NASA: Satellite which will end man-made CO2 debate in orbit at last NASA's Orbiting Carbon Observatory 2 (OCO-2) not only managed to lift off today, it also achieved successful separation from its booster stack and got into orbit. Youtube Video The satellite – which will study the absorption of sunlight by carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere – is the third attempt to get a CO2-measuring …
I agree but lets show some data.
I don't know if this website has an axe to grind but here goes anyway.
Make of it what you will. The data is only included to year 2000.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html
And for your further reading
http://www.icr.org/article/does-carbon-dioxide-drive-global-warming/
The key point is that the climate goes in a cycle. Far from having pushed the temperature to catastrophic levels, we are just following the natural cycle. If you look carefully at the graph, you will notice that every bust was preceded by a boom and we are right at the end of the latest boom.
In other words, prepare for cold weather.
You are right about the first bit: there are natural cycles. The big problem is that we have recently superimposed a huge man-made increase in CO2 level on top of the naturally cycling level. Have a look at this graph. At first glance it looks like it supports your view that we are nearly at the end of a boom, and therefore cold temperatures will follow soon... except that if you look closely you'll see a one-pixel wide red line in the top right corner spiking up really high: that's where the man-made increase in CO2 happens, and that is why it is reasonable to expect even warmer temperatures.
Ok, past climate data points to natural cycles, but what we're seeing at the moment is a rate of temperature change that is about 100 times faster than these natural cycles. Climate change deniers need to find an explanation for this accelerated rate of change that doesn't involve carbon dioxide. So far they've failed.
"Ok, past climate data points to natural cycles, but what we're seeing at the moment is a rate of temperature change that is about 100 times faster than these natural cycles. Climate change deniers need to find an explanation for this accelerated rate of change that doesn't involve carbon dioxide. So far they've failed."
You know it would be nice to actually discuss facts rather than fiction when you're debating something. The rate of temperature increase has not increased by a factor of 100, yes there was a period from the late 70's to mid 90's where there was a sharp increase in temperature increase, from a cyclic low in the early to mid 70's to the temperatures seen in the 90's. Maybe you're referring to the doctored data that was debunked from the IPCC manipulating data, not sure.
What I know is that there has been a temperature increase since the 1950's and the IPCC had to adjust their forecasts because real temperature increases were significantly less than what they had been forecasting.
The other thing to keep in mind is that as CO2 levels increase, the impact to temperature decreases on a logarithmic scale. So I'm not convinced that this satellite will end any debate, but I'm hoping we can get things in real terms instead of the current crisis mode alarmist forecasts.
here's a site to back up my statements, check it out. http://www.climatechangefacts.info/
"Scientists are arguing over details, but are in broad agreement now. The big debate going on in public awareness is political in nature, not scientific. Facts have very little role in a political debate. This will change nothing."
I don't know you so don't take this personally but there is clearly a misconceived idea of the definitions of "Science" and "Fact" at play here. It would be very hard indeed to 'scientifically prove' anything in this realm. Also, consensus opinion is a red herring that should not really be mentioned in any serious debate on the subject as it is wholly irrelevant.
Yes we now know Man Made Global Warming is a complete scam intended to keep the funding going for the weak minded "spread sheet scientists" that endlessly sit and think up ever more dire predictions to recite to the lap dog agitprop press.
FYI: Does not matter how much CO2 there is in atmosphere for the most potent greenhouse gas is WATER VAPOR"
Has anyone told the flat-earthers of the following experiment?
- Fly around the world TWICE, at right angles to each other (once to the west, once to the south). Start from say Nairobi, Kenya (which is practically on the Equator). The two paths should cross exactly once other than in Nairobi, and on a globe that point can be predicted. It will also be exactly halfway. I tried plotting it out on a plate and found I could not achieve the halfway bit on a flat surface without twists and turns and should be noticeable on a plane because the normal procedure for a turn is to roll AND yaw (meaning to not notice the turn would require a magical force that can turn you without you noticing it, not even with your biological gyroscopes). Then there's the matter of the TWO pole flyovers on the southbound trip, one of which occurs AFTER the intersection (which on a flat earth would require going INSIDE the first flight path, preventing access to the edge).
...nobody seems to be considering the possible case that
climate change is happening (as it has many times in the past)
it is being driven by changes in CO2 levels
these changes are NOT man made
we still need to develope strategies to deal with them.
Hopefully the measurements will cover this also.
We are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. In huge amounts. This is not something that's in doubt, we are burning stuff and producing CO2.
So for these changes to be NOT man made, that CO2 would have to be disappearing somewhere without trace, and some other CO2 would have to be appearing from some unknown source in similar amounts, and have only started appearing in the last few years rather than the billions of years Earth has been around.
Yes, it appears that nobody (other than yourself) is considering that possible case.
Odd, that.
"CO2 would have to be disappearing somewhere without trace"
This is quite naive. Adding CO2 in the atmosphere has almost no effect on global temperature because we are already at the 100% level. No more infrared can be absorbed by the atmosphere, no matter the amount of CO2 you add.
"No more infrared can be absorbed by the atmosphere, no matter the amount of CO2 you add."
Correct, but....
...once the infrared hits the planet (ground, ocean, clouds), is absorbed and reemitted at a lower frequency, the CO2 acts as an effective blanket, limiting heat emission back into space.
That's the reason it's known as a greenhouse gas. The same principle applies to glasshouses (near-infrared can penetrate glass, but far-infrared cannot.)
"We are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. In huge amounts. This is not something that's in doubt, we are burning stuff and producing CO2."
I have to ask. Is it really, REALLY that huge compared to natural phenomenon such as spontaneous fires and animal respiration? Can someone produce some concrete numbers that compare 150 years of human combustion to natural sources? And what about counter-reactions like photosynthesis? Wouldn't increased CO2 be offset by increased plant activity? Why is the CO2 such that plants, diatoms, and such can't keep up?
> Wouldn't increased CO2 be offset by increased plant activity?
Ever heard of the rainforest ?
http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=deforestation+amazon+rainforest&l=1
We have been cutting down "quite" some forests since the middle ages, and been producing more and more CO2 since. Methane is also a big issue, lookup what cattle farts do to the atmosphere. (10 year olds love looking these things up and this forum is full of twats of that age group.)
Lets not argue, though, I do not know if CO2 is causing climate change, hence I cannot tell if man is responsible - I guess nobody can, yet, so stop arguing. Let science advance.
The weird thing is petro-chemical industry is paying a lot of money for lobbying, which to me looks fishy - why would they need to do that ? They caused the current situation where scientists are seeking attention around the globe claiming most contradicting things.
All I wrote does not mean that we can go on forever burning fossil fuel, though. It is obvious we need to find alternate energy sources. Clean energy is energy with 0 effect on the environment, which means it is safe to use and abuse. We also need to make sure we create a loop in resources, re-using Ad vitam æternam. We are thrashing our habitat, which is a bit silly considering we only have one.
I have to ask. Is it really, REALLY that huge compared to natural phenomenon such as spontaneous fires and animal respiration?
Yes, becase spontaneous fires and animal respiration add 0% CO2 to the atmosphere,
The CO2 emitted by burning wood all came from the atmosphere, fixed by photosynthesis.
The CO2 emitted by animal respiration all came from the plants that the animals ate, The plants got the CO2 from the atmosphere.
And what about counter-reactions like photosynthesis? Wouldn't increased CO2 be offset by increased plant activity? Why is the CO2 such that plants, diatoms, and such can't keep up?Because there are other limiting factors. But we know our emissions are partly being taken up by natural sinks (unfortunately including ocean acidification) because we know how much CO2 we are releasing (there is a little known branch of mathematics called "accountancy" that tells us pretty exactly how much fossil fuel is being burnt) and we know how much the atmospheric CO2 is increasing. It turns out the atmospheric increase is about half of our emissions.
All the CO2 we are releasing from fossil fuels were in the atmosphere at one time right? A time when the Earth sustained numerous, enormous, and hungry dinosaurs for millions of years. The CO2 at that time was absorbed and released by the oceans the same way it is now and the oceans did not die but rather flourished. Aren't we simply re-balancing the CO2 levels to an extremely productive geological time? What is the ideal amount of CO2 and the proper global temperature? Sorry, I still have more questions than answers.
All the CO2 we are releasing from fossil fuels were in the atmosphere at one time right? A time when the Earth sustained numerous, enormous, and hungry dinosaurs for millions of years.And very few human beings.
(Actually, to be less flippant, the carboniferous, when the coal beds were laid down, had amphibians, not dinosaurs).
"All the CO2 we are releasing from fossil fuels were in the atmosphere at one time right? A time when the Earth sustained numerous, enormous, and hungry dinosaurs for millions of years"
Long, LONG before dinosaurs. Back when animal life was primitive (amphibians were just getting going) ....... and when the sun's output was only 50-75% of what it is now. Despite the reduced solar input it was still pretty toasty compared to life today(*)
(*) Apart from the obvious polar stuff, pre-ice age deep ocean abyssal plains were quite warm at 18-22C. Now they're down around 3-5C It takes a lot of joules to change that much water by that many degrees.
I was going to reply that there is a difference in photosynthesising sugars to make energy, and atmospheric CO2. Then I realised that the level of comment was so appalling low that talking science in this arena was a waste of oxygen and would generate too much CO2.
Mines the one with "The science behind climate change" in the pocket.
Kusadasi, Turkey, near the ancient Roman town of Ephesus, once the most important commercial center of the western Anatolia. In the first century BCE, it was the second largest city in the world, with more than 250,000 people living there. As the harbor silted up this Aegean port city was left high and dry five miles inland.
Speaking of which, I once heard of a port town (in Greece, I think) that's no longer a port town because the water's moved several kilometers away. I've never seen a debate over how that happened or even the name of the place. Could someone perhaps elaborate?
This might have something to do with Greece (and Turkey) being positioned right above the bit of the planet where two major tectonic plates are moving towards each other. There are many active faults and earthquakes are common. There are also a number of settlements that are now below sea level for the same reasons.
You need look no further than Rye and Winchelsea in Kent. They were once harbour, fronting right ont he Channel. Even Hastings had a rather good harbour, but in the late 1200s a big storm began the process of filling in the Sussex/Kent coastline. That storm is now considered to be the opening act of the weather shift we now call the Little Ice Age.
The beaches which the romans landed on are a mile or so inland too - the southeast/south coast of england is being filled in by longshore drift - which means something is eroding somewhere else to provide the fill material - ie, where all those villages are falling into the sea 100 miles or so up the coast.
Longshore drift only results in land a metre or so higher than sea level in most cases. It takes plant colonisation and centuries of growth/decay to add more height, in the absence of seismic activity.
And Wellington (NZ) airport is on land that was under sea in 1920. Global warming? No - seismic activity. There are as many places that are now undersea as are now miles from the shore.
Global warming - yes.
Anthropomorphic - maybe.
Can we fix it - possibly.
Will we fix it - unlikely.
Naughtyhorse, it appears you follow the green CAGW religion because of your comment.
I will agree with you that it will settle nothing for the simple reason the warmists will start changing the raw data to something that fits their agenda - just as they are doing with the land temperature data where they go as far as making up complete sets of figures to make the pre 1990 temperatures colder and the post 1990 temperatures higher.
The key is to deny and fight against the status quo changing while you get yours and then when your position becomes untenable in the future blend in with the masses and say you were saying we should do something about climate change all along. Wasn't that the play book on Jim Crow laws and as well recently with gay marriage?
Practical fusion will be a decade or so away for the forseeable future (and there's still that pesky problem of neutron embrittlement to deal with)
On the other hand Molten salt fission reactors are doable with current technology and don't have the same issues with venting nasties if things go wrong that boiling water, graphite moderated or molten metal fission reactors do.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
