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

[conureman]

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

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?

[MikeBabcock]

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

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.

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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

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

[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

[ashitaka]

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

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...

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)

[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.

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?

[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?

[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?

[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

[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

[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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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: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.

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

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.

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.

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: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.

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

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: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.

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: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.