult for scientists to accurately predict what the effect will be of the warming that is occurring as sometimes these previously unknown factors will influence the results.
This was seen relatively recently where a new factor was discovered, with increased winds causing more ocean mixing and thus 'hiding' the extra heat energy lower in the water column than was being measured. The increased heat energy was still there, it was just not where it was thought to be. It didn't mean the radiative forcing effect of CO2 was in anyway diminished, it just meant that the effect on the climate on the surface was less than expected.
There are two facts here, which are that humans are increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and carbon dioxide increases the amount in heat energy retained/reflected back into onto the Earth. There really isn't any doubt in the scientific community about those two facts.
Some argue that carbon dioxide doesn't have as profound an effect as is though and others say that negative forcings (aerosols, albedo from land clearing, etc...) are balancing it out. Neither of those things change the fact that CO2 is a positive forcing component.
From there, the questions are to find out exactly how much heat energy is being added/kept in the system and what effects that will have on the climate. It may end up producing just a subtle shift before settling into a new equilibrium, though this may be hotter, or it may push things over the edge into a feedback loop.
"Global warming is pretty much settled - it's happening"
Ummm, no, it hasn't happened for 17 years. That is not to say that it won't resume at some point but considering that CO2 output has been rising steadily during that same period then I think it is fair to say that C02 levels are not directly linked to temperature rises as the chicken-little brigade would have us think.
Again, it's a confusion of terms. What measurement shows what you say?
Surface temperatures are the 'climate change' part of it, not the heat-energy part. Yes, increased amounts of heat energy can cause surface temperature changes but, given other factors, may not manifest as such.
So, what measurements prove that warming isn't happening - please actually provide this information. I'll get down-voted again but such is the want of Register readers where climate change discussion are involved. All I ask is that at least one of those down-votes is accompanied by the information showing the proof that has set your position in opposition to mine.
Data of actual temperatures recorded by the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (NASA GISS), the United Kingdom’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research at the University of East Anglia (Hadley-CRU), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), satellites measuring atmospheric and deep oceanic temperatures, and a remote sensor system in California, all show a lack of warming over the past 17 years.
Now before you start in on another theory of how energy is still being added to the system, please explain how atmospheric CO2 can do add energy other than by warming the atmosphere. What energy transport mechanism is there between GHGs and earth/water other than heat?
"Data of actual temperatures recorded by the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (NASA GISS), the United Kingdom’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research at the University of East Anglia (Hadley-CRU), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), satellites measuring atmospheric and deep oceanic temperatures, and a remote sensor system in California, all show a lack of warming over the past 17 years."
[Citation needed]. FFS.
First, thanks for the response. Second, I promise I'll read any further replies tomorrow (if you feel like responding!). The World Cup wreaks havoc on my sleep patterns - I'm not being rude and ignoring you.
Those measurements do not show a pause in warming. The assertion that "the world has not warmed one bit during the last 15-17 years" is just plain wrong. What the measurements show is a less than expected rise.
Here is a quote from NOAA - one of the sources you cite:
"These results show that climate models possess internal mechanisms of variability capable of reproducing the current slowdown in global temperature rise. Other factors, such as data biases and the effect of the solar cycle (Haigh 2003), may also have contributed, although these results show that it is not essential to invoke these explanations. The simulations also produce an average increase of 2.0°C in twenty-first century global temperature, demonstrating that recent observational trends are not sufficient to discount predictions of substantial climate change and its significant and widespread impacts. Given the likelihood that internal variability contributed to the slowing of global temperature rise in the last decade, we expect that warming will resume in the next few years, consistent with predictions from near-term climate forecasts (Smith et al. 2007; Haines et al. 2009)."
The other organisations are in agreement so, while you use the MET, NASA and NOAA figures, the people who are responsible for these data sets all disagree with you.
Again, nowhere will you see a warming 'pause' or, as @Goat Jam proclaimed, 'not one bit' of warming. It is just a slower than expected warming.
