Slashdot Mirror
NASA Launching Satellite To Track Carbon
An anonymous reader writes A NASA satellite being prepared for launch early on Tuesday is expected to reveal details about where carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas tied to climate change, is being released into Earth's atmosphere on a global scale. From the article: "The $468 million mission is designed to study the main driver of climate change emitted from smokestacks and tailpipes. Some of the carbon dioxide is sucked up by trees and oceans, and the rest is lofted into the atmosphere, trapping the sun's heat and warming the planet. But atmospheric CO2 levels fluctuate with the seasons and in different regions of the Earth. The natural and human activities that cause the changes are complicated. The Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2, or OCO-2 for short, will be able to take an ultra-detailed look at most of the Earth's surface to identify places responsible for producing or absorbing the greenhouse gas."
You obliviously know nothing about science. Until we eliminate all carbon dioxide from the earth's atmosphere, humanity will be in danger.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
How on earth did they miss this one, Science? Hogwash
XCOM launching satellite to track aliens.
We must go even further than that. We must entirely eliminate all carbon and carbon-containing compounds from the earth's biosphere. Otherwise, oxidation of organic compounds will once again result in the release of CO2.
As a side effect, doing so will eliminate all danger of young children dying due to carbon monoxide poisoning. Think of the children!
CO2, a greenhouse gas, is tied to climate change but is also expected and always-present part of our atmosphere. Why do we need satellite to know this?
Can we have a better summary?
"The $468 million mission"...could have been used to research how to get rid of it or alternatives to fossil fuels.
carbon has nothing to do with the temperatures on earth
You're right. But this story is about carbon dioxide, not carbon. If it were all stored as carbon, we couldn't have a problem. Carbon dioxide, however, is the single biggest contributor to the temperature on earth there is. Also, I suspect you're just a troll :-)
That's right. Carbon is a liberal myth.
Personally, I think they're secretly made of carbon.
"carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas tied to climate change, is being released into Earth's atmosphere on a global scale."
And here was me thinking it was being released on a inter-galactic scale.
Down with carbon!!!!!
Down with carbon!!!!!
Down with carbon!!!!!
To science denialists above, I hope you apply equal skepticism to medicine and health and food safety aspects of scientific knowledge. This way your views will have self-correcting, instead of humanity-correcting impact.
In an argument between two sides, one of which says the science has been studied for a long time and is well understood and the other that says "no, it's all confusing," I'll be on the side that says "let's get more data."
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Ironically, that would be the side saying the science has been studied for a long time, and is well understood.
This was the coldest winter this country has ever seen. Fact.
carbon has nothing to do with the temperatures on earth
You're right. But this story is about carbon dioxide, not carbon. If it were all stored as carbon, we couldn't have a problem. Carbon dioxide, however, is the single biggest contributor to the temperature on earth there is. Also, I suspect you're just a troll :-)
I assume you are aware that the current 380ppm CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is pretty much an all-time geological low?
Earth's CO2 levels over the past 600 million years or so have averaged about 1,500ppm, with peaks up to perhaps 7,000+ ppm:
There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.
What's more stupid?
This, or spending money on "Muslim Outreach".
Indeed. The earth might be struck by a sufficiently-large meteor, just for example. Until we eliminate all carbon dioxide from the earth's atmosphere we aren't completely safe against something like that. That we wouldn't become safe after eliminating all carbon dioxide either (or even have much chance of survival from then on) is beside the point.
Remove first 'A' from NASA
Why? The science is settled right? We know that manmade CO2 emissions are causing warming. We also know exactly how much the sea levels rise, and the effects of it.
So isn't this a waste of $468 million?
Wrong. Water vapor is the biggest single contributor to the the greenhouse effect on Earth, and the biggest contributor to the temperature is the Sun.
The forceful and unassailable tone taken by !=DrWho hilites his/her contempt for science itself. We as a planet loving species will have to realize we are part of the ecosystem and with incredible capacity to change things around us.. .including the compostion of that thin layer of air over the crust we inhabit. This satellite will get some attention to the massive sources, some of which will likely be surprising, but most, not.
In an argument between two sides, one of which says the science has been studied for a long time and is well understood and the other that says "no, it's all confusing," I'll be on the side that says "let's get more data."
Ironically, that would be the side saying the science has been studied for a long time, and is well understood.
That would be logical, wouldn't it? But it's not. That would be true if the side saying "it's all confusing" actually was confused, and actually wanted the understanding to improve. But, in fact, the people saying "let's not get data to try to learn more and understand the science better" are the same as the ones who tell us that we don't understand the science.
It's almost as if they don't want the science to be better understood.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Most of CO2 emmissions come from China and India. There, saved you 467 million.
I assume you are aware that the current 380ppm CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is pretty much an all-time geological low?
Of course, but keep in mind that the sun has been getting hotter during its lifetime, so you can't just compare CO2 levels assuming everything else was the same.
Carbon dioxide, however, is the single biggest contributor to the temperature on earth there is. Also, I suspect you're just a troll :-)
No, the sun is still the largest factor determining the temperature on this planet. In fact, I have it on good authority that Carbon Dioxide doesn't generate any energy what so ever and it is in simply a by-product of a reaction that does. Keeping this in mind allows us to explore options beyond just burying crap in the ground.
If my feet are cold, that means I can't possibly have a fever. Fact.
You are welcome on my lawn.
How about we...um....you know...STUDY OUTER SPACE?! It disgusts me to see me tax dollars going to fund some idiotic garbage like perpetuating the myth of man made global warming. CLIMATE CHANGE IS CYCLICAL!
Why can't we have a like button on Slashdot? This is the best example of why we need a like button. And yes i am a troll who probably won't even read the rest of the comments on this subject because it is asinine and ridiculous. GLOBAL WARMING IS A MYTH made up by Al Gore to make a lot of money off of books that he wrote which make no sense at all.
Remember, sending up this satellite might just help us learn that AGW is not a problem, proving that you were right all along.
Don't be mad at Science. Someday, your incomplete in freshman physics will not matter any more.
You are welcome on my lawn.
You are aware that isn't true, right?
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
IS it?
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
So we dump a bunch of carbon into the atmosphere getting a satellite up there and then measure the results. I'm not sure if this is a deliberate invocation of the Observer affect, or not. I would imagine trying to use the Observer effect to your observation works about the same as washing your car to make it rain.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
I like how you denialiest(ers?) are in such a quandary you need to make up nonsense in order to attempt to keep the conversation going.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The obstructionist party somehow let something to study global warming got launched? What the fuck? Are they asleep?
Too busy obsessing over Benghazi and executing retards to notice?
For the hundredth time, Weather is NOT climate--unless the weather is extreme or hotter than normal, then it is climate. But if it's mild or colder than normal, it is DEFINITELY NOT climate.
And?
All the carbon has been sunk and allowed humans to thrive. Not we are releasing to our detriment. The current increase in Carbon is human doing, and is something we can do something about.
What is you point? keep spewing CO2 until we go extinct?
.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The forceful and unassailable tone taken by !=DrWho hilites his/her contempt for science itself.
Sometimes when I'm alone, I draw mustaches on pictures of Albert Einstein--because NO ONE fucks with Isaac Newton in MY HOOD, BITCH!
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
carbon has nothing to do with the temperatures on earth
You're right. But this story is about carbon dioxide, not carbon. If it were all stored as carbon, we couldn't have a problem. Carbon dioxide, however, is the single biggest contributor to the temperature on earth there is. Also, I suspect you're just a troll :-)
I thought solar radiation was the biggest contributor to the temperature of the Earth!
Thank you, thank you. I'll be pedantic all week.
You can fuck around with dictionary definitions and be clever with words all you want - the fact still remains, and I emphasize the point I'm using NUMBERS and not words - that the data points do not bear out your theory.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
And I love how you AGW religious zealots have absolutely no sense of humor.
But isn't that always the case with mindless zealots?
This is a project that would only make sense to people who have no understanding of 1) how large and detailed the planet's surface is, and 2) how numerous and complex the sources of carbon dioxide are. These are people who think of carbon dioxide as a 'pollutant' to be eliminated rather than as an essential molecule for all life on the planet. In the landscape of their thought processes, they likely imagine that they are searching for hidden smokestacks from coal-burning power plants. It is absolutely unbelievable that this project got funded and shows the depths to which some scientific inquiry has sunk.
@sinij
"To science denialists above, I hope you apply equal skepticism to medicine and health and food safety aspects of scientific knowledge. This way your views will have self-correcting, instead of humanity-correcting impact."
So tell me, please, if your opinion applies equally to all, including NOAA and NASA who we now know are guilty of manipulating temp data since the 30's????
NOAA and NASA are now infamous.
Perhaps you meant as a greenhouse gas, but then you dismiss water vapor?
Less than half what humans create in hydrocarbon buring and cement making stays in the atmosphere. The ocean is suspected as the major sink, as it turns into something like soda. A more active plant biopshere could be another sink.
Furthermore we dont know all the non-human sources. Is there a significant amount being released from melting permafrost marshes? Some onsite studies suggest the possibility. Volcanoes, melting sedimate methane hydrates too. This satellite could help constrain unkown sources and sinks.
The resuting data is likely to fuel both pro and anti AGW factions. A significant group prefers not to know whatis happening at all and blocked these kind of satellites in the 1990s and 2000s. I wish to know what is happening.
What about the amount of pollutants released with the launch of this satellite? Solid rockets and hydrazine aren't exactly environmentally friendly when you burn a million pounds in 12 minutes. The production of H2 and LOX is pretty dirty also, even if the final product is water.
I may sound a little pedantic, but at least I'm not roaming the globe looking like Chuckles the CO2 clown...
I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
And we got zippo for that expenditure.
Hey, maybe we can start using "Solyndra" as a unit measuring government waste.
Numbers don't mean shit without interpretation. And starting with an unfalsifiable hypothesis, then accepting all evidence which supports it and dismissing all evidence that doesn't, isn't science. It's religion.
Skeptical Science is like a Wikipedia run by a group of zealots.
It's not that they don't want the science to be better understood, it's that they are convinced that government funding of scientific research is one of the factors contributing to their tax liability. For these folks we should leave scientific research to private industry, such as Koch Industries.
Until we eliminate all carbon dioxide from the earth's atmosphere, humanity will be in danger.
Then you should stop breathing?
Three out of four of the above comments are jokes. But AGW proponents apparently have no sense of humor about this.
Dark Reflection
This is not joking matter! Next up on the agenda is Oxygen sequestration, a noxious, highly reactive, corrosive gas that instantly kills most cells it comes into contact with and, in high enough concentrations, can set just about anything on fire!
And don't even get us started on dihydrogen monoxide!
Or we could base policy on evidence rather than opinion polls. If this satellite proves that CO2 from industry really isn't a problem, then we can fire up the coal plants and carry on as normal.
If you want a "like" button, stop posting as anonymous coward, set up an account, and earn the right to handout moderator scores.
I label you "denier." ;)
Dark Reflection
Zealots have no sense of humor when it comes to their cause. They can attack their critics in the most brutal fashion (incl lobbing off their heads), force people to adopt their beliefs at sword-point, lead crusades, and fight holy wars. But they absolutely CANNOT take a joke.
That really is the problem, isn't it? IPCC has been 100% wrong on every forecast. At what point do we give credence to anything put out by this obvioulsy inept orgainzation.
How can you tell the difference between a climate alarmist and an islamic extremist? You can't.
Are you talking about yourself now? :-)
Ezekiel 23:20
You obliviously know nothing about science. Until we eliminate all carbon dioxide from the earth's atmosphere, humanity will be in danger.
Actually, that would destroy open field agriculture. But seeing as the concentration of CO2 will naturally decrease due to the feedback in long-term carbon cycles, this is inevitable - about a billion years in the future or so. So we don't have to work very hard at it. :-)
Ezekiel 23:20
What's the quandray? How to get alarmist fanatics to step back from the precipice?
This was the coldest winter this country has ever seen. Fact.
Not a fact.
The winter of 2013 - 2014 was one of the ten coldest winters in history in the Midwest U.S.
It was the warmest winter on record in California, and set records for high temperatures in Alaska.
Overall, it was the 34th coolest winter in the contiguous U.S. since records began in 1895. The contiguous United States comprises 1.5% of the surface area of the Earth. One season, in 1.5% of the Earth's surface: this is weather, not climate
http://www.wunderground.com/bl...
http://www.weather.com/news/wi...
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
How can you be so dumb as to not be able to find answers for yourself on the very site you're linking? I suppose you're incredibly lucky that human breathing is involuntary.
Another important factor is the sun. During the Ordovician, it would have been several percent dimmer according to established nuclear models of main sequence stars. Surprisingly, this raises the CO2 threshold for glaciation to a staggering 3000 ppmv or so. This also explains (along with the logarithmic forcing effect of CO2) why a runaway greenhouse didn't occur: with a dimmer sun, high CO2 is necessary to stop the Earth freezing over.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...
Including yours. :D
Ezekiel 23:20
The contempt for curiosity held by one side of this conversation is alarming. You start by noting how numerous and complex the sources of carbon dioxide are but conclude that gathering data on this is pointless.
I'm glad the US government is doing something like this, but not with NASA. Our space agency needs to get this message: "Put humans on other worlds, or go home. If we want robots or science or satellites or anything else, we'll do that with another agency. For you, concentrate on putting living humans on other chunks of rock, and if you can't manage to do that once per decade then just pack up and save us the money."
The last time NASA did that was fifty years ago. In my space-exploration-loving opinion, NASA should have been disbanded in the late 1970s. Everything since then has been stupid.
"Hey, look, NASA built a space plane call the 'shuttle'! Wow! And they used it to go.... nowhere!"
"Hey, look, NASA built a little remote-controlled car and put it on Mars. Then after that they... well... they built two more and did the same thing... then after that they... uh.... well they built another one and did the same thing..."
"Hey, look, NASA built a satellite and pointed it at... earth..."
"Hey, look, NASA built a telescope and... took pictures of stars... again..."
None of that was worth it. Pack your bags, NASA, because you aren't hitting your numbers. You've been a failure since the Apollo days. Put humans on other worlds. Make it happen or go home, which to me means you need to go home.
Given that methane is known to have a larger immediate effect one would have thought that a multimillion dollar mission would carry more than one instrument to nail down which of the many green house gases are having the most impact ... rather than assuming the models are right and that it's the CO2
So your argument is that it is the sun is the that drive earth's temp?
In addition, the NSA errm sorry, NASA said they are particularly interested in keeping a close eye on the carbon emissions from Russia, Syria, China, and North Korea.
"... they are convinced that government funding of scientific research is one of the factors contributing to their tax liability."
The people who say that are just making up excuses to dismiss the conclusions of scientific research.
... And they don't even consistently apply their "government money" argument: You never hear them make those sorts of complaints about the results from the LHC (that costed about ~$9billion split across many nations).
In that way they're no different than Creationists who claim that Evolution is "just some secular hoax to fool the faithful".
Warning: This sig is not thread safe. For more information see Slashdot's sig policy.
geekoid's comments are usually quite good; insightful and frequently accompanied with evidence & sources.
It looks like geekoid just misread the comment that he/she is replying to. Happens to the best of us.
Warning: This sig is not thread safe. For more information see Slashdot's sig policy.
You are aware of the words "all-time geological" and "[the sun's] lifetime" in my post ? Probably not, since your link refers to "recent decades". Please try again.,
It doesn't. On the short time scale because the radiation changes are overwhelmingly cyclical (the increase is on the order of 1% per 100 My), on the longer time scale because the feedback loops compensate the radiation increase by CO2 decrease (through increased absorption by various means) so that the temperatures remain roughly the same.
The point is that itzly was talking about Ordovician CO2 concentrations (thousands of ppm, but hundreds of millions of years ago), but geekidiotoid has "countered" this argument by linking a page describing the events of a few recent decades. See the problem yet?
Ezekiel 23:20
The main sequence stellar evolution is one of the basic facts of astronomy and even high school science, and also one of the major facts necessary to understand basic paleoclimate research. Not being aware of movement on stars across the main sequence is akin to not knowing a part of the basic alphabet. I find it incredibly unlikely that geekoid is unaware of that. But even if he is, he's countering an argument about something that happened hundreds of millions of years with something related to current short-term solar parameters. The ages have been stated repeatedly in the comment leading to all these replies. I find it extremely difficult to make a mistake like that.
Ezekiel 23:20
Don't write or post stories about stuff like this until after it's basically a done deal. The more air time and attention it gets, the more it reaches the public consciousness of the unwashed masses. Unfortunately, a significant portion of those unwashed masses includes supporters of climate change deniers in congress with the power to continually reject funding for such scientific endeavors. Once this rabid supporter base gets a taste of something like this it has a good chance of spreading to become an epidemic, basically forcing the aforementioned deniers in power to move against it.
So, please, for the love of science, keep stories like this on the down low until their basically about to launch (most of the funding is already spent), sharing it with only your closest and most trusted scientific allies. Let your giddy fancy slowly evolve to the point of nerdgasm as a close precursor to the final objective. Then, and only then, is it safe to share this news with those who cannot or will not appreciate it.
You and the Earth is Flat Society must have a lot of fun together....
Without a doubt the climate does naturally vary, but you can't dump Gigatonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere a year and not expect some kind of effect. CO2 levels have spiked to almost 400 PPM, a level that hasn't been seen for more than 400,000 years (it usually spikes at about 285). What kind of effect it will have on our planet is still up for debate, but there will be some kind of effect.
Not when you are looking at ice core samples that go back millions of years. Check and mate.
What? How do ice core samples disprove the existence of temperature stabilizing long-term negative CO2 feedback? Seeing as we don't have ice core samples from the Ordovician?
Ezekiel 23:20
What like wasting money on that bull shit nonsense like a manned mission to mars. Yeah real good use of money *eye roll* FYI studying the climate is one of NASA's job moron.
I assume you are aware that the current 380ppm CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is pretty much an all-time geological low?
It's lower than in much of the Earth's history, but no, not anywhere near an all-time low. The all-time low is about half the current value... which, as it turns out, also was a much colder time in Earth's history.
Earth's CO2 levels over the past 600 million years or so have averaged about 1,500ppm, with peaks up to perhaps 7,000+ ppm:
And temperatures were much hotter, too. For most of Earth's history, the planet does not have ice caps.
There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today.
And temperatures were about 3 degrees C above what they are today.
The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.
And temperatures were 7 degrees C above current temperatures.
Carbon dioxide, on the average, was higher during the Ordovician, and average temperature during Ordovician period was 2C above modern levels (with sea levels 180 m higher). There was indeed a brief ice age-- about half a million years-- during the Ordovician. (for reference, the Ordovician lasted about 45 million years) But, guess what? That ice age corresponded to a low level of carbon dioxide. http://www.newscientist.com/ar...
Every single one of the examples you cite supports the basic observation that increased carbon dioxide correlates with increased temperature.
Yes, correlation is not causation. Nevertheless, you certainly can't point to this as evidence that carbon dioxide isn't related to global temperature
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
I label you "denier." ;)
I think the word you are looking for is "crimethinker"
...lot of pinheads posting anonymously.
In the past, Democratic and Republican administrations issued some contracts without competitive bidding for speed and to save money. When seeking the highest office in the land, Mr. Obama explicitly stated that he would not tolerate such practices. “I will finally end the abuse of no-bid contracts once and for all,” he thundered to a Grand Rapids, Mich., audience on Oct. 2, 2008. “The days of sweetheart deals for Halliburton will be over when I’m in the White House.” After becoming president, Mr. Obama continued the attack and promised on March 4 to “end unnecessary no-bid and cost-plus contracts. In some cases, contracts are awarded without competition. And that’s completely unacceptable.”
That was then; this is now. Last week, the Army revealed that KBR, a former subsidiary of Halliburton, was awarded a no-bid contract worth as much as $568 million through next year. This deal was announced only hours after the Obama Justice Department informed the public that it was joining a suit filed by whistleblowers who allege KBR used kickbacks to get foreign contracts.
http://www.washingtontimes.com...
My argument is simply that the sun has in fact become hotter during its lifetime, contrary to what the post I was replying to stated. Why try to read something more in to what I say?
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
What about the amount of pollutants released with the launch of this satellite? Solid rockets and hydrazine aren't exactly environmentally friendly when you burn a million pounds in 12 minutes. The production of H2 and LOX is pretty dirty also, even if the final product is water.
OK, what about it?
I have a challenge for you. Using google, or your other favorite index-search tool, find out how much carbon dioxide is released by a single Delta-II launch. Then, look up how much carbon dioxide is put into the atmosphere per year by fossil fuel burning. Compare these two numbers. Do they differ by orders of magnitude? How many orders of magnitude?
Based on your findings, do you think that a rocket launch has a significant impact on global carbon dioxide levels? Do you think it has a measureable impact?
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Carbon dioxide, however, is the single biggest contributor to the temperature on earth there is
. Strange, I thought it was the Sun.
Its just a typo in the article. Really it's just an NSA project to track you and since your tinfoil hats aren't carbon there's nothing you can do to hide. Except maybe crawling in a pile of pencils.
Wait, doesn't your rebuttal show that the earth's temperature will not spiral out of control leading to the death and destruction predicted? :P
I don't recall ever making such a prediction.
To be honest you make great points for the view that we are really in a geologic cold period and global warming is just returning us to average temperatures for geologic time frames.
