Teams of climate change researchers around the world will be anxiously counting down the launch of the Jason-2 satellite from California, scheduled for 20 June 2008. Successful lift-off will mean a whole new era in detecting the expansion of our oceans and sea level rise, both major indicators of climate change.
CSIRO: ‘Countdown to Satellite Launch and new era of ocean research’
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
From the link:
“Teams of climate change researchers around the world will be anxiously counting down the launch of the Jason-2 satellite from California, scheduled for 20 June 2008. Successful lift-off will mean a whole new era in detecting the expansion of our oceans and sea level rise, both major indicators of climate change”.
This reads more like a political assumption than a scientific annoncement.
Only “climate change scientists” anxiously counting down. What about climate scietists?
Then indicating the purpose of the satelite as for “detecting the expansion of our oceans and sea level rise” as major indicators of climate change. Will we hear about it if the satelite fails to detect measurable sea level rise? If AGW science settled is why bother looking for indicators? Haven’t the global warming crowd already got unarguable evidence of sea level rise?
I suspect the third reason given, measuring sea temperatures as an aid to weather forecasting, is the most important reason. Usurped by the CSIRO getting its political agenda – and hopes – in first.
Paul: If we can copycat Luke for a mo I would link right here
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/research/climate.html
Anyone concerned about directions in Australian science should check in also. BTW unlike Luke I’m happy to let the youngsters do it all.
Regarding CSIRO climate processes and modelling, there is some info on ACCESS, ARCNESS and APAC the “Australian Partnership for Advanced Computing”
Will we hear about it if the satelite fails to detect measurable sea level rise?
No Helen but our offspring may in the long term
Helen – that would have to take the cake for the most convoluted conspiracy theory ever put forward. In case you had not noticed the IPCC sea level rise estimates did have a range of values and there has been criticism that sea level rise does not properly account for ice sheet disintegration mechanics. So you’re actually saying that you would prefer them not to know any better than now? You’d like estimates to be a metre out?
As for the science is settled – well why do we have an ongoing IPCC process then?
Your comments about CSIRO’s science program involvement is nothing better than bigoted speculative guttersniping.
There comes a point with you guys that everything is bad. A plague of nihilistic whinging.
“well why do we have an ongoing IPCC process then?”
It is a social welfare program for otherwise unemployable people who don’t have the nous or gumption to be self employed. Get it now?
Luke, the link reads like a political, or marketing puff piece by the CSIRO, citing hoped for results (sea level rise) as both expected, and implying this to be the main purpose of the satellite.
Gavin, a lot of scientists will be interested in the resulting sea level/sea temperature data. I doubt that it would be possible to successfully suppress inconvenient data.
“I suspect the third reason given, measuring sea temperatures as an aid to weather forecasting, is the most important reason. Usurped by the CSIRO getting its political agenda – and hopes – in first.”
Helen, I know one of the research scientists personally. He is nothing like you imagine, and is only doing his job because he loves studying the climate. What he passes on is only what the evidence tells him. He is hard working, dedicated and ethical, and a nice guy in general.
SJT
“He is hard working, dedicated and ethical, and a nice guy in general”
Yes but does he know what he is talking about, or just tries to justify his beliefs!
“He is hard working, dedicated and ethical, and a nice guy in general.” I see the invocation of this nonpareil/Urban Spaceman as being the reverse of the typical ad hominem attack; ie your guys are fringe lunatics and wierdos who bay at the moon, while our guys are hard working, dedicated, yadda yadda. The point is, the personal qualities of the people are irrelevant; this isn’t a moral issue, or at least shouldn’t be, but given the attitudes and ideology of some of the AGW supporters it mostly plays out that way in the msm;
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/comments/0,22023,23882906-663,00.html
There is some frightening stuff here, and while I’m prepared to concede some decent people do support AGW, the company they keep would test anyone’s ethics.
The description “hard working, dedicated and ethical, and a nice guy in general,” could also have been applied to the guys who drove the train to Auswitz, especially by their family and friends.
The press release was clearly prejudging the outcome. Helen was not reflecting on the guys doing the research, rather, exposing the biases of the PR team.
But how much sea level rise could they possibly detect after more than a decade of nil warming?
Well, it’s been about 12,000 years since the end of the last great ice age, and sea levels have been rising ever since. Now Jason-2 will give us at least 5 years of hopefully good quality data – WOW!LOL!
I agree with Helen. We can all sleep safe in our beds knowing that “The Jason-2 satellite will criss-cross the Earth for at least 5 years monitoring surface and sub-surface ocean conditions, and the data it sends back will direct our efforts to combat climate change and sea level rise.”
Paul, thanks for your comments, but I would like to reslant one point. The data it sends back should inform our efforts, not direct them. Science should be on tap, not on top.
Reading the CSIRO link, as a PR or marketing job, it has passing similarities to some blue-sky mining prospectuses. We got this you-beaut new technology, we’re gonna go looking, and this is what we are sure to find [hang onto your wallets!]. The timely importance of the Jason 2 satellite, and the reputations of the scientists who will work with it, warrant a less self serving promotion than that given by the CSIRO.
Paul,
the date of the last Ice Age was initially determined by Charles Lyell, as descrived in his journal of visits to the US. Paraphrasing it, he asked a local what the headward erosion rate was for the Niagara Falls. The local reckoned about 3 ft per year.
Lyell decided that as locals exaggerate things, the real rate should be about 1ft per year and so determined the time of the last ice age, 10,000 years ago, or 12,000 as is accepted these days.
Lyell invented the ice age date by reasoned argument, not from empirical fact that contradicted his hypothesis.
The same method of argument is used to counter climate scepticism today – and most of you seem unaware of it.
What a bunch of poisonous bigoted comments – so now we’re biased against certain satellites. Perhaps AGW types with start being biased against NOAA satellites monitoring global temperatures. Will there be a backlash against Landsat.
What an utterly pathetic set of comments.
“we’re gonna go looking, and this is what we are sure to find” – well gee it carries on from the TOPEX/Poseidon and Jason-1 satellites which have been providing high quality observation of sea level rise among other things. Like – a duh – maybe they may wish some continuity. Gee – continuity eh? That’s original.
This is the usual right wing scam of trying to deny science funding. For heavens sake don’t look – then we won’t know. Then we can obfuscate some more.
A quick Google would reveal lots of science news agencies are running the story. e.g. http://esciencenews.com/articles/2008/05/20/joint.nasa.french.satellite.track.trends.sea.level.climate But for Helen this is so hideous – so self serving. tsk tsk tsk
Perhaps its an international plot driven by CSIRO. So obviously we need CSIRO to try another improved journalism line – “ummm err some French dudes launched this satellite thing, probably won’t find anything, and even if it does it’s wrong. So yea – we’ve launched this satellite thing – that’s about”. A new level of punk journalism. Shaft the story.
And with redneck comments like “Science should be on tap, not on top. ” – well no wonder kids don’t want to do science. Perhaps we should also have farmers on tap and not on top – coz they are continually whinging, inefficient, get too many subsidies for this and that, and heck there’s hardly any of them anyway. So who cares. But that wouldn’t be polite would it.
And if the sea level data helped to build a better El Nino forecast well I’m sure the local agricultural industry wouldn’t be interested nor supportive.
So we’ve now sunk to the level of not liking certain satellites. Wow ! I think I HATE SPOT Image – sounds French and they eat frogs. So let’s all hate SPOT .
And of course the bloody data will help DIRECT the research effort into better analyses and future experiments. Oh but that’s right – there won’t be any scientists coz society hates them. They’re all crooks and can’t be trusted.
And our resident Mr Nasty got “Auswitz” in – I mean that’s not bad. But did he go far enough. Perhaps CSIRO were behind 9-11 after all – I heard they support the Taliban too. And that they are child molesters. A denialist told me so on the internet you know.
Creeps !
Putting on my Bullwinkle J Moose Voice:
“ooh”.
“Sea warming underestimated”
A front page article in today’s Canberra Times points to new CSIRO research also published in Nature today, the bulk of data collected from 1961 and used in climate modelling to calculate the rate of warming, is not accurate because of a “manufacturing fault” in equipment that leads to a bias in depth estimates.
gavin; read the whole of the johnson paper; warming is also overestimated.
BTW; since the 1950’s water vapour has been drastically declining;
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/06/18/a-window-on-water-vapor-and-planetary-temperature/#more-1427
So much for +ve feedbacks.
