JE: They were interested in identification in flight - I don't think studying combustion was the goal for this equipment. Tests were on fixed rigs, so they could easily sample exhaust gases if needed and probably did.
I didn't follow your satellite 'discussions' with njp. I've never spotted any scientific error or untruth from him in several years while your posts are riddled with both. I respect his scientific knowledge and integrity and I do not respect yours. I can't add anything so I'll just let him get on with it.
Just thought you might be following the IPCCs faulty description which requires a third law violation in order to work.
But anyway, we both agree that the atmosphere warms the Earth?
You finding fault (where none exists) in carefully-worded IPCC statements which are based on some of the most highly-scrutinised science would be like you claiming the OED makes spelling mistakes in their dictionaries. It's not actually impossible but quite ridiculous that you would be among those able to spot a rare error.
The coincidence of the current plateau in global surface temperatures with the continuing rise in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has raised many questions about the climate models and their forecasts of serious anthropogenic global warming.
Which discusses the issues around simulation vs reality.
The coincidence of the current plateau in global surface temperatures with the continuing rise in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has raised many questions about the climate models and their forecasts of serious anthropogenic global warming.
Which discusses the issues around simulation vs reality.
I was just pointing out you were wrong to suggest clouds aren't made of water vapor.
No, I was right to tell you that (it wasn't just a "suggestion"). And the difference mattered, because your claims about water vapour were in fact claims about clouds.
But cAGW dogma assumes water vapor is a positive feedback doesn't it?
No, Eel. Science assumes that, because it is known to be true. Perhaps you are confusing water vapour with clouds again. As I've explained to you before, clouds have two very large but opposing effects, so the forcing sign associated with the expected increase in cloudiness is not certain, but most models predict that it will be positive. Even if the cloud feedback were negative, the water vapour feedback would still be positive, of course.
I thought I had, but you don't seem to accept that GHGs reduce energy from Sun to surface.
That's another of your lies that you have on some kind of loop. I've explained the greenhouse effect, accepted by mainstream science for over a hundred years, but you still prefer your own theory, based on some physics you made up in your head.
It's semantics, pedantry and playing with my food again. Trees aren't made of wood, bones aren't made of calcium, clouds aren't made of water vapor.. nlp seizes on these minor details to avoid answering the questions I asked him.
Far from being "minor details", they go to the very heart of your lack of understanding of any of the science you imagine yourself competent to criticise. That's why I seize on them. And your irrelevant questions about satellites are just you attempting to slither away from the point - which is that OCO-2 won't give you the numbers you demanded, that the numbers even if you had them wouldn't make your theory that "CO2 prevents warming during the day" become true, and that you were somehow able to formulate this novel theory without the use of any numbers at all, which seems somewhat hypocritical.
Just thought you might be following the IPCCs faulty description which requires a third law violation in order to work
The IPCC's description is not faulty, and does not require a "third law violation" to work.
The reason that none of the many people (often highly qualified in relevant scientific disciplines) who have read this text have ever spotted the fault that you claim to have seen is not because you are blessed with unique scientific insights, like some latter day Feynman. It is because you are wrong.
That's why I seize on them. And your irrelevant questions about satellites are just you attempting to slither away from the point
They're not irrelevant. You insist OCO-2 is the wrong satellite, and something else is the "right satellite". So in the interests of spreading some science, state what you think is the "right satellite", and why.
- which is that OCO-2 won't give you the numbers you demanded
Why not? As usual, you're doing your trick of making glib statements without any evidence to support them.
They're not irrelevant. You insist OCO-2 is the wrong satellite
That's because it is the wrong satellite, not being designed to do what you imagine it is designed to do. That you should think it is, and that it might help you with your "theory" amuses me.
NSA spying on us, NASA spying on plants! The SIF part of it wasn't something I'd looked at before but is a pretty neat way of looking at plant activity.
"This press conference will present early results from the OCO-2 mission. Fossil fuel combustion, deforestation and other human activities are adding almost 40 billion tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere each year, yet less than half of it stays airborne. The rest is apparently being absorbed by natural processes at the surface, whose identity and location are poorly understood. Ground-based carbon dioxide measurements accurately record the global atmospheric carbon dioxide budget and its trends but do not have the resolution or coverage needed to identify the "sources" emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere or the natural "sinks" absorbing this gas."
Quite an interesting presentation, confirming (as if confirmation were needed!) that OCO-2 will not furnish the Eel with the numbers he so desperately requires to see why the greenhouse effect works as mainstream science says it works, and not how he says it works.
Take home points: accuracy of 1 to 2 ppm, won't work through clouds, or at high latitudes. Target mode allows validation of OCO-2 data from a network of ground stations, used in conjunction with GEOS-5 carbon cycle model to gain understanding of the sources and sinks. SIF mode an interesting bonus.
That's because it is the wrong satellite, not being designed to do what you imagine it is designed to do. That you should think it is, and that it might help you with your "theory" amuses me.
So two posts where again you can't name the "right satellite", or explain why a satellite designed to measure radiance at 2 of the 4 absorption points won't give, well, CO2 radiance data.
More diet science from the expert..
Any thoughts as to why simulation and observations are reversed, ie the simulation showing CO2 in the NH, observations showing it in the SH? This may help you-
Any thoughts as to why simulation and observations are reversed, ie the simulation showing CO2 in the NH, observations showing it in the SH? This may help you-
That's a website written by a nutter to titillate other nutters, so of course amongst the comments are the expected conspiracy theories about how the OCO-2 data will be used to impose taxes, or how the data will be "adjusted" to conform with the conspiracy objectives, but also bizarre inferences about how it already shows climate science to be wrong!
Why would anyone be interested in that cesspit of idiocy?
Your own quote showed it was the wrong satellite. Why we have to fidn the right satellite for your idea is bizarre.
The question relates to a comment originally from WUWT which referred to CERES. Both you and nlp are convinced OCO-2's the wrong satellite to measure CO2 radiance. nlp said the WUWT comment had the "right satellite", but CERES isn't a satellite, and he refuses to name what he thinks is correct.
As explained at least twice before, according to your quote it doesn't measure incoming energy.
I asked of incoming and outgoing measured at TOA and surface, so a way to determine how much energy there is in/out at the wavelengths of interest. OCO-2 gives a top down view, OCCON a ground up. So part way there.. and they're not the only projects.
That's a website written by a nutter to titillate other nutters, so of course amongst the comments are the expected conspiracy theories about how the OCO-2 data will be used to impose taxes, or how the data will be "adjusted" to conform with the conspiracy objectives, but also bizarre inferences about how it already shows climate science to be wrong!
Ah, you didn't bother watching the Q&A from the AGU session. If you had, you'd have seen where the Bbc got info for this article-
The Orbiting Carbon Observatory has been spoken of as the forerunner of satellite missions that would seek to gain the information needed to patrol climate treaties, by helping to check that promises made by nations on carbon curbs were being kept.
There were a couple of questions asking if it's targetted mode could be used to look at Beijing's emissions as an example.
Why would anyone be interested in that cesspit of idiocy?
You might learn something? The comment showed a vegetation map of Africa. The early data run showed big red CO2 plume pretty much smack over the broadleaf part. The early data contradicted the previous GISS CO2 model..
But once again you cannot explain why OCO-2 is the wrong satellite, and what you think the "right satellite" is..
The question relates to a comment originally from WUWT which referred to CERES. Both you and nlp are convinced OCO-2's the wrong satellite to measure CO2 radiance.
No, we think it's the wrong satellite to measure incoming radiance. I know this because that's what YOU posted.
nlp said the WUWT comment had the "right satellite", but CERES isn't a satellite, and he refuses to name what he thinks is correct.
I asked of incoming and outgoing measured at TOA and surface, so a way to determine how much energy there is in/out at the wavelengths of interest. OCO-2 gives a top down view, OCCON a ground up. So part way there.. and they're not the only projects.
You posted what OCO-2 measures and incoming wasn't it. Tough.
No, we think it's the wrong satellite to measure incoming radiance. I know this because that's what YOU posted.
You posted what OCO-2 measures and incoming wasn't it. Tough.
Oh dear. So first think about incoming and outgoing wrt the observer. So there's TCONN, a network of ground-based sensing sites looking up through the atmosphere. Then there's OCO-2 looking down through the atmosphere.
Why would you even think of using OCO-2 for 'incoming', ie Sun->Surface when you have TCONN?
However, as it's science, it gets a lil more complicated. So if OCO-2's looking down during daytime, it'll be measuring incoming and outgoing.. You may have to think a little about why this would be. But night time measurements would be measuring... what?
The rest is possibly related to nlp's mysterious satellite that cannot be named. OCO-2's looking down, other satellites look out towards the Sun. So with a bit of addition and subtraction (ok, bit more complicated) you can get a better handle on what the actual fluxes are for CO2, and eventually start figuring out if there are any trends and possible causes.
Oh dear. So first think about incoming and outgoing wrt the observer. So there's TCONN, a network of ground-based sensing sites looking up through the atmosphere. Then there's OCO-2 looking down through the atmosphere.
Both of which are concerned with measuring atmospheric CO2 levels, and not trying to work out the Earth's energy budget. One of the principal drivers for TCONN was as a validation network for the failed OCO (and hence for its replacement OCO-2). Neither of them are going to give you the numbers you hypocritically demanded, because that is not what they are designed to do.
Why would you even think of using OCO-2 for 'incoming', ie Sun->Surface when you have TCONN?
Why would you even think of using either of them? But then, these are all your ideas, and nothing to do with those projects' scientific objectives. You've obviously just stumbled across TCONN, and hope that it might rescue you from your own lack of understanding of OCO-2. But it won't, of course, because it is just trying to do the same thing as OCO-2, over very small geographical areas, so that the OCO-2 results can be validated.
However, as it's science, it gets a lil more complicated.
And far too complicated for you.
When you eventually (somehow!) get the numbers you hypocritically insist you need, how do you imagine they are going to demonstrate that the mainstream greenhouse effect, accepted for over a hundred years, is wrong, and the Eel greenhouse effect, which predicts that "CO2 prevents warming during the day" is the correct description of nature? How does that fantasy work, exactly?
So with a bit of addition and subtraction (ok, bit more complicated) you can get a better handle on what the actual fluxes are for CO2, and eventually start figuring out if there are any trends and possible causes.
You seem to be slithering towards a recognition of what OCO-2 is about, which is not what you originally thought it was about.
So how is a greater understanding of CO2 fluxes going to falsify the existing mainstream science of the greenhouse effect, do you think?
You finding fault (where none exists) in carefully-worded IPCC statements which are based on some of the most highly-scrutinised science would be like you claiming the OED makes spelling mistakes in their dictionaries. It's not actually impossible but quite ridiculous that you would be among those able to spot a rare error.
Yet the error is there for all to see.
More worrying though is that an organization with the infulence of the IPCC should made such a fundamental error.
The IPCC's description is not faulty, and does not require a "third law violation" to work.
The reason that none of the many people (often highly qualified in relevant scientific disciplines) who have read this text have ever spotted the fault that you claim to have seen is not because you are blessed with unique scientific insights, like some latter day Feynman. It is because you are wrong.
No it's the IPCC who are wrong on this one which is worrying given their influence.
Andykins, Andykins I've demonstrated using real data that you silly cartoon graph from a crackpot websit which lies about science is conplete bollocks.
Obviously you must like reading complete bollocks.:p
Oh dear. So first think about incoming and outgoing wrt the observer. So there's TCONN, a network of ground-based sensing sites looking up through the atmosphere. Then there's OCO-2 looking down through the atmosphere.
Why would you even think of using OCO-2 for 'incoming', ie Sun->Surface when you have TCONN?
I wouldn't. You did, even though your quote showed it didn't. I was the one who pointed out your own post said it didn't. You've realised you're wrong and are now trying to blame me for your mistakes.
Comments
Good grief.
Thinking about it you are probably right about never spotting a scientific error in NJs posts because he never posts any science.:p
You may like to have a look at this-
http://judithcurry.com/2014/12/15/will-a-return-of-rising-temperatures-validate-the-climate-models/
The coincidence of the current plateau in global surface temperatures with the continuing rise in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has raised many questions about the climate models and their forecasts of serious anthropogenic global warming.
Which discusses the issues around simulation vs reality.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Skeptics10.gif
Elf, meet BC.
No, Eel. Science assumes that, because it is known to be true. Perhaps you are confusing water vapour with clouds again. As I've explained to you before, clouds have two very large but opposing effects, so the forcing sign associated with the expected increase in cloudiness is not certain, but most models predict that it will be positive. Even if the cloud feedback were negative, the water vapour feedback would still be positive, of course.
That's another of your lies that you have on some kind of loop. I've explained the greenhouse effect, accepted by mainstream science for over a hundred years, but you still prefer your own theory, based on some physics you made up in your head.
Far from being "minor details", they go to the very heart of your lack of understanding of any of the science you imagine yourself competent to criticise. That's why I seize on them. And your irrelevant questions about satellites are just you attempting to slither away from the point - which is that OCO-2 won't give you the numbers you demanded, that the numbers even if you had them wouldn't make your theory that "CO2 prevents warming during the day" become true, and that you were somehow able to formulate this novel theory without the use of any numbers at all, which seems somewhat hypocritical.
The reason that none of the many people (often highly qualified in relevant scientific disciplines) who have read this text have ever spotted the fault that you claim to have seen is not because you are blessed with unique scientific insights, like some latter day Feynman. It is because you are wrong.
They're not irrelevant. You insist OCO-2 is the wrong satellite, and something else is the "right satellite". So in the interests of spreading some science, state what you think is the "right satellite", and why.
Why not? As usual, you're doing your trick of making glib statements without any evidence to support them.
"This press conference will present early results from the OCO-2 mission. Fossil fuel combustion, deforestation and other human activities are adding almost 40 billion tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere each year, yet less than half of it stays airborne. The rest is apparently being absorbed by natural processes at the surface, whose identity and location are poorly understood. Ground-based carbon dioxide measurements accurately record the global atmospheric carbon dioxide budget and its trends but do not have the resolution or coverage needed to identify the "sources" emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere or the natural "sinks" absorbing this gas."
