Home > AGW, Climate Change, Data, Global Warming, Omniclimate > “Glory” a loss to Climate Modelling, not Science

“Glory” a loss to Climate Modelling, not Science

Seems like global warming is such a primary point of concern, satellites vital for its study always get booked on dodgy rockets, with predictable results.

Bye bye Glory? In truth, it’s not “climate science” that will suffer from the loss. It’s climate modelling. Because, as in previous circumstances, with an operational lifetime of 3 years instead of 30, Glory was not meant to study the “climate”, rather to provide supplemental information to climate models.

And that’s no “Earth observation”.

Advertisements
  1. UzUrBrain
    2011/04/06 at 17:11

    If these “Climate Models” are so good why aren’t they using them to predict the stock market trends? Clearly, that would be an easier and more profitable endeavor.

  2. Dr. Killpatient
    2011/03/06 at 01:34

    The question is: Why would we need to launch a multi-million dollar satellite to re-confirm what has already been re-re-re-re-re-confirmed as inarguable solid science for the past three decades in the first place?

    I’m sure it was explained to you more than once and in in no uncertain terms that “The science is settled”. Michael Mann and Algoreythm released their infallible and dispassionate data to the world, winning many prizes and much money.

    How many more penguins must needlessly freeze to death before you realize the truth, you bloody heretics?

    You knuckle-draggers are a bunch of wanna-be Spanish Inquisitors torturing those of the true faith.

    Now…if you will excuse me, I have an ozone hole to close.

  3. Sean
    2011/03/05 at 18:08

    I think you are being a bit hard on the mission. There have been a number of experiments born out of a desire to validate the climate modeling. These experiments will be the rope that climate science by or hangs from. The Argo buoys were dispersed about the oceans to prove that excess heat was being trapped there at a specific rate predicted by James Hanson. Even with years of data reduction to remove all the (cooling) biases and analytic estimates of potential deep ocean heat (beyond the Argo buoys) the best that anyone can come up with is about a third the heat expected. Then there is Kevin Trenbreth’s “missing heat” which is an energy balance of from the total ocean heat content and satellite measurements short wave and long wave emissivity of the earth. The results from these experiments is proving the limitations climate models.

  1. 2011/03/08 at 05:12

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: