More Than a Carbon Copy: OCO-3 on the Space Station

From NASA Global Climate Change

By Carol Rasmussen,
NASA’s Earth Science News Team

Illustration of NASA's OCO-3 mounted on the underside of the International Space Station. OCO-3 is managed by NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. For more information on OCO-3, visit: https://ocov3.jpl.nasa.gov/.

Illustration of NASA’s OCO-3 mounted on the underside of the International Space Station. OCO-3 is managed by NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. For more information on OCO-3, visit: https://ocov3.jpl.nasa.gov/.

NASA is ready to launch a new space instrument that will use the vantage point of the International Space Station to monitor Earth’s carbon cycle. A follow-on to the still-active OCO-2 mission, OCO-3 will bring not only a new vantage point but new techniques and new technologies to NASA’s carbon dioxide observations. Why are we launching a new carbon observatory?

NASA’s OCO-3 mission is ready for launch to the International Space Station. This follow-on to OCO-2 brings new techniques and new technologies to carbon dioxide observations of Earth from space.

NASA’s OCO-3 mission is ready for launch to the International Space Station. This follow-on to OCO-2 brings new techniques and new technologies to carbon dioxide observations of Earth from space.

Why Carbon Dioxide?

Carbon dioxide (CO2) naturally cycles into and out of the air from plants and animals, the ocean, and land, with the cycle staying in balance over the long term. CO2 added into the atmosphere by human activities over the last 250 years has increased the amount of the gas that stays in the atmosphere. This extra gas traps heat through the greenhouse effect, resulting in a warming of the climate. NASA and other scientific institutions keep a close eye on this and other atmospheric changes and the ways Earth is responding to them, continually seeking to improve our observations. OCO-3 is the latest addition to the global space-based fleet observing this critical greenhouse gas. OCO-3 was built by adapting a duplicate version of OCO-2, originally built as a “flight spare” – an exact copy that a mission builds in case there’s a problem with the original instrument. Thus OCO-3 will extend and enhance a data set that has already proven its value.

Why the Space Station?

The space station circles Earth between 52 degrees north to 52 degrees south latitudes – about the latitudes of London and Patagonia. The vast majority of Earth’s cities and agricultural lands, responsible for most of our planet’s carbon absorption and emissions, fall within this zone. Where OCO-2’s polar orbit takes it over each location at exactly the same time of day, the space station’s orbit will put OCO-3 over each location at a slightly different time on every orbit. Mounted externally on the underside of the space station, OCO-3 will collect the first dawn-to-dusk observations of variations in carbon dioxidefrom space over tropical and mid-latitude regions, giving a better view of emission and absorption processes. For example, the vast carbon stores of the rapidly changing Amazon rainforest are a critical part of Earth’s carbon cycle, but when OCO-2 flies over the forest at about 1:30 p.m., afternoon clouds have usually built up, hiding the region from the instrument’s view. OCO-3 will pass the Amazon at all times of day, capturing far more cloud-free data.

What Kind of Instrument is OCO-3?

It’s a spectrometer – in fact, three spectrometers sharing one telescope. Like radios tuned to different stations, the spectrometers are “tuned” to observe different sets of wavelengths in the electromagnetic spectrum. Every atmospheric gas absorbs sunlight at a specific set of wavelengths, and carbon dioxide is no exception. Two of OCO-3’s spectrometers record two sets of wavelengths where carbon dioxide absorption is strong; the third records wavelengths with strong absorption of oxygen, which researchers need in order to calculate the total number of molecules in the part of the atmosphere where the measurement was made. Combining the data from the three spectrometers allows researchers to obtain a measurement of CO2 so accurate that it records the difference between, for example, 405 and 406 molecules of the gas in every 1 million molecules of air.

Can OCO-3 See Anything Besides Carbon?

OCO-3 observes a very faint glow that plants emit during photosynthesis, called solar-induced fluorescence (SIF). This light is far too dim for humans to notice under normal circumstances, but it is the most accurate indicator of photosynthesis that can be measured from space. As Earth’s climate changes, rainfall and temperature are changing plant growth around the globe in ways that may affect world food security. Understanding exactly when photosynthesis happens – how its seasonal startup and shutdown are changing in remote locations around the globe – can help us prepare for the challenges of the future. OCO-3’s SIF measurement will have the same high resolution as OCO-2’s, and the new instrument will add an ability to rapidly swivel and point its sensors at towers on the ground where SIF is monitored locally, collecting data on almost the same spatial scale as these towers so that its measurements can be validated. Because photosynthesis is an important part of the global carbon cycle, the SIF data complement OCO-3’s carbon dioxide measurements.

What Else is New?

OCO-3 will demonstrate a new technique to measure urban carbon emissions, volcanic eruptions and other local carbon sources from space. The origins of carbon dioxide can be hard to discern by satellite because the gas mixes rapidly and uniformly into the air. For example, we know from global emissions data that more than 70 percent of carbon dioxide emissions from human activities come from cities. OCO-2’s orbit produces a long swath of measurements that slice through a few cities, but it is still a challenge to gather satellite data in enough detail to differentiate between a city’s own output and CO2 that drifted into the city on air currents, which may have been released months ago on the other side of the globe. OCO-3’s new feature is called “snapshot mode.” This scanning technique, enabled by the instrument’s ability to swivel and point rapidly, produces a tightly woven blanket of measurements over an area of about 50 by 50 miles (80 by 80 kilometers) – about the size of the Los Angeles Basin.

47 thoughts on “More Than a Carbon Copy: OCO-3 on the Space Station

      • It’s even worse :

        “This EXTRA gas traps heat …”

        The new hype of the climate clown show :
        – the humans’ emitted CO2 traps heat and it’s the only gas that do this magical circus’ trick.

      • “Traps heat?” – Yes and then water vapor catches it and pings it back into space. They seem to have forgotten that. This CO2 obsession is a very wild goose.

        Same old thing. For every force there is an equal and opposite one; each hunting about the equilibrium.

        http://cognog2.com

    • I stopped reading when it said ……traps the heat…..ugh.

      So Judith Curry and Dr. Lindzen are wrong? O . o

  1. “A follow-on to the still-active OCO-2 mission, OCO-3 will bring not only a new vantage point but new techniques and new technologies to NASA’s carbon dioxide observations.”

    OCO-2 hasn’t worked so a new device to make new stuff up!

    • Agreed!
      OCO-2 was too accurate and highlighted all of the natural CO₂ flux where humans are a small percentage.

      So, they waste more funds for a satellite that does not track weather, does not track atmospheric temperature exchange between the poles and tropics.

      S/ Great idea, NASA/NOAA /S

  2. “with the cycle staying in balance over the long term” but does it? All life sequesters co2. Think bones, shells, even coal and oil. Normally we would expect the conce traction to fall over time wouldn’t we?

    • “Normally we would expect the conce traction to fall over time wouldn’t we?”

      It does and it has for as far back as the paleologic record extends. If not for man’s CO2 emissions reversing the long term trend, biology would be an ice age or two away from extinction, and may still be heading in that direction. I’ll stand by my prior prediction that once we eventually run out of fossil fuels, we will need to burn limestone in massive quantities in order to prevent agriculture from crashing. To be sure, this is far enough into the future that unless medicine can get around the inconvenience of mortality, no living person will see this happen.

      • I go along with that. If humankind survives another 500 years in a “civilised” structure my forecast is that the greatest expenditure, financial and energy, will be devoted to releasing CO2 from mineral sources.

      • “If not for man’s CO2 emissions reversing the long term trend, biology would be an ice age or two away from extinction, and may still be heading in that direction.”
        This is an error born in the IPCC’s erroneous assumption that “all of the increase of CO2 since the industrial revolution is due to human activity”. Harde 2017 shows the increase is only 15% from human origin. Munshi shows that the atmospheric concentration is not responsive to changes in human emission ( https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/12/19/co2responsiveness/ ). Our emissions are only about 3% of natural emissions and there is no mechanism that can sort out where the CO2 molecule came from. We are not changing the atmospheric CO2 enough to have any measurable part of any climate change rising CO2 might have. There just is no valid argument to support the IPCC statement quoted above.
        That said I do not think measurements of atmospheric CO2 and study of sources and sinks is a waste of time or money. It is gathering good scientific data and may give us useful insight into any number of fields of study.

