Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

NASA Launches Satellite To Monitor Oceans

Soulskill posted more than 6 years ago | from the space-post-coast-to-coast dept.

NASA 55

On Friday, NASA launched the Ocean Surface Topography Mission/Jason 2 satellite into orbit to begin a detailed study of ocean currents, sea-surface height, and surface topology. Scientists hope to use the data gathered by Jason 2 in order to better understand weather patterns and global warming. Further details about the mission objectives (PDF) are also available. Quoting NASA's press release: "Combining ocean current and heat storage data is key to understanding global climate variations. OSTM/Jason 2's expected lifetime of at least three years will extend into the next decade the continuous record of these data started in 1992 by NASA and the French space agency Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales, or CNES, with the TOPEX/Poseidon mission. The data collection was continued by the two agencies on Jason 1 in 2001. Compared with Jason 1 measurements, OSTM/Jason 2 will have substantially increased accuracy and provide data to within 25 kilometers (15 miles) of coastlines, nearly 50 percent closer to shore than in the past."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Really? (3, Interesting)

Corpuscavernosa (996139) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895609)

OSTM/Jason 2 will have substantially increased accuracy and provide data to within 25 kilometers (15 miles) of coastlines, nearly 50 percent closer to shore than in the past

Ok I'm really not trolling here and I'm sure I'm exposing my vast ignorance on this topic, but does this seem incredibly underwhelming to anyone else?

Re:Really? (4, Insightful)

owlnation (858981) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895747)

Not underwhelming in the slightest. It just shows you how very little we understand about the Earth, how little we understand about weather, and also ocean currents. One day this information WILL save many, many lives. It's much more valuable than a whole multitude of other projects.

Re:Really? (4, Insightful)

value_added (719364) | more than 6 years ago | (#23896041)

Not underwhelming in the slightest. It just shows you how very little we understand about the Earth, how little we understand about weather, and also ocean currents.

Agreed, but there's a greater irony. While travel and research above and beyond earth has done wonders to increase our understanding of our own world, what's left undiscovered and unstudied is what lies beneath our oceans. Studying ocean currents and topology is literally superficial in that regard.

Re:Really? (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#23896659)

Which is funny, because we know, for instance, that among the many conditions that cause hurricane formation, one of the biggest and least understood is ocean currents.

Imagine if we could predict category 5 hurricanes weeks or months in advance. How many lives would have been spared in the aftermath of Katrina and Rita?

Re:Really? (1)

Captain Nitpick (16515) | more than 6 years ago | (#23898159)

Imagine if we could predict category 5 hurricanes weeks or months in advance. How many lives would have been spared in the aftermath of Katrina and Rita?

Not many. Katrina was the result of a long-term failure to take the hurricane threat to New Orleans seriously. I doubt a few weeks' warning would have significantly changed the result.

Rita only caused 7 direct deaths. More lead time would have kept elderly Houstonians from dying while stuck in evacuation traffic. Although that doesn't help if your bus catches fire in Dallas (23 of the 113 indirect deaths).

And both were only Category 3 hurricanes at landfall.

Given NASA's Budget... (3, Insightful)

FurtiveGlancer (1274746) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895927)

And the number of diverse projects they are pursuing, it's actually quite an accomplishment. Not very exciting to most, but still an accomplishment.

Global Warming? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23896417)

I don't understand what there is to study. Rush Limbaugh, Bill OReilly, George W Bush, Dick Cheney, Rupert Murdoch, etc. all tell me there's no such thing as so-called "Global Warming". And that Al Gore is fat.

So what's there to study?

Money we are squandering on investigating this scam is money that can be better spent funding war profiteering in Iraq. Stay the Course!!!

Re:Really? (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 6 years ago | (#23896549)

What kind of data are you able to gather without the satellite?

You are reacting like someone who gets handed a check for 6 gajillion dollars and says "How come the check isn't for 100 gajillion dollars?" without even having any idea of what a gajillion is.

Re:Really? (1)

khayman80 (824400) | more than 6 years ago | (#23897311)

I believe this 25 km data gap is due to the radar "footprint". JASON uses a radar system to determine the distance from the satellite to the height of the ocean surface averaged over an area below the satellite. Then the folks at NASA use tracking data to determine where the satellite is to within an accuracy of ~1cm (don't know about the new system's positional accuracy) and that's where the sea level estimate comes from.

The data gap next to the shoreline is due to the fact that the radar beam spreads out as it leaves the satellite, so it ends up reflecting off a large area of the ocean's surface. This may actually be intentional- a larger radar footprint would average out short term waves and increase the signal to noise ratio. Or it could be a hard limit imposed by the finite size of the radar transceiver. I dunno. The point is that you can't really use the reflections from this area if it overlaps on land, because the reflective properties of land are so much different than water.

