NASA's Orbiting Carbon Observatory Mission Fails

jw3 writes "The NASA Orbiting Carbon Observatory scheduled for launch today has failed its mission: the payload fairing failed to separate and the launch managers declared a contingency. George Diller, NASA launch commentator, said, 'It either did not separate or did not separate in the way that it should, but at any rate we're still trying to evaluate exactly what the status of the spacecraft is at this point.'" Update: 02/24 14:17 GMT by T : Reader fadethepolice points out a Reuters report which says that the craft crashed into the ocean just short of Antarctica.

Comments

Global Warming

[Anonymous Coward]

is a hoax, and the rocket knows it was just wasting time and money. It threw the launch.

Re:Global Warming

[Benfea]

Doesn't that tinfoil hat make you itch sometimes?

Re:Global Warming

[conureman]

Actually, IIRC, the last expensive atmospheric satellite failed at launch as well. Gives ME pause...

Re:Global Warming

[Anonymous Coward]

ain't that a pitty? the first mission which was going to help map the main CO2 emitters (sites/countries/companies/industries) never got to space due to "technical failure"..one could think that it was never intended to..

Re:Global Warming

[WinPimp2K]

Actually, the OP is half right. The laucnh was sabotaged becasue the glbal warming nutjobs lead by NASA's most famous Klimate Kwack could not afford any mopre hard data points that might cnflict with scripture according to Gore.

Evaluating the status?

[elrous0]

Without a full investigation, I'd hypothesize tha the status is "laying in many pieces on the ice somewhere in Antarctica."

Re:Evaluating the status?

[ruin20]

Well that's what they get for trying to launch a satellite with a Taurus. I had one back in the late ninties and the tranny on them was completely worthless. It should come as no surprise that, just when you needed, a Ford breaks down.

Re:Evaluating the status?

[jimwormold]

I was thinking of an entirely different type of tranny, you old time talker you.

Re:Evaluating the status?

[Lumpy]

FORD:

Fix
Or
Repair
Daily

But then Everything made by GM and Chrysler is that way as well lately.

Re:Evaluating the status?

[geobeck]

Actually, in light of the current economy, their new advertising slogan is "Has anyone driven a Ford lately?"

Re:Evaluating the status?

[MikeBabcock]

In other news, the Antarctic research station isn't responding :-)

Re:Evaluating the status?

[Sylver Dragon]

For my mothers Ford (Fix or repair daily) Taurus it was the fuel pump. That damn thing must have burned up 4 of them during it's life.

Re:Evaluating the status?

[brian0918]

I have some nightmare Taurus stories from when I was a kid (not too long ago). On a family trip to an amusement park, the car broke down across the street from a gas station, in a thunderstorm, right next to a telephone pole. Immediately to the side of the station wagon was a sign that said, "Warning: Quicksand". I didn't know there was quicksand in Ohio. Thanks to the folks at Ford, now I know. The storm got so back that my little sister started to panic and bang on the car window. She was about ready to run screaming into the woods when my grandparents finally arrived to pick us all up.

The last time we used that thing was on yet another failed family vacation, to Sea World. It broke down, permanently, a mile from our destination. We pushed it off the road, walked to Sea World, and enjoyed the rest of the day.

Found On the Roadside Dead.

Re:Evaluating the status?

[Chris Burke]

I was thinking of an entirely different type of tranny, you old time talker you.

I think we are thinking of the same kind of tranny, and "the tranny in the Ford Taurus is completely useless" matches my experiences pretty well. Goddamn Wanda.

Re:Evaluating the status?

[MichaelSmith]

I always thought that slogan was intended to make you feel guilty for not owning Ford. Doesn't seem to work on me.

What's the contingency for these missions?

[jollyreaper]

I know with the Mars rovers the cost of a second rover was small change compared to the development cost of the original. The launch vehicle is expensive, of course, but it was considered cheaper to launch two missions and hope one succeeded than launching one that could fail and mean all the money was wasted.

What sort of contingency do they have for sats like this? Do they just fabricate another one and try again in a year or two?

Re:What's the contingency for these missions?

[drinkypoo]

What sort of contingency do they have for sats like this? Do they just fabricate another one and try again in a year or two?

dunno but:

WASHINGTON - NASA's Orbiting Carbon Observatory failed to reach orbit this morning after a 4:51 a.m. EST liftoff from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. A media briefing on the mishap has been tentatively scheduled for 7:15 a.m. from Vandenberg. The briefing will be carried on NASA TV.

It's now 0614 PST. Did anyone catch the media briefing? The only evidence I can see that the beeb was even aware of it is the line Nasa officials confirmed the launch had failed at a press conference held at 1300 GMT. But there is zero information in this article that you could not have gathered from other sources - the author of the bbc article obviously tapped a couple of sources, read some other articles (the link I place above, the OCO mission page, and others) and spit out a piece of trash we could have done without. Thanks, BBC! Your contribution to mainstream news will be forgotten in the mists of time. I hope.

Re:What's the contingency for these missions?

[confused one]

Contingency? We don't have no contingency. Seriously though: looks like the only options are to either hope someone else's similar but not quite equivalent satellite generates data they can use; or, spend the money to build and launch a replacement. By the way, they spent 7 years building, testing and waiting for launch, not 2.

Re:What's the contingency for these missions?

[Paranatural]

Yes, but even before they launched, the builders were saying how much easier it would be to build a second one, now that all the design work was done and they have experience putting it together. They could probably create it all over again (comparatively) cheaply.

On second thought, maybe they should tack on a year for design refinements and take a look at that whole separation module thingy.

Re:What's the contingency for these missions?

[squoozer]

I believe that some important, difficult to replicate, missions have a second unlaunched backup of the satalite which is used for debugging etc. I don't know if this satalite would have such a back up though and then there is the problem of finding a launcher.

Re:What's the contingency for these missions?

[carambola5]

For space missions, once something is launched, all design is done. That's a very expensive component: the engineers' time to conceive and design. All that remains now for OCO is to determine the cause of failure, design a way to avoid it, and send the already-made drawings off to the shop again.

The marginal cost is materials + machine shop time + assembly time + testing (not insignificant) + launch costs.

Of course, it would have been cheaper to make the two flight units together initially... machining expenses plummet when increasing the quantity of parts in a batch. Truth be told, there are probably a few OCO's hanging out at NASA now, though they've been tested (think big vibration tests) near the point of failure.

Re:What's the contingency for these missions?

[Lumpy]

So you are saying it will take another 7 years? Why did they launch all the plans and engineers up with it?

I bet they can build a new one in months if they did not kill all the engineers and burn all the documentation.

but then I dont know what NASA's new operation rules are. That might be a requirement. Place all that in the pit below the rocket just before launch...

"Sorry dave and john, you knew this would happen when you signed your employment papers."
"OOps! halt the countdown! we frgot to throw in all the computer backups as well! WHEW! almost screwed that one up!"

Re:What's the contingency for these missions?

[kestasjk]

On second thought, maybe they should tack on a year for design refinements and take a look at that whole separation module thingy.

The team that designed the satellite didn't design the rocket. The rocket was a "Taurus XL", built by a different team to the OCO team (not even by NASA).

I imagine less than 7 years went into the rocket's design, and that it cost much less than $270 million, so I would guess the team behind the satellite would be pretty damn pissed. (I wonder if they insure it etc, and what sort of rates they have to pay to do so)

At any rate it's a real tragedy for everyone; knowing much more about where CO2 comes from and goes would have been a huge leap forward for the study of global warming.

Re:What's the contingency for these missions?

[Guysmiley777]

The main difference is that Mars has historically been very unfriendly to probes (both surface and orbital). Low Earth orbit we have a much better handle on, you can generally assume that launches will succeed.

Of course the Taurus XL launch vehicle hasn't been an overwhelming success, it's 6 for 8 now... Though when the failure comes from payload or fairing separation you'll get people pointing fingers at each other as to what caused the problem. From what I can see the actual rocket stages all performed correctly.

Re:What's the contingency for these missions?

[ca111a]

>the builders were saying how much easier it would be to build a second one
hmm... so the builders would actually be interested in the first one failing if they wanted more work?

Re:What's the contingency for these missions?

[Civil_Disobedient]

the builders were saying how much easier it would be to build a second one, now that all the design work was done and they have experience putting it together

First rule in government spending: why build one when you can have two at twice the price? -S.R. Hadden

Re:What's the contingency for these missions?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course the Taurus XL launch vehicle hasn't been an overwhelming success...

Unless we restate things as, "NASA successfully lands Carbon Observatory in Pacific ocean".

Re:What's the contingency for these missions?

[Kagura]

"Why build one machine, when you can build two for double the price?"

Re:What's the contingency for these missions?

[Kagura]

Dang you got this before me... and I already made my post above. ;)

Re:What's the contingency for these missions?

[bughunter]

I worked on the instrument team for OCO from 1999-2004, and on similar instruments in the past. Yes, it is much easier to build another, but unfortunately, it's not really that much cheaper from a mission point of view, since the launch vehicle and satellite buss are a large fraction of the cost, and most of that is already incremental cost, not NRE. Usually, NASA considers the risk of launch failure and requires contractors to keep records adequate to build another on an incremental basis.

One other cost factor is the ground segment -- the mission operations center and the data analysis facility. As I understood it five years ago, there were plans to build a rather large data center to crunch all the spectrometry data that OCO would have sent down. That didn't get sunk to the bottom of the ocean.

And while I don't think anyone is "pissed," the mission and instrument teams are probably quite dejected. Especially Dr. Crisp, the principal investigator. That was his baby.

There is a good chance that NASA may still "do it over" however, 1) because of the reduced "incremental" cost, and 2) to support Pres. Obama's environmental policy.

Re:What's the contingency for these missions?

[bughunter]

Easier (aka cheaper) at the instrument/spacecraft level, yes. Especially the testing part. A lot of the non-recurring costs go into verification planning and special test equipment (and especially if special facilities need to be built). This makes the incremental cost of the satellite about 50% (plus or minus maybe 15%) of the first unit cost. A lot of instruments that were planned as only one unit got built multiple times, like TOMS, MODIS, landsat ETM and MSS.

Re:What's the contingency for these missions?

[TapeCutter]

"At any rate it's a real tragedy for everyone; knowing much more about where CO2 comes from and goes would have been a huge leap forward for the study of global warming."

Yes it is a tradgedy for everyone, even those who don't want to know about global warming. If we are to introduce a global ETS via international treaty then this would have been a not only a great reseach tool but a great way to monitor said treaty.

I'm sure with the scientific and political interest in this, NASA will have another go. I'm not from the US but I would like to see ESA, Japan, India, China and whatever other space agencies that are included in "everyone" chip in to make it happen as quickly as practicable.

Re:What's the contingency for these missions?

[jafac]

And a huge leap backwards for carbon emitters.

(insert Big_Oil_Conspiracy_Theory here). . .

Re:What's the contingency for these missions?

[Convector]

The launch is typically a significant fraction of the cost of any mission, if not the majority of the cost. Rocket fuel is expensive.

Re:What's the contingency for these missions?

[budgenator]

There is probably a pretty good selection of spare parts to replace items the fail or don't come up to spec during testing to get a good start on building a replacement satellite.

Re:What's the contingency for these missions?

[presidenteloco]

That's bollocks
Are you seriously saying that a load of rocket fuel for a small rocket costs as much as the cost of a 7 year development with probably hundreds of staff, and subcontractor companies?

Repeat after me. A million is not a billion is not a trillion. And none of them are a gajillion, which is how you must be analysing these costs.

Re:What's the contingency for these missions?

[RalphTheWonderLlama]

They constantly do that. I used to like them but anymore they just put out stuff as fast as they can and it's no wonder it isn't useful.

Re:What's the contingency for these missions?

[MichaelSmith]

So was this spacecraft based on an alien design?

Re:What's the contingency for these missions?

[schevans]

I did a unit in Project Management back at uni. We had two lecturers. One of them told us that the other had been PM of the payload on Ariane 5 Flight 501. She added that he didn't like to talk about it, so we shouldn't ask..

Re:What's the contingency for these missions?

[kestasjk]

How long do you think it'd take?

Re:What's the contingency for these missions?

[confused one]

They probably could build one in months. It's the pre-launch testing and then waiting for an available launch vehicle and window that often adds years to the schedule.

Re:What's the contingency for these missions?

[confused one]

(I wonder if they insure it etc, and what sort of rates they have to pay to do so)

If it's a government funded mission, then they probably didn't insure it. Generally the Federal government does not pay for insurance, considering it a waste of valuable funding that can be put to better purpose. They are essentially "self insured". If a project fails or something gets damaged they have to come up with replacement funding out of the budget.

NASA Satellite lands in ocean

[langelgjm]

According to the NYT, that's pretty much what happened: NASA Satellite Lands in Ocean

Re:NASA Satellite lands in ocean

[ruin20]

So this means that in the battle against climate change, the biggest shot NASA has taken thus far is a rocket attack on Antarctica.

Re:NASA Satellite lands in ocean

[Talderas]

No, it's not a rocket attack, it's more like an ICBM launch.

Re:NASA Satellite lands in ocean

[GaryOlson]

No...to measure ice melt properties in Antarctica, NASA scattered a non-homogeneous collection of light reflection and absorption particle on the shelf. Approval to scatter material all across Antarctica would have been delayed in committee for months using normal methods. This way, everyone feels sorry for NASA that they lost a scientific rocket when in fact they have succeeded.