Quite an interesting presentation, confirming (as if confirmation were needed!) that OCO-2 will not furnish the Eel with the numbers he so desperately requires to see why the greenhouse effect works as mainstream science says it works, and not how he says it works.
Take home points: accuracy of 1 to 2 ppm, won't work through clouds, or at high latitudes. Target mode allows validation of OCO-2 data from a network of ground stations, used in conjunction with GEOS-5 carbon cycle model to gain understanding of the sources and sinks. SIF mode an interesting bonus.
So two posts where again you can't name the "right satellite", or explain why a satellite designed to measure radiance at 2 of the 4 absorption points won't give, well, CO2 radiance data.
More diet science from the expert..
Any thoughts as to why simulation and observations are reversed, ie the simulation showing CO2 in the NH, observations showing it in the SH? This may help you-
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/18/early-results-from-nasas-orbiting-carbon-observatory-2-mission-to-be-presented-at-agu14-via-live-stream/#comment-1816890
I'm also intrigued by the north pacific blob. I suspect it's weather system related..
You continue to ask despite being shown because you have nothing else left.
Why would anyone be interested in that cesspit of idiocy?
The question relates to a comment originally from WUWT which referred to CERES. Both you and nlp are convinced OCO-2's the wrong satellite to measure CO2 radiance. nlp said the WUWT comment had the "right satellite", but CERES isn't a satellite, and he refuses to name what he thinks is correct.
I asked of incoming and outgoing measured at TOA and surface, so a way to determine how much energy there is in/out at the wavelengths of interest. OCO-2 gives a top down view, OCCON a ground up. So part way there.. and they're not the only projects.
Ah, you didn't bother watching the Q&A from the AGU session. If you had, you'd have seen where the Bbc got info for this article-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-30399073
The Orbiting Carbon Observatory has been spoken of as the forerunner of satellite missions that would seek to gain the information needed to patrol climate treaties, by helping to check that promises made by nations on carbon curbs were being kept.
There were a couple of questions asking if it's targetted mode could be used to look at Beijing's emissions as an example.
You might learn something? The comment showed a vegetation map of Africa. The early data run showed big red CO2 plume pretty much smack over the broadleaf part. The early data contradicted the previous GISS CO2 model..
But once again you cannot explain why OCO-2 is the wrong satellite, and what you think the "right satellite" is..
Oh dear. So first think about incoming and outgoing wrt the observer. So there's TCONN, a network of ground-based sensing sites looking up through the atmosphere. Then there's OCO-2 looking down through the atmosphere.
Why would you even think of using OCO-2 for 'incoming', ie Sun->Surface when you have TCONN?
However, as it's science, it gets a lil more complicated. So if OCO-2's looking down during daytime, it'll be measuring incoming and outgoing.. You may have to think a little about why this would be. But night time measurements would be measuring... what?
The rest is possibly related to nlp's mysterious satellite that cannot be named. OCO-2's looking down, other satellites look out towards the Sun. So with a bit of addition and subtraction (ok, bit more complicated) you can get a better handle on what the actual fluxes are for CO2, and eventually start figuring out if there are any trends and possible causes.
Why would you even think of using either of them? But then, these are all your ideas, and nothing to do with those projects' scientific objectives. You've obviously just stumbled across TCONN, and hope that it might rescue you from your own lack of understanding of OCO-2. But it won't, of course, because it is just trying to do the same thing as OCO-2, over very small geographical areas, so that the OCO-2 results can be validated.
And far too complicated for you.
When you eventually (somehow!) get the numbers you hypocritically insist you need, how do you imagine they are going to demonstrate that the mainstream greenhouse effect, accepted for over a hundred years, is wrong, and the Eel greenhouse effect, which predicts that "CO2 prevents warming during the day" is the correct description of nature? How does that fantasy work, exactly?
You seem to be slithering towards a recognition of what OCO-2 is about, which is not what you originally thought it was about.
So how is a greater understanding of CO2 fluxes going to falsify the existing mainstream science of the greenhouse effect, do you think?
Yet the error is there for all to see.
More worrying though is that an organization with the infulence of the IPCC should made such a fundamental error.
No it's the IPCC who are wrong on this one which is worrying given their influence.
Andykins, Andykins I've demonstrated using real data that you silly cartoon graph from a crackpot websit which lies about science is conplete bollocks.
Obviously you must like reading complete bollocks.:p
I wouldn't. You did, even though your quote showed it didn't. I was the one who pointed out your own post said it didn't. You've realised you're wrong and are now trying to blame me for your mistakes.
Plus ca change.
And only you have seen it.
Incredible.
Literally.