So, to repeat, the assertion that I am contesting and for which I am requesting proof is that "the world has not warmed one bit during the last 15-17 years". (Emphasis added, again.) I am questioning a specific assertion by a specific poster here and asking to see the data that has led to it.
None of the data sets you mentioned showed that.
Again, thanks for the response.
Yes, that is what happens during an interglacial period. If you remember the last glaciation only ended 13,000-15,000 years ago. Glaciation events are a relatively new phenomena in terms if the Earth's history, before that it was warmer than it is today and life thrived.
"Life", as a whole, may well have "thrived". Indeed there's little question that it did. In fact, short of truly, truly catastrophic damage to this planet, life, as a whole, will survive and. once it adapts, thrive.
When people talk about global warming being a problem, they are talking about it being a problem from humanity and for the environment and ecosystem we have now. Yes, that's a human-centric view but that's kind of important to us!!
And this is one of the points of the debate - trying to lessen our impact on the climate is expensive but not doing that could turn out to be more expensive. We certainly couldn't live like we do now if the planet was such as it was in the period of Earth's history that you are referring too. The transition between different climates usually alters the ecosystem pretty severely such that many species die off - many through loss of food sources - and are replaced by better-suited ones.
It's as well to say that there is nothing wrong with meteor impacts - the Earth's been hit many times before and life has thrived.
As humans have evolved in the current environmental conditions, it is uncontroversial to say that it is our best interests for things to stay the way they are for as long as possible. No one doubts that the climate will change and be far less hospitable for humanity, what scientists are saying is that we are accelerating the onset of that change.
That you don't believe that is fine, but it's important to understand that when there are predictions of problems, they are predictions of problems for humans and the current environment.
If the warming is slower than expected, perhaps the results will be less serious than (some have) expected? And if what has happened is not exactly what was expected, doesn't this suggest it might be prudent to wait and see exactly what does happen, before we spend billions on trying to prevent it?
"This may not seem like much, but humans have essentially tipped the balance."
Can we let OCO2 decide that please Prof?
It's already decided; this just adds resolution to the picture. Knowing where natural sinks and seeps are means we can look at emulating them to scrub the extra out, for example.
Does someone not want us to know where all the CO2 is coming from?
The lizard people exhale 99% CO2 from their big reptilian mouths. They walk among us in huge numbers. The last thing they want is to be discovered. Not yet anyway, not before Obama, their leader, has reached his full size.
In another 5 seconds you're going to produce more of it yourself. No worries though, trees and other plants will breath it for you and exhale oxygen - and so on and so on. It's called Photosynthesis - perhaps you've heard of it.
The idea that CO2 is pollution is the final straw in the global cooling, no global warming... err. climate change... uhhhh weather event hysteria that allows people to utter phrases like "deniers" all the while pushing a political agenda in the name of science. Just stop it! Enough already.
No CO2.. no life on planet Earth. If you feel so strongly about CO2 and your "carbon footprint" why are you still alive? I'm not kidding.
PS. "The majority of scientists agree that 'climate change' is a man-made phenomenon" is a bold faced lie. The majority DON'T. And by now, one should realize that if Barack Obama says it, it's almost had to be UN-true.
Denier my foot. You're the denier.
Meh. Human caused/natural causes, real or scaremonger generated, I found a quote that puts the whole furor in perspective:
"What happens if we clean up the environment and it not the cause of global warming? All we'd have then is no smog, non-polluting power and clean water."- Art Challenor
With a big tube of super glue maybe.
""What happens if we clean up the environment and it not the cause of global warming? All we'd have then is no smog, non-polluting power and clean water."- Art Challenor"
This quote is based on the incorrect premise that CO2 is somehow "pollution" and "unclean", which it is not.
It also doesn't take into account the enormous social and wealth costs it imposes on billions of people via the ongoing campaign by the various activist greenscum groups around the world to revert the world to the stone age and destroy all human progress in the process.
Al Gore makes millions from this scam at the expense of people like me and you and you are happy for him to keep on doing so on the basis that it might possibly make some sort of positive difference to the world while totally ignoring the enormous consequences.