Disclaimer: I don't work on the JASON project, so this may all be wrong. I work on a different project called GRACE, which measures spatio-temporal gravity fluctuations. I'm actually competing with JASON, in a sense, because I'm using the GRACE measurements to get a better estimate of ocean tides. This is possible because when GRACE flies over a region of the ocean during high tide, the gravity is slightly stronger than when GRACE flies over that same region at low tide. I've got nearly 5 years of these sporadic gravity measurements covering the globe, and I think I can convert them into a better ocean tide model using a relatively simple (but disgustingly huge and slow!) matrix equation based on Newtonian gravity due to point masses evenly spaced on the surface of the earth.

You'll likely be even more underwhelmed with the data gap from my analysis- it's more like 100km because gravity is omnidirectional unlike radar which can at least be focused somewhat. However, GRACE's polar orbit gives me an advantage relative to ocean tide models based on JASON in the region north of 66N latitude, which is the maximum latitude that JASON 1/2 samples. I also hope that I can beat the accuracy of JASON 1 in lower latitudes, but I'm still struggling to regularize the solution to my satisfaction so that remains to be seen. I'm definitely looking forward to JASON 2's improved accuracy- hopefully it will help validate my results.

If I can ever get off Slashdot and back to my code, that is...

Quiet post (1)

Mauzl (1312177) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895715)

I was surprised by the lack of comments on this thread, but then I thought 'Its a satellite that watches the ocean all day and stuff.' Kinda hard to get excited over.

Re:Quiet post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23896185)

You are right, real science is something people don't want to see in a nerd website, we need to fill the frontpage with osnews style flamebaits and iPhone references to get hundreds of comments.

This is getting out of hand (5, Funny)

eln (21727) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895737)

First the government wants to monitor citizens, and now it wants to monitor the oceans? Come on people, I know most of you don't care because you're not an ocean, but what happens when they start going after the other bodies of water? What about other liquids? Other states of matter? This is just the tip of the iceberg, people.

Oh sure, maybe you think it's fine because the oceans aren't U.S. citizens, but I say constitutional rights should apply to all of Earth's features, and the government should keep its nose out of aquatic affairs. Just because some oceans border terrorist states (through no fault of their own), that doesn't mean all oceans can just be spied on whenever we feel like it.

Maybe you think this is okay because some oceans have committed terrorist acts like hurricanes and tsunamis, but it would be bigoted of us to condemn all oceans for the actions of a few.

This has gotten out of hand and needs to stop. Get involved, people!

Re:This is getting out of hand (2, Insightful)

moosesocks (264553) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895809)

You forgot the obligatory Ron Paul mention...

Re:This is getting out of hand (3, Funny)

Chees0rz (1194661) | more than 6 years ago | (#23896241)

Well, if the oceans have nothing to hide...

Re:This is getting out of hand (1)

jonadab (583620) | more than 6 years ago | (#23897313)

> Maybe you think this is okay because some oceans have committed terrorist acts like hurricanes
> and tsunamis, but it would be bigoted of us to condemn all oceans for the actions of a few.

Would it be alright if they only do surveillance on the oceans that *are* known to have been responsible for hurricanes, tsunamis, floods, and icebergs that sink ships?

Re:This is getting out of hand (1)

T3Tech (1306739) | more than 6 years ago | (#23898317)

You would think the PETA, Greenpeace, et.al. people would be all over this. Just think of all the whales, dolphins and other marine life that will have their privacy invaded by this seemingly innocent "monitoring the oceans" nonsense.

The oceans are their home and it's not like water is opaque or anything. Sure the octopus, squid and their relatives can squirt ink to gain a little privacy, but what about the whales? Where can they really go to be free of this kind of intrusion?

Big Brother. (3, Funny)

kentrel (526003) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895789)

First they watch the fishes, then its an easy next step to start watching us. This is a slippery slope. More proof scientists are evildoers.

Re:Big Brother. (0)

Macrat (638047) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895805)

Wait until they catch the first Terrorist Tuna!!!

Re:Big Brother. (1)

police inkblotter (1228830) | more than 6 years ago | (#23896297)

Al Cobia?

Re:Big Brother. (0)

Translation Error (1176675) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895811)

First they watch the liquid water, then they watch the slippery slopes.

Wrong quote (2, Funny)

Mathinker (909784) | more than 6 years ago | (#23896589)

When the scientists came for the tuna,
I remained silent;
I was not a tuna.

When they locked up the dolphins in SeaWorld,
I remained silent;
I was not a dolphin.

When they came for the trade currents,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade current.

When they came for me,
the oceans were silent,
there was no one left to speak out.

Amazing! (0, Flamebait)

FurtiveGlancer (1274746) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895813)

How studying "climate change" in TFA automatically got translated into "global warming" in the slashdot summary. No bias here. ~

As a long-distance sailor, and surfer (4, Interesting)

capnkr (1153623) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895871)

...this is interesting, to say the least.

The topic of "rogue waves" has gotten much [slashdot.org] more [technologyreview.com] interest in the past few years. They have been determined to be both larger and more prevalent than thought before. Perhaps Jason will complement the data from the EU mission to help with statistics, and maybe even predictions...

