Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Arctic Sea Ice 2017 Pt. 1

Re: Arctic Sea Ice 2017 Pt. 1

Unread postby Cog » Thu 07 Dec 2017, 12:33:01

Regarding vox-mundi's hysterical claim that Trump destroyed a polar weather satellite in this story above. He failed to quote the end of the article. This is why no one trusts you climate change hysterics. Who was president in September 2016? Go to end of article to see the truth.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... e-research

The heading, standfirst and first paragraph of this article were amended on 8 November 2017 after an editing intervention erroneously accused President Donald Trump of obstructing satellite research into climate change. The Trump administration had nothing do with this as the decision was made by Congress in September, 2016.
User avatar
Cog
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 9637
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Metro-East Illinois

Re: Arctic Sea Ice 2017 Pt. 1

Unread postby Cog » Thu 07 Dec 2017, 12:57:06

Oh and by the way DMSP 20 had nothing to do with measuring sea ice extent. It, like its brother satellites, are weather satellites tasked for DOD missions. But of course that doesn't fit into the doomer narrative that Republicans are out to hide the truth about sea ice. This is a good example of why the normal American doesn't buy this bullshit. Because you climate change hysterics lie continually. More here and any of you could have done a similar search in five minutes but were too lazy to do.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/charlestie ... 902964e318

In a rare naming and shaming of specific defense waste, House Armed Services subcommittee chairman Mike Rogers (R-Alabama) said Jan. 7 of the last military weather satellite “We could have saved the Air Force and the Congress a lot of aggravation if we put a half of a billion dollars in a parking lot and just burned it.”

The Alabama Congressman had a solid $500 million target of scorn – that’s the shame of the last wasteful satellite. But, the good Congressman was much too modest about who deserves the credit. Congressional defense spenders, like him, and Lockheed Martin, his favorite and the prime contractor on the program, deserve the blame – the Air Force could not have blown this alone.
The half-billion dollars is the amount it would cost to store a little longer and then launch a weather satellite called Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) – 20 (twentieth and last in the program). Another such military weather satellite is badly needed. We need added weather satellite coverage especially because a European satellite, EUMETSAT that has covered the key Middle East weather is not being continued. And the Middle East, of course, is where we have a lot of crucial military action going on that needs accurate weather observed data.

But, the DMSP-20 launch is so problematic that Congress cut back the funding in the most recent defense spending legislation. Some observers think the current Congress may have put in doubt the launch of the DMSP-20 that would cost the $500 million. Congress fenced even the $40 million pittance for the satellite this year with conditions that the Defense Department must demonstrate that is the best option, rather than, say, a small, cheaper, more current version.

It should be understood that the satellite was built by Lockheed, and Lockheed was paid out of defense funds for it. That is right: it was bought from Lockheed and paid for, already. It is just waiting, in very expensive storage, to be launched. So, why might the satellite be scrapped?

One other aspect to understand before delving into this. Mike Rogers himself is one of the strongest friends of defense spending, wasteful or not. His district in Alabama is next to Huntsville, home of the Redstone Arsenal, the U.S. Army Space and Missile Command – and, of course, major Lockheed Martin facilities. The House naturally gave Rogers the chair of the subcommittee on Strategic Forces where he can cheerlead for spending on space and ballistic defense missile. (Like, presumably, for missile defense for California – notwithstanding even the Defense Department deems this wasteful.)

As for problems with using the last DMSP, namely, DMSP-20, first of all, it is a satellite that has a polar orbit. So, it only goes over the Middle East twice a day, when what we need is a satellite hanging all the time, in geosynchronous orbit, right over the Middle East

User avatar
Cog
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 9637
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Metro-East Illinois

Re: Arctic Sea Ice 2017 Pt. 1

Unread postby Newfie » Thu 07 Dec 2017, 23:10:56

Cog,

While you make good points about accurately attributing actions you then make the absurd connection that because someone drew an inappropriate POLITICAL conclusion that the underlying science is bogus.