        • DMA,

          You’re conflating two issues. Man has significantly increased CO2 concentrations, especially when compared to CO2 levels during the previous inter glacial. While man is not the only source of atmospheric CO2, man is unambiguously a significant source.

          The second issue is about the size of the effect incremental CO2 has on the temperature. On this point, the effect is not zero but it’s small enough that obsessing about it is foolish and counterproductive, especially given the benefit CO2 has to the biosphere.

          It’s not necessary to assert that man isn’t adding significant CO2 to the atmosphere or that incremental CO2 has no effect on the temperature in order to diffuse the CAGW arguments. This only fuels the denier narrative. Robust calculations and tests comprised of repeatable measurements of the sensitivity to variable solar input power are good enough to prove that the ECS is less than the lower limit claimed by the IPCC in AR1 which was the arbitrary threshold they set for the necessity of action.

        • I agree with DMA’s assertion that the IPCC claims the majority the increase in CO2 concentration since 1850 was human activities. That’s their claim, not mine.

          “Carbon dioxide (CO2) naturally cycles into and out of the air from plants and animals, the ocean, and land, with the cycle staying in balance over the long term.”

          I do not know of any source for such a claim. The “balance” is absent over the long term. The CO2 is running out. Long term it is disappearing slowly but surely. Having painted CO2 as a “pollutant” the IPCC is characterizing an essential element of the life cycle as something to be reduced in the hope of controlling / regulating the global average temperature. For most of the last 3 million years all life has teetered on the edge of extinction as the CO2 level sank close to the lower limit for photosynthesis.

          Perhaps the OCO-3 satellite will clearly demonstrate that the extinction of life happens first at the cold edges of the ice sheets, and that cold is the enemy of life as we know it – save near the hot sulphurous ocean vents and for those tiny worms that live within hot bedrock miles underground.

          While it is true that OCO-3 detects CO2 primarily, it will be trivial to demonstrate that where there is ice there is no photosynthesis indicated on the sensor.

          How far are we from the next inevitable glaciation? 3000 years? Will mankind survive it in a modern industrialized and educated form? Without the natural and anthropogenic increases in CO2, quite possibly not. Our mission is to rebuild the atmosphere without polluting it.

    • Consider that the ultimate fate of any planet supporting a photo-synthesis based food chain is to run out of CO2. If intelligence arises, that fate can be delayed, but ultimately, only the machines will survive.

  3. “O2 added into the atmosphere by human activities over the last 250 years “……lol
    Now they’ve pushed the starting point of the “INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION” back to 1769 ?

    • It could be argued, I grudgingly admit, that the industrial revolution started in the early 18th century when Newcomen’s atmospheric engine started to replace horse, wind and water power in England and Wales. However I seriously doubt the CO2 emission of coal from a few hundred coal and tin mine pumps would have even been detectable on a worldwide scale.

  4. Speaking of ISS.

    “Without thermal controls, the temperature of the orbiting Space Station’s Sun-facing side would soar to 250 degrees F (121 C), while thermometers on the dark side would plunge to minus 250 degrees F (-157 C). There might be a comfortable spot somewhere in the middle of the station,
    but searching for it wouldn’t be much fun!”
    https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast21mar_1/

    Guess what, space is not cold, it’s HOT!!

    Like standing next to a campfire, hot on the fireside, cold on the back side and without the atmosphere’s 0.3 albedo earth gets hotter not colder.

    Without the atmosphere the earth will get 20% to 40% more kJ/h depending on its naked albedo. That means a solar wind 20 to 30 C hotter w/o an atmosphere not 33 C colder. The atmosphere is like that reflective panel behind a car’s windshield.