One can hope. :)

Oh no... (1)

hardlyleet (1293492) | more than 6 years ago | (#23895917)

Does this mean they will find out about our drug boats?

Well, watching something... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23896133)

As the global temperatures have been unchanging or going down for seven years, instead of saying it's watching "global warming" let's say it's watching "the globe".

Re:Well, watching something... (0, Troll)

KasperMeerts (1305097) | more than 6 years ago | (#23896253)

There is a lot to be said about global warming. Some say it's nature, some say it's not that bad, some say it is our fault, others say it's our fault but a good thing.

But what EVERYBODY can agree about is that the average temperature of the Earth has risen 0.74C the last hundred years.
There is no denying that. You might be one of those dimwits that say it's a natural or good thing, but the Earth is warming up.
Brace yourself. Your ignorance is not going to help you when society and our climate collapses.

Of course it has. (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 6 years ago | (#23896893)

Not quite 0.74 degrees, but yes it has warmed.

So what? The earth has been trending steadily warmer for the last 6,000 years!!!

Re:Of course it has. (1, Troll)

KasperMeerts (1305097) | more than 6 years ago | (#23897461)

Not really. I don't know about pre-Christ temperatures, but the last 2 millenia, Earth has been cooling down.
I live in Belgium and there used to be a vineyard close to where I live in the Middle-Ages. Nowadays that completely impossible. Man is trying to reverse that trend.

Also, every climate change that happened the last 10,000 years has been very, very slow and minuscule in comparison to the 0.7 degrees we did in only one century.
But the question is not who is right, the question is: what are we going to do about it. Regardless if it's our fault or just natural, our society can't take any climate changes. We need to reverse any changes happening until we are able to cope them.
And everything is making clear that greenhouse gases heat up our planet waaaay faster than it should.

Re:Of course it has. (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 6 years ago | (#23897991)

I think you have your facts a bit mixed up about historic global temperature, but I do not really feel like arguing the point with you. On the other hand, there are some misconceptions here that should be cleared up.

First, you claim that "our society can't take any climate changes". I am curious why you make this claim. Regardless of whether the overall trend has been hotter or cooler, within recorded history it has been both warmer and cooler than it is now, for extended periods. And those periods were not disasters for "society". On the contrary: when it was warmer, it also tended to be wetter, with overall richer crops and plant life in general. More land area was habitable, not less.

So, are our coastal regions in danger? The U.S. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), reported that even if the worst predictions of the CO2-based warming model were correct, the oceans would rise an estimated 4 inches over the next hundred years. (As opposed to the "tens of feet" or even more claimed by Gore and other hysterics.)

Third, what CAN you do about it? Evidence strongly points to the CO2-warming theory being wrong. On the other hand, there is a strong correlation between warming and sunspot activity. How do you propose to go about stopping sunspots?

"Everything" is NOT making it clear that greenhouse gases are heating up our planet. The UN has retracted the IPCC report that caused all the CO2 hysteria, and issued a new report stating that greenhouse warming is not expected for years, if at all. (True! Look it up!)

Again: yes there has been warming. But whether WE have been causing a significant amount, much less most, of it is very much debatable, with the preponderance of evidence today saying "no". And if that is the case, then the TRUE causes are things about which we have little power to do anything, given our current level of technology.

So rather than complaining about it, or wasting massive amounts of resources trying to prevent something that is very likely not preventable, we should instead invest our resources in learning to adjust to, or even take advantage of, any changes that come.

Re:Of course it has. (1)

MacDork (560499) | more than 6 years ago | (#23899899)

I don't know about pre-Christ temperatures...Also, every climate change that happened the last 10,000 years has been very, very slow and minuscule in comparison to the 0.7 degrees we did in only one century.

Really? Do tell...

Re:Well, watching something... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23897609)

Yup, we've been warming for a hundred years, ever since the Little Ice Age stopped cooling us. Gee, a cooling ends because warming starts. That's kind of the definition of the ending of a cooling period. So we're supposed to fear warming back up after we've cooled down? Do you get panicky every morning when the sun rises?

Re:Well, watching something... (1)

KasperMeerts (1305097) | more than 6 years ago | (#23897773)

No we've been cooling down since the Little Ice Age. We've been warming up since the '50's and a lot more than should be excepted if the Earth took it's natural course.

That doesn't make sense. (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 6 years ago | (#23899719)

First, the "little ice age" was only a few hundred years ago, and represented a temporary dip in the overall trend. We are WARMER than that now, or else there would not even be reason to call it "the little ice age"!

The trend over 5 or 6 THOUSAND years has been warmer. But there have been temporary periods (meaning up to 100 years or so -- your little ice age is an example) that were cooler than it is now, and others that were warmer than it is now. Those were nothing but minor spikes in the chart, but they do teach us some things. And among those things is that a warmer world is not necessarily something to be afraid of.

"Global warming" must exist first... (-1, Flamebait)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 6 years ago | (#23896869)

... before it could be studied.

The Northern Hemisphere -- not just a few local regions -- experienced a record cold winter this year.

The Antarctic ice sheet GAINED a significant amount of mass this year -- DESPITE some ice (the Ross ice shelf is a poster child for the "warmers") thinning a bit.

Show me, and I will believe. But show me the opposite -- which is what has been happening -- and I will not.

Re:"Global warming" must exist first... (4, Interesting)

CorSci81 (1007499) | more than 6 years ago | (#23897079)

One statistical outlier doesn't make a trend. One cold winter doesn't undo decades of warmer than average years.

And taking you at face value on the Antarctic gaining mass, if you think through the implications it is completely consistent with a warming planet. The Antarctic is still very very cold, and warming means an increase in humidity and precipitation, i.e. a larger ice sheet building over the central regions of the continent. That region still hasn't warmed sufficiently to cause large-scale melting.

Ice sheets are complicated things. Warming in general causes increased melting at the edges (near the lower lattitudes) and increased precipitation over the center. It's just a question of how fast it's adding mass at the center vs. losing it at the sides, but ultimately as it gets warmer the whole thing will melt at some temperature.

There is warming, and there is "warming". (1, Informative)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 6 years ago | (#23897251)

I do not disagree that the globe is warming. That would be denying facts... the earth has been trending warmer for over 6,000 years!

But when most people say "global warming", what they really mean is MAN-CAUSED global warming. Even more specifically, it usually means that they have bought into the whole CO2-based warming model.

The problem here being that if the man-caused global warming theories were to be believed, we would NOT have had a record cold northern hemisphere this year. Even with all the other complications, it would have continued to get warmer on that scale.

The man-caused warming theories do predict localized variations, but something on the order of an entire hemisphere contradicts some of their basic premises!

Further, the CO2-based warming theory REQUIRES the upper atmosphere to be warming at a rate proportional to the low-altitude temperature... and it simply has not been. Actual satellite and weather balloon temperature data do not support the CO2 warming theory at all.

There are other problems with the man-caused warming theories, but this is hardly the place to be discussing them all. My point is simply that yes, the earth has been warming. Yes, this year is an anomaly in the trend. BUT... it also constitutes a counterexample that refutes the man-caused warming models.

Re:There is warming, and there is "warming". (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23897457)

The upper atmosphere over the arctic was very interesting to watch this year. Very large warm air masses in the pacific moved directly over the north pole. This event happened a couple of times last winter. I have never seen that type of cycle before in the 500mb northern hemisphere plot. Can this be explained without a better understanding of the sea surface temp ?

Re:There is warming, and there is "warming". (0, Troll)

KasperMeerts (1305097) | more than 6 years ago | (#23897479)

Don't you know Al Gore received a Nobel Prize?
All scientists are screaming with all the power they have: "It is happening and it is our fault."

You can try and go against the stream of common sense. But don't be upset if you're ignored or ridiculed by intelligent people.

No, they are not! (-1, Troll)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 6 years ago | (#23897819)

YOU are the one who needs to look up some facts. Especially more recent facts. SCIENTISTS are not saying that at all, much less all of them. But some politicians are. There is a pretty big difference.

Atmospheric temperature data do not support the CO2-based warming theory.

Scientists tried to get their names removed from the UN's IPCC report that promoted this theory and that caused all the hysteria, claiming (correctly) that their research did not support the conclusions stated in the report.

The UN has since retracted that report, and issued a new report stating that CO2-based warming will not start happening for a number of years... if it does at all. That's official, if you care to look it up.

There is more, but that is enough. The REAL scientific studies and REAL evidence do not and have not supported the man-caused warming theories to any significant degree.

Re:There is warming, and there is "warming". (1, Troll)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 6 years ago | (#23898869)

But when most people say "global warming", what they really mean is MAN-CAUSED global warming. Even more specifically, it usually means that they have bought into the whole CO2-based warming model.

Dude, even the Bush white house now admits that human activities specifically including CO2 emissions are a factor in global warming; the "debate" is now over the extent to which human involvement has changed the climate, and what to do about it if anything.

The problem here being that if the man-caused global warming theories were to be believed, we would NOT have had a record cold northern hemisphere this year. Even with all the other complications, it would have continued to get warmer on that scale.

And you base this belief on what, exactly? The whole reason the question of the extent of mankind's involvement in global weather patterns (let's face it, deforestation is very much an activity of man, and forests are a major figure in global weather theater) has not been answered is that weather is complex, even chaotic. There can be warm years in the middle of runs of colder years, why not a colder year in the middle of a series of warmer ones?

Further, the CO2-based warming theory REQUIRES the upper atmosphere to be warming at a rate proportional to the low-altitude temperature... and it simply has not been. Actual satellite and weather balloon temperature data do not support the CO2 warming theory at all.