Geesh! Pot meet kettle.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 9509
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: US East Coast

Re: Arctic Sea Ice 2017 Pt. 1

Unread postby dohboi » Thu 07 Dec 2017, 23:14:06

+1
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16826
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Arctic Sea Ice 2017 Pt. 1

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Fri 08 Dec 2017, 05:46:22

Cog wrote:
As for problems with using the last DMSP, namely, DMSP-20, first of all, it is a satellite that has a polar orbit. So, it only goes over the Middle East twice a day, when what we need is a satellite hanging all the time, in geosynchronous orbit, right over the Middle East

[/b]

No that wont work as a geosynchronous satellite is much too high (22,236) miles to get good data. The Polar orbiting satellites orbit between 515 and 540 miles high and the military cameras in them can count the fleas in a terrorist's turban.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 8106
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Arctic Sea Ice 2017 Pt. 1

Unread postby Cog » Fri 08 Dec 2017, 07:09:35

Newfie wrote:Cog,

While you make good points about accurately attributing actions you then make the absurd connection that because someone drew an inappropriate POLITICAL conclusion that the underlying science is bogus.

Geesh! Pot meet kettle.


No I made the point that is why climate scientist are not believed. If you invent things out of whole cloth to make some sort of political statement, your data won't be believed because you have already proven to be a liar.
User avatar
Cog
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 9637
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Metro-East Illinois

Re: Arctic Sea Ice 2017 Pt. 1

Unread postby Newfie » Fri 08 Dec 2017, 09:44:34

So that’s why you never watch the weather or doubt all ballistics theory, because all that was done by lying scientists? Maybe some lying scientist who invented transistors has taken over your brain. How would you know?
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 9509
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: US East Coast

Re: Arctic Sea Ice 2017 Pt. 1

Unread postby Cog » Fri 08 Dec 2017, 12:31:20

I rarely comment in this thread because I don't disagree much with the data being cited. I do doubt the doom predictions associated with it and the proposed solutions. When I see some egregious statement I comment on it, otherwise I let you have your space to discuss your doom unmolested.
User avatar
Cog
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 9637
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Metro-East Illinois

Re: Arctic Sea Ice 2017 Pt. 1

Unread postby Cid_Yama » Fri 08 Dec 2017, 13:45:09

Cog wrote:Oh and by the way DMSP 20 had nothing to do with measuring sea ice extent.


Once again Cog tries to peddle his nonsense.

Building long time series from satellite data

Like cars, airplanes, and other machines, satellites do not last forever. Scientists monitor satellites for problems, and new satellites must be launched to replace them. One advantage of the DMSP series of satellites is the continual overlap between one satellite and the next. This overlap allows scientists to compare and calibrate data from each satellite to ensure consistency over time. By using a series of intercalibrated sensors, we can build a consistent long-term record of sea ice extent.

link


Since 1979, a collection of satellites has provided a continuous, nearly complete record of Earth’s sea ice cover. Valuable data are collected by satellite sensors that observe the microwaves emitted by the ice surface. Unlike visible light, the microwave energy radiated by ice passes through clouds. This means it can be measured year-round, even through the long polar night.

The continuous sea ice record began with the Scanning Multichannel Microwave Radiometer (SMMR) on the Nimbus-7 satellite (1978-1987) and continued with the Special Sensor Microwave/Imager (SSM/I) and the Special Sensor Microwave Imager Sounder (SSMIS) on Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) satellites (1987 to present). The Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer–for EOS (AMSR-E) on NASA’s Aqua satellite also contributed data (2002-2011), a record that was extended with the 2012 launch of the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer 2 (AMSR2) on JAXA’s GCOM-W1 satellite.

link


From June 2015:
Following the lead of its House counterpart, the Senate Appropriations Committee is recommending no funding next year for the U.S. Air Force’s legacy weather satellite program, casting doubt on the service’s plan to launch the last spacecraft in the long-running series.

