NASA plans GHG world tour

NASA’s Airborne Mission to Explore the Global Atmosphere

Ice sheets, deserts, rivers, islands, coasts and oceans — the features of Earth’s surface are wildly different, spread across a vast geography. The same is true for Earth’s thin film of atmosphere and the mix of gases it holds, although the details are invisible to human eyes. Pollutants emitted to the atmosphere — soot, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides — are dispersed over the whole globe, but remote regions are cleaner, by factors of 1000 or more, than areas near the continents. A new NASA airborne campaign aims to map the contours of the atmosphere as carefully as explorers once traced the land and oceans below.

The Atmospheric Tomography, or ATom, mission is the first to survey the atmosphere over the oceans. Scientists aboard NASA’s DC-8 flying laboratory will journey from the North Pole south over the Pacific Ocean to New Zealand and then across to the tip of South America and north up the Atlantic Ocean to Greenland. ATom will discover how much pollution survives to the most remote corners of the earth and assess how the environment has changed as a result.

“We’ve had many airborne measurements of the atmosphere over land, where most pollutants are emitted, but land is only a small fraction of the planet,” said Michael Prather, an atmospheric scientist and ATom’s deputy project scientist at University of California Irvine. “The oceans are where a lot of chemical reactions take place, and some of the least well understood parts are hard to get to because they are so remote. With ATom we’re going to measure a wide range of chemically distinct parts of the atmosphere over the most remote areas of the ocean that have not been measured before.”

While the majority of the flight path takes the DC-8 over the ocean, the science team expects to see influence from human pollution that originates on land.

Probes on the outside of NASA's DC-8 aircraft to collect atmospheric samples. The DC-8 aircraft will be outfitted with 20 instruments for the ATom mission. Credits: NASA
Probes on the outside of NASA’s DC-8 aircraft to collect atmospheric samples. The DC-8 aircraft will be outfitted with 20 instruments for the ATom mission.
Credits: NASA

“Humans produce a lot of pollution, and it doesn’t just disappear when it’s blown off the continents. It goes somewhere,” said atmospheric scientist Steve Wofsy, ATom principal investigator at Harvard University. “We know it gets diluted in the atmosphere, it gets washed out by rain, but we want to understand the processes that do that and where and how long they take.”

The suite of 20 instruments aboard the DC-8 will measure airborne particles called aerosols and more than 200 gases in each sampled air patch, documenting their locations and allowing scientists to determine interactions. The science team will use ATom’s collected data on the air’s chemical signatures to understand where pollutants originate, and where and how quickly these climate gases react chemically and eventually disappear from the atmosphere.

ATom is particularly interested in methane, ozone and airborne particles called black carbon, which have strong effects on climate and which all have both human and natural origins. Methane and tropospheric ozone, are two greenhouse gases that linger in the atmosphere for weeks to decades–much less time than the century that carbon dioxide remains in the air. Nevertheless, the short-term effects of methane and ozone pollution today are expected to contribute almost as much as carbon dioxide to changing the climate in the coming decades.

ATom’s first flight is planned for July 28, a there-and-back trip over the tropics between Palmdale, California and the equator. On July 31, the mission begins its around-the-world trip lasting 26 days. It’s the first of four deployments that will take place over the next three years in different seasons. The data collected will be used to improve atmospheric computer models used to predict future climate conditions into the 21st century as well as to provide checks and calibration in otherwise unreachable areas for several major satellite systems, including NASA’s Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 (OCO-2) and Measurements of Pollution in the Troposphere (MOPITT) and the European Space Agency’s TROPOspheric Monitoring Instrument (TROPOMI).

The ATom mission is funded by NASA Headquarters and overseen by the agency’s Earth System Science Pathfinder Program at NASA’s Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia. It is one of six large airborne campaigns operating under the Earth Venture Suborbital program. ATom is led by Harvard University and managed by the Earth Science Project Office at NASA Ames Research Center at Moffett Field, California. The DC-8 aircraft is maintained and based at NASA Armstrong Flight Research Center.


