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 …
This post has been deleted by its author
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
""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.
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?
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...
This post has been deleted by a moderator
<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?
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?
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.
We do get a lot more comments from those who don't believe in AGW than from those who do, which is odd because on just about every other topic we tend to be very much in agreement with the prevailing scientific consensus. What is so different with this subject? Is one side simply much more vocal than the other, or could it actually be that people who are usually logical suddenly lose their capacity for rational thought for just this one subject?
(I'm gonna get sooo flamed now, this is gonna hurt!)
Think you will find that those who post the most (the non-believers as you assert) may just be fed up with the hysteria of of the AGW zionists/jihadists who actually believe the science is 'done and dusted'. It's not by a long way.
I for one have little faith or trust in anything that has been shown to be based on cherry picked data sets and dubious modelling. Show me the science.
"Show me the science."
Do you have the training and experience to understand it properly?
I don't, which is why I trust the 'scientific consensus'. Skepticism is a very solid position to take but, for the sake of practicality, you just can't understand everything for yourself. The world we live in is extraordinarily complex and people spend decades learning and training and researching in areas of knowledge that seem ridiculously narrow to non-scientists.
People who say "show me the science" don't really what to see 'the science'. That's available and if you were one of the people with the training and knowledge to understand it, you likely would have already read it. When someone actually explains the scientific reasons why there is a warming slowdown (not a pause, not a cooling), and how the models really do still hold up, 'show me the science' people simply reject those explanations as 'fudging'.
It's impossible to win against 'show me the science' people because they don't understand the science and will always have an excuse why they won't accept what they're shown anyway.
They say that there is no consensus amongst scientists. You show them all the polls and numbers and statistics, all the official statements from every scientific body around the world, and they come back with "consensus is a word that means nothing in the world of 'real' science". Right, well, why did you make such a big deal that there wasn't one then?
They point to individual results and claim that the 'warmists' and 'alarmists' can't answer them. You show them the explanations and the reasons why those specific results are either taken out of context, incomplete or mitigated/explained by other factors and they come back with claims that the scientists involved are "fudging" the data to make it fit or committing out-right "massive fraud". Why ask for an answer from a body you assert is run by liars and frauds?
They claim the models don't work - after all they didn't predict this warming slowdown. You show them that, first, the result they are saying doesn't fit is not actually the result we have (as their view is based on isolated numbers), and second, even without needing to correct for that error, the models fit the results far better than is claimed. They reply that these are only mathematical models and computer simulations anyway and no one has ever seen any proof in the real world. Why try to prove the models are inaccurate then?
In these arguments, those who believe that humans are impacting the climate are often derided as holding views akin to religion in that they have their cherished beliefs and ignore all evidence to to contrary.
In reality, it is the people who react as above who resemble religious fundamentalists the most and the progression is much the same: first there's no evidence, then the evidence doesn't count, then the people who collected the evidence aren't trustworthy, then the entire scientific edifice (except for a few individuals whose views accord with those of our 'denier') are in some kind of conspiracy to hide the real truth from the world, bullying and ruining the careers of any 'real' scientist who dares to even question the status quo.
The point of being a skeptic is that you should be open to the idea that the proposition you are skeptical of is actually true. You may strongly believe that it isn't but there must, at least in theory, be some evidence that would settle the matter and change your opinion. The evidence you seek, of course, must be reasonable for the proposition being tested.
Anyone who says they are a 'skeptic' should therefore be able to say what evidence will convince them that, though their skepticism was a valid provisional stance, they have now seen proof and are satisfied that the proposition is in fact true. If someone calling themselves a 'skeptic' can't - or won't - do that then they are hiding behind the more defensible label of 'skeptic' when in fact they won't believe the proposition whatever happens; they are a 'denier'. So too is anyone who reaches the last stage, above, of calling the whole of mainstream science liars and frauds - that's a convenient (if extreme) 'out' for our denier as no matter what evidence is arrayed in support of the proposition, it can always be asserted that it's faulty.
So, to you, @Scrotius Canis, what evidence could be produced to move you from your skepticism? In short, what 'science' could you be shown?
Launched in 2009 the “IBUKI” satellite measurements were announced in 2011.
No more speculation, we now know who the real CO2 polluters are - developing nations, countries like the UK do their bit and absorb their excess CO2.
Reading the link, I don't see how it's ironic. Developed nations off-shore production to cheaper nations.
One reason is that in more developed nations there are tighter regulations and environmental controls, which reduce emissions but push up costs of manufacturing. Thus they relocate manufacturing to locations without these restrictions.
Take Australia - we export pig iron to China and then import steel. One effect, other than a loss of jobs and a missed opportunity to sell a high-value product instead of a low-value one, is that the pollution involved in steel production is 'offshored' to China.
The only point I'm trying to make is that it's hardly ironic.
I am an avid supporter of NASA when they stick to space research, like measuring the effects of stellar and solar radiation generated eons ago reaching Earths atmosphere. Monitoring for Climate Warfare per U.S. treaties, etc.. But as pointed out in your article, the measurement of Earth's radiation of anything into space is not easily evaluated. There must be Earth level measurements first. With all the Air Quality Boards and their ground, atmosphere, stratosphere and troposphere measuring systems, I fail to see the value of measuring CO2 from space. The Earth's atmosphere is living thing. Therefore it will change. Ozone can be harmful at ground level, yet is totally necessary at upper levels. When Earth was much warmer, there was probably more carbon gases emitted than today. Although Carbon gases react with ozone to create CO2, the Earth is still here, not burned to a crisp by the Sun due to destruction of the Ozone Layer. In fact, there was an Ice Age. Cause still being debated. "Environmental scientist" can't solve known events, yet they are all seeing, all knowing about the future?
In the last few Years tens of thousands of Northern Arctic Permafrost has melted, leaving mud bogs n hundred of thousands of acres of new Arctic Birch n White pine trees...Russia from Archangel to Vardo, and the Yukon River estuary in Alaska...40 ft tall trees, by the millions...
The permafrost melt released methane gas in huge amounts (the thawed product is being studied by Japan as a commercial fuel gas)...per experts, Methane is a global warming gas...and only being studied by the NASA C-23 flights each summer in the Yukon delta...no data published...
IMHO= CO2 and Methane gas emitted by global warming of arctic permafrost is real and not even being studied...Q= why is this not being added to the human city temperature rise readings ??
FYI= all of the rotten wood on the planet is eaten by termites and methane is released as a digestion byproduct... the quanity is huge and not even looked at...RS.
The basic reason is that there is no one in that situation that can be taxed. Tax on farmers for their cows belching. Taxes on cars. Taxes on small business than cannot afford the "carbon credits" deals the high-priced corporate lawyers facilitate, etc.
Anytime politics is involved... follow the money!
As far as I am aware, methane lasts a relatively short time in the atmosphere - so whereas farm animals continue to make Methane (as do we all), events like permafrost thawing are not continuous and as a one-off will have some short-lived impact on atmospheric Methane levels.
As an observation, it does seem that most people here are zealots one way or the other. As yet I'm not convinced that man's effect on climate change is either proved or disproved but for that reason alone I think that research should continue as this stuff matters - even if what we find out is that it is all natural that's a pretty important thing to know.
". . . I think that research should continue as this stuff matters . . ."
The question is: what do you think should be DONE whilst research continues?
It's an important question because 'do nothing' is exactly what the 'non-AGW' side says we should do and exactly the opposite of what the 'AGW' side say we should do. Moreover, if the scientists who say that AGW is happening are correct then we are making things worse the longer we sit on our hands waiting until people like you are convinced.
If you are truly "not convinced that man's effect on climate change is either proved or disproved", do you support any precautionary measures?
It's a difficult question because 'doing something' is not without side-effects. There is no neutral choice here; Inaction is a choice in itself.
If waiting for more research is prudent, what is the prudent course of action while you do wait?
El Reg, wouldn't it be more efficient if you parsed all previous comments and put these "IS! ISN'T!" style arguments in one place on the site? You could number them so that instead of a constant series of "global warming is a proven fact" followed by "not in the last n years" type arguments and "glaciers are melting/growing and it's due to CC/other causes" we could just put "arguments number 5 and 7".
The comments tend to be quite repetitive and you can't tell who actually has knowledge from those who are just typing for the exercise.
Apparently, according to most of the people on here, environment scientists are corrupt - willing to falsify their results, interpret them in bizarre ways, and god knows what else in return for large sums of money.
The Oil industry has truly colossal amounts of money, way more than any possible green conspiracy could muster.
Why does the Climate Change message make any headway at all, when the oil guys could simply buy up all the scientists?
Also, in my experience, it's very much easier to get heard (and to get funded) when you're telling people what they want to hear. So the message "Climate change isn't happening ... or if it is happening, it isn't our fault ... or if it is our fault, there's nothing we can do about it" should be easier to deliver than its opposite. That being the case, it's odd that the opposite side is in the ascendency.
Unless, of course, it's because that's the way the vast majority of the evidence points...
One wonders if maybe certain people don't really want good scientific evidence?
What of those who believe that the Global Warming/ Climate Change (GW) story is a political movement designed to legitimatize big government? Are they really very likely to be persuaded by a government funded study?
But what if the study were legit, and if it were to provide real scientific evidence that Anthroprogenic Global Warming isn't a problem? There are many powerful people who would NOT want that to happen. For the "true believers" this has downside risks and little upside.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022