Re:NASA Satellite lands in ocean

[gandhi_2]

No, ICBM's would have functioned correctly.

Re:NASA Satellite lands in ocean

[ashitaka]

An ICBM is what happens when you take a shit outside in Antarctica.

Re:NASA Satellite lands in ocean

[ciderVisor]

Well, I thought it was funny. +1 LOL from me.

Re:NASA Satellite lands in ocean

[sexconker]

How can you LAND on the OCEAN?

Re:NASA Satellite lands in ocean

[mpe]

How can you LAND on the OCEAN?

You need an aircraft to even attempt that. Even planes not designed to land on water, such as the A320, could probably manage this.
The only thing this rocket could do was CRASH, since it was never designed to land anywhere...

Re:NASA Satellite lands in ocean

[GodfatherofSoul]

Nice one! Hopefully, some more children posts will get people to read a great joke.

It's Official !!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Aliens sabotaged the launch so they can continue to warm the planet to make it more palatable to their bodies when they invade 20 years from now.

According to CNN... (Well, some of it)

[ShadowBlasko]

The satellite will now be re-purposed to study carbon and methane emissions that need to be observed to determine the current threat level regarding activity in R'lyeh.

"Initial indications are the vehicle did not have enough [force] to reach orbit and landed just short of Antarctica in the ocean."

I'm sure the ancient ones are happy to have some new tech to plunder.

All hail the new tentacle observer!

Re:According to CNN... (Well, some of it)

[drinkypoo]

I like this part: The rocket carried hydrazine fuel but NASA officials said they had no indication that any part of the rocket or satellite posed a threat to anyone. I hope that means all the fuel was burned. There's too much of that stuff floating around loose on the planet already.

Re:According to CNN... (Well, some of it)

[vlm]

I hope that means all the fuel was burned. There's too much of that stuff floating around loose on the planet already.

Over the long term, hydrazine in the environment is mostly harmless.

http://www.gasdetection.com/TECH/hydrazine.html

Vapor-phase hydrazine is degraded in the atmosphere by reaction with photochemically-produced hydroxyl radicals and ozone with estimated half-lives of about 6 and 9 hours, respectively.

All the usual rules of half lives apply here. Somewhere between 1/2 and 3/4 of it's already broken down... Of course if sticking your head inside the fuel tank to take a look would have originally killed you 100 times over, and now it'll only kill you 25 times over, thats little comfort at this moment. None the less, even in colder conditions, it'll be "mostly harmless" in at most a couple weeks or so.

Re:According to CNN... (Well, some of it)

[dwye]

The satellite will now be re-purposed to study carbon and methane emissions that need to be observed to determine the current threat level regarding activity in R'lyeh.

No, that is in Polynesia, somewhere. You are thinking of "Beyond The Mountains Of Madness" and the race (the Great Race, I believe) that made the shuggoths. Since the Great Race left, that satellite will be observing the shuggoths, the whales, or the penguins.

Rebuild?

[talcite]

I wonder if they have another OCO sitting as backup somewhere? Satellites are usually built in pairs just in case one of them fails during launch. Also, the BBC confirmed that the OCO is in the antarctic right now. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7907570.stm

Re:Rebuild?

[jnik]

Satellites are usually built in pairs just in case one of them fails during launch
Not usually...at least none of the NASA or AFRL projects I'm familiar with has a full-build spare. It's not entirely uncommon to have a second of some of the instruments, and it's pretty common to have enough spare parts to build another copy of an instrument. (Much easier to buy a couple of spares up front rather than wait around if someone screws something up.) Then testing and integration can go much more quickly and cheaply, having done it once before. It still can take awhile, though.

(Incidentally, the title and summary for this article suck...the OCO didn't fail, it was lost in a launch failure, and it didn't "fail its mission," it didn't get a chance to start. That's like saying your car broke down because someone ran a red light and T-boned it. No offense intended to the launch team.)

Re:Rebuild?

[carambola5]

It depends on the project, but space projects - even small payloads aboard larger craft - are invariably built in sets. Unfortunately, you usually can't just launch one of the "spares" because they're not actually spares. They are identical units that are tested near (or beyond) the point of failure to predict lifetime of the one flight unit. These are called qualification units, or "Qual Units." Occasionally, you'll also have one or two ground-based units (ground-support equipment, or GSEs) that mimic the project's function but aren't necessarily built with space in mind... for example, expensive weight-saving milling operations have been omitted or cheaper wiring (PVC) may have replaced expensive space-worthy wiring (Teflon).

Re:Rebuild?

[Zoxed]

> I wonder if they have another OCO sitting as backup somewhere? Satellites are usually built in pairs just in case one of them fails during launch.

You may be confusing building pairs with first building an Engineering Model first (to be hacked around, tested, re drilled etc) with the final version that is launched. The former is typically kept after launch to help with on-ground analysis of problems seen on-board.

The Engineering Model can be later cannibalized, along with spares being used: eg S/C 1 for Cluster 2 after the first launch failed.

Re:Rebuild?

[Domint]

Incidentally, the title and summary for this article suck...the OCO didn't fail, it was lost in a launch failure, and it didn't "fail its mission," it didn't get a chance to start. That's like saying your car broke down because someone ran a red light and T-boned it. No offense intended to the launch team.

Hmmm. I'd suspect a better car analogy would be "That's like saying your car broke down because the truck hauling it from the manufacturer to the dealership you just placed the order through fell off a bridge." But perhaps I'm just nitpicking. :)

Re:Rebuild?

[butalearner]

I highly doubt there are any million dollar parts lying around, and if there are, the reason they would cost so much would be because they were specifically developed for this mission. I also doubt they've dismantled and parted out the flat sat (all the components laid out on tables connected like it would be in flight) already, and they've probably got a full structure that's been through vibration and environment testing. They'd build a new one though, since that one has probably been stressed more than it would be in flight.

And regarding the people thing, they don't just up and disappear as soon as the thing is shipped. The engineers are definitely still around, as there is simulation and testing all the way up until launch, and then there are post-launch reports to write and data to sift through. Some of the technicians might be helping out other programs, but they were probably shared from the beginning anyway.

If Orbital cuts a deal with NASA (maybe eat some of the cost to bring back some good will), I'm sure they could relaunch with a redesigned fairing shroud at a fraction of the cost. After all, I'd bet that a huge percentage of that quarter billion dollars is labor, starting all the way back from the design stages.

Re:Rebuild?

[CraftyJack]

We seem to have different definitions for GSE. If a piece of hardware matches form, fit, and function, but uses different materials, I'd tend to call it a brassboard. For me, GSE usually refers to interface mockups, support electronics, etc. for testing a subsystem.

Re:Rebuild?

[carambola5]

Yeah. I didn't explain quite correctly. GSE would refer to all equipment that remains on the ground but is still at-hand before and during the mission. This would encompass not only support electronics and interface mockups but also the brassboard units (as you call them).

Re:Rebuild?

[JoeFromPhilly]

But perhaps I'm just nitpicking. :)

Not at all. In fact, to further refine it, I'd say "That's like saying your car broke down because the truck hauling it from the manufacturer to the dealership was actually a rocket propelling it into orbit which failed to separate properly from your car which is actually a satellite and then they crashed into the ocean near Antarctica."

Fantastic!

[The Fun Guy]

The telemetry from the satellite is reading zero across the board. That must mean there's no carbon dioxide in the atmosphere anymore. Now we don't have to worry about global warming - fantastic!

Good work, NASA. I knew we could get this climate change thing cleared up once we had better data.

Taurus XL

[JumboMessiah]

Was the decision to use the Taurus to keep launch costs down? Launching from Vandenberg, I'm assuming they were aiming for a steep inclination. Just wondering if anyone knows why they didn't go with a Delta II....

Re:Taurus XL

[drinkypoo]

Seems more like they used a Taurus. If one of those gets where it's going, it's a miracle.

Re:Taurus XL

[bohemian72]

That would be funny if the pre-discontinued Ford Taurus wasn't such a damned good car.
What the marketing folks at Ford thought by discontinuing it and then bringing it back as the rebranded Five Hundred, I'll never know.
It's right up there with naming a new Lincoln the Zepher and that stupid looking cheese slicer grill Ford's been all enamored with lately.

I guess my joke involving Ford Taurus vs. the Rocket would go more along the lines that they should have tried the Ford instead.

Re:Taurus XL

[zuckie13]

Taurus was probably chosen because it was cheaper than the Delta II (since the satellite didn't need the full capacity of a Delta II), was available, and fit the mission profile. It has had 5 or 6 successful launches, including launches for the Air Force/NRO, so it was a proven vehicle before this. The A-train constellation (which OCO was going to join) is a high inclination orbit (98.2 degrees), so Vandenberg was used for the launch site.

Re:Taurus XL

[TorKlingberg]

Extra weight because the payload fairing failed to separate.

Re:Taurus XL

[drinkypoo]

That would be funny if the pre-discontinued Ford Taurus wasn't such a damned good car.

Wow, you have no idea what you're talking about. People who don't know how to drive think that they are a great car to drive (understeering bitch) but they are horribly unreliable and a pure nightmare to work on. A 3.8 Titer taurus is the most cramped car I've ever worked on; I've owned about 12 different vehicles now and have worked on still more.

There are hojillions of Tauruses in junkyards. Handy for me, because I have a 1992 F250 7.3+ATS and the early 90s Taurus alternator is a bolt-on. You get the harness off a LTD or Crown Vic (allegedly) and do minor solder work.

Re:Taurus XL

[SETIGuy]

Was the decision to use the Taurus to keep launch costs down? Launching from Vandenberg, I'm assuming they were aiming for a steep inclination. Just wondering if anyone knows why they didn't go with a Delta II....

I'd guess that yes, launch costs were the main determinant of the vehicle used. You can probably launch two Taurus XLs for the cost of a Delta II launch. And in this case they may.

Not knowing anything except the time of the launch, I'd guess they were going for a polar sun synchronous orbit with nodes at 6am and 6pm.

Re:Taurus XL

[camperdave]

If they are running the rocket so close to its margins that a couple of hundred kilos of payload fairing overloaded it, then this probe may have wound up in the drink regardless.

Re:Taurus XL

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize it costs $20,000/kg or so? So your "few hundred kilograms" ends up as few million $$, maybe even 10% of the cost so they can send a satellite into space with the fairing, and then it can do what?? Watch some metal before batteries run dry tomorrow??

Get your head out of your ars.

well we're f*****d

[wisebabo]

This probe would have provided millions of carbon dioxide measurements a day* for the entire atmospheric column (rather than the hundreds of measurements, usually only at ground level that we currently get from our fixed sensors). Considering the importance these measurements would be in helping us predict climate change, I think we (the human race) has just suffered a serious setback.

[There was a scene in the movie "Silent Running" where the command is given to jettison and detonate the last remaining biospheres. The commander says "may god have mercy on us". I'm beginning to feel that way now.]

*it was going to take readings at 56,000 locations a day but at each location would record carbon dioxide concentrations for the entire air column.

Re:well we're f*****d

[ErikZ]

"*it was going to take readings at 56,000 locations a day but at each location would record carbon dioxide concentrations for the entire air column."

So?

Imagine it actually made it to it's destination. Then what?

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. But compared to water vapor, you know, clouds. It's barely anything.

But cheer up, I'm sure something else that's blown far out of proportion will come along. You can really whip out the histrionics then!

Re:well we're f*****d

[tpheiska]

So we lost a machine that would have given us concrete evidence on the *possible* increase in carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere. And now NASA lost it even though they haven't lost an earth orbit bound spacecraft in a while. Let me get my tinfoil hat.

Re:well we're f*****d

[Kell Bengal]

It's strange, but when I saw the story about the upcoming launch, my first thought was "If there's one mission that I could predict failure of, this is it." Maybe I'm paranoid, but there are so many vested interests in not having accurate data like that, that even short of downright sabotage this mission had the odds stacked against it. When I saw the story this morning, I also got that sinking feeling.

Re:well we're f*****d

[wisebabo]

Yes CO2 is barely anything compared to water vapor (I'll take your word on that, I don't know). And compared to Nitrogen or even Oxygen it's less than nothing.

However perhaps it is a particularly effective greenhouse gas compared to water vapor, like maybe the how difference between Uranium 235 and Uranium 238 is the difference between a nice metal suitable for armor piercing shells and a nuclear bomb. So when a climatologist tells me it's a critical piece of understanding the climate, I tend to believe them. I'm not a climatologist, are you?

The reason why I believe this is important is because the vast majority of climatologists and other scientists in allied fields tell me so. Why do I believe them? Because they went TO SCHOOL and STUDIED HARD and EARNED LOTS OF DEGREES that I was either unwilling or unable to do. Still I know some of them and, unlike many right wingers, I do not think they are part of some vast conspiracy that only seems to accept smart people as members (or maybe I do!). Even if I didn't know any of them personally, I put my trust in scientists as a profession: when you think of everything SCIENCE has given us; medical tech, aerospace, agriculture, nukes, yes even the computer you're using, they've got a pretty good record.

You know, I don't know if you're a right winger but I've noticed more and more of them suffering from COGNITIVE DISSONANCE as they find their most highly cherished held beliefs overthrown by the facts. Evolution? Well all Biologists must be wrong! The age of the earth being older than 6000 years? Well all Geologists, Astronomers and Physicists must be wrong! Global Warming? Climatologists, Oceanographers... Hell all of science must be wrong! They're all in cohoots to raise my taxes!

