DSCOVR Mission May Be Gutted

Wed, 2008-10-29 16:44Mitchell Anderson
Mitchell Anderson's picture

DSCOVR Mission May Be Gutted

















Good for you!


Fern Mackenzie


This is obvioulsy a case of George W. Bush trying to pursue a scorched earth policy against "the greenies trying to save the world."

Cheers, Alastair.

Do you realize the sheer idiocy of your statement?


Bush signed the bill forcing NASA to come to a decision. How is this "pursuing a scorched earth policy?"

Ummm. . . But NASA is a "Greenie" organization. If the reason for not launching is coming from inside NASA, it is to serve some sort of liberal agenda, not conservative.






Good question! In fact, I intend to blame George W. Bush for EVERYTHING for the next 8 years. It's payback for all those republicans who have been blaming everything on Clinton.



ha ha ha ha ha ha


IF someone is lying about global warming and pushing something for their own financial gain, say, alternative energy, in the end that's GREAT anyhow because oil is running out and the faster we can exploit all sources of energy more efficiently the less chance there is that we'll deplete one and then be left with nothing.


2. I don't think that there is any reputable dispute that the earth is warming. The debate is the degree to which human activities are influencing this warming.



Craig, DSCOVR's instruments (if they aren't removed) could measure the Earth's energy imbalance, if any. Climate is, essentially, a function of this -- the net result of Incoming Energy - Outgoing Energy. Weather is just a matter of shifting that energy around.

To date, the current instruments measure weather and we need to do some analysis to look for climate signal in that noise. However, if DSCOVR directly observes an energy imbalance (one way or the other), it is essentially measuring the key input into climate. If it returns a positive (and potentially increasing) imbalance, then that shows more energy's coming in than going out (however, other research shows that total solar irradiance -- the energy output from the sun -- has been steady for at least 30 years, meaning that the imbalance likely comes from a reduction in outgoing energy -- which is what GHG warming predicts). If it returns a negative value, then more energy's going out than coming in, and the ZOMGWE'RECOOLING crowd is probably correct.


That is why we wouldn't need thousands of years of data.


Good idea Paul! I just contacted my congressman and senators.


NEO satellites and climate data crunching are run out of a different department (and different centers) than satellites that leave earth orbit. Launching DSCOVR has the effect of placing the major new climate observing equipment (and it's associated research budget) in a whole new group of bureaucrat's hands. It also means that the data (and opportunity for first publication) is first received by scientists outside of Hansen's climate change group.

Even if the data 100% confirmed the existing climate groups' previous publications, this will be strenuaously fought so they can maintain their budgets. If it did not confirm previous publications, it would cause their budgets to tumble even faster and lead to a different Department's being percieved as correcting errors made by Hansen, a big scientific black eye for NASA.

Unlike the previous writer, I suspect Bush would love to see this thing launched since it will diminish Hansen's standing no matter what its data shows. It's just that there are thousands of small ways for NASA insiders to delay a satellite launch and only a few ways to actually get one off the ground.

Your argument is so full of stupid that it isn't worth dissecting.


you need to change "warming planet" to "cooling planet".







You're kidding right? You actually believe that?

Hmmm. . . why hypothesize a right-wing conspiracy when it could just as easily be a left-wing conspiracy. Maybe there are scientists and tree-hugger politicians that have too much to loose -- even on the small chance that their theories are proven wrong -- to launch this probe. NASA has been spending billions trying to prove Human Induced Global Warming. What would happen if they prooved that it isn't true -- or that their strategy of using low orbit satallites for Earth observation was flawed?


"what can people outside the US do to get this back on track?"


The last ice age ended 20,000 years ago, long before the industrial revolution. What caused the Earth to warm back then? For that matter, what caused the Earth to cool to start that ice age? Why can't you people (and I DO mean that as a pejorative) just accept that climate change is natural?

The ice age in the Northern Hemisphere, America, Europe and Asia, only ended 10,000 not 20,000 years ago. That was when temperatures jumped by 10c in as little as three years. See "The Two Mile Time Machine" by Richard Alley.




Cheers, Alastair.



How, out of Bush signing a bill that makes NASA explain why they aren't using it to monitor Earth, do you come to say that this is obviously a "scorched earth" policy by Bush?

I don't like the man either, but why do people always have to say everything that goes wrong is Bush's fault? Even in cases like this one where he has signed a bill that holds an agency accountable for their actions.



(Didn't we also believe that the earth was heading for the next ice age in the '70s?)



Warming? Um... no warming since 1998.

maybe we should be looking at the sun.

the sun is in a quiet period, we're cooler.

that's not to say that greenhouse gasses aren't contributing, but it looks as if the sun is much more of a factor.

Where did you get your scientific information? Fox news?

Thought so.

Just because you figured out how to get words on the typewriter with a tv on it doesn't make it true. No warminging since 1998? Complete BS. You flaunt your ignorance as though you are proud of it. But why bother with scientific research when Bill O'Riley tells you everything you need to know?


Is the earth warming? - Widely accepted that it is, not widely argued that it isn't. The satelite could end this debate.

Is the warming anthropogenic? This is the question, and the satelite wouldn't offer any insight here.


Climate change is ultimately bad for us, no matter what the cause. Who cares whether global warming is being caused by natural phenomena? I'm sure the victims of the last few ice ages and global warmings are secure in their knowledge that they weren't the ones to blame.
At any rate, I'm sure NASA is simply prioritizing their projects. With their tiny budget they can't really afford to do everything. Of course, I'm only seventeen years old, so I really don't know that much.


The only thing steady about these guesses is that there is never steady-state anything, so reliance on an imagined steady-state sun in "sophisticated computer models" is fatuous.

If I am to base my loyalties on personality rather than measurable data, I shall stand with this year's new petition of 32,000 signatories possessing university degrees in physical science. More than nine thousand possess doctorates in physical science. That is physical science, not political "science," social "science," or any other exercises in cat's cradles, houses of cards, pipe dreams, or smoke and mirrors. Text follows:




I'd put my money on internal BS about who has the biggest pianist... seriously... human beings are way too petty, way too selfish, and almost incapable of keeping secrets for it to be a conspiracy...

Heck, even WWI was basically the King of England and his cousin the Kaiser (and the Czar) trying to see who had the biggest package... regardless of who suffered...



This craft has been ready to launch for 8 years, yet it is being held back so these measurements cannot be taken. Does anyone wonder why? They've been hiding something, and now the Air Force wants it so we won't find out what they've been hiding.



What I don't understand is the people who are so intent on denying that climate change exists. Suppose we take major steps to reduce atmospheric CO2 and the whole thing turns out to be wrong, what do we lose? A little bit of money, maybe a little bit of personal convenience, but that's pretty much it. Suppose we do absolutely nothing and the climate change problem turns out to be very real, what do we lose? Everything. Everybody dies, no more humanity. I'm sorry if I can't help regarding anyone who advocates ignoring the issue as a profoundly ignorant and selfish person with only his short-term personal interests in mind.

it really doesn't matter whether or not we're having any obvious influence on the global climate (although it seems to be a possibility, which should be enough). either way, we're being really inefficient, and foolish, preferring to buy (from teurrists!) a fantastic source of energy that is finite, instead of being smart enough to solve our own energy needs with renewable everpounding solar. fuck wind and hydro, they're just engineers wanking off, solar has so many possibilities... is kind of ridiculously obviously the way to go.

save the geofuels for crazy space exploration!

and i guess get this stupid thing off the ground, and push for an administrative restart for NASA, cause lately they're sucking pretty hard. but geez, enough with the climate change blah blah blah, enough with squandering hydrocarbons. was there such a fuss when we switched from steam? or horsies?!

The whole "Sun is responsible for recent warming" nonsense is so easily debunked that it's almost embarrassing.

Folks who still buy into "the Sun is responsible" nonsense should take a look at this post I made on another forum addressing claims similar STER's: http://tinyurl.com/5dcp33. That post includes a plot of high-precision satellite measurements of solar output going back nearly 30 years. Consider the questions that I posed in that post.






read more