Is it from all the exhaust fumes from NASA satellite launches? Or perhaps the aircraft exhausts of all the flights going to climate change conferences in Acapulco?
Hmmm, quick sanity check in head followed by use of calculator...
At 24 soundings a second, that would make just over two million per day not the "around a million a day" quoted in the article. Does it perhaps have a sleep for 12 hours when it's dark?
Why yes, I am bored... how did you know? Is it beer-time yet?
As the instrument measures the spectrum of "reflected sunlight", it don't work very well 50% of the time (when it is dark)
From what I have learned from meddling with astrophysics two million is well within around a million. I would say around a million covers from two hundred thousand to five million.
What I can't figure out is how the same guys manage to do orbital calculations. I imagine the same does not apply when launching things into space.
As I recall, charged particles are very much NOT in a vacuum in Earth's atmosphere... so why are they "measuring" with instruments and data sets which only calculate based on vacuous laws and theorum? Because it matches the narrative that all that money pays for? I WANT them to find the right data, I WANT to know where it all "comes from" but consider a possibility: the Earth is not affected anywhere near measurable levels by humans and our systems. Even nuke sites become safe eventually, the Earth is fine in my opinion. Check out youtube video showing all nuke tests ever in time lapse on a map.
The electromagnetic nature of the universe and the Sun is being ignored by the "concensus" when the temperature changes and crazy-ass weather are clearly guided by interaction with these forces, exacerbated by concentrated emissions where we've cleared out CO2 feeders and built cement fields... BUT... even 2 degrees (C) change is nothing new for Earth. Don't take my doctorate in cosmology and masters in microbio for nothing... listen to smarter people than I - youtube EU2014 Ben Davidson, or any other speaker for that matter.
My point, it's clearly evident that humans are dirty and wasteful, and we always need to improve cleanliness, but we USED to DO MORE, now it's all talking. My old job was cleaning toxic spills in wildlife-rich preserves, all of the field workers were laid off as they increased the budgetary, advertising, and "mathematical" research staffing levels... "Climate Change" as an industry - its a money machine and useless internet squawk box now, we used to want to save the planet and be nice to our environment...
<i>Sabotaged by warmists - they're afraid that their cozy co2-trading scam collapses, should evidence, disproving they hysterics, be presented.
Its not about evidence, because its not about science. Anthropogenic Climate Change /whatever the term du jour is this year, is a communist political pressure group and a religion.
Were that not so, surely they'd have come up with one decent capitalist solution by now, even by accident, instead of the usual socialist mantra of less?
Tiny tip - you can't use HTML when you first join. (Caught me out too!)
So its the mass deforestation thats causing the high CO2 issue
They used to say that - after all, it would see to make sense. In fact it was part of the mantra for many years.
But then someone actually studied it, and found that mature forests actually release more carbon dioxide than they scrub, and consume more oxygen than they release. They also found that new growth after deforestation, whether in the form of crops or land allowed to revert to natural state, produced more oxygen and scrubbed more carbon dioxide. Something about the decay of the undergrowth.
Now such research wouldn't be funded (unless it is someone like the Koch brothers) or published for scientific review because it would be a threat to the money machine which is now the climate change industry. Questioning used to be a good thing, but now anybody who questions is labeled a "denier" and threatened with religious fervor.
I'm not going to argue your point - I just want to be sure that I understand it!
Are you saying that research supporting a reduction or cessation of deforestation is more lucrative than research supporting clearing land?
And more to the point, .
Seriously, do any of you denier bozos even know what evidence is?
Perhaps the CO2 experiments keep failing because someone at NASA knows full well their foregone conclusion is wrong.
I mean, I know it's a popular line here that global warming is a vast, money-making machine for all and sundry but the idea that NASA would waste more than 6 years $750m is bold.
I get the feeling you were not seriously suggesting internal sabotage so much as using the failures as a way to make your point but, taking it at face value, is it not equally possible that those who make money pumping CO2 into our atmosphere sabotaged the missions because they knew "full well" that their publicly-professed position was wrong?
The most likely answer is that it's just plain complex to do this and failures happen.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017