    Because of the significant (>60%) non-radiative heat transfer processes of the atmospheric molecules the surface of the earth cannot radiate as a black body and there is no “extra” energy for the greenhouse gasses to “trap”/absorb/radiate/“warm” the earth.

    No greenhouse effect, no CO2 warming, no man caused climate change.

    No problem.

    • Nick Schroeder: “… not 33 C colder ”

      I agree there is a serious flaw in the assumption that greenhouse gases are keeping the Earth 33 C (59.4 F) warmer than it would be without an atmosphere. And, we’re unable to measure that amount of energy!

      Aren’t most thermodynamic laws regarding transfer of heat between two bodies a function of mass? Even if all of Earth’s atmospheric CO2 were able to act as a unit, the Earth has more than a billion times as much mass. How is that amount of CO2 ‘warming’ the Earth? But, all of the detailed descriptions of how greenhouse gases function describe CO2 at the molecular level. A single molecule of CO2 is said to be absorbing heat emitted from Earth’s surface, and then spewing photons in every direction. Shall we compare the mass of a single CO2 molecule to the mass of Earth?

      • A serious flaw??!!

        Both Nikolov and Kramm lunar studies say the greenhouse effect is wrong.

        I guess a big fat ZERO effect would be a serious flaw.

        • GHGs don’t “radiate” diddly squat.

          Energy in motion/heat moves from the surface to the ToA according to Q= U A dT same as through the insulated walls of a house.

          • GHGs absorb and emit longwave (“far”) IR radiation. That is what makes them so-called “greenhouse gases.”

            Radiatively active trace gases in the Earth’s atmosphere, like CO2, “tint” the air, and affect its absorption of electromagnetic radiation.

            If you’ve ever walked barefoot on a hot summer day, and stepped from light-colored concrete to black asphalt, you must be aware of the fact that the color of a thing affects the amount of light which it absorbs, and thus its temperature.

            GHGs are colorants. They tint the atmosphere — albeit in the infrared, rather than the visible, part of the spectrum.

            The Precious Air Fertilizer (CO2) acts as a dye in the atmosphere, which “colors” the atmosphere in the far infrared, esp. around 15 µm, which, significantly, happens to be close to the peak of the Earth’s emission spectrum. In graph of the Earth’s emission spectrum (measured from orbit above the tropical western Pacific), the big green notch is the effect of CO2:
            http://sealevel.info/slide16_excerpt2_FTIR_data_from_a_satellite_tropical_western_pacific_annot5.png

            Since nearly all of the emissions from the Earth are in the far infrared, but over half of the incoming energy (from the Sun) is at shorter wavelengths, tinting the atmosphere in the far infrared has a differential effect. Since there’s more outgoing than incoming far infrared, GHGs absorb mostly outgoing radiation, preventing it from escaping into space. That causes warming. (It’s not how actual greenhouses work, but it’s still a real effect.)

            That warming of the air causes, in turn, warming of the ground, by several mechanisms, one of which is increased back-radiation from the radiatively active gases in the air.

            Note: It doesn’t take a very large trace of a dye to have a substantial effect on the absorption and emission spectra of the liquid or gas in which it is dispersed. If you add dye to a clear gas or liquid, and then shine through it a light which contains wavelengths that are absorbed by the dye, the gas or liquid will warm due to absorption of the light (compared to its temperature without the dye). Even a few ppm of dye is sufficient to detect the effect.

            Compare it to the effect of food coloring on water: one drop of food coloring added to 10×10×10 cm (one liter) cubic jar of water (or 57 drops in a 15 gallon fish tank) will noticeably tint all of the water, but one drop is only about 0.05 ml, so one drop in one liter is 0.05 / 1000 = 0.00005 = just 50 ppm.

            But consider: although the atmosphere is less dense than liquid water, it is miles thick. The full thickness of the atmosphere is about the same mass as a 30 foot deep layer of water. Your cubic jar of colored water is only about four inches thick. So to get an equivalent thickness to the Earth’s atmosphere, you’ll have to stack up 90 of those jars of colored water (or 26 of those fish tanks) in a 30-foot-long row.

            Now, if you were to look through (or shine a light through) the row of 90 jars of colored water, imagine how deep the color would be, from just 50 ppm food coloring.

            That’s why just a few ppm of a trace gas can significantly affect the spectrum of the light which passes through the Earth’s atmosphere, and have a potentially significant so-called “greenhouse” effect.

            Except at the fringes of Precious Air Fertilizer’s absorption bands, there’s so much of it in the air already that the atmosphere is already very nearly opaque to the IR wavelengths which Precious Air Fertilizer mainly blocks. So adding additional Precious Air Fertilizer has only a small effect. (MODTRAN Tropical Atmosphere calculates that about 20 ppmv of CO2 would have fully half the warming effect of the current 410 ppmv.) But additional Precious Air Fertilizer still does have an effect, primarily on those wavelengths corresponding to the far fringes of Precious Air Fertilizer’s absorption bands, where the atmosphere is not fully opaque.

            Here are some additional resources:
            https://sealevel.info/learnmore/

          • “GHGs absorb mostly outgoing radiation, preventing it from escaping into space.”

            This statement is only half of the story :

            The only particles that can emit in a given wavelength band are the particles that can absorb in this same wavelength band. Thus, the only particles that can emit (hence, radiate into space) are, by definition, the “greenhouse” gases.

            So, only “greenhouse” gases are able to radiate 170W/m² in the infrared spectrum, and this heat transfer into space is way more than the absorbed upward radiative flux emitted by the surface (17W/m²).

            If one only takes account of the absorption by “greenhouse” gases of some of the upward infrared radiative flux, the result will be a warming effect, but this is only half of the story.
            Schematic net radiative convective contribution to the cooling process of the atmosphere (and hence, the surface) :
            – absorption (and thermalization) in the lower troposphere of some of the upward radiative flux emitted by the surface (warming, 17W/m²),
            – upward convection,
            – infrared radiative emission from the upper troposphere and beyond into space (cooling 170W/m²),
            – downward convection and cooling of the lower troposphere.

            Another way to see it is to considere a world where “greenhouse” gases suddenly lost their ability to absorb / emit in the infrared spectrum. Before any feedback could take place (convection, evaporation, clouds formation, etc.) :
            – shure, some 17W/m² would be emitted from the surface directly into space and there would be no atmospheric warminf effect by absorption and thermalization,
            – but how would the atmosphere cool down itself if it could not radiate 170W/m² into space anymore ?

          • Dave Burton
            April 11, 2019 at 6:49 pm

            Thanks Dave,

            Nice explanation and interesting references (esp. sealevel.info)

          • I wrote, “The Precious Air Fertilizer (CO2) acts as a dye in the atmosphere, which “colors” the atmosphere in the far infrared, esp. around 15 µm, which, significantly, happens to be close to the peak of the Earth’s emission spectrum. In graph of the Earth’s emission spectrum (measured from orbit above the tropical western Pacific), the big green notch is the effect of CO2:
            http://sealevel.info/slide16_excerpt2_FTIR_data_from_a_satellite_tropical_western_pacific_annot5.png
            Since nearly all of the emissions from the Earth are in the far infrared, but over half of the incoming energy (from the Sun) is at shorter wavelengths, tinting the atmosphere in the far infrared has a differential effect. Since there’s more outgoing than incoming far infrared, GHGs absorb mostly outgoing radiation, preventing it from escaping into space. That causes warming. (It’s not how actual greenhouses work, but it’s still a real effect.)”

            Petit_Barde replied, “So, only “greenhouse” gases are able to radiate 170W/m² in the infrared spectrum, and this heat transfer into space is way more than the absorbed upward radiative flux emitted by the surface (17W/m²).”

            It sounds like you didn’t look at that emission spectrum, did you?

            That big green notch is the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere, on the Earth’s emission spectrum. At the bottom of the notch, the emissions which make it to space (to be measured by the satellite) are only about 1/3 the intensity of the emissions at those same wavelengths which left the surface.

            That’s why CO2 warms the Earth.

            (If CO2 really caused an increase, rather than a decrease, in radiation to space at those wavelengths, there’d be a green bump, rather than a green notch.)
             

            Previously, Nick Schroeder wrote, “GHGs don’t “radiate” diddly squat.”

            Nick, look at the very center of that green notch. Do you see the narrow spike?

            That’s CO2 radiating, from the upper stratosphere.

            Of course, there’s not much of it, way up there, where the pressure is only a few millibars. And, of course, there’s very little pressure broadening, so the spike is very narrow. But it is clearly visible.

            There’s your proof that GHGs do radiate.

  5. “Carbon dioxide (CO2) naturally cycles into and out of the air from plants and animals, the ocean, and land, with the cycle staying in balance over the long term.”

    Is that a quote from NASA?

    Knowing that Life (carbon based life forms) consumes CO2, and the atmospheric content of CO2 in three sister planets:

    Venus 95% CO2
    Earth 0.04% CO2
    Mars 95% CO2

    why is it considered that CO2 is ‘staying in balance over the long term’? More likely, Life has consumed CO2 down to the lowest levels that continue to support life. I suppose if Life is ‘hanging in the balance’, that can still be considered ‘staying in balance’.

  6. The biggest mistake in the AGW models is that CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere over long times. The atmosphere is a flow system and there are many mechanisms of exchange between it and the surface. probably the shortest time cycle follows the cycle of evaporation at the surface and and condensation of water in clouds. The primary and one of the longest cycles is emissions in the tropics being transported by jet streams to cold polar water sinks. The long term rise in concentrations is observed because natural emissions have been increasing (as a result of surface water temperature increases), faster than the polar water sink rates.

  7. ” OCO-2’s orbit produces a long swath of measurements that slice through a few cities, but it is still a challenge to gather satellite data in enough detail to differentiate between a city’s own output and CO2 that drifted into the city on air currents, which may have been released months ago on the other side of the globe. OCO-3’s new feature is called “snapshot mode.”

    So, in other words, OCO-2 didn’t show what we wanted so we fired it ! I guess thats why they stopped providing the data to the public…. LOL

  8. The one issue I see is the ISS only covers one spot on earth every three days or so depending on the ISS’s altitude. This is pretty evident when you are trying to see it pass overhead using one of the ISS tracking apps.

    So if CO2 mixes pretty rapidly, everything is really just a snapshot of what was happening when it passed overhead. It can miss a lot of things including a short but strong volcanic eruption and strong frontal systems can disburse the CO2 before you can measure it.

  9. “Amazon rainforest are a critical part of Earth’s carbon cycle, but when OCO-2 flies over the forest at about 1:30 p.m., afternoon clouds have usually built up, hiding the region from the instrument’s view.”

    So that is their latest excuse for why the data shows forests emit CO2, it cannot tell the difference between CO2 and cloud.

  10. From the article, “Thus OCO-3 will extend and enhance a data set that has already proven its value.”

    I have yet to see a good summary of just what the proven value is. I suspect that the designers had expected (hoped?) to see ‘hot spots’ in urban areas, but didn’t. Instead, what was seen was significant out-gassing in the tropical oceans and the Amazon Basin, and a seasonal cycling of biogenic CO2, particularly where there are deciduous forests.

    • Its a guarantee the OCO-2 data isn’t what they expected or supportive of the anthropogenic role in the steady CO2 increases. Otherwise we’d have the “its worse than we thought” cries.

    • “I have yet to see a good summary of just what the proven value is.”

      Yeah, where are any results gleaned from OCO-2?

    • I have mused before that from a CO2 meme perspective, the OCO2 project has been suspiciously quiet.

      When was the last time we heard anything at all from that source?

  11. The OCO-1 crashed into the Atlantic, its successor, the OCO-2 satellite was sent aloft to look for the sources of CO2 – which by theory should have been greatest over the industrialised regions of the world – once again the satellite came up with contrary data – the greatest CO2 levels were in fact over the equatorial rain forests of South America and Africa – natural sources of CO2 were predominant.
    As per usual the data torturers made the data supportive by removing the natural component – well that simply left man’s input – we did not need a satellite to look for that.
    The raw satellite data showed man’s input to be almost indistinguishable from the background noise.
    How to lie with statistics again – remove the 94% “inconvenient” data and apply the most alarmist rationalization to the remainder – typical.
    I have little faith that the OCO-3 data will not be similarly abused.
    As a further kicker “greening” of the planet appears to be happening in both the Amazon and African rain forests – this growth stimulation appears to be caused by the aerial fertilization effect of additional CO2 (plant food).
    http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
    This according to a study published in the generally pro-AGW Nature Climate Change and by NASA.
    From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change.
    However the UN repudiates this with a “study” that claims this is due to their human development programme – Right ! – and if you believe that you’ll believe anything.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/05/15/claim-u-n-data-reflects-greening-of-the-earth-not-carbon-dioxide/

  12. Poor NASA; from lunar modules to loony toons climate models. From observing the heavens to “monitoring” an entirely beneficial gas. How the mighty have fallen.

  13. Here’s a great example of how to mislead without quite outright lying:

    “As Earth’s climate changes, rainfall and temperature are changing plant growth around the globe in ways that may affect world food security. “
    -NASA’s Earth Science News Team

    “Affect” is a weasel-word.

    What these “science communicators” want you to believe is that CO2 emissions threaten “world food security.”

    The reality is just the opposite: the only way that rising CO2 levels “affect world food security” is by greatly improving it.

    The best evidence is that the warming from anthropogenic CO2 emissions is modest and benign, and higher CO2 levels are very beneficial. Raising CO2 levels does have a modest warming effect (sorry, Nick Schroeder, you’re just wrong about that), but there’s no evidence that it’s harmful. Moreover, raising CO2 levels increases agricultural productivity, and also improves world food security by making crops more drought-resistant.

    Those factors are among the reasons that famines are becoming increasingly rare, for the first time in human history.

    That’s a very, very Big Deal. Famine used to be a scourge comparable to war and epidemic. For comparison: WWII killed 2.7% of the world’s population, and the catastrophic 1918 flu pandemic killed about 2% of the world’s population. But the global drought and famine of 1876-78 killed about 3.7% of the worlds population!

    The rate things are going, “children just aren’t going to know what famine is,” warned Dr. David Whiner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Angrier.

  14. It is no longer about discoveries, it is about chasing phantoms.
    I need a job where I get paid to chase phantoms, talk about job security.

  15. Did anything come of OCO-2? Aside from the initial graphics showing higher density over areas not politically correct I’ve heard/seen nothing.

  16. OCO2 was a shocker for NASA and the hockey team. The industrial centres were virtually “quiet” while tropical rainforests and ocean band were puffing red. After the first map came out, things went deafly quiet. After several years, they published a second one that possibly they rouged up a bit and then nothing till now.

    And now, they are going to aim the sensors at cities to get some kind of confession. I think they got the idea of this selected sampling from much of the climate network of thermometers sampling UHI and airport jets to boost global warming. Oh now we are going to have our retinas bombarded by OCO3’s scarlet cheater sensor.

    The Greening of the planet (and burgeoning harvests), the only palpable evidence of any climate change at all and they don’t want to hear about it!! Their best and their brightest produced a couple of spittle flecked papers in Nature with a pallid laughable argument on how this was the worst news for the planet! It was a prima facie case for human caused carbon dioxide emissions being hugely beneficial. Even Tyndall, Arhenius and Callandar had no doubt in the 19th and early 20th Centuries that the emissions would be beneficial!

  17. That’s a lot of money to look for bad CO2 versus good CO2. Do the molecules wear tiny black or white cowboy hats? I want my money back.

Comments are closed.