The bill, which must be reconciled with the House version, cleared the Senate Appropriations Committee June 11.

Both the House and Senate bills would bring an end to the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program, a line of weather satellites dating back to the 1960s. The last of those satellites, DMSP-F20, had been tentatively slated to launch around 2018.

The Senate bill denies the Air Force’s $89 million request for the DMSP program next year. Further, the panel denied any funding needed to launch the satellite, going as far as to rescind $50 million that was appropriated for that purpose in 2015.

In addition to driving what might be the final stake in the heart of the venerable DMSP program, the Senate bill also trimmed the Air Force’s request for a replacement system dubbed Weather Satellite Follow-on. The service requested $76 million for the effort next year, but the Senate recommended providing just $21.1 million.

link
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it." - Patrick Henry

The level of injustice and wrong you endure is directly determined by how much you quietly submit to. Even to the point of extinction.
User avatar
Cid_Yama
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 6952
Joined: Sun 27 May 2007, 02:00:00
Location: The Post Peak Oil Historian

Re: Arctic Sea Ice 2017 Pt. 1

Unread postby Cog » Fri 08 Dec 2017, 16:08:02

Measuring ice extent for climate change scientists was not why those satellites were built Cid and you know it. It was to provide the DOD with constant weather conditions world-wide for our armed forces. The fact it can be used to measure ice extent is just an additional feature that was used by climate scientists.

Perhaps the word Defense in Defense Meteorological Satellite Program would have given you a clue.
User avatar
Cog
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 9637
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Metro-East Illinois

Re: Arctic Sea Ice 2017 Pt. 1

Unread postby Plantagenet » Fri 08 Dec 2017, 16:16:12

The sea ice still hasn't formed yet in the Chuckchi Sea and other waters around Alaska this year, and the result is a run of record and near-record warm conditions where I live.

It was so warm it rained (!) yesterday and our temperatures for weeks here in central Alaska have been about 25° above average----all because the sea ice hasn't formed yet.

"Its a brave new world"
---President Obama, 4/25/16
"Il bel far niente"
---traditional Italian saying
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 20608
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Arctic Sea Ice 2017 Pt. 1

Unread postby Newfie » Fri 08 Dec 2017, 17:50:50

Cog wrote:I rarely comment in this thread because I don't disagree much with the data being cited. I do doubt the doom predictions associated with it and the proposed solutions. When I see some egregious statement I comment on it, otherwise I let you have your space to discuss your doom unmolested.


Thank you
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 9509
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: US East Coast

Re: Arctic Sea Ice 2017 Pt. 1

Unread postby Cid_Yama » Fri 08 Dec 2017, 20:49:52

No, Moron.

The continuous sea ice record began with the Scanning Multichannel Microwave Radiometer (SMMR) on the Nimbus-7 satellite (1978-1987) and continued with the Special Sensor Microwave/Imager (SSM/I) and the Special Sensor Microwave Imager Sounder (SSMIS) on Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) satellites (1987 to present).


The DMSP satellites have provided the continuous Sea Ice Record for the last 30 years. You are an idiot. Especially if you think you can convince others that that is not the case.

Remember your original placement of the goalposts?

Cog wrote:Oh and by the way DMSP 20 had nothing to do with measuring sea ice extent.


The scientists are pissed because the Republican deniers have fracked with the continuous record. They obviously did it because it shows proof that global warming is real.

Rogers (Republican-AL) was the one that pushed for the destruction of the satellite, freely admitting his anger about it, calling it fake science. Just like you.
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it." - Patrick Henry

The level of injustice and wrong you endure is directly determined by how much you quietly submit to. Even to the point of extinction.
User avatar
Cid_Yama
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 6952
Joined: Sun 27 May 2007, 02:00:00
Location: The Post Peak Oil Historian

Previous

Return to Environment, Weather & Climate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests