If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Register)   NASA successfully launches satellite that they believe will end the CO2 debate once and for all. Oh, those naive dreamers at NASA, they probably still think we actually landed on the Moon, too   (theregister.co.uk) divider line 117
    More: Unlikely  
•       •       •

980 clicks; posted to Geek » on 03 Jul 2014 at 2:46 PM (11 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



117 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-07-03 01:31:14 PM
FTA:
"Boffins hope that OCO-2's data can offer clarity on just how much impact human activity has on carbon dioxide production and the processes the gas undergoes in the atmosphere, which will hopefully help lead to some answers on if and how we can do something about climate change. "

Hmm, and here I have been told repeatedly that "it is all settled" and "science has decided by overwhelming straw poll", and ,,,
I see the word "if".

/should be enough
 
2014-07-03 01:52:02 PM
Boffins hope that OCO-2's data can offer clarity on just how much impact human activity has on carbon dioxide production and the processes the gas undergoes in the atmosphere, which will hopefully help lead to some answers on if and how we can do something about climate change.

I'd be interested to know how it will do that.  Measuring what's there is one thing.  Attributing it to a source is quite another.  Without that, the deniers will just claim it's the product of a natural cycle as some are already doing.

But generally speaking if the existing science won't sway them, this is unlikely to do the job.  They're not arguing from an honest position and they don't take issue with the science or data - hence "denial" and not "disagreement."  Mostly because they're not making a scientific refutation, but instead are engaging in business protectionism.  If they admit there's
any credibility to human-influenced climate change, they might face thepossibility that businesses will need to make changes.  So deny up front - it's easier and cleaner.
 
2014-07-03 03:01:57 PM

Diogenes: Boffins hope that OCO-2's data can offer clarity on just how much impact human activity has on carbon dioxide production and the processes the gas undergoes in the atmosphere, which will hopefully help lead to some answers on if and how we can do something about climate change.

I'd be interested to know how it will do that.  Measuring what's there is one thing.  Attributing it to a source is quite another.  Without that, the deniers will just claim it's the product of a natural cycle as some are already doing.

But generally speaking if the existing science won't sway them, this is unlikely to do the job.  They're not arguing from an honest position and they don't take issue with the science or data - hence "denial" and not "disagreement."  Mostly because they're not making a scientific refutation, but instead are engaging in business protectionism.  If they admit there's any credibility to human-influenced climate change, they might face thepossibility that businesses will need to make changes.  So deny up front - it's easier and cleaner.


I would argue that when we see where the concentrations are the "naturally occurring" argument will be completely dead. Unfortunately, as you've pointed out, logic and facts have little effect on that crowd.
 
2014-07-03 03:07:49 PM

snocone: FTA:
"Boffins hope that OCO-2's data can offer clarity on just how much impact human activity has on carbon dioxide production and the processes the gas undergoes in the atmosphere, which will hopefully help lead to some answers on if and how we can do something about climate change. "

Hmm, and here I have been told repeatedly that "it is all settled" and "science has decided by overwhelming straw poll", and ,,,
I see the word "if".

/should be enough



It's more that you're knocking down an absurd straw-man. It's not like there isn't any ongoing research into this topic, nor has the publication of such somehow stopped. That the basics are relatively settled does not mean that more and better data are not needed to reduce uncertainties.

That, and you probably shouldn't be uncritically taking a source like this at its word. I mean, "space" isn't spelled with four "a"s either, hm?
 
2014-07-03 03:18:09 PM
The CO2 debate is not meant to be won, it's meant to be sustained.
 
2014-07-03 03:22:56 PM
How long before it gives up useful data?  Is it the kind of thing that has to run for a year collecting data before the data is useful?
 
2014-07-03 03:25:57 PM

Diogenes: Boffins hope that OCO-2's data can offer clarity on just how much impact human activity has on carbon dioxide production and the processes the gas undergoes in the atmosphere, which will hopefully help lead to some answers on if and how we can do something about climate change.

I'd be interested to know how it will do that.  Measuring what's there is one thing.  Attributing it to a source is quite another.  Without that, the deniers will just claim it's the product of a natural cycle as some are already doing.

But generally speaking if the existing science won't sway them, this is unlikely to do the job.  They're not arguing from an honest position and they don't take issue with the science or data - hence "denial" and not "disagreement."  Mostly because they're not making a scientific refutation, but instead are engaging in business protectionism.  If they admit there's any credibility to human-influenced climate change, they might face thepossibility that businesses will need to make changes.  So deny up front - it's easier and cleaner.


I lean towards the axis tilt theory some geologists put forward, makes as much sense as the other reasons.
 
2014-07-03 03:42:23 PM
Pfft. How can they expect to measure the contents of the Earth's atmosphere from hundreds of kilometers above it! Unless, that is, they're lowering a bucket down into the troposphere and collecting the raw materials. But what if they accidentally scoop up a bird? Or a plane crashes into it? All that money to get a satellite into orbit -- wasted!
 
2014-07-03 03:50:16 PM

snocone: FTA:
"Boffins hope that OCO-2's data can offer clarity on just how much impact human activity has on carbon dioxide production and the processes the gas undergoes in the atmosphere, which will hopefully help lead to some answers on if and how we can do something about climate change. "

Hmm, and here I have been told repeatedly that "it is all settled" and "science has decided by overwhelming straw poll", and ,,,
I see the word "if".

/should be enough


"Can we do something about it?" is somewhat of a different question than "Is it happening?"
 
2014-07-03 03:50:35 PM
The denialists have already stepped in to downplay this with their typical "Were you there???" only in this case it is "We don't have this CO2 data from other satellites".
 
2014-07-03 04:01:51 PM
When you stack the info from this bird with the others sharing it's orbit in the so-called "A-Train", you get a very accurate measurement PLUS a means of tracking the concentrations, so, pin-pointing the big sources and sinks.
 
2014-07-03 04:03:00 PM
Eh, the denialists on my FB feed are still posting shiat about how Antarctic ice is at its highest extent ever.

Never mind that it's winter down there, or that there's less man made co2 down there, or that Arctic ice is consistently lower year-round, or that we've gained less Antarctic ice than we have lost Arctic ice, or that the ozone hole above the Antarctic has strengthened the south polar vortex, or that the Antarctic ice is surrounded by water while Arctic ice isn't...

They'll take the one piece of data that seems to support their belief, and ignore everything else.
 
2014-07-03 04:38:11 PM
Unless one or more of the following happens:

1) A booming voice coming from the clouds telling his children to stop ruining his work, or 2.) A Hollywood style hits the US that is beyond any disaster we have seen in History.

No amount of science will change the gop mindset.  facts, reason and experts no longer matter.  They simply will not believe it become is coming out of the mouth of the the blah president who is the devil.   Only a super majority of Democrats in govt will try to do anything about client change.
 
2014-07-03 04:40:47 PM
ONCE. AND. FOR. ALL.


/except on the internet, of course, where people with 24/7 access to all of the latest information latch onto what they learned in grade school as the only quality information that exists.

/and by 'people' I mean morons.
 
2014-07-03 04:43:06 PM

jntaylor63: Unless one or more of the following happens:

1) A booming voice coming from the clouds telling his children to stop ruining his work, or 2.) A Hollywood style hits the US that is beyond any disaster we have seen in History.

No amount of science will change the gop mindset.  facts, reason and experts no longer matter.  They simply will not believe it become is coming out of the mouth of the the blah president who is the devil.   Only a super majority of Democrats in govt will try to do anything about client change.


You see this as a GOP vs. DFL thing?
really?
Perfect, Farking perfect Divided and Conquered.
 
2014-07-03 04:44:13 PM
The thing about scientists and engineers is that they believe facts and evidence win the day.  If they can't convince someone to their cause, they gather more facts and evidence and try again.

The thing about their opponents is that they just make up their own facts and evidence.
 
2014-07-03 04:46:30 PM

Summoner101: The thing about scientists and engineers is that they believe facts and evidence win the day.  If they can't convince someone to their cause, they gather more facts and evidence and try again.

The thing about their opponents is that they just make up their own facts and evidence.


In "Science" no one can hear you "Cause".
 
2014-07-03 04:49:18 PM

Summoner101: The thing about scientists and engineers is that they believe facts and evidence win the day.  If they can't convince someone to their cause, they gather more facts and evidence and try again.

The thing about their opponents is that they just make up their own facts and evidence.


Most of the loudest climate change deniers I've seen are engineers.
 
2014-07-03 04:50:31 PM

steamingpile: I lean towards the axis tilt theory some geologists put forward, makes as much sense as the other reasons.


That the Milankovitch cycle caused by axial tilt gradually modifies climate with a 41,000 year periodicity?
Please explain how that would cause the recently observed climate change, which manifested over decades. Please include an explanation of how this is happening when we know we're right near the median axial tilt (23.44 degrees, relative to a range of 22.1-24.5) that the planet sees. Please also explain how that effect is dominant when the changing axial tilt's influence on climate points towards warmer winters and cooler summers, which isn't what we've been observing.  We're seeing warmer winter and warmer summers.

www.ncdc.noaa.gov

(You won't explain any of that, because you're a denier, and your opinion was never informed by facts in the first place. You're just here to seagull and throw out a "that's my opinion" to muddy the waters.)
 
2014-07-03 04:54:06 PM

Luse: I would argue that when we see where the concentrations are the "naturally occurring" argument will be completely dead. Unfortunately, as you've pointed out, logic and facts have little effect on that crowd.


Generally speaking, you can't "science" people out of opinions that they didn't "science" themselves into.

The useful thing you can do is point out how ridiculous the deniers' arguments are, for the people who are actually interested in learning more about science.
 
2014-07-03 04:55:15 PM
The OCO-1 in 2009 and follow-up Glory in 2011 both failed when they weren't able to complete their first stage separation.

NASA had to abandon the scheduled launch of the OCO-2 yesterday, when there were problems with the launchpad water flow.


This isn't incompetence or even bad luck - this kind of stuff happens all the time. If we could get more reliable rocketry we could save millions (is it tens? hundreds?) in failed/blown up sats a year.

Of course we could save even more if we made launch itself cheaper. *cough* the lizard grease won't last forever *cough*
 
2014-07-03 05:08:35 PM

chimp_ninja: Luse: I would argue that when we see where the concentrations are the "naturally occurring" argument will be completely dead. Unfortunately, as you've pointed out, logic and facts have little effect on that crowd.

Generally speaking, you can't "science" people out of opinions that they didn't "science" themselves into.

The useful thing you can do is point out how ridiculous the deniers' arguments are, for the people who are actually interested in learning more about science.


Check with Drew.
You need a Sciencyest Voting category to go with the Smartest and Funniest.
 
2014-07-03 05:14:39 PM
Deniers ignore the mountains of evidence we already have ... why should we expect them to consider a new source of data?
 
2014-07-03 05:17:29 PM
Glad to see NASA finally got a climate satellite up after the last 2 launch failures

/had a satellite that went down on the GLORY launch
 
2014-07-03 05:19:22 PM

snocone: chimp_ninja: Luse: I would argue that when we see where the concentrations are the "naturally occurring" argument will be completely dead. Unfortunately, as you've pointed out, logic and facts have little effect on that crowd.

Generally speaking, you can't "science" people out of opinions that they didn't "science" themselves into.

The useful thing you can do is point out how ridiculous the deniers' arguments are, for the people who are actually interested in learning more about science.

Check with Drew.
You need a Sciencyest Voting category to go with the Smartest and Funniest.



Case in point. You're proving them right.
 