Re:well we're f*****d

[wisebabo]

Good point, I had heard about the Japanese satellite but hadn't really looked into it. Unfortunately it doesn't seem as capable of tracking the carbon dioxide levels.

"OCO's spectrometer will provide greater sensitivity on carbon dioxide measurements but is unable to detect methane. GOSAT's orbit is designed to bring the satellite over the same location more often, allowing the craft's lower resolution instrument to create a new global map every three days."

The real key is whether the Japanese satellite was going to take A SINGLE MEASUREMENT for each data point (that's what appears to be in the articles I've read) or get a reading of the entire atmospheric column (providing a vertical graph of the carbon dioxide level was for each location). NASA had a specific set of three instruments designed to do just that . If the Japanese satellite does that as well then you're probably right I'm overreacting since a three fold drop in resolution is probably still good enough. If not, then there is a vast difference in not just the amount but the TYPE of data returned.

Re:well we're f*****d

[DAldredge]

^Drama Queen

Re:well we're f*****d

[wisebabo]

Well, I'm a little concerned about possible feedback mechanisms kicking in that might make our climate problem much worse. Such as the permafrost in Siberia and Canada thawing out which may release a TRILLION tons of CO2 (roughly three times as much as all human activity through history combined). Also the discovery that, with the permafrost thawing, large stores of methane are being released (evidently you can go to lakes in the far north and "light the bubbles" up with a match, very impressive plumes of flame).

There are lots of other possible interactions that might happen (some good; recent TOTAL rainforest CO2 capture may be increasing) but WE JUST DON'T KNOW. It may be a few years until we send up another one, that may be a few years we don't have.

So say there's only a 1% chance of a runaway greenhouse effect. Are you willing to take those odds for the entire planet?

Re:well we're f*****d

[jcupitt65]

Sure CO2 only makes a small difference, a few percent. But a few percent change in the atmosphere's warming effect is a degree C. Exactly what the IPCC are warning about.

You can read up on some of the science here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/water-vapour-feedback-or-forcing

It's not difficult and you might find it interesting.

Re:well we're f*****d

[armando_wall]

Obligatory reference: http://khaaan.com/

Re:well we're f*****d

[TempeTerra]

Disregarding the melodrama of the GP, I know of several good reasons to measure CO_2 throughout the atmosphere and I'm sure the actual scientists know some more.

The atmosphere is actually quite complex, with different layers and surprisingly little mixing between different levels. I mostly know about the southern ozone hole, being from New Zealand which is still pretty fucked by it. The CFCs which destroyed the ozone were released all over the world - mostly in the northern hemisphere even, since that's where the majority of the population is. However the southern polar vortex is the major cause of mixing between the lower and upper atmosphere, so as the CFCs drifted down to Antarctica they were ejected to the upper atmosphere - where the ozone layer is - and reacted with the ozone there eating a big hole in it.

Similarly, CO_2 is released a ground level, but what effect does it have in different layers of the atmosphere? How fast does distribution to different layers occur? With a satellite which could measure this we could build up a body of data correlating CO_2 concentrations in different parts of the atmosphere with climate change and characterise the movement of CO_2 concentrations through the system, giving us an idea of the lead-in time for CO_2 climate change.

As for why CO_2 is important: it's one variable in a complex equation but it's the one we're directly fiddling with.

My prediction: Nasa will launch another satellite, and the research project will be set back 6 months. Yawn.

Re:well we're f*****d

[wisebabo]

Ok, ok, as an AC pointed out earlier there is a Japanese probe that *might* be capable of doing an okay job at this. But maybe not.

We've lost eight years thanks to our previous administration and now I'm worrying that major feedback mechanisms might be kicking in that'll make things much worse (permafrost melting leading to CO2 and methane released, saturation of oceanic carbon sinks, etc.). If the Japanese probe doesn't provide us with definitive data one way or another, we may have lost a couple years. Do we have that kind of time?

Re:well we're f*****d

[wisebabo]

I'll be really really happy if they can launch another $230M dollar satellite up in 6 months. I'll be even happier if they don't use a Taurus launch vehicle.

Sorry about the melodrama. Been reading a lot about climate feedback loops (melting permafrost releasing CO2 and methane, saturation of Antarctic ocean carbon sinks due to increased storms, etc.).

Re:well we're f*****d

[wisebabo]

Actually, I was a little worried a while ago when I found out they were using a Taurus launch vehicle (no offense Orbital). I've only heard of Taurus launch vehicles being used with military projects (and I thought they specialized in air-drop launches from a B-52).

Anyway, I wished they had used something like a Delta (no I do not work for McDonnel Douglas/Boeing or who ever else makes them now!).

Re:well we're f*****d

[Ambitwistor]

Unfortunately OCO would only give total column measurements of CO2, so it can't figure out directly how much CO2 is in different layers of the atmosphere. For that, you need an atmospheric transport model.

Re:well we're f*****d

[Ambitwistor]

OCO would have been very useful, but please don't exaggerate the loss ("the human race has suffered a serious setback").

It's true that we only get hundreds of flux measurements from ground sensors. But OCO wouldn't give full planetary coverage, just narrow 10-km slices, so you've got a big interpolation problem anyway: high data density where you have measurements but large gaps in between. Plus, it only gives total air column concentration, where for analysis of carbon sinks we really want to know surface fluxes (which ground measurements can give us). Thus, with OCO you have a big inversion problem to solve: from column concentrations and a model of atmospheric transport (wind blows CO2 around), work out what the surface sources and sinks were. OCO would certainly have helped us, but if there are big changes in carbon sinks, surface sensors could probably pick them up too.

Re:well we're f*****d

[clickety6]

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. But compared to water vapor, you know, clouds. It's barely anything.

That only makes sense if we were also producing large amounts of extra water vapour to pump into the atmosphere. We're not as far as I know.

However, we are producing large amounts of CO2 that may well be causing a temperature rise. But warmer air can hold more water vapour so the increase in CO2 can cause an increase in water vapour.

That's why we need to know CO2 levels.

Re:well we're f*****d

[Blakey Rat]

Silent Running had a moronic premise. Even so, I agreed with the other crew members: if everyone on earth is fed and happy, who gives a whit about forests? Hell, we have tons of forests now and we can barely keep a third of the world fed and happy.

Re:well we're f*****d

[Ambitwistor]

I pointed this out in another response, but I just want to emphasize that OCO would have measured the column average CO2, not the whole vertical profile. You could potentially think about clever spectral analysis algorithms to tease out some of the rough vertical structure, but it wasn't designed to do that.

Re:well we're f*****d

[Quiet_Desperation]

The commander says "may god have mercy on us". I'm beginning to feel that way now.

OK, now hold one hand to your racing heart and the other to your forehead and declare, "Oh my! I have the vapors!"

Now swoon, gimme that look of shock and.... faint to the floor!

Perfect! Cut! Print it. Take five, everyone.

Re:well we're f*****d

[Blakey Rat]

Nobody is debating global warming, but there is a natural reaction against the kind of melodramatic "end of days" crap you're peddling. Yah, it's an expensive satellite, yah, it's valuable to science (whether or not it supports the global warming view), but it's not the freaking end of the world! Relax. The few years it takes to build another one won't make any difference.

Re:well we're f*****d

[Chris Burke]

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. But compared to water vapor, you know, clouds. It's barely anything.

Yeah, but while the levels of CO2 can and have increased dramatically, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is limited to the saturation point and is self-regulating. You know, rain.

Re:well we're f*****d

[wisebabo]

Alfred Nobel notwithstanding I'm not sure I'd really classify economics as a science, certainly not a HARD science. (I'm not sure if it was one of the original ones he created a prize for or if it was later added on, like the Peace prize).

Still they do call it the "dismal science" so I guess we should accord it some respect. And to be honest, I do, I don't think economists are responsible for our financial calamity (ask any economist what will happen when you don't properly price the risk of an asset which is what the investment bankers did). I believe some economists were warning about this for some time now such as Paul Krugman of the NYTimes; he got last years Nobel Prize by the way.

No, the problem was, LACK OF REGULATION (where was the SEC? probably being wined and dined by Madoff). Also, the credit rating bureaus were not pricing risk correctly (of course not, they were being paid by the people who they were rating: talk about conflict of interest!).

Re:well we're f*****d

[BigDumbAnimal]

So when a climatologist tells me it's a critical piece of understanding the climate, I tend to believe them. I'm not a climatologist, are you?

I know BS when I hear it.

The reason why I believe this is important is because the vast majority of climatologists and other scientists in allied fields tell me so.

Science isn't about voting on truth or building 'consensus'

Why do I believe them? Because they went TO SCHOOL and STUDIED HARD and EARNED LOTS OF DEGREES that I was either unwilling or unable to do.

Why are folks like Roy Spencerattached and insulted for presenting a different view of the data? He studied hard, researched for years, examined the data, and he has very different conclusions.

What this means is if you have doubts about man-made global warming then you don't count because you aren't a climatologist. If you are a climatologist with doubts, then you are a tool of "Big Oil."

Even if I didn't know any of them personally, I put my trust in scientists as a profession: when you think of everything SCIENCE has given us; medical tech, aerospace, agriculture, nukes, yes even the computer you're using, they've got a pretty good record.

You know, I don't know if you're a right winger but I've noticed more and more of them suffering from COGNITIVE DISSONANCE as they find their most highly cherished held beliefs overthrown by the facts. Evolution? Well all Biologists must be wrong! The age of the earth being older than 6000 years? Well all Geologists, Astronomers and Physicists must be wrong! Global Warming? Climatologists, Oceanographers... Hell all of science must be wrong! They're all in cohoots to raise my taxes!

Not relevant.

Re:well we're f*****d

[wisebabo]

Sorry, I've just been reading a lot about feedback mechanisms that *may* be kicking in (permafrost melting releasing CO2 and methane, climate changes that are reducing the ability of the carbon sinks to absorb more).

Chances are you're right, a few years shouldn't make much more difference. Still we've already wasted eight years and even a 1% risk that this might turn into a runaway greenhouse effect is a big risk considering the stakes involved.

Re:well we're f*****d

[Wyatt Earp]

As a species, we've survived much greater climate changes than the worst case scenarios from global climate change.

This is not a serious setback for the species. Climates have changed for the last 4.6 billion years and have changed radically during our time as a species on this planet. Heck, things have changed dramatically while man has had civilizations here.

Re:well we're f*****d

[Abcd1234]

Except, of course, that water vapor has a fairly short timespan in the atmosphere, particularly at high concentrations, before it comes out in the former of that ever familiar phenomenon: rain.

But, yeah, I'm sure those thousands of climate scientists just missed the whole water vapor theory and you somehow managed to spot it for them. Nice work!

Re:well we're f*****d

[wisebabo]

Look, even though I've researched these issues (much?) more than the average person, once again, I'm not a climatologist. At some point, everyone in this world has to trust other people, there is simply too much information for one person to understand it all (the last person in history who is thought to have known everything at the time was Sir Francis Bacon).

So, who do you trust? Well if I have a serious illness, I'll trust my doctor/surgeon. If I'm on a plane I'll trust my pilot. If I'm a soldier in a war I'll trust my general. If I'm a general (who wants to make sure the bombs will go off) I'll trust my scientists. Basically, the vast consensus of scientists working in climatology think we're headed for (man-made) trouble.

  If a climatologist told me that my computer processor was inefficient I might disregard him, or if my neurologist told me that concrete was a poorer building material than steel I might ignore him. But these are people who've specialized and studied a long time in their respective fields. While science has certainly gone into blind alleys, it has, over time proven its accuracy in describing the real world. (Read about life in the middle ages).

I don't know anything about your anecdote regarding Greenland, the only one I know is that the Vikings named Greenland "Green" land to fool people to think it was valuable (when they really colonized Iceland). Still I hope you don't base your life around anecdotes; for example I hope you don't believe in not vaccinating your kids because you've heard it causes autism.

Re:well we're f*****d

[catchblue22]

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. But compared to water vapor, you know, clouds. It's barely anything.

Your comment is not true. And I doubt you have any real knowledge of the physics behind what you say. Furthermore, I doubt that the person who told you that CO2 was a negligible greenhouse gas has any real knowledge of physics either. The quickest way to refute your argument is to travel to Venus, or at least examine the conditions there. Venus shows in detail what CO2 can do...the temperature there is 800C or more at the surface. And yet Venus began with nearly the same atmospheric composition as the Earth. The main difference is that on Earth, CO2 is fixed and stored by organic processes. While on Venus, the CO2 builds up in the atmosphere.

Or, I can refute you by a physical argument. When thinking about the greenhouse effect, the most important part of the atmosphere is the upper atmosphere, where infrared radiation leaves the Earth for space. In this emitting layer, it is very dry, so water vapor is not a significant greenhouse gas. When we add more CO2 to the atmosphere, it causes infrared photons to be emitted to space from a higher colder layer (the extra CO2 absorbs photons that would have otherwise escaped into space). Since the infrared photons are being emitted from a colder layer in the atmosphere, energy is emitted to space less efficiently. Thus the Earth must reach a higher temperature to reach an energy balance with the Sun.

Re:well we're f*****d

[Rich0]

Yeah, but what will they do when it turns out that a map of CO2 emissions has almost no correlation with the level of industry in an area? My concern is that all this effort is going into regulating industry, when in reality they may just be a small part of the problem.

It might be more effective to tighten zoning laws around new volcano construction. :)

In any case, for all the money global warming is going to cost the economy one way or another (regardless of who is right - either lost coastlines or hampering of industrial expansion), spending a little money on some satellites to better define the problem seems like a good investment. A little more data never hurt anyone...

Re:well we're f*****d

[Cyberax]

You know, the lifetime of a water molecule in atmosphere is (on average) several _days_. The lifetime of a carbon dioxide molecule can essentially be _infinite_ if carbon sinks fail.

Re:well we're f*****d

[Chris Burke]

Yeah I don't need to read peer reviewed studies to know that the saturation point changes with temperature and that rain isn't the only way that water vapor pressure is regulated. I was being flippant to someone acting like CO2 is a non-concern because water vapor is a more important "emission".

Re:well we're f*****d

[SETIGuy]

Alfred Nobel notwithstanding I'm not sure I'd really classify economics as a science

Alfred Nobel didn't. There is no Nobel Prize in economics. There's just the "The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel"

Re:well we're f*****d

[wisebabo]

You're absolutely right when you say that Science isn't about voting on truth. Best example I can think of plate tectonics; the guy who promoted that was derided as a loony because "continents don't move".

But then a funny thing happened. More and more data came up to support him. First the fossil similarities on both sides of the atlantic. Then the mid atlantic ridge. Finally, if it wasn't already proven in almost all geologists minds, they found the active spreading.

That's the thing about science. Sure you might be the underdog but the "truth" will win out in the end. It has to, because nature is always right. The problem with this Spencer guy (sorry, never heard of him) is that with more and more data being collected (alas not from the OCO) there are more and more climatologists believing in man-made warming. No good scientist will say they are 100% certain (look at the ICC report, it is all in probabilities) on such a complex issue but it is apparent that the evidence is getting stronger not weaker. Again, maybe Spencer is a genius but he'll have to prove it. If he does, he'll be famous like the guy who came up with tectonic drift ("I" don't know his name but I'm sure just about every geologist does!).

Actually it's funny that you mentioned Spencer. I followed the Wikipedia link and briefly skimmed his bio. You mention that the last two paragraphs of what I wrote is "Not relevant". After reading Spencer's bio it's so relevant it's funny! I was going to say that everybody has an opinion and sometimes that opinion can't be changed by facts no matter how strong. That's called BELIEF. Without reading Spencer's bio an inch further, I'll bet you he's some sort of fundamentalist or born again Christian. Why? Because he's got all this evidence staring him in the face on global warming (and supposedly evolution) and he draws the opposite conclusion that 95% of his colleagues do. YOU CAN'T CHANGE SOMEONE'S MIND IF IT'S CLOSED. So I have to thank you, you've proved that my last two paragraphs are Very relevant!

Re:well we're f*****d

[wisebabo]

Humanity's been around for a long time. We've all had the basics (simple agriculture, fire, writing, legal systems) for millenia. Some peoples built some rather large civilizations using that (Romans, Egyptions, Mayans, Khmer, Chinese) but as a whole, life for most people (the 95% who worked in the fields) was the same for everyone in every age. Life was brutish and short.

Then, a couple guys in Northern Europe (no I'm not remotely descended from them), said: "Hey, instead of guessing about the natural world, why don't we observe it, and make theories to predict it? And then, IF OUR PREDICTIONS ARE CORRECT, we'll have learned something. Something that will work EVERY TIME or if it doesn't we'll REVISE OUR THEORY.

That's what separates us from the ancients. Democracy? The greeks tried it long time ago. Merchants? The Chinese and the Romans had some pretty good trading networks. Religion? Well the Jews had a good monotheistic religion way back. No, the fact that you and I are exchanging messages on a world wide network that is storing a good fraction of humanities knowledge is due to SCIENCE and the accumulated knowledge that came from that.

Re:well we're f*****d

[wisebabo]

You do know that Americans like you (you are an American right?) is the reason why Americans will be speaking Chinese in about 50 years. That is unless Obama can save your butt.

Re:well we're f*****d

[wisebabo]

Ok, ok, as I've said before in other premises maybe I overdid it.

But I'm still concerned that we're getting close to some serious feedback issues with the climate (permafrost melting, ocean carbon sinks saturating).

I really thought OCO was going to give us much more detailed CO2 data than the Japanese satellite. If I'm wrong then you're right I am overstating it.

If I'm right - the sky is falling! :)

Re:well we're f*****d

[wisebabo]

Ok, ok, as I've said before in other premises maybe I overdid it.

But I'm still concerned that we're getting close to some serious feedback issues with the climate (permafrost melting, ocean carbon sinks saturating).

I really thought OCO was going to give us much more detailed CO2 data than the Japanese satellite. If I'm wrong then you're right I am overstating it.

If I'm right - the sky is falling! :(

Re:well we're f*****d

[wisebabo]

Ok, ok, as I've said before in other premises maybe I overdid it.

But I'm still concerned that we're getting close to some serious feedback issues with the climate (permafrost melting, ocean carbon sinks saturating).

I really thought OCO was going to give us much more detailed CO2 data than the Japanese satellite. If I'm wrong then you're right I am overstating it.

If I'm right - the sky is falling!

Re:well we're f*****d

[wisebabo]

Ok, ok, as I've said before in other comments maybe I overdid it.

But I'm still concerned that we're getting close to some serious feedback issues with the climate (permafrost melting, ocean carbon sinks saturating). I know that they can rebuild it in less than the 7 years it took to make the first one but even so it'll be years and maybe they'll try launching it on the Taurus again!

I really thought OCO was going to give us much more detailed CO2 data than the Japanese satellite. If I'm wrong then you're right I am overstating it.

If I'm right - the sky is falling!

Re:well we're f*****d

[huckamania]

"we've already wasted eight years"

I guess no disaster is big enough that people won't use it for political ammunition. BTW, it's GLOBAL warming, not one country in North America warming, you insensitive clod.

AGW must be real, they took a poll. Ignore that the chief spokes-model is busy polluting the planet and setting up shell companies to profit from the coming apocalypse, he won an Oscar, an Emmy and the Nobel Peace prize, you ignorant slob. If he says the arctic will be ice free in 5 years, you can take that to the carbon bank, which he owns.

You just have to trust the scientists cause they are much smarter than you will ever be. Trust them even when they won't acknowledge deficiencies in their data or refuse to publish the models that they are using to forecast our doom. If they don't want to give ammunition to the evil deniers, who are you to blame them. It's not like extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof or that the bedrock of science is transparency and reproducibility of results.

Now get off my lawn, I'm working on a plan to save the polar bear. All we need are solar powered ice makers and some parachutes...

Re:well we're f*****d

[ThatsNotPudding]

Exxon-Mobil seen slowly walking way, hands in pockets, tunelessly whistling and avoiding eye contact.

Re:well we're f*****d

[sac13]

The CO2 causing warming myth is nothing but media and political hype...

Looking at the data, it's clear to see that CO2 increase follows, not leads, an increase in temperature. If there is causation (thus far only some correlation has been established), then the rise in CO2 is caused by the increase in temperature, not the other way around. Even John Houghton, who was co-chair of the IPCC and is a supporter of the idea of antropogenic global warming, admits "Carbon dioxide content and temperature correlate so closely during the last ice age is not evidence of carbon dioxide driving the temperature but rather the other way round... I often show that diagram in my lectures on climate change but always make the point that it gives no proof of global warming due to increased carbon dioxide."

For those that support the CO2 driving the increase, I've yet to see how the climate models explain how the temperature 450 million years ago was colder than it has ever been in the last half billion years, but the CO2 levels were 10 times what we have today. And for those arguing that human activity is driving the increase, why does the rate of increase vary so greatly (particularly looking at the significant decrease in rate during 1991-1993) despite the consistent growth of human CO2 producing activities. The rate should be consistently increasing if human activity were the main driver, but it hasn't been.

I'm not arguing that humanity has no impact on the climate. And, I'm not even really arguing that we are not a significant impact. However, it seems that deforestation along with ever expanding cities with concrete and asphalt that absorb and radiate heat make an even better explanation than CO2, which the data suggest follows temperature rather than temperature following the CO2 increase.

Re:well we're f*****d

[Ambitwistor]

OCO and GOSAT were complementary. OCO would have produced really high-res "slices" every 16 days, whereas GOSAT gives wider continuous regions of coverage, with a greater repeat frequency (3 days), but at lower spatial resolution. Both would have measured the same quantity, total column CO2.

I'm not sure what OCO's capabilities regarding ocean sinks were, but I'm somewhat skeptical that it could have detected a permafrost tipping point before it is too late to do anything about it, and probably it wouldn't have detected anything useful about permafrost during its mission lifetime. Permafrost doesn't start acting up until runaway thawing already commences. To warn against that, what we really need are many more soil measurements of the permafrost active layer in various locations, to see how much soil carbon is at what temperature. You can't detect that from space.

Re:well we're f*****d

[Ambitwistor]

The CO2 causing warming myth is nothing but media and political hype...

Given your statements below, I don't think your knowledge of this subject warrants such bold assertions.

Looking at the data, it's clear to see that CO2 increase follows, not leads, an increase in temperature.

In the glacial-interglacial cycle, this is true, but it's also not a surprise; it's a prediction of Milankovitch theory, which existed before any lags or leads were ever measured in the data. It also does not imply that CO2 has no effect on temperature.

If there is causation (thus far only some correlation has been established), then the rise in CO2 is caused by the increase in temperature, not the other way around.

It's both. According to the Milankovitch theory, orbital variations cause shifts in temperature. These temperature shifts cause changes in the carbon cycle, which alters CO2 levels. The altered CO2 levels in turn amplify the original orbital temperature change.

If you leave the CO2 feedback part of that process out, then you can't explain the amplitude of the glacial-interglacial cycles anymore, and it's unclear whether you can even, say, trigger a glaciation without the contribution of CO2 drawdown.

For those that support the CO2 driving the increase, I've yet to see how the climate models explain how the temperature 450 million years ago was colder than it has ever been in the last half billion years, but the CO2 levels were 10 times what we have today.

You could start here, here, or here.

And for those arguing that human activity is driving the increase, why does the rate of increase vary so greatly (particularly looking at the significant decrease in rate during 1991-1993) despite the consistent growth of human CO2 producing activities.

Human emissions don't vary smoothly, nor does the terrestrial carbon sink, which has quite a bit of interannual variability due to climatic effects on, e.g., photosynthesis and heterotrophic respiration. Just as a guess, I'd look first at the collapse of the Soviet Union (assuming there is a significant slowdown during those years, which I haven't checked).

As for human activity driving the observed increase, that's been proven beyond all reasonable doubt. Nobody seriously argues that part of the story anymore; there are about six independent lines of evidence, including historic emissions data, measurements of cumulative ocean carbon and air-sea CO2 fluxes, measurements of terrestrial CO2 fluxes, modeling of said fluxes, shifts in carbon isotope ratios in air and sea, and changes in the CO2/O2 ratio of the atmosphere.

However, it seems that deforestation along with ever expanding cities with concrete and asphalt that absorb and radiate heat make an even better explanation than CO2,

Urban heat islands don't explain the warming. CIties are a small fraction of the Earth's surface and the amount of heat they radiate, even if you take into account subsidiary albedo changes, isn't big enough to account for the warming. Land use change is a good idea in principle (e.g., due to surface albedo changes, alterations in evapotranspiration, etc.), because it's more widespread. But it still falls well short in magnitude: in some locations it has a substantial effect on local temperatures, but simply doesn't explain the global amount or spatial distribution of surface warming.

Re:well we're f*****d

[Ambitwistor]

We don't need OCO to attribute warming to humans. OCO would have improved our understanding of and ability to predict the terrestrial and ocean carbon sinks. This is important to determine how severe global warming may become in the future (since it modifies the amount of CO2 which remains in the atmosphere). Still, to first order the fact remains that regardless of changes in sinks, we still ought to be doing more mitigation than we are.

Re:well we're f*****d

[TempeTerra]

Ah, that sucks. My mistake. Much less exciting than I thought.

Re:well we're f*****d

[JrOldPhart]

I'm not sure I would call climate anything a hard science either.
The forecasts of Climate scientists may be as accurate as the Weather scientists.
And they have been studying weather longer.

Plus they are funded better when the cause is popular.

Re:well we're f*****d

[riverat1]

It should also be pointed out that water vapor and clouds are two very different (although related) things and can have quite different effects on the issue.

Re:well we're f*****d

[cheesybagel]

IIRC Nobel Prizes only were supposed to be granted to the equivalent of todays Nobel Peace Prize. None of the scientific prizes were awarded then.

Re:well we're f*****d

[Falconhell]

No need to apologize. deniers remind me of a friend of mine who thought when he used his lighter, the gas disappeared from the universe.

Its just a waste of time arguing with them.

Re:well we're f*****d

[camperdave]

Every time we burn hydrocarbons, we produce CO2 *AND* H20.

Methane (primary component in natural gas):CH4 + O2 CO + H2 + H2O + heat
Propane (Hank Hill's favorite): C3H8 + 5 O2 3 CO2 + 4 H2O + heat
Octane (primary component in gasoline): 2C8H18 + 25 O2 16 CO2 + 18 H2O + heat

Coal is a mixture of so many hydrocarbons, it is ridiculous. Burning coal releases CO2 and H20. The type of coal closest to pure carbon is graphite. Graphite is generally not used as a fuel, because it is hard to ignite.

Re:well we're f*****d

[Falconhell]

Yes Wyatt, we have survived(But not all people). But we did not have a population of over 6 billion in those times did we?

Some would survive a major climate change, how many deaths would you say are acceptable to fund an addiction to SUV's?

Re:well we're f*****d

[MrKaos]

Ok, ok, as I've said before in other premises maybe I overdid it.

For every incremental post you just *have* to insert another ok! Ok,ok,ok! Ok!

Being pessimistic and the like, we're not all fucked - but a lot of people are. The ones that say were ok really just mean 'well, I'm ok - so everything is ok'.

Re:well we're f*****d

[twostix]

Good god man, you're embarrassing yourself. Get a grip.

Life is not a movie, there's no imminent state of emergency, the entire planet is not going to implode, explode, rain fireballs, etc.

Even if GW is as bad as it can possibly be, you and I will see only the slightest changes in our lifetimes, many many people will see none at all. Future generations will have to adapt and alter to compensate, like they always HAVE. 100 years ago My great-grandfather used to grow crop 50kms from where I live now. The average temperature and rainfall in the area dropped and crops were no longer viable by time his son, my Grandfather took over the farm. So he (and many many others in the district) moved on to an area that had in the previous 20 years *become* viable for growing crops. 40 years later the area my great-grandfather farmed in is now *again* becoming viable to grow wheat.

Its kinda funny to see so many people here laugh at the 'hysterical' masses on other issues such as child protection, terrorism etc. But really are no different themselves.

Not to mention I come here to *escape* a melodramatic drama queen. (Coming dear)

Re:well we're f*****d

[XDirtypunkX]

That's what the guy on Venus said.

Re:well we're f*****d

[Wyatt Earp]

Yea, cause its all the SUVs fault.

Umm, even with the worst case scenarios from GCC, theres no reason why more people will die from the changes that might happen than would die of normal weather.

Re:well we're f*****d

[Mateorabi]

That's a great article (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/water-vapour-feedback-or-forcing/) though you didn't get to the best part in your post: water vapor is a feedback not a forcing of temperature. I love throwing this article at denialists who crow that water is 20x more potent than CO2. CO2 will accumulate in the air for hundreds of years causing increased warming. H20 of any concentration will come out of the air in about 10 days and reach an equilibrium based on the true temp forcings.

Re:well we're f*****d

[clickety6]

Good point - but I think the amount of extra H2O we pump out compared to existing H2O in the atmosphere is vanishingly small, but the extra CO2 we pump out is significant compared to the CO2 in the atmosphere.

Re:well we're f*****d

[Rockoon]

Urban heat islands don't explain the warming.

Says who? You must be talking about the fraudulent paper written by Jones and Wang that supposedly put to rest the notion that UHI was significant.

You know, the paper! Where Wang intentionally commited scientific fraud? You know I'm talking about, right?

Didn't know that?

'k. tx.

CIties are a small fraction of the Earth's surface

Someone who thinks that UHI is about cities shouldn't be discussing this. Heres a thought.. go to surfacestations.org

I havent been there in a month but I bet they got yet another hilariously placed recording station photographed, perhaps right next to an air conditioner again, or maybe next to an outdoor grill (significant because they use the daily high and low values, not the average.. did you know that?) Maybe in one of those "quiet wooded areas" but still constructed on top of common everyday tar-based blacktop, or on the tar'd roof of a building.

The point here is that we dont fucking know shit because the data is fucked up and when it isnt, they go ahead and fuck it up with questionalable "adjustment" methods to make it look just like the average that includes all the fucked up data, where the researchers are often sloppy and out of their field (hire a statistician if you need to use an advanced statisical technique, assholes), and they sometimes even commit fraud.

We got no fucking idea the effects of UHI, of CO2, or even the amount of warming (if any.) We still have no clue as to the significant effects of clouds (which still cannot be modeled), cosmic rays, solar variance, sunspots, the magnetosphere, and so on..

All the while we are being sold a plan by the IPCC to heavily regulate industry, when there are other alternatives that they havent even fucking bothered to look into, such as geoengineering.

The whole thing fucking smells bad. Maybe its warming significantly.. maybe it isn't.. we are simply not in a place to know because nobody really gives a shit about it. The scientists themselves only give a shit about publishing, because publishing equals funding. They havent gone to audit the surface stations, it takes a group of highly skeptical volunteers to actualy figure out that almost the entire thing is bullshit... and STILL nobody is doing anything about it.

The IPCC only gives a shit about power because its a political institution. Thats what they do.

But you have all the facts, right? You KNOW all about global warming, right?

Re:well we're f*****d

[sac13]

Given your statements below, I don't think your knowledge of this subject warrants such bold assertions.

If you don't believe that the CO2 hysteria is media and political hype, then you are not paying attention to the common perspective on the whole thing. I'm not talking about the science. I'm talking about the people using the science wrongly to push an agenda.

In the glacial-interglacial cycle, this is true, but it's also not a surprise; it's a prediction of Milankovitch theory, which existed before any lags or leads were ever measured in the data. It also does not imply that CO2 has no effect on temperature.

I didn't say CO2 has no effect on climate. I only said it follows rather than leads the temperature change. I understand chaos theory well enough to know that almost EVERYTHING has an effect, at least in the long term.

It's both. According to the Milankovitch theory, orbital variations cause shifts in temperature. These temperature shifts cause changes in the carbon cycle, which alters CO2 levels. The altered CO2 levels in turn amplify the original orbital temperature change.

If you leave the CO2 feedback part of that process out, then you can't explain the amplitude of the glacial-interglacial cycles anymore, and it's unclear whether you can even, say, trigger a glaciation without the contribution of CO2 drawdown.

Sure. CO2 has an effect. But, it is not THE cause as the media and political class would have us believe.

You could start here, here, or here.

Those are great references and support my argument that CO2 has an effect, but is certainly not THE cause. And, it is clearly illustrated that the coldest period in the last half billion years had a CO2 level 10 times the present level. Those references point out that there are clearly other drivers that are MUCH more significant on climate than CO2. That's not what the mass media and political class would have us believe. Orbital, solar and cloud variation are much more impactful than CO2. But, we can't write laws to deal with those things. So, we push the minor things that we believe we can control.

Human emissions don't vary smoothly, nor does the terrestrial carbon sink, which has quite a bit of interannual variability due to climatic effects on, e.g., photosynthesis and heterotrophic respiration. Just as a guess, I'd look first at the collapse of the Soviet Union (assuming there is a significant slowdown during those years, which I haven't checked).

Great point... at least partially. The natural CO2 cycle has quite a bit of interannual variability. That's why it's hard to nail down what the human factors are. And, given that the CO2 levels have been MUCH higher on the order of 1000's of percents prior to the existence of humans on the planet, it's hard to say that we are going to push things beyond what has been NATURALLY observed on Earth. Sure, there are plenty of hypothesi about the different types of carbon isotopes, but there are plenty of natural ways for those same isotopes to be released. The only thing we are doing to release them is to burn things. That happens naturally all the time.

As for human activity driving the observed increase, that's been proven beyond all reasonable doubt. Nobody seriously argues that part of the story anymore; there are about six independent lines of evidence, including historic emissions data, measurements of cumulative ocean carbon and air-sea CO2 f

Re:well we're f*****d

[Ambitwistor]

Says who?

Says, pretty much everything ever published on the subject. Says the satellite record (both of them). Says the ocean temperature record. Says all the indirect effects of warming (ice melt, biome shifts, etc.)

You've got to have some pretty enormous cognitive blinders on to think that the warming is just a data artifact from the surface stations.

Someone who thinks that UHI is about cities shouldn't be discussing this.

The UHI is about cities; that's what the "U" stands for, after all. Cities are where you get most of the siting issues. But the previous poster wasn't even talking about site bias; he/she seemed to be claiming that the warming is real, but is due to the albedo effect of urban development and other land use changes.

Heres a thought.. go to surfacestations.org

Been there, done that. They sure got quiet when they found out that the well-sited stations produced pretty much the same temperature trends as the (gasp) adjusted data.

We got no fucking idea the effects of UHI, of CO2, or even the amount of warming (if any.) We still have no clue as to the significant effects of clouds (which still cannot be modeled), cosmic rays, solar variance, sunspots, the magnetosphere, and so on..

We certainly do, but you appear to be immune to evidence.

All the while we are being sold a plan by the IPCC to heavily regulate industry,

The IPCC doesn't have any policy plans. They report on other people's policy plans.

when there are other alternatives that they havent even fucking bothered to look into, such as geoengineering.

Plenty of people are looking into geoengineering. Right now it doesn't look like a very safe alternative, but it's a hot research area.

it takes a group of highly skeptical volunteers to actualy figure out that almost the entire thing is bullshit...

They didn't "figure out" any such thing. If anything, they falsified their own hypothesis (that siting issues severely contaminate the surface record).

and STILL nobody is doing anything about it.

NOAA is putting together the CRN if, for some reason, you're still worried about the surface record.

You KNOW all about global warming, right?

More than you, evidently.

Re:well we're f*****d

[Ambitwistor]

Those are great references and support my argument that CO2 has an effect, but is certainly not THE cause.

Scientists do not claim that CO2 is "the" only cause of climate change. And please, spare me "but the media/political circus does". Even they don't claim that CO2 is the only thing ever to have affected climate.

Orbital, solar and cloud variation are much more impactful than CO2.

Not over the next few centuries, which is the whole point.

The natural CO2 cycle has quite a bit of interannual variability. That's why it's hard to nail down what the human factors are.

It's not that hard to nail down human emissions. It's somewhat uncertain where human emissions eventually end up; we know the main players, but not the exact partitioning.

And, given that the CO2 levels have been MUCH higher on the order of 1000's of percents prior to the existence of humans on the planet, it's hard to say that we are going to push things beyond what has been NATURALLY observed on Earth.

We may not push CO2 levels higher than what has been naturally observed, but that's not the point. Even climate changes as large as what has been naturally observed are a big deal, and we probably don't want to reproduce those changes (especially at a high rate).

Sure, there are plenty of hypothesi about the different types of carbon isotopes, but there are plenty of natural ways for those same isotopes to be released.

No, there isn't. That's the whole point. Between the C12/C13 ratios and C12/C14 ratios, you can eliminate the natural sources like biomass, dissolved carbon in the oceans, etc.

The only thing we are doing to release them is to burn things. That happens naturally all the time.

Burning biomass has a different isotopic signature than burning fossil fuels, unless the biomass is extremely old (like fossil biomass is). There is very little ancient biomass being burned other than fossil fuel, and we know where it is.

Nobody argues that? Oh, you said "seriously". That's not a scientific term.

Ok, let me be more blunt: anybody who argues that has been scientifically disproven.

It comes right down to modeling.

No, it doesn't. It's straight DATA. Models just happen to confirm it, which is no surprise given the amount of independent data which all indicate the same thing.

The best record for atmospheric CO2 is ice cores, but those don't go back very far. There are geologic records that can go back further, but there are plenty of questions about there accuracy vs ice cores.

That's true, but is irrelevant to the point that current CO2 increases are due almost entirely to humans.

Urban heat centers wouldn't explain all of the "global" warming. However, if you take a look at where the temperature data is being gathered, you will find that a significant majority of the data comes from measurements made in areas that have experienced development over time. If you start with a thermometer in the forest and then cut down the forest and build a city around it, then you're data from that same station is going to show that the average temperature is increasing.

Rural stations also show the trend. So do satellites, which have a global view. So do ocean temperature measurements; if it was just an artifact of urban measurements, the oceans wouldn't be warming. So does Arctic ice melt, glacier melt, biome shifts, and so on. The warming is real.

The models are based on the data and the data isn't there to model accurately enough to make predictions.

The data is there accurately enough to make useful predictions. Those predictions have wide error bars, but we can rule out many outcomes (like less than 1 C warming this century)

Re:well we're f*****d

[sac13]

Scientists do not claim that CO2 is "the" only cause of climate change. And please, spare me "but the media/political circus does". Even they don't claim that CO2 is the only thing ever to have affected climate.

I never said scientists did. Scientists have nothing to do with the policy proposals or induced hysteria. You ask the average Joe on the street about the whole thing and all they can tell you is CO2. And, unless you happened to miss Al Gore's (a politician I might remind you) propaganda piece which explicitly tried to highlight the CO2/temperature connection. He purposely put the graphs on different axes so people would infer CO2 lead temperature. If you see the two on the same graph, it's clear CO2 follows, not leads. That's the political/media misinformation.

Not over the next few centuries, which is the whole point.

Really? I would agree with you on the orbital variation. That's a known quantity. But, what are the predictions for solar and cloud variation? What are the predictions for volcanic events that are known to cool global temperatures as much as a degree in a single year? We just don't know those things.

It's not that hard to nail down human emissions. It's somewhat uncertain where human emissions eventually end up; we know the main players, but not the exact partitioning.

If we're uncertain about where they end up, how can we use those for modeling? I've heard some argue that the specific isotopes released by man have a different effect than the "natural" isotopes. If both that idea and your assertion are both true, I would expect some serious flaws in the models.

We may not push CO2 levels higher than what has been naturally observed, but that's not the point. Even climate changes as large as what has been naturally observed are a big deal, and we probably don't want to reproduce those changes (especially at a high rate).

The quantity nor the rate is statistically different from what has been observed. Assuming it is mankind, we're still not making anything happen that hasn't naturally occurred before.

No, there isn't. That's the whole point. Between the C12/C13 ratios and C12/C14 ratios, you can eliminate the natural sources like biomass, dissolved carbon in the oceans, etc.

We might know about the CURRENT sources that we have observed, but our data doesn't go back that far. We don't really know if we have all of the current "natural" sources identified either. That's the whole point of a lot of the new technological tools we're trying to put into place. We don't have a global survey of carbon sources with the sort of resolution to say that we know where all of the CO2 is coming from.

Burning biomass has a different isotopic signature than burning fossil fuels, unless the biomass is extremely old (like fossil biomass is). There is very little ancient biomass being burned other than fossil fuel, and we know where it is.

Sure. But, we don't know exactly where the all of the CO2 comes from. So, saying that we know where all the CO2 from ancient biomass is originating from is really just a hypothesis at this point. It's as easy to have the hypothesis that there are crude deposits near magma vents that are being encroached upon and releasing the same isotopes through a natural process. It IS possible.

Ok, let me be more blunt: anybody who argues that has been scientifically disproven.

No. They've been politically disproven. There is still plenty of study that needs to be done and is being done. But, the story of no impending catastrophe doesn't get readers or viewers for media and certainly doesn't give politicians an excuse to control people. So, the publicity is one sided (and inaccurate due to the necessary dumbing down of the complexity for average people to "understand").

Re:well we're f*****d

[Ambitwistor]

You ask the average Joe on the street about the whole thing and all they can tell you is CO2.

If they're talking about climate over the next century, then to first order, they'd be right: it's by far the largest sustained forcing.

And, unless you happened to miss Al Gore's (a politician I might remind you) propaganda piece which explicitly tried to highlight the CO2/temperature connection. He purposely put the graphs on different axes so people would infer CO2 lead temperature. If you see the two on the same graph, it's clear CO2 follows, not leads.

There's nothing wrong with putting them on separate axes. Many scientists plot separate quantities on separate axes. And Gore was correct to highlight the CO2-temperature link in the glacial-interglacial cycle, because CO2 does cause important glacial-interglacial temperature changes. Furthermore, the lag-lead story isn't as obvious as you claim, because you can clearly see deglaciations where CO2 leads; it's mostly the glaciations where it lags.

Really? I would agree with you on the orbital variation. That's a known quantity. But, what are the predictions for solar and cloud variation? What are the predictions for volcanic events that are known to cool global temperatures as much as a degree in a single year? We just don't know those things.

We can't predict them very well from physical first principles, but if they stay within historic bounds, they're not going to change the long term picture much. For example, even if the Sun dropped into a new Maunder Minimum, it might delay the overall warming by a few decades, but CO2 is still going to win out. And volcanic events have little long term influence on surface temperatures; they only show up for a few years, although the ocean imprint lasts longer.

It's not that hard to nail down human emissions. It's somewhat uncertain where human emissions eventually end up; we know the main players, but not the exact partitioning.

If we're uncertain about where they end up, how can we use those for modeling?

We know how much of them leave the atmosphere, so that's what's used in modeling. We also know within about 30% how much ends in each sink each year. Uncertainty in the partitioning does lead to uncertainty in how future carbon sinks might change. But that's a second-order effect compared to the amount of CO2 emissions themselves, which has already outstripped natural sinks and will do so by even more in the future.

I've heard some argue that the specific isotopes released by man have a different effect than the "natural" isotopes. If both that idea and your assertion are both true, I would expect some serious flaws in the models.

They don't have different effects as far as the greenhouse effect is concerned. They do have some effect as far as biological fractionation is concerned (i.e., how much of each isotope is taken up by biological organisms such as plants), but that's really small (like parts per thousand differences).

We may not push CO2 levels higher than what has been naturally observed, but that's not the point. Even climate changes as large as what has been naturally observed are a big deal, and we probably don't want to reproduce those changes (especially at a high rate).

The quantity nor the rate is statistically different from what has been observed.

That's a red herring. Yes, the climate has been warm before. No, we don't necessarily want to return to a Cretaceous climate within a few centuries. And the rate is extremely high compared to past variations. The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum had similar rates, and was associated with mass extinctions. There are restarts of the thermohaline circulation which also had fast rates, especially regionally, but they were all coming out of a glacial climate into an interglacial, not adding more warming on top of an e

Re:Whick rocket?

[zappepcs]

That was _last_ season. This season we'll be monitoring CO2 levels from space. Also planned are mapping cow farts via Google maps mashups and planned for season three: a Google maps/Zillow mashup showing the exact number of humans on the African sub-continent who could have survived for more than a month on the energy wasted through the carbon footprint of every house in America. That's right. Search for your house in Zillow and be instantly notified of how many people died so you could watch the superbowlcrapgame in comfort and style. Additional efforts by season 2 sponsor AT&T will allow you to track high CO2 outputters via GPS in their phones. Season 3 sponsors AT&T and General Dynamics plan to bring you HCO European edition via UAV. That's right, each week we'll allow one Republican Evangelical to get "up close and personal" with one of Europe's most prolific CO2 outputters via UAV. The fun never ends.

Thanks to the FTC, EPA, and several other federal agencies, there will be no tax credits, carbon credits, alternative energies, or in fact any plan to reduce CO2 outputs. We just want you to see what you could have done to help the world. It's a feel better move, change you can relax with.

---
This message brought to you by ExxonNonMobile, "fuel for a greener tomorrow"
---

What actually happened is that the aliens hiding behind the moon realized we'd notice their trail of hothouse gases from terraforming equipment on the moon, and have disabled the rocket to ensure the satellite does not do its job.

Dawns tinfoil hat...

[certain death]

It is a conspiracy man! They don't want us to know the truth about how bad off we are! Ok, back to my reefer smoking...

Re:Dawns tinfoil hat...

[FooGoo]

It is a conspiracy man! They don't want us to know the truth about how good things are! Ok, back to my reefer smoking...

Re:Dawns tinfoil hat...

[certain death]

I see what you did there man...you changed "bad" to "good"... It did take me a minute tho.

Civilization Sabotage!

[Mr_Perl]

Dear Lincoln,

Ha ha old man, I had to spend much in sabotaging your CO2 monitoring satellite. But now all your base are belong to us.

Signed,
Chairman Mao
Chinese Empire

Re:Civilization Sabotage!

[aapold]

Seriously, if it were going to be sabotaged, China would be a prime suspect. More so than the automakers or even the oil industry...

NASA on Twitter

[opec]

It's kind of weird, interesting, and depressing to watch this history be made through NASA's Twitter updates:

• The countdown has begun in California for the launch of NASA's Orbiting Carbon Observatory in less than 1 hour. The stars are out tonight!
• Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) update: Weather is perfect for launch in less than half an hour.
• OCO launch update: Liftoff is now set for 4:55 EST. Catch it on www.nasa.gov/ntv
• OCO launch update: WE HAVE LIFTOFF!
• OCO launch update: We have Stage 3 ignition. The mission is off to a great start!
• OCO launch update: We have a mission failure. Press briefing to be held at Vandenberg in approximately 2 hours.

Re:NASA on Twitter

[bughunter]

That's a pretty accurate (if twitterpated) version of what it's like to be live at a launch that fails... excitement, Excitement, exCITEment, EXCITEMENT... letdown.

Oh dear.

[apodyopsis]

the key satillite designed to monitor global warming and CO2 pollution and hence get scientific data that might affect global business and industrial nations has just nose dived into Antartica?

lets make sure nobody tells the conspiracy theorists, they could have a ball with this one.

Re:Oh dear.

[Spatial]

Conspiracy theorists don't need things like 'facts', they're perfectly happy to fabricate their own.

From the Reuter's Article

[olddotter]

The 986-pound (447-kg) spacecraft was tucked inside a clamshell-like shroud to protect it during the ride into space. But three minutes into the flight, the cover failed to separate as expected, dooming the mission.

"As a direct result of carrying that extra weight we could not make orbit," said John Brunschwyler, the Taurus program manager with manufacturer Orbital Sciences Corp.

The spacecraft, also built by Orbital Sciences, fell back to Earth, splashing down into the southern Pacific Ocean near Antarctica.

Great...

[zbharucha]

Does this mean that the Europa mission goes down the drain now? Will they try to launch a simplified version of this CO2 monitor in the future? Or will they just "move on"?

OH NO!

[Logical Zebra]

You mean we just put all that CO2 into the atmosphere to launch the satellite for nothing?! And then when it failed to deploy and burnt up on reentry, it put even more carbon into the atmosphere?!

The polar bears! THINK OF THE POLAR BEARS!

Re:OH NO!

[PPH]

The polar bears! THINK OF THE POLAR BEARS!

Wrong pole, dude. Think of the penguins.

Re:OH NO!

[gzipped_tar]

I'd rather say "think of the penguins." We'll have to wait a few more years for Linux on the desktop due to this...

Re:Whick rocket?

[Dishevel]

The sure way for a Greeny to reduce CO2 emissions is to commit suicide.

CONSPIRACY

[knapper_tech]

This is exactly like the failed launch of a climate monitoring satellite in the movie "The Arrival" where aliens were trying to terraform earth to make it warmer and were trying to keep us complacent by making it impossible for any scientists to ever present conclusive evidence! The aliens, oil companies, and Obama are all in on it! We've elected aliens!

Charlie Sheen was in it! He obviously knows a lot because he's slept with over 5k women!

I'm sick of the government, oil industry, and aliens getting away with shit! Time for some wooden stakes and DNA testing!

Re:heh

[TempeTerra]

It's a particular capitalisation style. To shamelessly repeat someone else's response from last time this came up: the BBC style does not capitalise acronyms which are pronounced as words. [radar] would not be capitalised because it's a pronounced word which happens to be an acronym. [Nasa] has the first letter capitalised because it's used as a proper noun. [BBC] is all capitalised because it's an acronym pronounced B.B.C.

Nope, we're screwed even worse

[jbeaupre]

This sucks! No C02 means: 1) All plants will soon die 2) All animals die soon after (including us) 3) ? 4) !profit

Re:Nope, we're screwed even worse

[Anonymous Coward]

This sucks! No C02 means: 1) All plants will soon die 2) All animals die soon after (including us) 3) ? 4) !profit

You're right! I just looked out the window for the first time in months and noticed the trees have no leaves on them -- surely a sign that there is no more CO2 in the atmosphere -- and the ground is covered in tiny ice crystals -- undoubtedly a sign that global warming no longer exists!

We're all gonna die!

Re:Nope, we're screwed even worse

[R3d M3rcury]

That means we have to start pumping CO2 into the atmosphere post haste!

I guess I'll go buy that SUV now...

soft landing

[Zoxed]

> the craft crashed into the ocean just short of Antarctica.

So luckily it had a softer landing by hitting water instead of some of that hard ice.

Oh. Wait !!

Re:soft landing

[kid_oliva]

> So luckily it had a softer landing by hitting water instead of some of that hard ice.

Nothing is soft when you are moving that fast.

Re:soft landing

[Zoxed]

> Nothing is soft when you are moving that fast.

Yes: I know. It was just my (poor) attempt at a global warming joke :-(

Re:soft landing

[kid_oliva]

I thought it ironic that this thing crashed with the environmental dignitaries being in Antarctica at the time. Had me laughing for about a minute.

Re:Typical

[zuckie13]

You arse, you do realize that the damned rocket (the thing that actually failed) was NOT - I REPEAT NOT - built by NASA. It was built by Orbital Sciences.

Just one question

[Saija]

what's the danger of having a failed satellite lying in the Antarctica?
there's some dangerous reactive down there polluting such a fragile enviroment ?

Bad luck for the Taurus

[Big Hairy Ian]

Including this launch that makes 6 out of 8 successful launches (i.e. was 6 out of 7). I'm curios about the update though as it would seam to make the initial excuse for the failure a bit invalid as my understanding from initial reports was that the fairing between the final stage and the launch shielding for the payload (yes I know there's a specific word for that but I'm getting on a bit) had failed to detach properly if that was the case then surely the satellite & 3rd stage would still be in orbit.

==

Yes I don't always get my facts right so what?

Re:Bad luck for the Taurus

[Big Hairy Ian]

I understand now as the shroud didn't detach when leaving the atmosphere the extra tonnage means that it wasn't able to reach orbit.

Still a bad day for Orbital

Not the First

[knapper_tech]

Europe lost a satelite a few years ago that was supposed to measure ice melt. Little more than a big coincidence. Any more data on botched climate monitoring missions?

BLAME CANADA

[wisebabo]

Actually I don't think the Chinese would have nearly as much to benefit as from the Canadians (who are always looking for ways to defrost!)

Re:BLAME CANADA

[MikeBabcock]

*waves hand slowly* ... We are not the country you're looking for.

-- Canadian

Failed its mission? Idiot!

[fredrated]

It didn't fail its mission, it failed its launch. If its mission was to launch then it failed its mission. However, its mission was to monitor CO2, which it never got a chance to begin.

Re:Failed its mission? Idiot!

[Big Hairy Ian]

One has to wonder about the sense of sending a satellite into space to monitor carbon emissions bearing in bind how much CO2 the 1st stage of that rocket alone must have released!

This will be a BIG impact on orbital

[WindBourne]

Orbital won part of the ISS re-supply contract. But, l-mart and boeing are suing saying that they had a better plan. In point of fact, NASA said that the alternative had better points, etc. Now, Orbital loses an important sat. This may well lose that contract for Orbital or at least allow that partial contract to be cut in half (1/4 of total to each). To be honest, I would not mind seeing that happen. We NEED multiple launchers.

But if that happens, I would love to see Boeing, L-Mart, or even the US buy a bigelow station and attach it to the ISS. If we buy one at costs, it helps bigelow move forward quickly, while expanding the ISS inexpensively. The important thing is that it would get bigelow moving forward which would allow all 3 launch companies to survive and thrive.

Probably failed on purpose

[Bruha]

I can think of a hundred reasons someone would want this to fail. I was thinking about that yesterday when I learned about this launch and what it would be doing. What better solid proof that Co2 is causing an issue.

Yes were now screwed because there is apparently no backup satellite and it will take years (Conveniently) to build a new one.

Re:Probably failed on purpose

[Bob-taro]

I can think of a hundred reasons someone would want this to fail. I was thinking about that yesterday when I learned about this launch and what it would be doing. What better solid proof that Co2 is causing an issue.

So it's a conspiracy, huh? Couldn't the global warming skeptics just as easily claim that it failed because powerful interests (like the current administration) were afraid the data might DIS-prove global warming?

I tend to disregard conspiracy theories as paranoia, but then I always remember what Johnny Fever said on WKRP: "When they're out to get you, paranoid is just common sense!" (or something like that).

I don't see this mattering too much...

[RandomChars]

I don't know if its really different or whatever, but Japan has a satellite they managed to get off the earth that sounds like its going to do about the same thing. http://www.jaxa.jp/projects/sat/gosat/index_e.html

Ironic

[WCMI92]

As one who does not buy into the "man made" global warming hoax I note that the attempted launch had a "carbon footprint" bigger than the Goreacle's.

When those who keep preaching the global warming hysteria start ACTING like it's a real crisis (by giving up their limos, huge houses, and private jets, which generate more pollution in a year than I will in my lifetime) then I'll start taking them seriously.

It's a shame about the satellite though, if it'd taken an honest assessment it would have proven that nature generates far FAR more C02 than does human activity.

Re:Ironic

[WCMI92]

Funny, figured the gaians with mod points would strike :)

Re:Ironic

[ZouPrime]

Your argument make no sense, and is in fact pretty childish. The goal is to reduce the overall carbon emition, but it makes perfect sense to "spend" carbon emission in something if we think this will help us reduce it considerably elsewhere. This is a perfectly sound investment.

Re:Ironic

[WCMI92]

"Your argument make no sense, and is in fact pretty childish. The goal is to reduce the overall carbon emition, but it makes perfect sense to "spend" carbon emission in something if we think this will help us reduce it considerably elsewhere. This is a perfectly sound investment.
"

The whole "theory" of MAN MADE climate change is backed more by faith than fact. If you really want to examine what causes climate change, a SOLAR observatory would achieve more than one meant to monitor C02. The Sun is a gigantic mostly stable nuclear fusion reaction. It's emissions are NOT constant, sometimes it's more active, sometimes it's less active. We're now in a period of LESS active solar activity, and as a consequence, we're cooling. In the previous decades we had a much more active Solar cycle.

Records, both fossil and historical, show that the Earth has been much hotter AND much cooler than it currently is. For example, in ancient times, the Romans were able to build WINERIES in Britain! And in the 1800's, they were able to hold ice fairs on the Thames river in London. 10,000 years ago most of the world was covered in ice.

I'd like to know what Human industry caused all that climate change. Fact of the matter is, we, humans have VERY LITTLE to do with the climate, if anything at all. About the only thing we could do to destroy the Earth would be to release every nuke we have, and even that wouldn't be enough to end all life, nor would it stop the planet from renewing itself in the future.

The whole man made global warming movement is nothing but a profiteering scheme for opportunists (Gore) and a cloak for those ("former" socialists) to dupe people with false alarmism to accept draconian restrictions on individual freedom.

As I said, when The Goreacle and other global warming alarmists start LIVING like things are the crisis they say it is, I'll take them seriously. Until then, I view their "movement" as pseudo-science at best, and a poorly cloaked religious cult at worst.

 

Re:Ironic

[ZouPrime]

Thank you for your opinion. It's a shame it has absolument nothing to do with what we were talking about. Not that I'm particularly surprised.

Your original argument still makes no sense whatsoever.

Re:Ironic

[Spatial]

When those who keep preaching the global warming hysteria start ACTING like it's a real crisis (by giving up their limos, huge houses, and private jets, which generate more pollution in a year than I will in my lifetime) then I'll start taking them seriously.

Disregarding the matter of whether ACC is correct or not...

I wish people would drop this playground-level bullshit. This is an utterly imbecilic argument that nobody outside of high-school should be making.

The argument isn't even related to them being right or wrong. It's a tu quoque fallacy, a type of ad hominem. Hypocrisy and incorrectness are orthogonal; if I shoot a dog and tell you it's wrong to do so, I'm not suddenly wrong about it. Likewise with these climate publicists.

Even the premise is wrong. Not all the people advocating it are rich polluters, probably not even a majority. Even so, it's pretty easy to think of reasons that they would pollute despite communicating a message of reducing emissions. For example, just off the top of my head: a publicity event might cause a greater reduction than the increase necessary for it to take place.

In the end, all it tells us is that you stick your head in the sand and ignore what people say for nonsensical reasons. Since you appear to be very confident of your position, perhaps instead you could make a coherant logical argument for it. Then there would be something to debate besides whether you're an intellectually dishonest douchebag or a clueless ignoramus.

Re:Ironic

[WCMI92]

"In the end, all it tells us is that you stick your head in the sand and ignore what people say for nonsensical reasons. Since you appear to be very confident of your position, perhaps instead you could make a coherant logical argument for it. Then there would be something to debate besides whether you're an intellectually dishonest douchebag or a clueless ignoramus."

I apologize, because I forget that "Man Made Global Warming" has more or less become a religion, since, like God, it has followers who believe in something that cannot be unequivocally proven to exist. I didn't mean to insult your faith.

That said, I don't believe in it. Nor will I be goaded into guilt over the fact that I drive a gasoline powered car (which uses less gas in a year than The Goreacle's fleet uses in a month) and I like to (gasp!) eat steaks. Sorry, I produce less pollution and "greenhouse gasses" than ONE of The Goreacle's "man made global warming" chicken little fests. Which ironically always seem to occur in places where record cold or some freak WINTER type event happens.

This movement has nothing to do with the environment. It has nothing to do with climate change. It has EVERYTHING to do with money and control. The Goreacle gets rich selling "carbon credits" which is the snake oil of the modern age. Politicians who embrace the hoax use it to violate our Constitution and gain even more control at the expense of individual liberty.

Re:Ironic

[matfud]

There are still vineyards in britain.

The temperature of the UK is mostly governed by the Gulf Stream. If it changes course it gets very very cold.
The UK has a latitude between 50 and 50 degrees N same as moscow and further north then new foundland.

Re:Ironic

[MichaelSmith]

The UK has a latitude between 50 and 50 degrees N

That place is smaller than I thought.

Re:Ironic

[Spatial]

I apologize, because I forget that "Man Made Global Warming" has more or less become a religion, since, like God, it has followers who believe in something that cannot be unequivocally proven to exist. I didn't mean to insult your faith.

I was pretty harsh, but not because of that.

I'm not a 'believer' in anything. It's a scientific issue investigated by climatologists. In reading about the subject it seems that they agree that we are having an effect, and since they're experts on the subject their conclusions are the most reasonable to take. Therefore that's my position.

That said, I have no emotional investment in the issue. That's why I wanted to disregard it in my opening sentence and focus on the reasoning behind what you were saying, which seemed to be based on an ad hominem (and as such really damn stupid). That's all I have a problem with. Questioning things I wholeheartedly approve of, but there's such a thing as pseudoskepticism. Rejecting things for invalid reasons is not sensible.

That said, I don't believe in it. Nor will I be goaded into guilt over the fact that I drive a gasoline powered car (which uses less gas in a year than The Goreacle's fleet uses in a month) and I like to (gasp!) eat steaks. Sorry, I produce less pollution and "greenhouse gasses" than ONE of The Goreacle's "man made global warming" chicken little fests. Which ironically always seem to occur in places where record cold or some freak WINTER type event happens.

That's some more bad reasoning. Just because you create less pollution doesn't mean what you do create is okay. It might even BE okay, but not for that reason.

You're also being dishonest there, and you surely know it given your apparent interest in this subject. Regional extremes are irrelevant, since by definition global warming (anthropogenic or otherwise) is only relevant to the global average. Variations and extremes are expected, which is one of the reasons it's made out to be such a big deal.

This movement has nothing to do with the environment. It has nothing to do with climate change. It has EVERYTHING to do with money and control. The Goreacle gets rich selling "carbon credits" which is the snake oil of the modern age. Politicians who embrace the hoax use it to violate our Constitution and gain even more control at the expense of individual liberty.

For the sake of argument I'll concede this even though I disagree.

What does this tell us? They're bad. But that's it - you can be sure that their willingness to exploit the issue hasn't got anything to do with whether it's a real problem or not. Exploitation is typical behaviour in either case. The point is, their motives aren't relevant to the truth of the issue they represent.

News Flash

[mac_sux]

CO2 is plant food.

Re:News Flash

[Locke2005]

CO2 is plant food. And so are dead bodies... but that doesn't mean you'd want a pile of them outside your house so high that it blocks out the sun. I don't think there is any shortage of atmospheric C02 that we need to compensate for by adding more -- the plants are doing just fine, at least in the areas that haven't yet been affected by climate change.

Re:News Flash

[Ellis D. Tripp]

And with all the ongoing deforestation, we need less and less CO2 to nourish trees that aren't there anymore, right?

Re:An Introduction to Anal Masturbation

[LUH 3418]

When anonymous cowards get modded down like this, their ip address should be blocked for 24 hours, and the visibility of the comment should be reduced.... Just an idea...

So which conspiracy theory fits here?

[RogueWarrior65]

Did it fail because the global warming zealots deep down knew they were full of sh*t and sabotaged the satellite to keep the hoax going? --- Or --- Did it fail because the anti-global-warming crew didn't want more "data" to be added to the debate? Personally, I would laugh my ass off if the satellite used a nuclear power source. That's irony.

I'm concerned about the Space Shuttle also

[peter303]

NASA has delayed it three weeks due to concern about a valve with a bad history. Some NSA engineers are demanding a redesign which take another half year. At worst this could end the Shuttle program as Obama looks for lemons to cut. At best the Hubble servicing mission is probably a goner due to schedule delays.

Poor Penguins

[QuantumPion]

The satellite probably landed on some poor unsuspecting family of penguins. NASA has thus officially killed more wildlife than global warming.

Well that settles that

[Bemopolis]

Flat-earthers for the win.

Re:heh

[Chris Burke]

Not only does that make a lot of sense, it also makes me realize that I've been capitalizing GAYDAR completely wrong since as far as I know it isn't even an acronym...

Change SOP

[Areyoukiddingme]

You'd think by now, after dozens of extremely expensive failures over the past several decades, that we'd have figured out that rockets tend to be relatively unreliable beasts and it's best to hedge your bets. NASA should make it standard operating procedure to build at least two copies of every satellite. Heck, build them smaller and build four of them. Launch them separately. If you lose one, adjust a little and continue. Just because NASA's attempt at "better, cheaper, faster" didn't have a very high success rate doesn't mean the idea isn't possible. They just need to realize that no matter how much effort they spend on constructing their satellite absolutely perfectly, it can still end up fish food. So spend some effort on building it, sure, use a clean room and bunny suits, fine, but build MORE of the same satellite. Let's develop some true assembly skill, instead of making every single mission a one-off and starting over from scratch each and every time.

Re:Change SOP

[Wyatt Earp]

OK, what budget you going to cut to afford the extra satellites? And you know that orbits have finite spots right? So you are going to clutter NEO with extra birds and debris.

Re:Change SOP

[Areyoukiddingme]

The budget for building that one single giant Cadillac satellite? Don't cut it. Split it. Aside from that, it pays for itself. Instead of (maybe) losing a half a billion dollar satellite (and incidentally suffering complete and total mission failure), you (maybe) lose a sixty million dollar satellite and only suffer partial loss of mission capability.

Yes, I know orbits are ultimately limited. But despite a recent large collision, we're still nowhere near orbital saturation. When it becomes an actual problem, we'll fix it. It's not impossible to clean up orbits. Just difficult. If it must be done, it will be done. Meanwhile, wouldn't more mission successes be a good thing?

Re:Change SOP

[Wyatt Earp]

OK.

First, storage of these extra satellites? Its not trivial and its not simple and they degrade over time.

Second, building generic sats that could be used for different roles, rather than building 2-3 extra specialized birds, doesn't work so well in practice.

Third, faster, cheaper, better didn't work out so well for NASA and ESA.

Fourth, as for fixing the space junk, how are we going to fix it? It seems like its an actual problem already now that satellites have been destroyed by it.

Re:Change SOP

[Areyoukiddingme]

First, storage of these extra satellites? Its not trivial and its not simple and they degrade over time.

Don't store them. Launch them. That was part of the idea. Making a satellite smaller generally means degrading its capabilities. So part of building multiple copies also requires launching multiple copies, and intentionally designing your mission to allow cooperation of the sensors from multiple birds. It requires a different approach to mission design, but it's possible and can even make available methods of gathering data that are impossible from a single platform.