The theory has never been that CO2 is the sole factor. But, you know, don't let facts get in the way of satisfying rhetoric.

Finally, just because I love to keep going, even if CO2 weren't a contributor to global warming, there are still many reasons why releasing a lot of it is a bad idea, especially while we are deforesting and killing off algae needed to process that CO2.

Re:There is warming, and there is "warming". (0, Troll)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 6 years ago | (#23899577)

"Dude, even the Bush white house now admits that human activities specifically including CO2 emissions are a factor in global warming; the "debate" is now over the extent to which human involvement has changed the climate, and what to do about it if anything."

You have not been keeping up with the news. See my comments to others in this thread. Even the UN has retracted their famous, hysterical report about greenhouse warming. Some of the very scientists who were quoted in that IPCC report tried to get their names removed, because (according to them) their research DID NOT SUPPORT THE UN'S CONCLUSIONS! The UN has subsequently issued another report, in which they state (I am paraphrasing) that we are not seeing greenhouse warming today, and may not for many years. That's a pretty big change of position after only ONE YEAR. I wonder why? (The obvious -- and correct -- answer is that the original report was WRONG and mis-stated the science.)

"And you base this belief on what, exactly? The whole reason the question of the extent of mankind's involvement in global weather patterns (let's face it, deforestation is very much an activity of man, and forests are a major figure in global weather theater) has not been answered is that weather is complex, even chaotic. There can be warm years in the middle of runs of colder years, why not a colder year in the middle of a series of warmer ones?"

None of the greenhouse gas theories account for a cold hemisphere. As chaotic as weather can be, the greenhouse warming models allow for local, temporary variations, but NOT for a record cold hemisphere. If the theories were correct, the effects should serve to counteract natural variations. This is not proof of course, but it is contrary evidence. And deforestation and the like were not the subject of discussion at the time... the subject was greenhouse warming.

"The theory has never been that CO2 is the sole factor. But, you know, don't let facts get in the way of satisfying rhetoric."

ALL greenhouse gas "global warming" theories require the upper atmosphere to warm proportionally to the surface temperature. That is directly involved in the whole mechanism that is supposed to be CAUSING the warming from such gases! Whether CO2 were the "sole" greenhouse gas involved is irrelevant! They all require that the upper atmosphere be warming to a degree that it just has not been. Actual satellite and weather balloon temperature data DIRECTLY CONTRADICT the greenhouse warming theories. And if something that MUST be happening in order for those theories to be true is not happening (and it isn't), then those theories are fundamentally flawed.

And if you think that ANYTHING that anyone in the Bush administration says will sway my opinion, you are dreaming. Why in the world should it? Just about nothing else they have said has turned out to be true either.

Re:There is warming, and there is "warming". (3, Informative)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 6 years ago | (#23899879)

Beside hopelessly confusing weather and climate, you have also been mislead about the UN. The IPCC reports are here [www.ipcc.ch] , you can talk directly to some of the scientists who contributed to the report here [realclimate.org] . An attribution graph showing the contributions of man to both warming (GHG) and cooling (mainly sulphates) can be found in the IPCC's 2007 SPM or you could have a look at this one [wikipedia.org] .

Now please realise that the IPCC does not come up with new science, it is a UN body that gathers scientists from every national science body on the planet and reviews published scientific papers. They do not have ONE report they have ~20yrs worth of reports.

Assuming you are not just a rabid anti-science troll can you please post some evidence for your claims such as...

ALL greenhouse gas "global warming" theories require the upper atmosphere to warm proportionally to the surface temperature....the greenhouse warming models allow for local, temporary variations, but NOT for a record cold hemisphere...the UN has retracted their famous, hysterical report about greenhouse warming...Some of the very scientists who were quoted in that IPCC report tried to get their names removed

Note: I work on the same basis as the IPCC, ie: I only accept evidence that is backed by peer-reviewed publications.

Gimme a frigging break. (0, Troll)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 6 years ago | (#23900829)

Nonsense. If you knew anything about the subject, you would already know WHY the the actual temperature data do not support the greenhouse warming theories.

Why should I cater to your ignorance and do your homework for you? The subject and the data are all over the internet... it is hardly a difficult thing to find. I find it amusing when other people demand that I put links up to support every assertion I make. Do you know how to do a search? If so, you can find this information yourself within a few seconds.

But stop changing the subject! EVERYTHING I have been writing about has been about "greenhouse gas warming". These other things you bring up are simply irrelevant. I never stated here that the globe was not warming (climate change), nor did I even state that it was not man-caused... my only assertion was that the CO2-based warming model (and later, other greenhouse gas warming models) were flawed. And they are.

I have NOT been misled (you misspelled that) about the U.N.! Kindly read the summary of the newer IPCC report. They state quite clearly that they predict that we will not see actual effects of CO2 warming for around 10 years. Now... if you have actually read both reports yourself, you have to admit that this is a pretty big change of position, considering that their former position was that CO2 was ALREADY causing the warming we have been seeing. And since they have OFFICIALLY changed that position, an honest person must ask: then what IS causing the warming we have been seeing? Certainly there are other causes (deforestation has been brought up), but the subject of this thread is GREENHOUSE GASES. If you can't stick to that subject, then go elsewhere, please.