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
July 7, 2016 10:37 am

How does this relate to Muslim outreach? 🙂

Reply to  Tom Halla
July 7, 2016 12:23 pm

…In 10 years time , his comment will become the greatest joke that Human kind will ever see. ! That joke will last for a thousand years ! Heil CAGW !

D. J. Hawkins
July 7, 2016 10:40 am

Despite the excessive homage paid to CAGW, at least the mission is collecting real data instead of pretending the outcome of a model ensemble is somehow “data”.

Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
July 7, 2016 10:44 am


the science team expects to see influence from human pollution that originates on land

That looks like confirmation bias, primed and ready to go, right there.

Steve Fraser
Reply to  Neil
July 7, 2016 12:15 pm

Or, it could be a testable hypothesis.

Reply to  Neil
July 7, 2016 12:29 pm

They only said that so they could play the “it’s worse than we thought” card later.

Reply to  Neil
July 7, 2016 1:21 pm

There is pollution over the land. That is a given.
That winds would blow this pollution out over the oceans is also a given.

michael hart
Reply to  Neil
July 7, 2016 2:00 pm

Steve Fraser, it could indeed be a testable hypothesis.
But this is the problem with much funding of so-called climate&environment science. They so frequently start from the dismal perspective, which sucks resources from people who want to actively invent things that make the world a better place. If you only ever ‘positively’ fund people to look for disaster, then that is what you will generally get.
‘Negative results’ are almost totally unpublishable, and people looking to examine if the consensus is wrong will never get funded in a month of Sundays. Why should doomsters be funded until they run of new ideas for doom?

Reply to  Neil
July 7, 2016 3:27 pm

As they continue to study the long term, 100 year, pattern of CO2 in the atmosphere. Preconceived notions anyone?

Bob Boder
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
July 7, 2016 10:44 am

But how real will the data be when we get to see it?

Reply to  Bob Boder
July 7, 2016 3:00 pm

Are you sure you will get to see anything?

Reply to  Bob Boder
July 7, 2016 3:29 pm

Perhaps they will issue special lenses for observing their data. Then we can all view it the left way.

Bill Powers
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
July 7, 2016 11:08 am

If East Anglia taught us nothing, we learned they are very selective on the data they choose to get the results they want

Reply to  Bill Powers
July 7, 2016 12:37 pm

Given the realms of data coming from Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2, I would have to agree.

Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
July 7, 2016 3:35 pm

So, ONLY four (quarterly) data streams (data primarily described above … methane, ozone, “black carbon”) are going to be collected to model create detailed models that will tell us what will happen the in decades to come.
Incomplete data, along with inadequate resources/time to collect more data leads to data interpolation/extrapolation/modification; it leads to made up stuff. Since the outcome has been predicted already (Neil, above), it is obvious which way the made up stuff will lean.

Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
July 7, 2016 4:36 pm

“Go ahead: collect all the votes you want … but i get to count them” attributed to joseph stalin.

Russ Wood
Reply to  Johnny Cuyana
July 8, 2016 8:46 am

There’s a story that Stalin used to collect jokes about him. By the time that he died, he had 3 gulags full…

Ben of Houston
Reply to  D. J. Hawkins
July 8, 2016 12:09 pm

They are talk about ozone and particulate matter, confirmed pollutants. Seeing how they drift internationally would be interesting, at the very least.

Reply to  Ben of Houston
July 8, 2016 10:19 pm

The Sahara Desert contributes much particulate matter that even stretches part way across the Atlantic floor as it falls out of the atmosphere.

Reply to  noaaprogrammer
July 8, 2016 10:47 pm

Not part way across, all the way across. When it falls out over the Caribbean the iron oxide in the dust kills the coral.

Mumbles McGuirck
July 7, 2016 10:42 am

They will only be able sample the air at the times and places where the aircraft flies. So this will hardly be a comprehensive nor synoptic survey. The atmosphere is in constant motion with mixing and particles being added and precipitating out all the time and they will be sampling just tiny bits along the flight path. This seems a Sisyphean task. There’s gonna be a LOT of interpolation between flight tracks. Whew!