Second, building generic sats that could be used for different roles, rather than building 2-3 extra specialized birds, doesn't work so well in practice.

I was advocated building 2-3 extra specialized birds, so I'm not sure what you're getting at. I didn't say anything about generics, but now that you bring it up I think NASA has been completely and utterly retarded about this issue as well. A common, proven satellite bus would have saved immense amounts of money and time over the past several decades, and it still could. I see articles about companies and agencies periodically flirting with the idea, but somebody always argues them out of it. Specialize a common bus by designing and installing specialist instruments. I've yet to hear a compelling argument against it. If anything, it should be easier to come up with a good and relatively universal design by now, since there are so many different examples to look at.

Third, faster, cheaper, better didn't work out so well for NASA and ESA.

I acknowledged that. As I said, just because they couldn't pull it off the first time doesn't make it a bad idea. If SpaceX is any indication, it can work out very well.

Fourth, as for fixing the space junk, how are we going to fix it? It seems like its an actual problem already now that satellites have been destroyed by it.

Launch a satellite with a catcher and an unusual amount of maneuvering fuel. I've seen posts with bizarre worries about the garbage collector satellite colliding with the garbage it is trying to pick up and generating yet more junk, but that makes no sense at all. A garbage collector capable of collecting more than one item would necessarily be in orbit itself. It should scoop up junk by coming up on it from behind in orbit, at very slight closing velocities. It's a maneuver every vehicle that docks with the ISS has to perform. I think by now that we've mastered it.

The collector could either vector the junk into rapid reentry or actually collect it and consolidate it into a single or a few orbits. Personally I'm for actual collection, since having the material available in orbit will eventually be valuable. All of those spent upper stages floating around represent a considerable mass of high quality aluminum-lithium alloy. It requires more maneuvering fuel, but I think it's worth it.

Hell, let's get really wild. Build it to accept on-orbit refueling. It's already built to match orbits with things. Launch a big fat canister of fuel with a radio beacon on it and let the collector find it, refuel, push the tank to its orbital depot, and go out for more junk. A tanker as big as the original launch should be able to refuel the collector five or six times.

NASA took a babystep in that direction when they created the Orbital Fuel Depot Centennial Challenge prize. As far as I know, the prize expired unclaimed. They were demanding cryogenically stored hydrogen and oxygen. It would likely be easier with monomethyl hydrazine and mixed oxides of nitrogen. Be that as it may, the point is that NASA themselves acknowledged the potential of on-orbit refueling and made an effort to encourage the development of the technique. I'm just beating the same drum.

Re:Whick rocket?

[Sylver Dragon]

a Google maps/Zillow mashup showing the exact number of humans on the African sub-continent who could have survived for more than a month on the energy wasted through the carbon footprint of every house in America. That's right. Search for your house in Zillow and be instantly notified of how many people died so you could watch the superbowlcrapgame in comfort and style.

So what do I win for a high score?

Or the King of the Hill version...

[Eevee]

I know what's wrong with it: It's a Ford. You know what they say "Ford" stands for, don't you? It stands for "Fix It Again, Tony."

Re:Typical

[SETIGuy]

Unless things have changed drastically at Vandenberg, the launch operations were also run by Orbital Sciences with range support by the USAF.

What's so hard about putting up a satellite?

[Locke2005]

Come on, Orbital Sciences, it's not like this is rocket science! Oh wait...

Re:it's just you

[wisebabo]

I will follow my doctor's advice (or the majority if my second opinion doesn't agree)

I will follow the instructions of the cabin attendants (while kissing my butt goodbye)

I will follow their instructions unless it looks like suicide (no kamikaze pilot I). Basically I'm fucked

I will follow what the climatologists say is the rational way to get out or AMELIORATE this problem. I would most certainly HELP THEM GET MORE DATA (which is why losing the OSO pisses me off). If I'm a snowflake, I guess I'll just melt.

What exactly are you suggesting I do? We (should?) play the cards we are dealt with in the best (most rational) way we can.

Reminds of CryoSat in 2005

[mhesd]

CryoSat was an ESA satellite that was destroyed on launch October 8, 2005 when the second stage engine of a modified Russian SS-19 ICBM did not cut-off as planned. CryoSat was proposed in 1998 by Duncan Wingham of University College London. The satellite's planned three year mission was to survey natural and human driven changes in the cryosphere on Earth. It was designed to provide much more accurate data on the rate of change of the surface elevation of the polar ice sheets and sea ice thickness. It was the first ESA Earth Sciences satellite selected through open, scientific competition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CryoSat

They shot it down

[mangu]

Well that's what they get for trying to launch a satellite with a Taurus

You're quite right, a Taurus is meant for shooting down things, not launching them.

More a matter of Orbit vs. Ground

[iamlucky13]

In a polar orbit like OCO would have been in, the satellite would regularly cover the entire earth's surface. The rovers had an expected range of a few hundred meters. Even the amazing dozen kilometers they've covered over their extended missions leaves each still within the major geological features they landed in.

The insurance policy of having a second rover for moderate (not minimal) cost was one factor. I think it increased the costs by about 25%, and put considerable extra strain on the team to get the second unit built in time for the launch window. Launch cost alone was an extra 10% or so.

The other factor was that a second rover allowed them to conduct similar studies of a much different location on Mars, giving the scientists good comparisons of very different geographies. It turned out to be a good thing, too. Opportunity, which landed second, has arguably accomplished much more than Spirit, in large part due to its location. That's not to say that Spirit hasn't also been extremely successful, but Opportunity has tended to steal the spotlight since day 1.

A second copy of OCO would have been producing nearly identical data as the first. Given that this mission was already under pressure just from politics, spending extra money to build a complete spare was unlikely.

However, NASA still has the design work done. We'll have to see if they decide to build a replacement, or simply settle for data from the related Japanese Greenhouse Gasses Observing Satellite launched last month.

Re:More a matter of Orbit vs. Ground

[MichaelSmith]

Also when Spirit was almost lost due to the flash memory problem workarounds could be used on Opportunity before it got into trouble.

New York Should Brace Itself...

[vudufixit]

The fall of this satellite into the ocean might wake up the Cloverfield monster... again...

VP?

[Deton8]

Not implying anything, but has anyone checked to see where Dick Cheney was this morning?

Re:heh

[lgw]

the BBC style does not capitalise acronyms which are pronounced as words

Initials are only called "acronyms" when they are pronounced as words. "FBI" is not acronym, nor is "BBC".

Acronyms entering the language as ordinary nouns (such as radar) is a surprisingly recent phenomenon: I don't think there were any before WWI, and certainly not before the 20th century. Naming an institution so that its initials formed an acronym is an older practice, of course.

Re:In the atmosphere?

[Ambitwistor]

That should be more like 100*388/280 %.

Re:it's just you

[khallow]

These cases are not at all the same. For example, we trust the pilot more because he or she is in the same plane you are in. Whatever happens to us happens to the pilot. It's called "shared destiny". In addition, if passengers dislike the manner in which the flight was carried out, they can and will complain fiercely. As a result, the pilot's interests are well aligned with his passengers. The general is the only other career that has shared destiny. If he loses the war, he's in deep trouble.

Generals also have a long history of being wrong, using the wrong techniques, even being psychologically ill-suited for a very high pressure job. The first approach would be to fire or demote the general and get the replacement to try to salvage the situation.

The relationship with a doctor is the least trustworthy since he has an interest in exaggerating your illnesses and in using the most expensive procedures for dealing with those illnesses. The usual approach to this conflict of interest is to go to one or more other doctors and get a second opinion. Another useful approach is to do your own research so that you can both understand the illness and communication/negotiate effectively with your doctor.

The climatologists are in a better situation. They don't have shared destiny since unless you get to really bad effects like Earth turning into a second Venus. They as a group would get more attention and funding, if serious harm from global warming or other causes occurs. OTOH, there is a great deal of consensus in the climate science community that support the basic assumptions of anthropic global warming. I think though there needs to be continued communication with the outside world and better understanding before we start doing stuff. For example, it's still not that clear what harm will occur and how much it'll cost, if we do nothing.

That was a Superfriends episode.

[Overzeetop]

Waaayyyy back when the popular media got global cooling confused with global warming.

Re:heh

[TempeTerra]

Pardon me, you're right of course and I should have been more careful with casual usage when I was trying to make a point.

Re:it's just you

[FrameRotBlues]

Basically the point I was trying to get across is that there's very little you can do to directly affect the outcome of the scenario. (Of course, since it's technically a medical practice, you are the one that's most in charge of your body, and you *can* directly affect the outcome of that scenario.) I think another topic about sensor drift from yesterday or a few days ago brought up the question of, "How much can you trust the data of a climatologist who's paid by a 'concerned interest' and expected to find climate problems?" Sure, you can study the available data all you want, and with some self-taught knowledge, you can probably make heads or tails of it all, but having knowledge of why something is happening does not fix the problem. Using a scenario from above, having knowledge of aerodynamics won't really help you if you're in a plane and it's crashing to the ground. (Mentally, it might scare you less than your fellow passengers because you'll know precisely WHY you're plummeting to your death, but you cannot directly affect the outcome of the scenario.)

So, my question is: how exactly are you going to...

most certainly HELP THEM GET MORE DATA

...unless you have a job with JPL, NASA, or one of their subcontractors? Barring that, I'm not sure there's very much you could do to help the situation, the situation being the loss of the OCO.

What exactly are you suggesting I do? We (should?) play the cards we are dealt with in the best (most rational) way we can.

That's precisely what I meant when I said, "Do your part because there's nothing else you can do." If you feel that reducing your carbon output will help the atmosphere, then do that.

For future reference, the "snowflake" bit points out that while each one is special and unique, in the grand scheme of things such as the amount of snow that falls over the North American continent in a winter season, one snowflake cannot make a difference. It was more cynical than necessary, and I apologize.

Re:heh

[drinkypoo]

Just another deviation I probably should have been aware of already. Which one is the original English form? I know that the British accent has drifted in ways that make some aspects of American pronunciation more... antiquated, from one perspective, or correct, from another. The pronounciation of the "R" is the primary example.

DSCOVR

[MrKaos]

While we are waiting for a new OCO to be built maybe we could put DSCOVR to work. I know it does different science and probably needs a different launch vehicle but it's waiting in storage now, waiting for infrastructure and a launch window. Wouldn't it make sense to use it rather than let it sit in a nitrogen filled cannister in a storage building somewhere? Can OCO's ground infrastructure be re-purposed for data from this 'bird' at least until a replacement OCO can be put in orbit? Something rather than nothing?

Seems to me right now you have a bird without a ground team and a ground team without a bird.

Just sayin...

"declared a contingency"?

[adavies42]

"declared a contingency"--is that really NASA-speak for "oops"? i declare jargon fail

Re:Oh dear. - two sides of that coin

[MrKaos]

Conspiracy theorists don't need things like 'facts', they're perfectly happy to fabricate their own.

Conspiracy Theorists : No proof necessary Dogmatic Sceptics : No proof possible

Truth being so fragile and all, a balance is all we can hope to achieve.

Re:Loco NOCO

[jscroft]

NOCO rejected
Its orbital slot
But by miles or a whisker
George Diller knows not
Burma Shave

Re:Loco NOCO

[smittyoneeach]

A quality entry to the Burma Shave cannon.
Nice UID, BTW, but it's not one of the coveted primes...

OSC--look at your testing processes!

[recharged95]

Having worked at OSC during the Orbcomm days, it's interesting, though using a newer vehicle (Pegasus vs. Taurus) that they seem to always have a payload separation issue when something fails.

.

Time to review the s/w I say.

Most Cramped Car

[Mateorabi]

I have an old Ford Probe. Talk about cramped. To cram all that crap under the hood of such a streamlined body. Not sure how I'm going to get my fingers on the rear O2 sensor/connector that needs to be replaced soon. I hate being unable to follow wiring even with a flashlight from both above and below the car.

Blame Cthulu

[D4C5CE]

Debris from (almost) space all over The Mountains of Madness...

If they've awakened what old H.P. thinks they did, climate is going to be the least of this world's worries. ;-)

LAND on the OCEAN

[D4C5CE]

Heading for Antarctica, they probably mean R'lyeh.
(No, not exactly this site's corporate overlord...)

Or was it just Colonel Jack O'Neil suffering yet another spell ADHD in his icy chair?

Re:Loco NOCO

[jscroft]

Canonical entries
Are for those who intone
Without petards ahoist
On the dread homophone
Burma Shave

Re:Loco NOCO

[smittyoneeach]

Don't you call my Nokia 'gay'!

Re:Loco NOCO

[jscroft]

Your fruitful affairs
Are for none to approve
But mangling the language
Is no way to move
Burma Shave

Re:Loco NOCO

[smittyoneeach]

A trio of brothers
Named their cattle ranch "Focus"
As "The sun's rays meet here"
A mangled-language locus
Burma Shave

Re:it's just you

[MikeBabcock]

Actually, your point about climatologists missed the similarities with (private) doctors. Since research money is easier to come by if the grant providers feel there is an imminent need for the research, those doing said research are in a biased position to try and exaggerate any potential ill effects so as to guarantee future funding.

I'm not saying they /do/ lie to get more money, but they're human, so leaving them beyond suspicion is silly.

Re:it's just you

[khallow]

I forgot that point. Thanks for the reminder. The bias is there, but they've already given the "second opinion".