Further, another few seconds on Google or Yahoo will point you to the stories of responsible scientists who have tried to have their association with the original IPCC report removed, on the basis that their research did not support the conclusions released by the IPCC. At least one of those scientists became rather militant about the subject, stating publicly (and quite loudly) that the IPCC was perpetrating political fraud on the world. And he is not the only one who tried to have his name removed.

I am well aware that the IPCC does not come up with "new" science. You would know that if you had actually paid attention to the post to which you were replying. The very fact that some scientists tried to get their research removed from the report should have told you that I understood this. So... what is your point? My statement was that the U.N. came to ERRONEOUS, POLITICALLY-BASED CONCLUSIONS, claiming to use that science as a foundation. And that is exactly why those researchers protested.

I am just about the opposite of "rabid, anti-science". Quite the contrary. I support responsible science, and responsible social policy based on that science. The original IPCC report represented neither, and I am far from the only responsible person to claim as much. Again, a few minutes (even seconds) on Google might just enlighten you. And I am referring to responsible reporting by well-known, responsible scientists and organizations.

I would also like to point out -- a closely related point but not exactly the same -- that your reliance on the fact that the IPCC report in turn relied on peer-reviewed articles is pretty damned irrelevant. The massive and repeated failure of peer review in recent years to prevent a huge amount of bullshit and absolute fraud to reach the scientific community is well-documented by that same scientific community. Because of the frequency that this traditional sytem has FAILED in the last couple of decades, saying that its worth is questionable and needs re-thinking is an understatement.

Are you really going to ask me to cite references for THAT, too? The most famous case lately has been that Korean clone fraud, but you can find a huge number of references and research on that subject by simply googling "peer review". Don't believe everything you get from Google, of course... just the stuff from good University studies and the like. And even responsibly filtering your input, you cannot help but be convinced that "peer review" has been a seriously broken system for many years now. I feel for you if your job relies on this... but facts are facts even if you are loathe to see them. Perhaps you should start looking for something else.

But that is not even the problem here! The problem is that the U.N., a political (NOT scientific) organization, took science that was done by responsible researchers and REPORTED CONCLUSIONS THAT WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE VERY RESEARCH THEY WERE CITING!!! Statements by those scientists are available, again, on the internet. You need not fear false data in that regard; they have been quite vocal and public about it. It is easy to verify the sources.

The idea that the original conclusions reported by the IPCC were politically motivated is not "speculation", or "theory", it is demonstrable fact. Even if you do not want to got to all the trouble of verifying that for yourself (as I have), if it were not, they would not have changed their position so drastically in such a short period of time.

So, don't give me this crap about "anti-science". I am, quite the contrary, a supporter of RESPONSIBLE, NON-POLITICAL science, and I have no intention of changing that position.

By the way: because of the timing and circumstances, I suspect you of modding a discussion in which you are participating. If so, shame. It is not prohibited here but it is generally considered unethical.

Re:Gimme a frigging break. (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 6 years ago | (#23900933)

"Why should I cater to your ignorance and do your homework for you? The subject and the data are all over the internet.."

Why? Because you are the one making "extrodinary claims", or are we throwing out that part of science aswell?

As for the rest of your post, you need to update your form letter, google no longer works in your favour.

Pretty funny. (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 6 years ago | (#23903885)

You can't justify your arguments any better than that?

You claim that I have been "throwing out science", but in fact I have been reporting what SCIENCE (not the politicians) has been saying for years now, and you have not mentioned ONCE any actual science stating that my claims are wrong or why they are wrong. You can't, can you?

Google works fine, if you actually bother to look. I don't think you WANT to actually find out that you are wrong.

Re:Pretty funny. (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 6 years ago | (#23912841)

I have provided you with pertinent links, you have failed to do likewise.

As I implied in my previous post "extrodinary claims require extrodinary evidence", your insults don't change that nor do your assertions provide any evidence.

As for debunking your mass of dis-information I will pick on one thing at randon since I have better things to do than argue with a troll. The cooling of the troposphere is predicted by climate models and has been observed in the field, either provide a link to a scientific paper that contradicts the IPCC or STFU.

You have COMPLETELY failed to realize... (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 6 years ago | (#23930415)

... that my claims are anything but "extraordinary"! Where did you get this idea? Are you somehow of the opinion that just because I disagree with you (for good reason, by the way), that my claims must therefore be "extraordinary"??? How fascinatingly arrogant. Well, let's work on concrete statements rather than trying to read between the lines. Apparently, what you are asserting (at least), is that someone who disagrees with the IPCC reports has an "extraordinary" point of view. Wow. And YOU are accusing ME of being "different". Just wow.

