Greenspace

Environmental news from California and beyond

« Previous | Greenspace Home | Next »

NASA launch failure is a blow to climate science

NASA launch 
The crash of a NASA rocket  bearing a sophisticated observation satellite has dealt a major setback to scientific efforts aimed at understanding how humans are affecting Earth’s climate.

A nine-story Taurus XL rocket carrying the agency’s Glory satellite was launched early Friday from Vandenburg Air Force base. But it crashed into the Pacific Ocean without reaching orbit, after the satellite’s protective casing failed to open. The satellite carried equipment to help scientists understand how the sun and particles of matter in the atmosphere called aerosols affect Earth’s climate.

Scientists said the new instruments would have been able to distinguish more accurately than ever the difference between such natural particles as desert dust, and particles from human activities such as burning coal and using nitrate fertilizers.

"The loss of the Glory satellite is a serious setback to our capacity to continue observations critical to understanding and predicting the earth's climate," said Greg Holland, director of the Earth System Laboratory of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, based in Boulder, Co.

The failure of the $424-million mission comes at a time of heightened controversy over the accuracy of climate predictions, with the oil and coal industries attacking the integrity of scientific research and seeking to halt government efforts to limit  the burning of fossil fuel.

An assessment of  thousands of climate-related research papers by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of more than 2500 scientists brought together by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations, concluded in 2007 that the warming of earth’s climate is “unequivocal.” The warming, they asserted with “more than 90% certainty,” is mostly due to the effect of greenhouse gases emitted by human activities.

In the U.S., 45% of electrical power is generated by burning coal, the fuel with the highest toxic air pollution and the highest level of planet-heating carbon dioxide emissions. Republicans in Congress, along with coal-state Democrats, are seeking to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gases.

NASA’s Earth observation program has suffered budget cuts in recent years as the agency focused on exploration projects such as the space shuttle and the proposed Mars mission. Four years ago, the National Academy of Sciences  warned that budget cutting had put the nation’s ability to monitor severe weather, climate change and fresh-water shortages “at great risk.” (Correction: an earlier version of this post mistakenly attributed the study to the National Science Foundation)

RELATED:

The melting Arctic: a bigger-than-estimated impact on climate

Western wolverines affected by climate change

Arctic ice melt: polar bear swims for its life

--Margot Roosevelt

Photo: The Taurus XL rocket that blasted off carrying NASA's Glory satellite from Vandenberg Air Force Base on Friday failed to reach orbit. NASA says in a statement that a protective shell atop the rocket did not separate from the satellite as it should have about three minutes after the launch. Credit: Bryan Walton / Santa Maria Times)

 
Comments () | Archives (20)

The comments to this entry are closed.

Sir William Thompson, Lord Kelvin (1824-1907) :
"When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge of it is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced it to the stage of science."

The Glory Mission launch failure was a loss that any objective person on either side of the global warming debate should deeply regret.

Complete, rambling nonsense, Arno. The longer-term trends are clear, and corroborated with multiple other datasets, despite the usual short-term fluctuations caused by things like the 11-year solar cycle and oscillations in ocean-atmosphere heat exchange. And you may want to consider the post-1950's science on infrared absorption. Saturation is a myth:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/
http://bartonpaullevenson.com/Saturation.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm

And Miscolczi has been rebutted on multiple occasions:
http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=Ferenc_Miskolczi
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/06/gigo-eli-has-learned-over-years-that.html

how is this situation is going to affect are health?

I can't say that the loss of these satellites is a greater loss to science than the ill-conceived idea to launch them in the first place. To monitor carbon dioxide or aerosols from space only makes sense if it contributes something to our understanding of global warming. Unfortunately it doesn't because the warming is imaginary. The fact that these monies were allotted in the first place is scandalous, as is the billions of dollars the U.S. is spending on "climate research" today and in the foreseeable future. The global warming bandwagon responsible for this stupidity first got rolling when Hansen testified in 1988 that warming had started and that we were responsible because of all the CO2 we were putting into the air. Checking the NOAA temperature chart for this period which appears in the 1990 IPCC report shows that Hansen's warming in 1988 was only ten years old. Unfortunately the warming that NOAA shows in that chart is itself entirely fake. We know this because satellites have also been measuring global temperatures during this same period and they simply cannot see the Hansen warming that NOAA and others show. What the satellites do see in its place is a temperature oscillation, up and down by half a degree for twenty years, but no rise until the super El Nino of 1998 shows up. You can look at these satellite temperature curves in my book "What Warming?" which is out on Amazon and see exactly how NASA, NOAA, and the Met Office have falsified global temperatures. The satellite record itself extends for thirty one years and shows that there was only one short period of global warming during all of this time. It raised global temperature by a third of a degree in four years and then stopped in the year 2002. A third of a degree may not sound like much but it is half of what has been allotted to the entire twentieth century. This, and not some greenhouse effect, is responsible for the unusually warm first decade of this century. Its cause is oceanic, an aftereffect of a super El Nino, and not anthropogenic. There hasn't been any warming since and there was none before it. Exposure of this long-term temperature falsification involves supposedly respected sources of climate information and is by far a bigger scandal than Climategate is. It has involved coordinated action since the late seventies and is still going on. This makes it not just a crime but a criminal conspiracy too that needs to be criminally investigated. A Climategate style whitewash will not do because trillions of dollars hang on the acceptance or rejection of the reality these temperature curves. It is unfortunate that many scientific organizations have been misled to support such global warming misinformation. It is this science establishment support that has led to the hugely wasteful efforts to control an imaginary warming and to huge expenditures for unnecessary projects. The only historical analogy I can think of is the eighteenth century when phlogiston was king of warmth. They were slow to relinquish it, tried renaming it caloric, but eventually had to admit that scientific observations invalidated their theory. Today the greenhouse theory of global warming is crumbling and is headed for the same trash heap of history that swallowed both phlogiston and caloric. Satellite observations flatly contradict the existence of any warming today. And now Ferenc Miscolczi has shown that the global average infrared optical thickness of the atmosphere has remained constant for the last 61 years, with a value of 1.87. This means that addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere during all these years has not had any effect on the transparency of the atmosphere in the infrared where carbon dioxide absorbs. Which means that the greenhouse absorption signature of the added carbon dioxide is simply missing. No absorption, no greenhouse effect, case closed.

A NASA satellite launched last week to study aerosols influence on climate change failed to reach earth orbit. The satellite would have also measured solar energy changes affecting global warming. The rocket was launched from Southern California's Vandenberg Air Force Base. The Taurus XL rocket used as the vehicle to launch the $424 million satellite had a stage separation failure that caused the vehicle to plunge into the Pacific Ocean after three minutes in flight.The crash marks the second time in two years that a NASA climate satellite has failed orbit.

In January 2009, the Japanese Space Agency launched and orbited the first satellite dedicated to detect and monitor earth's carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane greenhouse gases. NASA's attempts would have orbited a companion satellite monitor for data coordination with the Japanese Space Agency This pair of satellites, known as the Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) will gather data from 56,000 points around the earth to monitor how CO2 and methane absorb energy from sunlight. The monitors would also detect cloud formations and aerosols in the earth’s atmosphere that can reflect or absorb solar radiation. A similar European orbital satellite monitoring system called Carbon Sat has been proposed, but not funded or designed.

Future hopes are that such real-time satellite monitoring of greenhouse gases will shed much-needed light on the earth’s complicated carbon cycle, and clarify many of the theories of global climate change for public policy development and their economic impacts.

NASA's website confirms, the mean temps on other planets in our solar system are rising.

And this is all Kalifornia's fault. Our karbon footprint has more affect on Venus' climate than let's say..... the sun?

donfitness states: "but you can't keep making stuff up just because the end goal is righteous."

LOL. So we should embrace what? Evil goals? We're already doing that in spades. Turn off faux news and get outside for some fresh air and excercise.

Sea level has been increasing at a rate of ~1.8 mm/year for the last 100 years (Wikipedia). That's a total of ~7.1 inches for the last 100 years.

Why is this being billed as NASA's failure?

A private corporation – Orbital – built both the satellite and the defective rocket that failed to work right. They're the ones who screwed up, not NASA.

The only failure NASA might have in this debacle is if they fail to get us the $424 million refund Orbital owes us, the American taxpayers.

We sabotaged your satellite. Your bluebloods have sold you out. We're warming up your planet for colonization. Get ready to start building new pyramids. See you all sooooon.

$454 million dollars. Makes me sad.

This article is inaccurate. Hundreds of those scientists disagreed with the IPCC "opinion". Hundreds more said that there was no reason to believe that any warming was anything more than the normal heating/cooling cycles evident for thousands of years in polar ice core samples. Look, I hate the middle east price manipulators as much as anyone else, and I hope that in the future we can have a pollution free energy, but you can't keep making stuff up just because the end goal is righteous.

Maybe they crashed it on purpose, because they know the data won't show we're all going to die in 10 yrs. No one is just taking these scientists word for anything anymore. There's lots of people looking over their shoulder, so they can't make the data justify their FAT Government Grants, that we all pay for.

Hmmmmmm.....?

A second NASA global warming satellite failure in as many tries....?

Auric Goldfinger would know what to say in this situation....Auric was Jame's Bond evil nemesis in the classic 1964 movie 'Goldfinger' when Bond beat him for a second time.

The first was when Bond disrupted Goldfinger's cheating at cards - thwarting Goldfinger's swindling game.

Later, on the golf course, Bond once again out maneuvered Goldfinger, beating him for a second time.

Seeing a pattern start to developed, Goldfinger has a decidedly famous quote:

"Mr Bond, they have a saying in Chicago: 'Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action.' "

The tobacco companies campaign against the non-smoking contingent has proved a good model for the global warming deniers to follow.

No need to actually have 'proof' for their position....no...clever they are...all is needed is to sow doubt since they can't disprove the abundance of evidence that the world has changed, and for humans, not for the better, more in the last 100 years than in the last 10,000, or, depending on how much you want to pay attention, for the last 3 million years.

So, when we read that NASA has had a second global warming studying satellite bite the dust, what exactly are those chances of that happening?

There are too many people, with too many hands, in too many pockets, with too much to lose to not think that this latest rocket was just a 'accident.'

There is no way to ever find that back door that might have been used to gain access to the satellite. That door could have been used yesterday, or months ago.

That's the good thing about rockets that fly through the air, though sometimes not with the greatest of ease, they leave no footprints.

We - the public - may never know - that is, until there is a third time. The Auric's comment will have meaning for us.

I am not sure why, but for some reason when I read this story I can hear the clink of champagne glasses somewhere off in the distance.

All that $ for ?

Huge waste...

Don't need satellites to tell what humans are doing to the earth...

I love how the nuts on the right would whether believe the gas and oil companies than some one who could care less what the facts find. These people still think smoking is good for them.

National Center for Atmospheric Research has studies on both sides of the issue of warming. Facts and open mined facts has the case going way to the side man cause warming. There is still a chance it isn't man caused, but smoking might still be good for you.

If people have questions about warming ask the Alaskans that are losing there homes along the cost.

They didn't have insurance??

It was insured. Carry on.

This really is too bad, even tho the deniers would still not have believed any data it may have returned...

Our tax dollars at work. We should have just thrown a party and invited everyone!!!


Connect

Recommended on Facebook


Advertisement

In Case You Missed It...

Video

Recent News
Invitation to connect on LinkedIn |  December 12, 2013, 9:58 am »
New Cook Islands Shark Sanctuary proposed |  December 8, 2011, 8:00 am »

Categories


Archives