PARIS (AFP) – “The world’s oceans have warmed 50 percent faster over the last 40 years than previously thought due to climate change, Australian and US climate researchers reported Wednesday.
Higher ocean temperatures expand the volume of water, contributing to a rise in sea levels that is submerging small island nations and threatening to wreak havoc in low-lying, densely-populated delta regions around the globe.
The study, published in the British journal Nature, adds to a growing scientific chorus of warnings about the pace and consequences rising oceans”.
http://www.afp.com/english/news/stories/newsmlmmd.996aef9c15178bcfce4c07d6ee6a8a7d.f1.html
Back off Wattsie Sucks before you walk into the briny
Abstract “The coastal zone has changed profoundly during the 20th century and, as a result, society is becoming increasingly vulnerable to the impact of sea-level rise and variability. This demands improved understanding to facilitate appropriate planning to minimise potential losses. With this in mind, the World Climate Research Programme organised a workshop (held in June 2006) to document current understanding and to identify research and observations required to reduce current uncertainties associated with sea-level rise and variability. While sea levels have varied by over 120 m during glacial/interglacial cycles, there has been little net rise over the past several millennia until the 19th century and early 20th century, when geological and tide-gauge data indicate an increase in the rate of sea-level rise. Recent satellite-altimeter data and tide-gauge data have indicated that sea levels are now rising at over 3 mm year−1. The major contributions to 20th and 21st century sea-level rise are thought to be a result of ocean thermal expansion and the melting of glaciers and ice caps. Ice sheets are thought to have been a minor contributor to 20th century sea-level rise, but are potentially the largest contributor in the longer term. Sea levels are currently rising at the upper limit of the projections of the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (TAR IPCC), and there is increasing concern of potentially large ice-sheet contributions during the 21st century and beyond, particularly if greenhouse gas emissions continue unabated. A suite of ongoing satellite and in situ observational activities need to be sustained and new activities supported. To the extent that we are able to sustain these observations, research programmes utilising the resulting data should be able to significantly improve our understanding and narrow projections of future sea-level rise and variability”.
Wattsie Sucks? Steady on old chap, shoot the messanger and all that. I suppose your abstract was written in Tuvalu? Never mind, McIntyre has a good take on the Dutch experience with sea rise, and they should know, dykes and fingers;
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=61
And as to the rushing inundation, Monash have a much funnier game than ‘our’ ABC’s Planet-Slayer;
http://sahultime.monash.edu.au/explore.html
gavin; that link is not to the original article, which is not available at either the home page of PCMDI, or the Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research; PCMDI is a climate model diagnostic mob and the Australian crew are joint effort by CSIRO and BoM; but I’m not going down King’s ad hom path, so I’ll reserve judgement.
There sure is a lot of contradictory info about the seas; just a little while ago, ARGO was finding evidence of cooling everywhere; now, in a recent paper by Willis, Lyman, Johnson and Gilson, a conclusion that;
“a large cold bias in a small fraction of the ARGO floats and a smaller but more prevalent warm bias in the XBT data” has been made.
McIntyre looks at sea temp in all the oceans;
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1100
and his observations seem to tally with this crew;
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080421111622.htm
Using that lot to substantiate AGW is a fool’s errand.
And when did McIntyre & Co last do a measurement?
For those who don’t get it yet my interest was always in those doing primary measurements rather than the analysis done by a gaggle of geeks a home.
Hang on links if you wish, but a least look around when you find a decent site.
See here a last, a decent attempt to get around averages
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080616161826.htm
Let’s guess what happens to oceans as we dump more big chunks of ice in, cold currents?
Lets look around some more hey
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080616161826.htm
data logger; when I post rubbish I usually get stomped on, but occasionally I get politely corrected; in deference to karma therefore, may I suggest your disparaging comment about McIntyre and CO doing measurements is completely wrong; Anthony Watts has inspected dozens of temperature stations, which you would know if you bothered to check his site
As for McIntyre, he has been sedulous in examining primary sources, both in the field and elsewhere; read this;
http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/ohio.pdf
Well I’ll be darned! McIntyre is nothing but a stock market engineer. Now if he were a politician, he’d have to sell all his mining shares.
BTW When did Watts put to sea?