As I have clearly stated here more than once, I am merely echoing what a lot of reputable scientists are saying. And I can safely say that at least some of them are scientists with much more credibility that the vast majority of the reviewers of the IPCC reports.

I mentioned before that you could find well-supported contrary opinions by spending only a few moments on Google. You have refused to do so. So, just this one time (because I dislike your smarmy attitude so much), I will indulge you and actually do just a little bit of your homework for you. I am not your daddy, so do not expect me to do it again.

I would like you to know up front that just as I stated was possible a few posts ago, I actually spent less than 2 minutes on Google pulling up these articles. The links below actually represent only a small percentage of all I found, and I did not spend a lot of time choosing among them. I could have spent a LOT of time following related links... but I figure that if you are actually interested in learning you can do that for yourself. I suspect that you can actually feed yourself too, if you try. But in any case, even if you disagree, if you do not hear opposing arguments then by definition you are being deliberately biased.

To anticipate a possible objection, I will state from the outset that most of these are not "peer reviewed" papers from "science journals", but they do contain a good many links to same. Read to the depth you care but if you do not care, then do not come back later and ask me yet again to do it for you.

To start, here are just a few pieces that support my statements about the problems with "peer review". These are only a few of the huge list I found. The amount of literature out there on problems with and utter failings of peer review, especially in recent years, is vast:

PROBLEMS WITH PEER REVIEW: http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0124/p14s02-stss.htm [csmonitor.com]

NY TIMES: "For Science's Gatekeepers, a Credibility Gap" http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/02/health/02docs.html [nytimes.com]

Nature: Quality and value: How can we research peer review? http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/nature05006.html [nature.com]



There is a lot more I could say here, but I believe that under the circumstances it would be pointless. Here are some more links. Understand that these are only a very small sampling of those that are out there. But (this one time only), you asked for some, you got some.

Letter from Chris Landsea http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/landsea.html [lavoisier.com.au]

International Conference on Integrity in Science http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002299.html [jennifermarohasy.com]

Economic Formulas in IPCC Report Criticized for Overstating Emissions http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22786 [heartland.org]

Here's a DIFFERENT former IPCC participant: Former IPCC Member Slams UN Scientists' Lack of Geologic Knowledge http://newsbusters.org/node/13971 [newsbusters.org]

Yet another official IPCC reviewer criticizes the reports: http://oldsarges.blogspot.com/2008/03/paul-reiter-takes-on-ipcc.html [blogspot.com]

Global Warming: Science versus Fraud http://www.forces.org/Forces_Articles/article_viewer.php?id=580 [forces.org]

Maybe the consequences would NOT BE SO BAD anyway (actually, they probably wouldn't be, even outside of Canada): http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_strauss/20070502.html [www.cbc.ca]

Russian Academy of Sciences Denounces IPCC: "UN officials forget to mention that... this effect was due to steep fall of total production and long-term economic stagnation." http://russia-ic.ru/education_science/science/breakthrough/709/ [russia-ic.ru]

New Zealand Centre for Political Research (New Zealand is not exactly an "Industrial Power"): "Exposing the Climate Change Agenda" http://www.nzcpr.com/weekly124.htm [nzcpr.com]

UNITED STATES SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT & PUBLIC WORKS "Global Warming Alarmism Reaches A Tipping Point" http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Speeches&ContentRecord_id=dceb518c-802a-23ad-45bf-894a13435a08 [senate.gov]

ACCURACY IN MEDIA: "Media Promote Global Warming Fraud" http://www.aim.org/aim-report/aim-report-media-promote-global-warming-fraud-march-a/ [aim.org]

IPCC researcher Wei_Chyung Wang fabricated some scientific claims (PDF file): http://www.informath.org/WCWF07a.pdf [informath.org]

The IPCC consensus vs. the Greenhouse Hall of Fame http://www.warwickhughes.com/climate/consensus.htm [warwickhughes.com]

Naomi Oreskes' report on consensus about climate change (from Science... this is a "pro" article): http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686 [sciencemag.org]

Critique of Oreskes' Study: http://motls.blogspot.com/2005/05/oreskes-study-errata.html [blogspot.com]

Critique of Oreskes' Study: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton_papers/consensus_what_consensus_among_climate_scientists_the_debate_is_not_over.html [scienceand...policy.org]

"Naomi Oreskes' study on consensus was flawed" (2 rebuttals): http://www.skepticalscience.com/naomi-oreskes-consensus-on-global-warming.htm [skepticalscience.com]

UNITED STATES SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT & PUBLIC WORKS "Defense of Science Magazine Global Warming Study Fails to Address Critiques" http://epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=259323 [senate.gov]

HERE ARE A LOT OF LINKS TO MORE. (Sources may be biased... but are you claiming yours were NOT? You would be an idiot to do so.): http://www.warmingscaretactics.com/Consensus.php [warmingscaretactics.com]