2014-07-03 05:25:30 PM
OK, so I'm reading that carbon in plants and fossil fuels is primarily the carbon-12 isotope, whereas the ocean also absorbs carbon-13. Fuel burning would decrease the ratio of c13 to c12 in the surrounding air, making it possible to differentiate between man-made and naturally occurring (volcanic, maybe?) concentrations of atmospheric CO2.

I'm wondering whether it's possible to make this measurement with their satellite equipment, or if it simply measures overall carbon levels. If the later, concentrations over areas with high industrial pollution levels would still be blindingly obvious.
 
2014-07-03 05:37:36 PM

cyberspacedout: OK, so I'm reading that carbon in plants and fossil fuels is primarily the carbon-12 isotope, whereas the ocean also absorbs carbon-13. Fuel burning would decrease the ratio of c13 to c12 in the surrounding air, making it possible to differentiate between man-made and naturally occurring (volcanic, maybe?) concentrations of atmospheric CO2.


We've been observing this for decades.  This paper is publicly available and gives a summary of how the isotope ratios you're describing have been changing over the last several decades, in a manner absolutely consistent with known emission rates.  (We have a very good idea of how much coal, oil, and natural gas gets purchased for combustion each year.)

I'm wondering whether it's possible to make this measurement with their satellite equipment, or if it simply measures overall carbon levels. If the later, concentrations over areas with high industrial pollution levels would still be blindingly obvious.

In theory, yes.  Infrared absorption frequencies change slightly with the change in mass of the carbon.  I'll have to read more to know whether OCO has the resolution to see that shift.
 
2014-07-03 06:03:53 PM

Farking Canuck: Deniers ignore the mountains of evidence we already have ... why should we expect them to consider a new source of data?


Yep. I don't think there is any conceivable data that would convince them.
 
2014-07-03 06:08:46 PM

Feepit: Pfft. How can they expect to measure the contents of the Earth's atmosphere from hundreds of kilometers above it! Unless, that is, they're lowering a bucket down into the troposphere and collecting the raw materials. But what if they accidentally scoop up a bird? Or a plane crashes into it? All that money to get a satellite into orbit -- wasted!


All those problems where solved when they converted it to miles. Duuuuhh.
 
2014-07-03 06:14:52 PM

cyberspacedout: I'm wondering whether it's possible to make this measurement with their satellite equipment, or if it simply measures overall carbon levels.


The latter, unfortunately.  It's really hard to get an isotopic signal with remote sensing.
 
2014-07-03 06:33:41 PM
I've seen this movie.  The satellite has a faulty sensor.  Call me when the bathtub falls on Charlie Sheen, I like that part.
 
2014-07-03 06:36:23 PM
"facts" and "science" have taken a backseat to "opinions" in politics.
 
2014-07-03 06:43:52 PM

Ego edo infantia cattus: The CO2 debate is not meant to be won, it's meant to be sustained.


we need a war on CO2.

why has no one thought of this?
 
2014-07-03 06:44:52 PM
I have a friend, a doctor of chemistry, that thinks that global warming is caused more by entropy than co2. According to him, the warming we're experiencing is pretty close to what you'd expect if you burned all the oil, gas, and coal we have, even if you sequestered the carbon. Of course, the solution is the same either way, better energy efficiency and more alternative energy. It well be interesting to see if this conclusively disproves his idea or supports it.
 
2014-07-03 06:58:21 PM
Coal & oil is sequestered carbon

digging it up and burning it puts the carbon back into circulation.

Nice to have a good research satellite but really everyone involved already knows burning less oil and less coal is a good thing to do.  The rest is political will, which an issue in every country.
 
2014-07-03 07:29:19 PM
Waste of money.

The Debate is Over!  Peer Review!  The Science is Settled!

Tea baggers, deniers and the Koch Brothers!
 
2014-07-03 07:41:22 PM

chimp_ninja: steamingpile: I lean towards the axis tilt theory some geologists put forward, makes as much sense as the other reasons.

That the Milankovitch cycle caused by axial tilt gradually modifies climate with a 41,000 year periodicity?
Please explain how that would cause the recently observed climate change, which manifested over decades. Please include an explanation of how this is happening when we know we're right near the median axial tilt (23.44 degrees, relative to a range of 22.1-24.5) that the planet sees. Please also explain how that effect is dominant when the changing axial tilt's influence on climate points towards warmer winters and cooler summers, which isn't what we've been observing.  We're seeing warmer winter and warmer summers.

[www.ncdc.noaa.gov image 813x525]

(You won't explain any of that, because you're a denier, and your opinion was never informed by facts in the first place. You're just here to seagull and throw out a "that's my opinion" to muddy the waters.)


What happened in the late 80's/maybe 1990 caused the northern hemisphere to go almost nonexistent from the red? I'm laughing about it because it looks like winning the Cold war bought us a year of cool hempishere or something :P
 
2014-07-03 08:10:10 PM
Im interested in what happened to the last 2 sats we sent up there and never made it. Were they shot down? Was there sabotage? Its a conspiracy from the oil industry!
 
2014-07-03 08:10:48 PM

almandot: What happened in the late 80's/maybe 1990 caused the northern hemisphere to go almost nonexistent from the red? I'm laughing about it because it looks like winning the Cold war bought us a year of cool hempishere or something :P


The 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo.
Volcanic eruptions can have large effects on climate, but because most of their influence is from particulates, it settles out within a year or so.  Unfortunately, carbon dioxide and methane are persistent (on a decadal scale) once they get into the atmosphere:

data.giss.nasa.gov

(Data courtesy of NASA.)
 
2014-07-03 09:04:39 PM

snocone: jntaylor63: Unless one or more of the following happens:

1) A booming voice coming from the clouds telling his children to stop ruining his work, or 2.) A Hollywood style hits the US that is beyond any disaster we have seen in History.

No amount of science will change the gop mindset.  facts, reason and experts no longer matter.  They simply will not believe it become is coming out of the mouth of the the blah president who is the devil.   Only a super majority of Democrats in govt will try to do anything about client change.

You see this as a GOP vs. DFL thing?
really?
Perfect, Farking perfect Divided and Conquered.


That is because the GOP is dead-set against science in all forms. Hence in a scientific debate it quickly becomes a political issue.
 
2014-07-03 09:05:58 PM

DoctorOfLove: The Debate is Over!


Just like the debate over evolution is over - but we still do research on evolution. You do not endlessly debate things when there is evidence on one side and no evidence on the other. But you do continue the research to improve understanding.

DoctorOfLove: Peer Review!


Is a key component to help ensure the quality of research. It is used in all fields of science. Very valuable tool.

DoctorOfLove: The Science is Settled!


The overwhelming evidence in support of the idea that AGW is happening has successfully stood against all challenges from the army of bloggers/deniers ... they have not been able to present anything that challenges it (to be honest they never actually present evidence ... just wild speculation and conspiracy theories). So the scientific community has moved forward from this point, a necessary step in research, on to further experiments designed to increase and refine our knowledge on the subject.

There is much to be done and every step of the way we will have to work against the misinformation campaign waged by fossil fuel corporations and their political puppets. This satellite should prove to be another great tool in this struggle.
 
2014-07-03 09:10:04 PM

rebelyell2006: That is because the GOP is dead-set against science in all forms.


Not true. They love weapons science. You don't hear them whining about greedy scientists committing felony fraud for juicy grants when they are making things that go boom on brown people.

That level of derp is reserved for scientists in research fields that are against their politics.
 
2014-07-03 10:43:56 PM

Farking Canuck: DoctorOfLove: The Debate is Over!

Just like the debate over evolution is over - but we still do research on evolution. You do not endlessly debate things when there is evidence on one side and no evidence on the other. But you do continue the research to improve understanding.

DoctorOfLove: Peer Review!

Is a key component to help ensure the quality of research. It is used in all fields of science. Very valuable tool.

DoctorOfLove: The Science is Settled!

The overwhelming evidence in support of the idea that AGW is happening has successfully stood against all challenges from the army of bloggers/deniers ... they have not been able to present anything that challenges it (to be honest they never actually present evidence ... just wild speculation and conspiracy theories). So the scientific community has moved forward from this point, a necessary step in research, on to further experiments designed to increase and refine our knowledge on the subject.

There is much to be done and every step of the way we will have to work against the misinformation campaign waged by fossil fuel corporations and their political puppets. This satellite should prove to be another great tool in this struggle.


Peer review is a fraud

So we have little evidence on the effectiveness of peer review, but we have considerable evidence on its defects. In addition to being poor at detecting gross defects and almost useless for detecting fraud it is slow, expensive, profligate of academic time, highly subjective, something of a lottery, prone to bias, and easily abused.
 
2014-07-03 11:09:35 PM

Luse: Diogenes: Boffins hope that OCO-2's data can offer clarity on just how much impact human activity has on carbon dioxide production and the processes the gas undergoes in the atmosphere, which will hopefully help lead to some answers on if and how we can do something about climate change.

I'd be interested to know how it will do that.  Measuring what's there is one thing.  Attributing it to a source is quite another.  Without that, the deniers will just claim it's the product of a natural cycle as some are already doing.

But generally speaking if the existing science won't sway them, this is unlikely to do the job.  They're not arguing from an honest position and they don't take issue with the science or data - hence "denial" and not "disagreement."  Mostly because they're not making a scientific refutation, but instead are engaging in business protectionism.  If they admit there's any credibility to human-influenced climate change, they might face thepossibility that businesses will need to make changes.  So deny up front - it's easier and cleaner.

I would argue that when we see where the concentrations are the "naturally occurring" argument will be completely dead. Unfortunately, as you've pointed out, logic and facts have little effect on that crowd.


I would be completely convinced by that, and will change my position if proven true.
 
2014-07-03 11:13:10 PM
Good. When it succeeds let's bill all registered Republitards.
 
2014-07-03 11:14:05 PM

Farking Canuck: DoctorOfLove: The Debate is Over!

Just like the debate over evolution is over - but we still do research on evolution. You do not endlessly debate things when there is evidence on one side and no evidence on the other. But you do continue the research to improve understanding.

DoctorOfLove: Peer Review!

Is a key component to help ensure the quality of research. It is used in all fields of science. Very valuable tool.

DoctorOfLove: The Science is Settled!

The overwhelming evidence in support of the idea that AGW is happening has successfully stood against all challenges from the army of bloggers/deniers ... they have not been able to present anything that challenges it (to be honest they never actually present evidence ... just wild speculation and conspiracy theories). So the scientific community has moved forward from this point, a necessary step in research, on to further experiments designed to increase and refine our knowledge on the subject.

There is much to be done and every step of the way we will have to work against the misinformation campaign waged by fossil fuel corporations and their political puppets. This satellite should prove to be another great tool in this struggle.


Your position is that AGW is happening whether it's happening or not. Your position ain't an honest one.
 
2014-07-03 11:20:43 PM

meat0918: Summoner101: The thing about scientists and engineers is that they believe facts and evidence win the day.  If they can't convince someone to their cause, they gather more facts and evidence and try again.

The thing about their opponents is that they just make up their own facts and evidence.

Most of the loudest climate change deniers I've seen are engineers.


That's because an engineer wants to see how the whole system works before coming to a conclusion and making changes to the system. Otherwise, it might just blow up in your face.
 
2014-07-03 11:46:59 PM
Are there ducks in here? I hear an assload of quacking.
 
2014-07-03 11:47:07 PM

DoctorOfLove: Peer review is a fraud


Let's hear your method for assessing professional scientific work, then.  This should be good.
 
2014-07-03 11:49:11 PM

RedVentrue: Your position is that AGW is happening whether it's happening or not. Your position ain't an honest one.


As the only person qualified to judge what my opinion is, I can say unequivocally that your statement in no way shape of form represents my position.

Ironic that you should call me dishonest after explicitly writing that lie.
 
Displayed 50 of 117 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report