Yep, that's pretty much correct. The Earth is, on the average, quite a bit cooler than it has been in the geological past. It does not always have ice caps.
It happens that this is the climate that we humans are used to, and we've rather built our habitats and our agriculture around. But, on a geological scale, a few degrees of warming, and melting the polar ice caps. is no big deal. It's not the end of the world.
--unfortunately, when we return the planet to the climate conditions of the Jurassic, we probably don't get the dinosaurs back. But then, if biological research keeps on track, we'll just make new ones.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
You obliviously know nothing about science. We need some carbon dioxide. Having an overly oxygen atmosphere is bad too. Like most things it has to be just right. Too much of anything is bad.
this would seem to be moot to me. Humans have only been here for the briefest of very *recent* moments, but we do have a particular interest in keeping earth habitable for *human* life.
Assuming your numbers are correct, it still doesn't do us any good to say that gosh, a few million years ago there was a lot more carbon dioxide, if for the purposes of *human* life a particular (and lower) level is necessary.
The goal is for us, not for the earth itself, to survive.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
It is interesting that the same crowd that echos the "we just don't know" refrain gets upset whenever we invest in reducing uncertainty. Ideology will be the death of curiosity.
Wanna bet the satellite will give promising "global warming" data? Also, ever notice they complain about the Ozone hole in the winter, for the North, and for the South, in the summer? I'm sure the position of the SUN has NOTHING to do with it of course. "man made" global warming has ALWAYS been a hoax. We've been cooling since the 30's. Also, a decade, in relation to the age of the earth, is but a blink of the eye. People's views of history, pretty much start at the time of their birth, since god knows, schools don't have time to teach world history, when they have other pressing needs such as common core, teaching kids conflict resolution, homosexual behavior, the USA is bad, capitalism is bad, socialism is good...they don't have time to "learn em good" about things like the atmosphere, how the SUN affects our world and the Co2 is an element that plants use, to produce the oxygen we breathe.
It's obviously all those diamonds that are evaporating. Somebody has to do a paper that we can show our wives/girlfriends, that clearly demonstrates that diamonds are bad for the environment.
My understanding is that ice cores don't go back that far. Best so far is 800,000 years, with the bare possibility of more than that.
Lets see, globally I think there are about 9 Gigatonnes of CO2 created by human activity, even assuming that half of the mass of the rocket was created in CO2 during its construction, transport & launch (extremely unlikely) that would be about 0.0000011% of the global human output of CO2. To know how, where, and in what quantities CO2 is being generated I don't think this launch will matter much.
Almost 97% of CO2 comes from natural sources. Will this satellite be able to magically distinguish between sources? No. More wasted $.
It's not, and it also annoys me when people say that.
No single hurricane, heat wave, tornado, flood, wildfires due to drought, storm surge, hot summer, rainy winter is due to global warming, just as no single cold snap, hurricane free season, unseasonably cool spring, early winter storm is evidence that global warming isn't real.
Those are all weather. Climate is long term.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
I've seen people complain that physicists are making things up to get more grant money, such as people complaining about hypotheses about multiple Higgs bosons or super-symmetry. This is a dangerous trend. If it becomes a popular notion that scientists regularly publish fraudulent results just to get more money, people will stop accepting the results obtained from science and we'll all suffer. I'm certain that some scientists actually do participate in flagrant fraud, but the worst offenders are caught and their reputations are ruined. I think an entire stem cell research lab is going to be closed because of rampant fraud. Funny thing is, I don't see anyone claiming that means all stem cell research is fraudulent.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
July 1936 was the hottest month in the temperature record, then it wasn't, now it is again; so who is the denialist? RSS temperature data set shows no warming for 17 years and even hunts at a possible cooling, UAH temperature record shows no significant warming for 17 years and the USCRN even shows a 10 year pause in warming; so again who is the denialist?
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
But water vapor and solar output isn't controllable, and Control is what it's really about.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
The fact is, that this sat will show which nations produce CO2 and in what levels.
And the world is in for a shock.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
you do understand that the site linked to is lying, it is NOT skeptical at all.
And filled with bollocks.
[ citation needed ]
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Oceans, we have oceans on this planet.
And rain.
You might like to think about what that means about the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
How can you tell the difference between a [scientist] and an islamic extremist? You can't.
If you can't tell the difference it's because of you, not because of any inherent similarities between scientists and islamic extremists.
If you feel threatened by science, feel free to bow out of this society built on the innovations of science and return to you cavemen roots.