Another reference to Peiser and so on: http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzVkN2NlODdkNjcxODc3YjFmNDA0NzM1NTU2ZDQyMDc= [nationalreview.com]

Here are a few more. I am tired of pasting. But there are a million of them, a great many of better quality:

http://www.gci.org.uk/vol/vol.html [gci.org.uk]

http://www.gci.org.uk/papers/soccosts/reply.html [gci.org.uk]

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3247 [canadafreepress.com]

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/968 [canadafreepress.com]



You state that "the cooling of the troposphere is predicted by climate models"... witout acknowledging which climate models those are. Once again: the greenhouse gas models, specifically, require that the upper atmosphere be warming to a degree that has SIMPLY NOT BEEN HAPPENING according to the actual temperature data. If you disbelieve that, then try googling NOAA along with a few choice key words and do your own homework for a change.

And finally, despite your claim, I have not actually insulted you... yet. I merely stated opinions that were not even personal. In exchange, however, you did make some rude comments. Even though I indulged you this one time, since you decided to be rude with your "STFU" comment, I shall be rude right back: my honest opinion is that you are a closed-minded, stuck-in-the-60s, clueless ass. If I wanted to take the time I could post a hundred or more articles and papers that refute the IPCC, many of them with more scientific weight behind them than the IPCC ever had. But I do not want to spend many hours of my valuable time indulging such as you. I have a plane to catch.

Kindly do not bother me again; if you do, I shall not answer.

Re:There is warming, and there is "warming". (1)

MacDork (560499) | more than 6 years ago | (#23905045)

Now please realise that the IPCC does not come up with new science, it is a UN body that gathers scientists from every national science body on the planet and reviews published scientific papers.

They have a deplorable track record. If I were a global warming proponent, I wouldn't even refer to the IPCC. Let's have a look at their short history, shall we? They were founded in 1988. In 1990, they were making wild ass predictions based on computer models. In 1995, those predictions failed to materialize so they blamed sulfate aerosols. In their 2001 report, they were the ones pushing the hockey stick fraud, [newscientist.com] claiming exponential, runaway global warming. It turns out that random data entered into that model produced hockey stick graphs. So they come back with... drum roll please... more inaccurate computer models. [sciencedaily.com]

Ya don't say? You know what, I'm noticing a pattern here. I mean, I can sit down with Excel and create some pretty impressive graphs, but that doesn't make it science.

I only accept evidence that is backed by peer-reviewed publications.

It's a good thing Copernicus didn't think that way.

Re:There is warming, and there is "warming". (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 5 years ago | (#23917393)

Ahhh McDork my pet troll, you missed the fact that the hockey stick was from M.Mann the founder of the realclimate site in my link. I don't know what you hope to gain by the bullshit you post, does someone pay you? BTW: I see your links to trashy magazine columns and raise you a nature blog [nature.com] .

PS: Who was publishing when Copernicus was alive? Do you still beat your wife?

Funny (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 6 years ago | (#23904157)

After participating in this thread quite a bit, I found it interesting how so many people really hate having their pet theories challenged. Apparently, a lot of people equate "science" with what they see on Headline News, and get offended when someone suggests that they might want to dig a little deeper than that.

Remember that the UN is a political organization, not a scientific organization. Its motives are political, and not driven by science.

Anonymous Coward (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23897061)

I bet it's true mission is to detect the location of foreign Submarines.

NASA didn't launch this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23897685)

United Launch Alliance launched this . . . the same company that launched most of NASA's stuff . . . OSTM, GLAST, Pheonix . . .

You call it the apocalypse, NASA calls it ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23900099)

"global climate change."

The very phrase, "global warming", sounds too alarming and unprofessional to be coming from any respectable scientist.

On the other hand, a phrase such as "global climate change", sounds more practical, while still conveying an accurate scientific analysis.

Soulskill, I hope you're reading this. How could you miss such a painfully obvious attempt by NASA to avoid any links to Global Warming? Yet, you ignored the not so subtle difference in semantics and charged on.

This buds for you ... Global Warming, earth-worshiping-hippie! :P

Joint Programe (1)

IAR80 (598046) | more than 6 years ago | (#23900993)

What is not really mentioned is that Jason2 is a joint program between: CNES (Centre National d'Ãtudes Spatiales) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNES [wikipedia.org] NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA [wikipedia.org] Eumetsat (European Organisation for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eumetsat [wikipedia.org] NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOAA [wikipedia.org] CNES and NASA are involved for the launch period and after the satellite operations will be carried out by Eumetsat and NOAA. For more info: http://www.eumetsat.int/Home/Main/What_We_Do/Satellites/Jason/index.htm?l=en [eumetsat.int]

Why is NASA doing this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23907219)

With NASA continually facing budgetary woes, why isn't research like this more appropriately performed by NOAA, the National OCEANOGRAPHIC and Atmospheric Administration? What does this have to do with space exploration? (Yeah, yeah, Earth is in space. Phthhhh...)

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?