Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
NASA Earth Space

NASA's Greenhouse Gas Observatory Captures 'First Light' 143

mdsolar (1045926) writes with news that NASA's second attempt to launch a satellite to map carbon dioxide levels across the globe succeeded, and its instruments are operating properly. From the article: NASA's first spacecraft dedicated to studying Earth's atmospheric climate changing carbon dioxide levels and its carbon cycle has reached its final observing orbit and taken its first science measurements as the leader of the world's first constellation of Earth science satellites known as the International 'A-Train. The Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 (OCO-2) is a research satellite tasked with collecting the first global measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) — the leading human-produced greenhouse gas and the principal human-produced driver of climate change. The 'first light' measurements were conducted on Aug. 6 as the observatory flew over central Papua New Guinea and confirmed the health of the science instrument.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NASA's Greenhouse Gas Observatory Captures 'First Light'

Comments Filter:
  • by bunratty ( 545641 ) on Wednesday August 13, 2014 @01:11PM (#47664131)
    This is exactly what I referred to above. When "skeptics" can't argue the issue, they dismiss the evidence they don't want by labeling it "propaganda". You can also take a look at my signature.
  • by gstoddart ( 321705 ) on Wednesday August 13, 2014 @01:12PM (#47664149) Homepage

    If they don't get the results they're looking for they'll "adjust" the data or "calibrate" the instruments until they show what they want NASA to show.

    Cite your facts and your science, because otherwise we conclude you're doing nothing more than making an ad hominem attack on science.

    Oh, wait, you don't have any facts, right?

    Sorry, but if you want to be given any credibility, you need to show some science which refutes it.

    Otherwise, it's the same as if I said "Pino Grigio will reject any science which doesn't fit in with his childish worldview, and nothing he says can be taken as more then the rantings of a deluded idiot".

    If I had to choose between the integrity of the NASA scientists and the intelligence of your post, I'm going to have to go with NASA on this one.

  • by mellon ( 7048 ) on Wednesday August 13, 2014 @01:17PM (#47664211) Homepage

    Yes, and really, really huge (many orders of magnitude bigger) amounts of profit would be lost by oil companies' shareholders if we decided to believe the absolutely overwhelming evidence that carbon dioxide causes global warming. Being a global warming scientist is a lot less lucrative than using those same skills to do just about anything else, so it's really hard to believe that job security is the motivational basis for roughly 99% of scientists who study climate change saying that we have a problem. Chances are that they just want to try to prevent their children seeing the last days of civilization and then dying painfully.

    The double irony is that a lot of climate change deniers are the same people who stockpile weapons in case of the collapse of civilization. It's almost as if you bloody well want to spend your last days futilely defending the dwindling supplies in your bunker.

Make it myself? But I'm a physical organic chemist!