Satellite to Study Global-Warming Gases Lost in Space
By Alex Morales, Bloomberg News
Feb. 24 (Bloomberg) — A satellite launched from California failed to reach orbit today, crashing into the sea near Antarctica and dooming a $273 million mission to study global-warming gases.
“The mission is lost,” National Aeronautics and Space Administration spokesman Steve Cole said in a telephone interview from the launch site at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.
The NASA satellite was to orbit 438 miles (705 kilometers) above Earth and observe how carbon dioxide enters and leaves the atmosphere, helping scientists predict future increases in the main greenhouse gas blamed for global warming. Instead, the satellite fell in the ocean near Antarctica though the mission manager said at no point did the craft pass over land.
“It’s a huge disappointment for the entire team who have worked very hard for years and years and years,” NASA Launch Director Chuck Dovale said in a briefing from California. “Even when you do your very best, you can still fail.”
Today’s malfunction follows a Feb. 11 collision of U.S. and Russian satellites almost 500 miles above the planet, the first crash of its type, which created a space debris field of more than 300 pieces that could damage other satellites.
The Orbiting Carbon Observatory satellite didn’t reach orbit after a 1:55 a.m. launch because the “payload fairing” failed to separate, NASA said. The fairing covers the top of the satellite during launch and needs to come off so the satellite can detach from the rocket and enter orbit.
“It’s disappointing because it was giving us novel information to help us move our understanding forward on global warming,” Alan O’Neill, science director of the Reading, U.K.- based Centre for Earth Observation, said in an interview.
Orbital Sciences
Both the satellite and launch rocket were built by Dulles, Virginia-based Orbital Sciences Corp. John Brunschwyler, Orbital Sciences’s mission manager, said “over the past 10 years, we’ve flown a nearly perfect record — 56 out of 57 vehicles and we’ve not had any problems with this particular fairing design.”
NASA’s investment was $273 million for the design, development and launch operations. Insurance details on the mission may be given later today, NASA said.
The craft contained a monitoring device designed to collect 8 million measurements every 16 days. Scientists hoped to use the data to find out how much CO2 is absorbed by the forests, grasslands and oceans, which are collectively known as “sinks.”
Man-made CO2, which traps heat in the atmosphere, is largely produced by power plants, vehicle engines and factories.
The data gleaned from the satellite was intended to help guide government global-warming policy, NASA said.
Understanding ‘Carbon Sinks’
“An improved understanding of carbon sinks is essential to predicting future carbon-dioxide increases and making accurate predictions of carbon dioxide’s impact on Earth’s climate,” NASA said on the mission Web site. “If these natural carbon-dioxide sinks become less efficient as the climate changes, the rate of buildup of carbon dioxide would increase.”
On Jan. 23, Japan launched what it said was the world’s first satellite, Gosat, to measure greenhouse gases from 56,000 points around the globe over five years.
Today’s satellite was expected to have a minimum three-year life. Similar spacecraft have lasted five to 10 years, David Steitz, a NASA spokesman, said yesterday.
While launch and separation of the rocket’s first stage went as planned, a clamshell-shaped “fairing” covering the satellite failed to open, meaning it was too heavy to reach orbit, Brunschwyler said on NASA’s online television station.
“As a direct result of carrying that extra weight, we could not reach orbit,” Brunschwyler said. Indications are the satellite “landed just short of Antarctica, in the ocean.”
Earlier this month, the collision of Russian and U.S. satellites destroyed an Iridium Satellite LLC communications craft and a defunct Russian Cosmos 2251, NASA said.
At least 18,000 satellites, debris and other space objects orbiting the Earth are tracked by the U.S. Joint Space Operations center. The Soviet Union put the first satellite, Sputnik 1, into space in 1957.
h/t to Gary and Steve
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
As often happens in a situation like this, there will be other opportunity to fly the sensor package or one like it on another satellite.
There is enough demand for this type of data that that I’m sure they will find another opportunity to either modify a satellite that is in the planning stage or build and launch a replica of this satellite.
They may have built a second set of sensors for ground calibration so a re flight may not be too much of a problem.
The science on this bird is settled. Somewhere offshore of li’l ol’ NZ, at the bottom of the Pacific, if our local MSM is to be believed.
A classic SNAFU.
Do not bother engaging Reasic in a debate. You cannot argue with a True Believer(tm). I tried on his blog briefly and found nothing but regurgitaion of ReallywrongClimate bilge.
Stop feeding him, and he’ll go away…
I can’t imagine what James Hasen would have done with 500,000 CO2 data points per day.
First, the code to handle it would be full of nothing but errors. Second, there would be all kinds of “adjustments” needed for the data. Third, it would produce results that are five or six times higher than the IPCC. Fourth, the Nature paper describing the results would have “dangerous climate change is 101% proven” in it two dozen times.
I’ll take the Japanese satellite data thank you.
Why would they launch a satellite that can only collect three years worth of data?
Something as complicated as CO2 concentrations across the planet and across the height of the atmosphere would require 10 years of data to form adequate conclusions. The data even depends on things like El Ninos and La Ninas since CO2 growth is affected by temperature.
A bit of a worry re AMSU recent rise (was this possibly an artifact?). BTW amsu temperatures now back to 2007 levels (cooling) or below. Maybe D Archibalds predictions (which seem to be ALL coming true re solar ect) that April May may be 0.4 c below may come to pass! (Correct if wrong thanks)
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/
OT: I don’t know if it’s been noticed, but there’s a sun spotlet. It’s at about 10:45 (320 degrees-ish) and 60% of the way out from center.
I know I’m late to the party, but this has REALLY been a bad week for Climate Doomsdayer’s. Al Gore has had to pull a misleading slide from his doom and gloom presentation. OK. That’s progress. Now if we can just get him to cut all the misleading information from “An Inconvenient Truth”, well, would there be anything left to show besides the flattering cinematography and hokey hero worship of Al Gore… by Al Gore????
“Man-made CO2, which traps heat in the atmosphere, is largely produced by power plants, vehicle engines and factories.”
Interesting that “man-made CO2” traps heat in the atmosphere. The stuff that comes from brush fires in areas where brush clearing isn’t allowed apparently behaves differently than that pesky man-made stuff. And here all this time I was laboring under the illusion that the carbon and oxygen atoms on this planet were put here by God and that we are neither making nor destroying any of them…
Bart, You have innocently stumbled upon the lie.
Dammit. When will you ignoramuses learn that, ONLY USofA & EU generated CO2 is BAD?
I’m so tired of this misconception that CO2 per-sé is bad, it really isn’t true!
Ask any member of Greenpeace! They will put you right.
DaveE.
The Sun also launched something today: A whiter shade of sunspeck. Only it sucessfully ejected the stage shield which can be seen on the Mt. Wilson drawing today as a minor sunspeck. It’s in lower Sun orbit which is why the thing is so ghostly pale.
The Sun mocks us.
So, you think you control the heat, eh?
Sunspeck Alert. Will it become a SPOT. Will it be the herald of a Valhalla of cycles?
These numbers about CO2 concentrations really are mind-numbingly confusing.
A previous poster said:-
‘Could you explain this calculation for me? My understanding is that CO2 has increased from about 284 ppm to 384 ppm, which would be more like a 35% increase.’
Not sure over how long a period this increase has occurred – but I’ll guestimate since 1850- about 150 years ~ 0.75 ppm per annum.
Given that the veracity of the quote above is undisputable and, as as a given that man, currently, contributes approx 3% of CO2 content to the atmosphere. It would, as a median guess, seem that over the previous century and a half, and ignoring increasing CO2 outpourings from the oceans recovering from the little ice age, it may not be totally unreasonable to suggest that the 1.5% (median) per annum anthropogenic CO2 should have led to a CO2 increase from 284 ppm to a current (01.5 * 284* 150)=639 ppm concentration of CO2.
Maybe my ignorance of the nature of Carbon Sinks, Cloud albedo, my utilisation of simple-interest as opposed to objective, non-peer reviewed, back-of-envelope calculations, compounded by personal mathematical stupidity, renders me incapable of adding to the debate- the debate that is over- so what does it matter anyway?
Actually, it does matter. By saying that Mankind has been the prime-suspecr in raising CO2 levels by 35% over the last 150 years- when, according to the IPPC – mankind is, at best, a bit (3%)player in the CO2 production and manufacturing global sector, is to blame the sock for being smelly!
Nope, I’m wrong- it’s worse than that! The Co2 level is blamed for the elevated temperatures experienced by humanity that have given rise to the impending catastrophe that our children have been told that they face thanks to the profligacy of their parents!!!
Jeesh! How sad.#
“If these natural carbon-dioxide sinks become less efficient as the climate changes, the rate of buildup of carbon dioxide would increase.”
B-but I thought Mann proved that increased tree ring widths World-wide were the result of “climate change” = GW.
RoyfOMR,
I am having the hardest time trying to figure out your math there. Could you explain for me in more detail how you arrived at your equation?
Here’s what you people who harp on the “man contributes 3% of CO2” claim need to understand:
Natural carbon emissions are absorbed by the natural carbon sink. Before man began emitting CO2, levels were relatively stable. With the addition of human emissions, CO2 concentrations have increased to the highest level in 650,000 years. Man is emitting CO2 faster than the sink can absorb it.
DaveE,
Who said that only US and EU CO2 is “bad”?
Steven Goddard (08:22:55) :
“If you want to predict future CO2 levels in the atmosphere, you can do this with a ruler and a Mauna Loa CO2 graph. It is cheaper and more accurate than the poor calculations which brought down the satellite.”
Where are other CO2 sensors around the planet and why is mauna loa considered the be-all-end-all?
It is a real shame this satellite was lost. It could have provided some interesting data.
For example, recent studies show that tropical forests have increased their capacity to “sink” more carbon by 0.63 tons/hectar/year.
It has also been found that old forests are carbon sinks. Until now, the climate models have treated old forests as carbon neutral. This has now been proved wrong.
So the science is far from been settled. The lost satellite could have given some valuable info about where the extra CO2 goes and where the CO2 is emitted.
Nature seems to be able to cope pretty well with the small amount of extra CO2. There is no justification for carbon tax, global warming hysteria etc. before the science really is settled.
So, Reasic, let me get this straight. Since natural carbon sinks are eating away at atmospheric CO2, then had man not put all that CO2 in the air these sinks would have dropped atmospheric CO2 to ZERO and we would all be dead. Looks like manmade emissions have saved every living creature on the earth.
Or, maybe CO2 sinks are more naturally balanced than the simple GCMs have pre-programmed. Just maybe this infant called climate science doesn’t understand quite all the facts it needs to go off predicting catastrophes.
Ron de Haan
“Before the industrial revolution, the planet’s carbon cycle was largely in balance. ”
On what planet?
Our planet’s atmosphere, except for a couple of excursions, has been continuously depleted of CO2 for millions and millions and millions of years. How do you think we got to as low as the magic number 260PPM?
The carbon cycle has never been in balance.
For anyone just joining this thread and scratching his head at the seemingly disconnected posts, Anthony changed from the experiment with the ‘threaded’ to the ‘linear’ format in mid-thread, so many responses to posts now appear out of context.
For those with time on their hands, it’s an interesting exercise to reconstruct the arguments. . .
/Mr Lynn
Reasic
“Man is emitting CO2 faster than the sink can absorb it.”
So?
Go out and plant a tree and then start a movement to study how we can get more nitrogen into the soil.
It’s called the Greening of the Planet. How can you be against that?!?!?
So a satellite to study carbon sinks crashes in the ocean in the Antarctic which is the planets biggest carbon sink.
It’s too bad though, more data is needed to improve the science. But there are those who don’t want this, so…….
Reasic (18:53:38) :
RoyfOMR,
I am having the hardest time trying to figure out your math there. Could you explain for me in more detail how you arrived at your equation?
Here’s what you people who harp on the “man contributes 3% of CO2″ claim need to understand:
Natural carbon emissions are absorbed by the natural carbon sink. Before man began emitting CO2, levels were relatively stable. With the addition of human emissions, CO2 concentrations have increased to the highest level in 650,000 years. Man is emitting CO2 faster than the sink can absorb it.
2ppm per year to 280 ppm is less than 1% increase per year.
Take a field.
Cultivate it and sow some seeds. There is some natural fertilizer. Call it 100%
Next year spread 1% extra of the total natural fertilizer on the field.What do you think happens?
More green by 1%.
Actually artificial fertilizers are spread much much higher in percentages to the natural existing ones, to increase the fertility.
That is the level we are with CO2, it increases the fertility of all green stuff, because it is a fertilizer.The levels are so low (greenhouses regularly go to 1000ppm CO2 to be productive) that it will be centuries before any ceiling is reached ( in the 10000ppms?). By that time humanity will be burning nuclear or dark matter for all we know, so there will be no excess coming out from us.
What all the alarm models are not taking into account is that LIFE expands to fill the food source available. It takes some time, but it does.
See this link to see how life expands to the fertilizer available:
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/in-the-news/qualitative_thoughts_on_co2/
Click on the plot:
You see how the rate of change of CO2 follows the temperature short term, up and down. That is also the BIO cycle at work, IMO.
Reasic
“Man is emitting CO2 faster than the sink can absorb it.”
Yes and what sinks are those?
The Ipcc has failed to quantify these,can you?
Indeed the quantification of the carbon cycle is a significant failing of the IPCC.
To all who are interested in natural CO2 cycles (there are several):
Please examine the 15fps AIRS data animation of global CO2 at
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003500/a003562/carbonDioxideSequence2002_2008_at15fps.mp4
It is difficult to see the impact of humanity in this impressive display of nature’s power.
In the animation, does anyone see the impact of industrialization? USA? Europe? India? China? Anything related to humanity?
The animation does make it look like we Canadians and those pesky Russians (our favorite hockey victims) have lots of heavy industry emitting megatonnes of deadly CO2 in the far northern Arctic. NOT!!! It’s natural!
Still, as Ferdinand Engelbeen points out, annual CO2 concentration keeps increasing at ~1.5ppm/year – even as CO2 fluctuates by up to 16ppm/year in its natural seasonal sawtooth pattern. Ferdinand’s makes this “material balance argument” and I suspect it is deeply flawed. Richard Courtney explains its shortcomings better than I do.
Questions for discussion:
1. IF atmospheric CO2 declines in the coming years contemporaneous with global cooling (or soon thereafter), what does this demonstrate, if anything?
2. IF atmospheric CO2 continues to increase in the coming years contemporaneous with global cooling, what does this demonstrate, if anything?
3. If CO2 drives temperature as the IPCC alleges, how is it that the only signal apparent in the data is that CO2 lags temperature by ~9 months? See
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2vsTMacRae.pdf
4. Is the aforementioned ~9 month lag in CO2 after temperature consistent with the ~600 year average lag in CO2 after temperature as observed in ice core data?
Best regards, Allan 🙂