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."
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.
Not really. I don't know about pre-Christ temperatures, but the last 2 millenia, Earth has been cooling down.
I live in Belgium and there used to be a vineyard close to where I live in the Middle-Ages. Nowadays that completely impossible. Man is trying to reverse that trend.
Also, every climate change that happened the last 10,000 years has been very, very slow and minuscule in comparison to the 0.7 degrees we did in only one century.
But the question is not who is right, the question is: what are we going to do about it. Regardless if it's our fault or just natural, our society can't take any climate changes. We need to reverse any changes happening until we are able to cope them.
And everything is making clear that greenhouse gases heat up our planet waaaay faster than it should.
As long as there are slaughterhouses, there will be battlefields.
Don't you know Al Gore received a Nobel Prize?
All scientists are screaming with all the power they have: "It is happening and it is our fault."
You can try and go against the stream of common sense. But don't be upset if you're ignored or ridiculed by intelligent people.
As long as there are slaughterhouses, there will be battlefields.
Dude, even the Bush white house now admits that human activities specifically including CO2 emissions are a factor in global warming; the "debate" is now over the extent to which human involvement has changed the climate, and what to do about it if anything.
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.And you base this belief on what, exactly? The whole reason the question of the extent of mankind's involvement in global weather patterns (let's face it, deforestation is very much an activity of man, and forests are a major figure in global weather theater) has not been answered is that weather is complex, even chaotic. There can be warm years in the middle of runs of colder years, why not a colder year in the middle of a series of warmer ones?
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.The theory has never been that CO2 is the sole factor. But, you know, don't let facts get in the way of satisfying rhetoric.
Finally, just because I love to keep going, even if CO2 weren't a contributor to global warming, there are still many reasons why releasing a lot of it is a bad idea, especially while we are deforesting and killing off algae needed to process that CO2.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
"Dude, even the Bush white house now admits that human activities specifically including CO2 emissions are a factor in global warming; the "debate" is now over the extent to which human involvement has changed the climate, and what to do about it if anything."
You have not been keeping up with the news. See my comments to others in this thread. Even the UN has retracted their famous, hysterical report about greenhouse warming. Some of the very scientists who were quoted in that IPCC report tried to get their names removed, because (according to them) their research DID NOT SUPPORT THE UN'S CONCLUSIONS! The UN has subsequently issued another report, in which they state (I am paraphrasing) that we are not seeing greenhouse warming today, and may not for many years. That's a pretty big change of position after only ONE YEAR. I wonder why? (The obvious -- and correct -- answer is that the original report was WRONG and mis-stated the science.)
"And you base this belief on what, exactly? The whole reason the question of the extent of mankind's involvement in global weather patterns (let's face it, deforestation is very much an activity of man, and forests are a major figure in global weather theater) has not been answered is that weather is complex, even chaotic. There can be warm years in the middle of runs of colder years, why not a colder year in the middle of a series of warmer ones?"
None of the greenhouse gas theories account for a cold hemisphere. As chaotic as weather can be, the greenhouse warming models allow for local, temporary variations, but NOT for a record cold hemisphere. If the theories were correct, the effects should serve to counteract natural variations. This is not proof of course, but it is contrary evidence. And deforestation and the like were not the subject of discussion at the time... the subject was greenhouse warming.
"The theory has never been that CO2 is the sole factor. But, you know, don't let facts get in the way of satisfying rhetoric."
ALL greenhouse gas "global warming" theories require the upper atmosphere to warm proportionally to the surface temperature. That is directly involved in the whole mechanism that is supposed to be CAUSING the warming from such gases! Whether CO2 were the "sole" greenhouse gas involved is irrelevant! They all require that the upper atmosphere be warming to a degree that it just has not been. Actual satellite and weather balloon temperature data DIRECTLY CONTRADICT the greenhouse warming theories. And if something that MUST be happening in order for those theories to be true is not happening (and it isn't), then those theories are fundamentally flawed.
And if you think that ANYTHING that anyone in the Bush administration says will sway my opinion, you are dreaming. Why in the world should it? Just about nothing else they have said has turned out to be true either.
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