Jim Hansen’s NASA Fails With AGW Satellite

Good job, Jim! Perhaps you should have spent less time doing the media circuit and calling for civil disobedience, and more on helping out with your pet project

global warming failA satellite launched today from California failed to reach orbit, dooming a $273 million project to study global-warming gases.

“The mission is lost,” National Aeronautics and Space Administration spokesman Steve Cole said in a telephone interview from the launch site at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. “At this point no one is exactly sure what the cause is.”

The NASA satellite was to orbit 438 miles (705 kilometers) above the Earth and observe how carbon dioxide enters and leaves the atmosphere, helping scientists predict future increases in the main greenhouse gas blamed for global warming.

Oops. Double oops, since the main greenhouse gas is water vapor, not CO2. No matter how much the Believers want CO2 to be the main gas so they can blame Man, and no matter how many times they say it, doesn’t make it true. But, hey, thanks for losing $273 million.

Hey, since this happened during Barry’s presidency, can we blame him for this failure?

Meanwhile, is it an ice age or global warming? Doesn’t matter, because all weather conditions will be blamed on CO2 and Mankind by the true believers. Who do little to nothing themselves to reduce their own carbon footprint. Climahypocrites.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

23 Responses to “Jim Hansen’s NASA Fails With AGW Satellite”

  1. John Ryan says:

    This was funded when the Republicans RULED D.C.

  2. John Ryan says:

    Many people DO try and reduce their carbon footprint. Al Gore buys all of his electricity from renewable sources. And Has totaly refitted his house to go green and won high honors for doing so. Instead YOU cut and paste misleading figures from unsupportable sources. Sad.

  3. Silke says:

    Teach said: Oops. Double oops, since the main greenhouse gas is water vapor, not CO2.

    The IPCC acknowledges this but it misses the point completely because water vapor is not what is causing the current warming trend.

    See Frequently Asked Question 1.3: What is the Greenhouse Effect?

    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-faqs.pdf

    The operative words in the last sentence of the article you cite are… “the main greenhouse gas BLAMED FOR GLOBAL WARMING.”

    I know the distinction may seem subtle to you but if you can’t even get the simple things right on the science how can you possibly begin to understand the complexity of this issue let alone the policy challenges we face in dealing with it?

  4. Trish says:

    Global Warmongers should step back and wait for real science to prevail.

    http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/23/gore-pulls-slide-of-disaster-trends/?ref=science

  5. John Ryan says:

    It is definitely getting warmer here in NYC now some people might just say that it is because winter is ending but if a snowfall in South africa is evidence of “global cooling” then certainly the approach of spring must validate global warming.

  6. hisnamewas says:

    way to cheer on the collapse of a satellite. even though CO2 is not the main GHG you have to realize that absorbance is on a LOGARITHMIC scale. this means that by increasing the concentration of CO2 a small amount increases the amount of absorbed IR a lot thus we have a lot to worry about and even more to worry about when it comes to CH4. also CH4 becomes oxidized in about 100 years but CO2 is the most oxidized space so we have to wait for natural sinks to suck it up which can take a millennium or more.

  7. Colorado Winters says:

    As a man-caused climate change skeptic, I am disappointed that a purpose built instrument that would help study this issue was lost. I am also wondering if this turns out to be a big break for the “climate change” money machine, as it will likely prolong acceptance of the incorrect conclusions made by people using the existing data.

  8. Reasic says:

    Teach,

    Double oops, since the main greenhouse gas is water vapor, not CO2.

    You really are a lost cause. I’ve tried to explain to you many times that, while water vapor does make the largest contribution to the TOTAL greenhouse effect, it cannot CAUSE a CHANGE in the effect, due to its very short atmospheric lifetime (about 7 to 10 days, versus 250 years for CO2). As temperatures drop, water vapor concentrations in the atmosphere will quickly adjust, as water vapor condenses, and as temps rise, the opposite happens. However, CO2 stays in the atmosphere for decades, regardless of short term fluctuations in temperature. Therefore, water vapor is a feedback, meaning it can only amplify the effects of other forcings, such as CO2 and methane.

    The dumbest thing I’ve seen here is your willingness to accept that methane causes a change in temperature, while at the same time denying CO2’s effect.

    Will you please discuss these misunderstandings on your part, or will you continue in ignorance?

  9. hisnamewas says:

    an what is the real science? the scientists who spread disinformation bc they are funded by the oil companies and the discovery institute? get real

  10. Chris says:

    I find this post terribly disappointing and ill-informed. This satellite was the career’s work of many hard working scientists. Climate skeptics should have cherished this satellite’s capabilities because it would have addressed many of the remaining uncertainties in the broad global carbon cycle. Sad that skeptics lost this powerful tool and celebration by skeptics suggests skeptics really are just wanting to put their head in the sand than learn new info that might prove them even more wrong. Also, this satellite has nothing to directly do with Jim Hansen either, sorry. Also, your reasoning about h20 vs co2 is short-sighted as well. Indeed, h2o is a more effective greenhouse gas than co2, but 1. co2 is still a strong greenhouse gas (which we’ve increased greatly), and 2. warming the earth with co2 evaporates more water vapor, enhancing warming through this positive feedback loop.

  11. Reasic says:

    What?! No response from Teach about water vapor? Now discussion and open exchange of ideas? No!! Not here! I thought Teach was about considering ALL sources of information. I thought Teach was interested in the truth!

    Let’s face it, Teach. You’re just another cog in the machine. You are nothing but a kool-aid drinking ideologue, who tries to make reality conform to his ideology, rather than the other way around. You might try to make the same claim about me, but let’s examine the difference. I have continually tried to discuss the issue with you, and you have openly stated that you don’t understand climate science. You’re not interested in discussing it because you don’t understand it. You think it’s good enough that some other people who know more about it than you do also disagree with AGW.

    Well, I’ve been to Anthony Watt’s blog for the last few days, and I’ve found nothing but the same ignorant denialism there as well. Sure, some of their arguments are a bit more complex than yours, but they are still just as confused about the basics of atmospheric thermodynamics, and more importantly, just as rooted in a distrust and disdain for the scientific process that is unique to the conservative movement.

    It blows me away how these people will not accept the work of the vast majority of the world’s climate experts, and yet at the same time, will link to a “paper” by Joe Blow, who took the time to throw some excel charts together and post them on a website, as evidence. WHAT?!?! We have an entire community of scientific experts, who are conducting research on our climate, and are publishing their work in reputable scientific journals, and you cling to some civil engineer’s ill-conceived analysis of our climate system?! This is NUTS!! It’s bizarro land!

    Then, you have Dr. Roy Spencer, one out of two practicing climate scientists who actually disagree with AGW. This guy, by the way, understands that water vapor is a feedback. You should ask him about it. However, he hinges his disbelief in the theory that water vapor might actually be a NEGATIVE feedback. It’s ludicrous. He’s can’t get his research published. He blames bias (wouldn’t you)?

  12. Trish says:

    God forbid global warming believers would at least admit there’s some room for error on the part of the science that this movement is trying to force us to follow. :[

    http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html

  13. Reasic says:

    Trish:

    James Peden claims that we should trust him because he’s an atmospheric physicist, but then proceeds to make many dubious claims on his site. Please also read the following for a thorough debunking. Let me know what you think:

    http://www.scruffydan.com/blog/?p=1547

  14. Silke says:

    Trish said: God forbid global warming believers would at least admit there’s some room for error on the part of the science that this movement is trying to force us to follow.

    Science is by definition a self-correcting process, so the scientific community always acknowledges room for error. For instance we have a much better understanding now of climate change than we did twenty or thirty years ago. But that doesn’t mean we disregard what is fairly well understood now.

    Honestly, the only errors I’ve seen lately are the ones made repeatedly by Teach. No wonder he readily acknowledges he’s not interested in the science. At least this post didn’t include his usual – it’s the Sun’s fault; methane is worse than CO2 (thus contradicting his usual assertion that CO2 has no effect).

  15. Reasic says:

    Trish,

    I would also add to Dan’s analysis:

    #4. The argument that man’s contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere is miniscule ignores the reality of the carbon cycle. For hundreds of years prior to the industrial revolution, our atmospheric concentration of CO2 stayed relatively stable, meaning that the what CO2 was released naturally was also absorbed naturally. After around 1850, the concentration shot up from about 284 ppm to 384 ppm (where it is now), which is the highest it’s been in the last 650,000 years. We know, thanks to studies of the various carbon isotopes in the atmosphere that this unprecendented increase in CO2 concentration is due to human activity. In other words, we have been emitting carbon dioxide faster than the natural carbon sinks can keep up. This is also evidenced by the acidification of the ocean.

    #5. One of the best arguments against the theory that solar activity is primmarily responsible for climate change is the fact that the temperature in the stratosphere (the layer of our atmosphere above the troposphere) has been declining, while the temperature in the lower troposphere has been rising. This is exactly what is to be expected if an increase in greenhouse gases were primarily responsible for warming. If solar activity were primarily to blame, we would expect more of a uniform warming throughout the whole atmosphere.

    So do you accept one rogue scientist’s opinion, who espouses very dubious “skeptical” claims, which contradict the very basics of climate science, or do you accept the work of the VAST MAJORITY of the world’s climate experts? I don’t put this to you to use the bandwagon or appeal to authority fallacies. I put it this way to make sure you understand the gravity of the situation. You are bucking a very large and established group of experts in a particular field, who are backed by years of verifiable research. If that’s the route you choose, that’s fine, but you must know that this means you are basically accepting a conspiracy theory, in that you believe all of these scientists are perpetuating a lie in order to continue receiving funding, and that the powers that be are discouraging dissent, even to the point of refusing the publishing of research, based simply on ideology. If this is your view, then I’d want to make damn sure that it was backed by some EXTREMELY sound arguments, and that I’d checked these against possible contradictory evidence for good measure. Peden’s site DOES NOT pass this test for me. Your thoughts?

  16. Trish says:

    Pedin is by far NOT the only scientist to dispute and some of the “vast majority” and “large and established group of experts” have themselves begun to back pedal on their own first opinions. Also, I myself have not yet read through his entire editorial, and doubt I’ll understand the science completely, but if you think you understand it all, bless you.
    As I stated, what harm could there be in questioning the absolutes of Global warming? None I can see, especially if it prevents us from rushing headlong into policies that will likely bankrupt the average country, as well as our own.
    I’m not saying that we should burn oil in the streets and haphazardly emit CO2 pollution to our hearts content. I think we can finally grow up and gradually get off that addiction. I’m simply saying that a whole lot of this science is not adding up, and Gore’s hype movie that started it all, is more hype than fact. (ip)

  17. Silke says:

    Trish said: As I stated, what harm could there be in questioning the absolutes of Global warming?

    There’s no harm in questioning. After all, science isn’t just about what we know but (perhaps more importantly) how we know what we know. But that doesn’t mean it’s OK to ignore or misrepresent the evidence. There’s a lot of bad information out there. We need to be able to distinguish what constitutes good science. That usually starts with peer-reviewed studies. The IPCC uses this as their basis to write their periodic assessments.

    I’m simply saying that a whole lot of this science is not adding up,..

    Climate change is complicated but whether you or I fully understand the science has no bearing on the evidence. This is why it’s so important we educate ourselves on this subject as well as we can.

    …and Gore’s hype movie that started it all, is more hype than fact.

    Al Gore’s movie is irrelevant. The evidence for modern human influence on climate does not rest on a documentary. Peer-reviewed scientific literature is the only evidence that matters. I recommend the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report. The Frequently Asked Questions section is excellent:

    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-faqs.pdf

  18. Reasic says:

    Trish,

    Pedin is by far NOT the only scientist to dispute and some of the “vast majority” and “large and established group of experts” have themselves begun to back pedal on their own first opinions.

    No, he’s not, but:

    1. He is one of only a few skeptical climate scientists. The majority of the “scientists” paraded by people like Inhofe and Singer as “skeptics” work in unrelated fields.

    2. My point was not that he’s the only one. My point was that you’re choosing to accept his OPINION, rather than the wealth of research and data that is available to support AGW, via the work of the vast majority of scientists. These scientists travel to Antarctica to drill ice cores, among other things, and this guy wrote a webpage, which basically contains a consortium of “skeptical” arguments, none of which hold water.

    Also, I myself have not yet read through his entire editorial, and doubt I’ll understand the science completely, but if you think you understand it all, bless you.

    I don’t understand it all. No one does. There is much work to be done. However, I have studied the issue quite a bit, and it doesn’t take much studying to understand that Peden’s arguments are bunk. I urge you to do the same. Read, or at least skim, through Peden’s webpage, and then also read Dan’s rebuttal. See which you think makes more sense. If you’re still not sure, consult various resources. Don’t stop until you are convinced that one argument is valid and the other invalid, based solely on evidence.

    As I stated, what harm could there be in questioning the absolutes of Global warming? None I can see, especially if it prevents us from rushing headlong into policies that will likely bankrupt the average country, as well as our own.

    This is part of the problem in the thinking of “skeptics”. The only potential “problem” you see is the wasteful spending of your tax dollars. The other potential problem that you completely discount, without a general understanding of the science, is the ramifications of doing nothing. The consequences of inaction vary depending on various emissions/technological advancement scenarios, and were also covered by the IPCC’s latest report.

    If you want to objectively consider opportunity costs, you should not only consider the consequences if the IPCC report is wrong, but also the consequences if they are right and we do nothing. We are talking rising sea levels (sending residents in low-lying areas inland, causing possible overcrowding and depletion of resources), extinction of over 30% of animal species on the planet, mass bleaching of corals (destroying entire marine ecosystems), further drought and famine in already poverished countries, reduction in the production of cereals and other produce in certain areas, etc. Some people like to make the claim that more CO2 will be better for life on the planet, but they ignore the negative effects that the increased warmth would bring. The fact that it might’ve been warmer in the past is also irrelevant. We currently have a global population that cannot sustain a disruption in food supply and ecosystems that we would face if global warming goes unchecked. All of this isn’t even considering Hansen’s proposed ocean circulation changes.

    So, please think objectively and critically about this. There is much more information out there. If you have not read any of the IPCC AR4 report summaries, I highly recommend it. You don’t have to believe it. Just read them. Then, if you are faced with contradictory arguments from “skeptical” sources, evaluate the two and make an informed decision. Look at both sides. I guarantee if you do this, you will realize that the vast majority of “skeptical” arguments are bunk.

    I’m simply saying that a whole lot of this science is not adding up, and Gore’s hype movie that started it all, is more hype than fact.

    I agree with Silke. Screw Al Gore. His movie IS hype. That’s what it was intended to be: an eye-opener. I still haven’t even seen the damn thing. If you want facts, look at the science. So many “skeptics” argue against Al Gore, but in doing so, they’re barking up the wrong tree. Forget Al Gore. Read the IPCC report summaries, and if you want more info, read the reports themselves. If you still want more, there are hundreds of published research papers on the subject, which the IPCC based its reports on. Then, when you’ve read up on the AGW argument (sans Gore), go back and compare with Peden’s arguments.

  19. TDoc says:

    $273 million??? Had this satellite not failed to reach the orbit, I still wonder if it was going to worth it. Seriously, series after series of scientific researches have come out and people don’t really change the way they live.

    Plus, how much carbon footprint this mission left, anyway?

    Meanwhile, NASA was harshly slammed by most sides, even its astronaut: http://www.newsy.com/videos/launch_fails_for_nasa

  20. Silke says:

    Trish,

    Notice how Teach is completely silent on the evidence.

    In contrast, Reasic and I put all our cards on the table. We told you exactly what source we consider most credible and which evidence we find most compelling. Links were even provided so you could read the information for yourself.

  21. What is there to say? You and Reasic are basically AGW zealots who start from the hypothesis that it is mostly or all Mankinds fault, and nothing will dissuade you of that feeling. Of course, it isn’t enough to actually get you to change your behavior…..

  22. Silke says:

    Teach said: What is there to say?

    You could say what evidence you find most compelling and give a credible scientific source to back it up.

    You’re wrong when you say nothing will dissuade me, Teach. Provide better evidence and I’m perfectly willing to change my mind. Ironically, the person accusing others of zealotry and obstinacy is the one person who isn’t even interested in the evidence. (Note to Trish: that tells you something about the strength of his argument.)

  23. Reasic says:

    Teach,

    I’m in the same boat with Silke. Provide some evidence, and I’ll seriously consider it. There are much more scientific skeptical arguments out there, which focus on feedbacks or cosmic ray flux/cloud formation. At least there is some sort of research being done to prove these hypotheses.

    You, however, cling to very ridiculous denialist propaganda that shows your lack of understanding on the basics of climate science. Wise up and learn how to be truly skeptical. So far, you’ve only shown a willingness to spread ignorance on this subject.

Pirate's Cove