Reply to  Mumbles McGuirck
July 7, 2016 11:05 am

They could have outfitted a small fleet of 10 year old long range corporate jets and gotten closer to a synoptic study for the same money instead of one >44 year old oversized fuel inefficient obsolete DC8.

Reply to  ristvan
July 7, 2016 11:35 am

“ATom is led by Harvard University”
more reason not to give?

Reply to  ristvan
July 7, 2016 11:49 am

Naomi Oreskes suffices.

Harry Passfield
Reply to  ristvan
July 7, 2016 1:53 pm

Probably cheaper to get GOOGLE to do it. (GoogleAtmos?)

July 7, 2016 10:45 am

The first solar powered DC-8 I presume?

July 7, 2016 10:47 am

Isn’t this what the OCO-2 satellite was supposed to tell us? Which is still up there and seems to be forgotten about because it shows that natures produces 97% of the earths CO2.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Elmer
July 7, 2016 11:34 am

But it’s that last 3% that’s going to completely override natural forcings.
I guess that human C02 is, like, really sticky.

Reply to  Elmer
July 7, 2016 11:51 am

OCO-2 is only CO2. This is much more comprensive sampling. That said OCO-2 must not be helping the warmunist cause. Else its findings would have been trumpeted by now.

Reply to  Elmer
July 7, 2016 1:29 pm

+1 another inconvenient truth conveniently forgotten like it never happened. ‘They’ couldn’t spin the data into something terrible so it became wasted money…..and a lot of it.

Michael C. Roberts
Reply to  Elmer
July 7, 2016 2:49 pm
Looks like JPL has “grayed-out” a few of the important site informational links at the OCO-2 website – namely ‘Data Products’ also ‘ACOS/OCO Data Center’. The rest of the site information appears to have ceased updates, and is not being regularly monitored….hmmmmm…wonder what the ‘Data Products’ are showing about atmospheric CO2? And why we the taxpaying public are not allowed to see it (in an election year)???
Inquiring minds want to know..

Bruce Cobb
July 7, 2016 10:47 am

Judging from this sort of climate nonsense mission, maybe NASA needs to be de-funded.

July 7, 2016 11:00 am

Flew back from Phoenix on Tuesday afternoon. The pilot comes on the intercom and says “We’re at our cruising altitude of 39,000 feet.” Wait, says I, what is that in km? Why, it’s about 12 km. Hey, that’s the top of the troposphere, wherein most of the weather/climate occurs.
As far as I can tell the GHG band lives at 50 km and ToA where the radiative transfer occurs is 100 km. How do “they” expect to devine much from the lowest 12% of the atmosphere? 99.95% of the atmosphere is N2, O2, Ar which have zip to do with CAGW. How does 0.04% of the atmosphere halfway to space influence the weather/climate and heat balance.
A real poser, IMHO, and yet to be demonstrated.

Reply to  Nicholas Schroeder
July 8, 2016 9:51 am

Just ask your cat.

July 7, 2016 11:01 am

The DC8 was last produced in 1972. They have instrumented a 44 year old obsolete aircraft that is grossly oversized and with old fuel wasting engines for the task at hand (flying 20 air sampling instruments). Same NASA that has to rely on Russia to reach the ISS. Same NASA whose Rignot at JPL got the Amundsen embayment wrong. This is likely to be another snafu.

Reply to  ristvan
July 7, 2016 11:19 am

True. They would have been better off retrofitting an older Gulfstream. I took my first flight to Europe in 1976 in one of these. Icelandic Air. 3×3 seating and a very, very long tube.Turbojet engines had to have sucked the Jet-A. Landed in Iceland to “refuel” and run the entire passenger cabin through the duty free store.

Stephen Skinner
Reply to  ristvan
July 7, 2016 11:27 am

Excuse me ristvan but this DC8 has modern engines (CFM-56) which are better than the old PW engines. It is not obsolete because it is still in use. And this is the same NASA that sent satellites and rovers to take extraordinary pictures of Jupiter, Saturn (and moons), Uranus, Neptune, Mercury, Pluto, Mars. I would hope that the work of individuals like Michael Mann are not viewed as a measure of all the other individuals that work in NASA.
This is a nice picture of the NASA DC8 showing the modern engines.comment image

Reply to  Stephen Skinner
July 7, 2016 11:44 am

It still has the 40 year old wing design. By today’s standards, highly inefficient and even with the CFM-56’s, there are 4 engines instead of 2. By flying this thing around just to sample air, I would say not the best way.

Reply to  Stephen Skinner
July 7, 2016 12:30 pm

…No, this is not the same NASA that sent Humans to the Moon..! This NASA is more focused on “Muslim feelings” and Man made Glo.Bull Warming” than actual science !

Reply to  Stephen Skinner
July 7, 2016 3:00 pm

“I would hope that the work of individuals like Michael Mann are not viewed as a measure of all the other individuals that work in NASA.”
I would second that motion. There are a lot of good people at NASA. It’s not their fault they are saddled with incompetent and delusional leadership, and a few Climate Change Charlatans.

Brian R
Reply to  Stephen Skinner
July 7, 2016 3:52 pm

Modern engine? The CFM 56-2 was first run in 1974. That’s 44 years old. While that’s still younger than me, it’s not modern.
Turbofan engine technology has come a long long way in the last 40 plus years. Aerodynamics have have also made huge improvements since the mid 50’s when the DC-8 was designed. Since fuel is a major percentage of a turbofan operating expense, this all adds up to a flight that will cost many time the more than the same trip in a truly modern plane.
But hey, it’s the governments money and it for a good cause. /sarc

Reply to  Stephen Skinner
July 8, 2016 11:06 am

Michael Mann works for NASA? When did that happen?

Mickey Reno
Reply to  ristvan
July 7, 2016 2:29 pm

Anyone who knows their Scientology Orthodoxy knows that the DC-8 is a suppressed memory from deep in our psyches. It was in space-traveling versions of the DC-8 that Xenu, Commander of the Marcabs, in the Galactic Federation, and who was about to be overthrown by “loyal officers,” turned the tables on the mutineers, and crushed the rebellion. He then brought us all here to Earth (which was then known as Teegeeack) to serve out eternal sentences on what is, for all intents and purposes, a prison planet. Once here, Lord Xenu (as he is now known) proceeded to blow us up with H-bombs in volcanoes. The nuclear explosions disassociated our Thetans which were then trapped in some fly-paper style ribbon traps in the atmosphere. Once captured, he proceeded to brainwash us by showing us movies in “A Clockwork Orange” fashion, which introduced us to all the forms of culture and civilization with which we’re familiar, with the idea that we would live quasi-happily in Matrix style ignorance of our true Godlike selves, and never again seek to return to the Galactic Federation to try to overthrow him. Many of the disassociated Thetans, confused, floating around Earth, not knowing what they were about, then decided to stick together and form human bodies with their former God-like power, thus becoming BTs or Body Thetans. That means that somewhere, deep down in your sphincter, a space alien is controlling your bowel movements.
The picture of a volcano on the cover of Dianetics is supposed to “restimulate” you with these long suppressed memories and incline you to pay for some Scientology courses to free you from your DC-8 space traveling, H-bombed, Xenu-brainwashed self. And as Dave Barry used to say, I swear I’m not making this up.

July 7, 2016 11:06 am

NASA – Never Attempt the Stars Again

Reply to  H.R.
July 7, 2016 5:54 pm

Now you are just being mean.
I’ll play.

Gary Pearse
July 7, 2016 11:13 am

“…..methane and ozone pollution today are expected to contribute almost as much as carbon dioxide to changing the climate in the coming decades….”
Hmmm… these are the conclusions of the study. It is gratifying to see that CO2 is turning out to not be a “Control Knob” that NASA proclaimed back in the “Science is settled” era. They have known at least for a few years that the temp can’t rise 2C since the industrial revolution if it has to depend on this discarded control knob (hence the dialing back to 1.5C). This is the dispersive, “sauve qui peut” stage of the disintegrating CAGW – end-of-the-world.
I predict we will see the above quote as the money one for man’s felonious behaviour. The fracking revolution brought us the Methane problem “to come” (most of their earlier stuff was too ‘natural’ and, with the ozone hole not shrinking after ~40 years of killing off CFC’s they are going to find the “real reason” why – it’s our bad.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
July 7, 2016 8:48 pm

But there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. There is reason to believe that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is really 0. So lets us say that methane and ozone pollution have have 90% of the climate sensitivity of CO2 which means that the climate sensitivity of methane and ozone pollution = .9 X 0.0 which equals 0.0.

