Slashdot Mirror
NASA Launches Satellite To Monitor Oceans
On Friday, NASA launched the Ocean Surface Topography Mission/Jason 2 satellite into orbit to begin a detailed study of ocean currents, sea-surface height, and surface topology. Scientists hope to use the data gathered by Jason 2 in order to better understand weather patterns and global warming. Further details about the mission objectives (PDF) are also available. Quoting NASA's press release:
"Combining ocean current and heat storage data is key to understanding global climate variations. OSTM/Jason 2's expected lifetime of at least three years will extend into the next decade the continuous record of these data started in 1992 by NASA and the French space agency Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales, or CNES, with the TOPEX/Poseidon mission. The data collection was continued by the two agencies on Jason 1 in 2001. Compared with Jason 1 measurements, OSTM/Jason 2 will have substantially increased accuracy and provide data to within 25 kilometers (15 miles) of coastlines, nearly 50 percent closer to shore than in the past."
Ok I'm really not trolling here and I'm sure I'm exposing my vast ignorance on this topic, but does this seem incredibly underwhelming to anyone else?
We figured out a long time ago that it's easier to elect seven judges than to elect 132 legislators.
I was surprised by the lack of comments on this thread, but then I thought 'Its a satellite that watches the ocean all day and stuff.' Kinda hard to get excited over.
First the government wants to monitor citizens, and now it wants to monitor the oceans? Come on people, I know most of you don't care because you're not an ocean, but what happens when they start going after the other bodies of water? What about other liquids? Other states of matter? This is just the tip of the iceberg, people.
Oh sure, maybe you think it's fine because the oceans aren't U.S. citizens, but I say constitutional rights should apply to all of Earth's features, and the government should keep its nose out of aquatic affairs. Just because some oceans border terrorist states (through no fault of their own), that doesn't mean all oceans can just be spied on whenever we feel like it.
Maybe you think this is okay because some oceans have committed terrorist acts like hurricanes and tsunamis, but it would be bigoted of us to condemn all oceans for the actions of a few.
This has gotten out of hand and needs to stop. Get involved, people!
First they watch the fishes, then its an easy next step to start watching us. This is a slippery slope. More proof scientists are evildoers.
How studying "climate change" in TFA automatically got translated into "global warming" in the slashdot summary. No bias here. ~
Invenio via vel creo
...this is interesting, to say the least.
:)
The topic of "rogue waves" has gotten much more interest in the past few years. They have been determined to be both larger and more prevalent than thought before. Perhaps Jason will complement the data from the EU mission to help with statistics, and maybe even predictions...
One can hope.
"...there are some things that can beat smartness and foresight. Awkwardness and stupidity can." ~ Mark Twain
Does this mean they will find out about our drug boats?
Fortran is for pimps.
And the number of diverse projects they are pursuing, it's actually quite an accomplishment. Not very exciting to most, but still an accomplishment.
Invenio via vel creo
There is a lot to be said about global warming. Some say it's nature, some say it's not that bad, some say it is our fault, others say it's our fault but a good thing.
But what EVERYBODY can agree about is that the average temperature of the Earth has risen 0.74C the last hundred years.
There is no denying that. You might be one of those dimwits that say it's a natural or good thing, but the Earth is warming up.
Brace yourself. Your ignorance is not going to help you when society and our climate collapses.
As long as there are slaughterhouses, there will be battlefields.
When the scientists came for the tuna,
I remained silent;
I was not a tuna.
When they locked up the dolphins in SeaWorld,
I remained silent;
I was not a dolphin.
When they came for the trade currents,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade current.
When they came for me,
the oceans were silent,
there was no one left to speak out.
Not quite 0.74 degrees, but yes it has warmed.
So what? The earth has been trending steadily warmer for the last 6,000 years!!!
I bet it's true mission is to detect the location of foreign Submarines.
One statistical outlier doesn't make a trend. One cold winter doesn't undo decades of warmer than average years.
And taking you at face value on the Antarctic gaining mass, if you think through the implications it is completely consistent with a warming planet. The Antarctic is still very very cold, and warming means an increase in humidity and precipitation, i.e. a larger ice sheet building over the central regions of the continent. That region still hasn't warmed sufficiently to cause large-scale melting.
Ice sheets are complicated things. Warming in general causes increased melting at the edges (near the lower lattitudes) and increased precipitation over the center. It's just a question of how fast it's adding mass at the center vs. losing it at the sides, but ultimately as it gets warmer the whole thing will melt at some temperature.
I do not disagree that the globe is warming. That would be denying facts... the earth has been trending warmer for over 6,000 years!
But when most people say "global warming", what they really mean is MAN-CAUSED global warming. Even more specifically, it usually means that they have bought into the whole CO2-based warming model.
The problem here being that if the man-caused global warming theories were to be believed, we would NOT have had a record cold northern hemisphere this year. Even with all the other complications, it would have continued to get warmer on that scale.
The man-caused warming theories do predict localized variations, but something on the order of an entire hemisphere contradicts some of their basic premises!
Further, the CO2-based warming theory REQUIRES the upper atmosphere to be warming at a rate proportional to the low-altitude temperature... and it simply has not been. Actual satellite and weather balloon temperature data do not support the CO2 warming theory at all.
There are other problems with the man-caused warming theories, but this is hardly the place to be discussing them all. My point is simply that yes, the earth has been warming. Yes, this year is an anomaly in the trend. BUT... it also constitutes a counterexample that refutes the man-caused warming models.
Yup, we've been warming for a hundred years, ever since the Little Ice Age stopped cooling us. Gee, a cooling ends because warming starts. That's kind of the definition of the ending of a cooling period. So we're supposed to fear warming back up after we've cooled down? Do you get panicky every morning when the sun rises?
United Launch Alliance launched this . . . the same company that launched most of NASA's stuff . . . OSTM, GLAST, Pheonix . . .
No we've been cooling down since the Little Ice Age. We've been warming up since the '50's and a lot more than should be excepted if the Earth took it's natural course.
As long as there are slaughterhouses, there will be battlefields.
First, the "little ice age" was only a few hundred years ago, and represented a temporary dip in the overall trend. We are WARMER than that now, or else there would not even be reason to call it "the little ice age"!
The trend over 5 or 6 THOUSAND years has been warmer. But there have been temporary periods (meaning up to 100 years or so -- your little ice age is an example) that were cooler than it is now, and others that were warmer than it is now. Those were nothing but minor spikes in the chart, but they do teach us some things. And among those things is that a warmer world is not necessarily something to be afraid of.
"global climate change."
The very phrase, "global warming", sounds too alarming and unprofessional to be coming from any respectable scientist.
On the other hand, a phrase such as "global climate change", sounds more practical, while still conveying an accurate scientific analysis.
Soulskill, I hope you're reading this. How could you miss such a painfully obvious attempt by NASA to avoid any links to Global Warming? Yet, you ignored the not so subtle difference in semantics and charged on.
This buds for you ... Global Warming, earth-worshiping-hippie! :P
Nonsense. If you knew anything about the subject, you would already know WHY the the actual temperature data do not support the greenhouse warming theories.
Why should I cater to your ignorance and do your homework for you? The subject and the data are all over the internet... it is hardly a difficult thing to find. I find it amusing when other people demand that I put links up to support every assertion I make. Do you know how to do a search? If so, you can find this information yourself within a few seconds.
But stop changing the subject! EVERYTHING I have been writing about has been about "greenhouse gas warming". These other things you bring up are simply irrelevant. I never stated here that the globe was not warming (climate change), nor did I even state that it was not man-caused... my only assertion was that the CO2-based warming model (and later, other greenhouse gas warming models) were flawed. And they are.
I have NOT been misled (you misspelled that) about the U.N.! Kindly read the summary of the newer IPCC report. They state quite clearly that they predict that we will not see actual effects of CO2 warming for around 10 years. Now... if you have actually read both reports yourself, you have to admit that this is a pretty big change of position, considering that their former position was that CO2 was ALREADY causing the warming we have been seeing. And since they have OFFICIALLY changed that position, an honest person must ask: then what IS causing the warming we have been seeing? Certainly there are other causes (deforestation has been brought up), but the subject of this thread is GREENHOUSE GASES. If you can't stick to that subject, then go elsewhere, please.
Further, another few seconds on Google or Yahoo will point you to the stories of responsible scientists who have tried to have their association with the original IPCC report removed, on the basis that their research did not support the conclusions released by the IPCC. At least one of those scientists became rather militant about the subject, stating publicly (and quite loudly) that the IPCC was perpetrating political fraud on the world. And he is not the only one who tried to have his name removed.
I am well aware that the IPCC does not come up with "new" science. You would know that if you had actually paid attention to the post to which you were replying. The very fact that some scientists tried to get their research removed from the report should have told you that I understood this. So... what is your point? My statement was that the U.N. came to ERRONEOUS, POLITICALLY-BASED CONCLUSIONS, claiming to use that science as a foundation. And that is exactly why those researchers protested.
I am just about the opposite of "rabid, anti-science". Quite the contrary. I support responsible science, and responsible social policy based on that science. The original IPCC report represented neither, and I am far from the only responsible person to claim as much. Again, a few minutes (even seconds) on Google might just enlighten you. And I am referring to responsible reporting by well-known, responsible scientists and organizations.
I would also like to point out -- a closely related point but not exactly the same -- that your reliance on the fact that the IPCC report in turn relied on peer-reviewed articles is pretty damned irrelevant. The massive and repeated failure of peer review in recent years to prevent a huge amount of bullshit and absolute fraud to reach the scientific community is well-documented by that same scientific community. Because of the frequency that this traditional sytem has FAILED in the last couple of decades, saying that its worth is questionable and needs re-thinking is an understatement.
Are you really going to ask me to cite references for THAT, too? The most famous case lately has been that Korean clone fraud, but you can find a huge number of references and research on that subject by simply googling "peer review". Don't believe everything you
What is not really mentioned is that Jason2 is a joint program between: CNES (Centre National d'Ãtudes Spatiales) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNES NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA Eumetsat (European Organisation for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eumetsat NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOAA CNES and NASA are involved for the launch period and after the satellite operations will be carried out by Eumetsat and NOAA. For more info: http://www.eumetsat.int/Home/Main/What_We_Do/Satellites/Jason/index.htm?l=en
http://ebgp.net/ccc/
You can't justify your arguments any better than that?
You claim that I have been "throwing out science", but in fact I have been reporting what SCIENCE (not the politicians) has been saying for years now, and you have not mentioned ONCE any actual science stating that my claims are wrong or why they are wrong. You can't, can you?
Google works fine, if you actually bother to look. I don't think you WANT to actually find out that you are wrong.
After participating in this thread quite a bit, I found it interesting how so many people really hate having their pet theories challenged. Apparently, a lot of people equate "science" with what they see on Headline News, and get offended when someone suggests that they might want to dig a little deeper than that.
Remember that the UN is a political organization, not a scientific organization. Its motives are political, and not driven by science.
With NASA continually facing budgetary woes, why isn't research like this more appropriately performed by NOAA, the National OCEANOGRAPHIC and Atmospheric Administration? What does this have to do with space exploration? (Yeah, yeah, Earth is in space. Phthhhh...)
... that my claims are anything but "extraordinary"! Where did you get this idea? Are you somehow of the opinion that just because I disagree with you (for good reason, by the way), that my claims must therefore be "extraordinary"??? How fascinatingly arrogant. Well, let's work on concrete statements rather than trying to read between the lines. Apparently, what you are asserting (at least), is that someone who disagrees with the IPCC reports has an "extraordinary" point of view. Wow. And YOU are accusing ME of being "different". Just wow.
As I have clearly stated here more than once, I am merely echoing what a lot of reputable scientists are saying. And I can safely say that at least some of them are scientists with much more credibility that the vast majority of the reviewers of the IPCC reports.
I mentioned before that you could find well-supported contrary opinions by spending only a few moments on Google. You have refused to do so. So, just this one time (because I dislike your smarmy attitude so much), I will indulge you and actually do just a little bit of your homework for you. I am not your daddy, so do not expect me to do it again.
I would like you to know up front that just as I stated was possible a few posts ago, I actually spent less than 2 minutes on Google pulling up these articles. The links below actually represent only a small percentage of all I found, and I did not spend a lot of time choosing among them. I could have spent a LOT of time following related links... but I figure that if you are actually interested in learning you can do that for yourself. I suspect that you can actually feed yourself too, if you try. But in any case, even if you disagree, if you do not hear opposing arguments then by definition you are being deliberately biased.
To anticipate a possible objection, I will state from the outset that most of these are not "peer reviewed" papers from "science journals", but they do contain a good many links to same. Read to the depth you care but if you do not care, then do not come back later and ask me yet again to do it for you.
To start, here are just a few pieces that support my statements about the problems with "peer review". These are only a few of the huge list I found. The amount of literature out there on problems with and utter failings of peer review, especially in recent years, is vast:
PROBLEMS WITH PEER REVIEW: http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0124/p14s02-stss.htm
NY TIMES: "For Science's Gatekeepers, a Credibility Gap" http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/02/health/02docs.html
Nature: Quality and value: How can we research peer review? http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/nature05006.html
There is a lot more I could say here, but I believe that under the circumstances it would be pointless. Here are some more links. Understand that these are only a very small sampling of those that are out there. But (this one time only), you asked for some, you got some.
Letter from Chris Landsea http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/landsea.html
International Conference on Integrity in Science http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002299.html
Economic Formulas in IPCC Report Criticized for Overstating Emissions http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22786
Here's a DIFFERENT former IPCC participant: Former IPCC Member Slams UN Scientists' Lack of Geologic Knowledge http://newsbusters.org/node/13971
Yet another official IPCC reviewer criticizes the