July 7, 2016 11:37 am

NASA – Never Attempt the Stars Again
NASA – Nothing About Space Agency
So when did NASA take over the role of exploring planet Earth? No money to explore space – plenty of money to explore earth? What the heck is NASA’s mission?

Mumbles McGuirck
Reply to  ferd berple
July 7, 2016 12:09 pm

That shift occurred a couple of decades ago. When it became apparent that no manned space exploration would follow Apollo, only low orbit Space Trucks … er… Shuttles, NASA had to find another reason to exist. Even then there was great concern about our environment and possible human impact on it, so there was money to be had. Never mind there were other agencies charged with monitoring our weather, oceans, and rivers. Big Mama must be fed, and so a renewed emphasis on exploring our own planet Now that we must pretty please ask the Russkies for a ride to the ISS, don’t expect to get NASA off the Earth teat any time soon.

Reply to  Mumbles McGuirck
July 7, 2016 1:11 pm

Those would be the Space Scuttles (plural noun) class vehicles capable only of barely reaching Space Station Blackhole ISS-1
For this we traded away the Super Conducting Super Collider at Waxahatchie, Texas, that would still be doing science.

Stephen Skinner
Reply to  ferd berple
July 7, 2016 12:56 pm

ferd berple July 7, 2016 at 11:37 am
What the heck is NASA’s mission?
Cassini-Huygens – Exploration of Saturn and it’s moons
Dawn – Mission to Vesta and Ceres
Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter
Juno – Mission to Jupiter
Hubble – Space Telescope
Kepler – Space Telescope
Large Binocular Telescope Interferometer
Mars Exploration Rover – Opportunity
Mars Odyssey
Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter
Mars Science Laboratory Curiosity Rover
Messenger – Mission to Mercury (OK this ones finished, but it’s pretty cool anyway)
Rosetta Orbiter
NEOWISE – Space telescope for asteroids and comets, including those that could pose a threat to Earth
New Horizons – Mission to Pluto
Nuclear Spectroscopic Telescope Array – Space telescope
Space Very Long Baseline Interferometry
Spitzer Space Telescope
Voyager 1
Voyager 2

Reply to  Stephen Skinner
July 7, 2016 3:15 pm
Thomas Homer
July 7, 2016 11:42 am

1 – “but land is only a small fraction of the planet” – water covers 71% of Earth, that leaves 29%. If 29% is “only a small fraction”, what do we call .04%?
2 – “century that carbon dioxide remains in the air” – If that’s true then WW1 carbon dioxide is only now being extracted from the atmosphere. All CO2 emitted since WW1 is still up there?
WOW! This is NASA science?
As Nicholas mentioned above, nitrogen and oxygen make up 99% of the atmosphere. If we were to hypothetically remove both nitrogen and oxygen, then CO2 would become 4% of the remaining atmosphere. Please show how this new atmosphere (1% of the previous) “traps” the same amount of heat, since the amount of CO2 remains constant and only non-“Greenhouse Gases” were removed.
In other words, show me your science!

Reply to  Thomas Homer
July 7, 2016 12:22 pm

If we were to hypothetically remove both nitrogen and oxygen
this is a fantastic question, because according to GHG theory the temperature of the earth should be unchanged.
however, if the real cause of the 33C warming attributed to GHG is actually a result of the differential cooling of the atmosphere due to convection and the lapse rate due to gravity (conversion between KE and PE), then there should be a significant cooling of the surface.
I for one would like to see some discussion on this question. because my prediction is that if the oxygen and nitrogen was remove from the atmosphere, The effective height of the atmosphere would be roughly reduced from about 5 km to .5 km, and the surface temperature would drop by:
warming = lapse rate * effective height of atmosphere
= 6.5 C /km * 5 km = 32.5 C
after = 6.5 C/km * 0.5 km = 3.25 C
temperature drop after removing all oxygen and nitrogen from atmosphere = 32.5 – 3.25 = 29.3 C

Thomas Homer
Reply to  ferdberple
July 7, 2016 1:08 pm

ferdberple… thanks for exercising some Applied Science, it gives us something to reason with and brighter minds than mine can debate the merits. I’m desperately seeking any science to apply related to the “Greenhouse Gas” theory, but apparently the difference between Applied Science and Settled Science is that the latter offers nothing to apply.
I find the feats that NASA has accomplished to be remarkable. They’ve put a probe into Jupiter’s orbit, that takes incredible precision with their gravitational calculations. They’ve also landed rovers on Mars to measure ambient surroundings. Why then didn’t they equip the Mars’ rover with a tool to measure the “Greenhouse Gas” property of the Mars’ atmosphere? It’s 95% CO2, a scientist’s dream of putting their theory to test on CO2 in near isolation. They could prove this property exists. But alas, nothing to measure, no science to apply.
Doesn’t this expose Settled Science as vacuous, specious and/or vapid?

Reply to  ferdberple
July 7, 2016 2:08 pm

Insipid – and jejeune.

Reply to  ferdberple
July 7, 2016 6:53 pm

@ Thomas Homer,
You say: “Doesn’t this expose Settled Science as vacuous, specious and/or vapid?”
“Settled Science” is a political statement, it has nothing to do with reality, just words, the more vacuous, specious and/or vapid the better, you can then blame it on the scientists.
You new to this game ?? 🙂

Reply to  Thomas Homer
July 8, 2016 11:18 am

If we were to hypothetically remove both nitrogen and oxygen..

Why hypothesize? Doesn’t that pretty much describe Mars? Where would you rather live?

July 7, 2016 11:43 am

Meanwhile depositing more of their precious “motherload” into the Atmosphere.

July 7, 2016 11:48 am

“While the majority of the flight path takes the DC-8 over the ocean, the science team expects to see influence from human pollution that originates on land.” = Predetermined outcome ?

Ben of Houston
Reply to  Marcus
July 8, 2016 12:41 pm

A hypothesis. There’s enough bad stuff out there without reading in faults into a half-decent plan.

July 7, 2016 12:02 pm

NASA is just planning a tax-payer funded propaganda tour. Politicians do it all the time.

July 7, 2016 12:10 pm

NASA’s great mission these days is to follow the latest Presidential Directive and send Men where none have gone before – into the ladies room.
If there is one thing guaranteed to make Muslim’s love you, it is transgender washrooms. One billion people cover up their women to protect their modest. Just imagine how they feel about men and women sharing the same bathroom.
In many, many Muslim countries it is a serious offence for an unrelated man and woman to simply be alone in the same room, or even the same car. We are not talking a fine. If you are lucky you will only get a year in jail. Don’t be surprised if you receive corporal punishment of some form.
This is not a joke. Outreach programs are not going to cut it. The more these people learn about you, the more they are going to hate you. Appeasement only makes you look weak. If they no longer fear you, what is there to prevent them from acting on their hate?
Remember that old saying from american history, “the only good indian is a dead indian”? Now imagine you live in a world where 1 billion people would substitute the word american for indian. Now imagine that you are not imagining.

Reply to  ferdberple
July 8, 2016 3:02 pm

Wow, just wow, the way you incorporated NASA into your rant.
I imagine you could be a speech writer.

July 7, 2016 12:36 pm

ATom is particularly interested in methane, ozone and airborne particles called black carbon, which have strong effects on climate...not enough methane exists to have a significant effect on climate,it’s about one part in a million in the atmosphere.

July 7, 2016 1:21 pm

[snip -restricted topic- policy violation .mod]

July 7, 2016 1:21 pm

” Methane and tropospheric ozone, are two greenhouse gases that linger in the atmosphere for weeks to decades–much less time than the century that carbon dioxide remains in the air. Nevertheless, the short-term effects of methane and ozone pollution today are expected to contribute almost as much as carbon dioxide to changing the climate in the coming decades.”
Who expects these to have as much effect as CO2? I haven’t heard that before.
My understanding was that CO2 lasted between 7 and 30 years not 100.
Here is hoping they have done a better job of setting up the data gathering than they have on the press release.

Reply to  DMA
July 7, 2016 3:09 pm

Yeah, where do they get that 100 year claim?

The Old Man
July 7, 2016 1:57 pm

As Elmer Fudd would say.. Be vewwy wewwy suspicious. One thin strip on a flight plan from A to B does not a statistical sampling make, but great to prove a point (either way, anyway. Are they flying the airways? Lots of Carbon there to find. The widest part of the oceans? West to east? north to south? Altitude.. Altitude.. pull up pull up .. sigh..

Reply to  The Old Man
July 7, 2016 2:13 pm

The Old Man
Your strictures noted and greatly appreciated.
If you know what you want to prove/highlight/suggest, and you know where those results may/will be found – you will be a scientist my child . . . .
Blimey – my cynicism surprises even me!
But – on mature review, rather less surprise.
this is “Climate ‘Science'” – after all.

Reply to  The Old Man
July 7, 2016 6:26 pm

They have done a couple of test flights and the path the plane is programmed to take is from CHCH New Zealand out over the Antarctic round to Tasmania and back to CHCH. Night flying , middle of winter cold (then they can show warming later :
sarc off)

July 7, 2016 2:18 pm

On a scale of credibility, reliability, accuracy, track-record & other relevant metrics — 0-10 — how would you, dear reader, rate NASA overall on GW matters? Interesting straw-poll!

Reply to  Ross King
July 7, 2016 2:20 pm

Vox populi, vox dei!

July 7, 2016 2:23 pm

Couldn’t Leonardo diCaprio offer *his* plane at *his* cost for the same answers we’re gonna get anyway?

July 7, 2016 3:06 pm

The EPA and other regulators will take this new data and tighten the screws even more on manufacturing, agriculture, coal and other mining, all energy production (except wind and solar). The EPA will use this data in their new analysis, making businesses in the USA more expensive to operate, etc. etc. etc…

July 7, 2016 3:14 pm

Sounds to me like they are trying to find a way to discredit satellite measurements. But then again, maybe I’ve just worn my tin foil hat for too long.

Reply to  SMC
July 7, 2016 8:18 pm

They still like to use them for SST’s and stratospheric ozone. 🙂

Pat Frank
July 7, 2016 3:23 pm

One suspects they’ll discover that most of the atmospheric particles are dust blown up off the Sahara and Gobi Deserts, and that most of the horrid, ozone-destroying tropospheric organo-halogens come from sea weed vanadium haloperoxidases, see also here.

Reply to  Pat Frank
July 7, 2016 6:25 pm

Hi Pat Frank, – Bromoform, CHBr3, ozone “destroyer” is also formed in mixed temperate forest (beech/oak/spruce/cypress) by micro-organisms. In the Schoenbuch reserve of S.W. Germany
the top 1 cm of soil releases ~ 3.5 micrograms CHBr3/kg dry soil & the next 14 cm of soil releases ~ 2.25 micrograms CHBr3/kg dry soil (samples tested via 1 hr. at 30 Celsius treatment moist); levels estimated for brevity here. See Fig.2 of Weigold, et al., (2016) “A metagenomic-based survey of microbial (de)halogation potential in a German forest soil”; available as free full text on-line.
Which brings up the issue of what is happening as a result of CO2 carbon “fixed” into plant matter. Fig.1 of cited report details the top 1 cm of soil, which is the most reactive for generating CHBr3 as having ~301 grams total organic carbon/ kg dry soil & the next 14 cm of soil having grams total organic carbon as usually less productive of CHBr3. Again, for brevity am not detailing most of the data in Fig.1. My point is that since rising CO2 creates more plant biomass, then the additional leaf litter (organic carbon) seems to make more CHBr3 possible.

Reply to  gringojay
July 7, 2016 6:29 pm

edit, last paragraph 2nd sentence = “… next 14 cm of soil having 33 grams total organic carbon/kg dry soil …”

July 7, 2016 3:32 pm

Exactly how does NASA stretch its budget, as enacted by Congress, to include this boondoggle?

Reply to  littlepeaks
July 7, 2016 7:48 pm

YES! I thought NASA was mainly about space. But it does include the word air…

July 7, 2016 5:48 pm

OCO2 has been orbiting for 2 years now, globally mapping the demon CO2 and a host of other atmospheric components, particulates included. There is almost complete silence and disinterest from the NASA PR department and the few visual data samples shown, strangely mask out the poles, other oddly contoured areas and even whole hemispheres. The few results shown make the “high res computer simulations’ laughably remote from the measured reality.
In orbit…but off message??

July 7, 2016 7:16 pm

Does anyone have any idea at all how much junk a DC-8 puts into he air? What are these people thinking?

July 7, 2016 7:18 pm

When I was with NASA we had a C-130 we called the NERDAS (NASA Earth Resources, yadda yadda). That baby pumped out some serious junk…

July 7, 2016 7:38 pm

The only pollutants they will be measuring from human, will be their own jet’s exhaust

July 7, 2016 9:00 pm

But climate science is all settled so it is a complete waste to be spending any more money studying it. To me it seems that the spatial and temporal resolution of their data taking is not enough to really learn anything. It might be fun to fly those routs but it is a waste of fuel and the tax payer’s money. The federal government will have to borrow the money to fund this project. I estimate that, with such a huge federal debt, the money the federal government is borrowing today will end up costing the tax payers more than 12 times the amount borrowed to pay back the money over a period of 180 years. Remember the federal government has to pay back the old debt before it can even start paying back any new debt. This is not a good time for such useless projects.

July 7, 2016 10:56 pm

“Methane and tropospheric ozone, are two greenhouse gases that linger in the atmosphere for weeks to decades–much less time than the century that carbon dioxide remains in the air.”
This is a misleading statement by NASA. An attempt to undermine methane as a greenhouse gas, which is 87 times more potent than CO2. The residence time of CO2 is just half of methane (4 yrs vs. 9 yrs) However the half life of CO2 is 40 yrs due to the carbon cycle. It means 82% will be gone in 100 yrs. NASA is comparing two different values – the residence time of methane and the decay rate of CO2 in 100 yrs. Residence time only considers the rate of removal. Decay rate considers the rates of removal and addition. The decay rate of methane can be derived from the methane cycle. image

July 8, 2016 8:23 am

Here is one opinion on NASA that’s not too good
“President Obama, John Holdren, Lori Garver, and James Hansen have succeeded in their apparent mission to convert NASA’s bold exploration and scientific mission into yet another left-wing propaganda-spewing agency. As House Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) observed at a 2014 hearing, “there are 13 other agencies involved in climate-change research, but only one that is responsible for space exploration.”
The next president must halt the ideological war at NASA and work with Congress to provide the funding to unleash the engineers and astronauts who will rebuild America’s leadership in space and high technology for the next generation. The goal should be an “American exceptionalism”-style space program that would truly earn the name given in the Augustine Commission’s report: “a human spaceflight program worthy of a great nation.””
More at the website

July 8, 2016 11:37 am

“We know it gets diluted in the atmosphere, it gets washed out by rain, but we want to understand the processes that do that and where and how long they take.”
In CAGW, that statement shouldn’t even exist. First, it has been stated and argued that co2 released that is man made lasts hundreds of years in the atmosphere. The IPCC and associates said that and have argued that ,right? And second, they can tell the difference between man made and natural co2 based on isotope ratio differences. They said that too, right? I have a full thumb drive full of arguments about that.
They have some serious problems with the co2 story. I’m just wondering what kind of angle or spin they will put on their findings.

%d bloggers like this: