HA HA! NASA carbon satellite FAILS!

On Feb 24, 11:56*pm, Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Feb 24, 5:08*pm, mrbawana2u wrote:



On Feb 24, 11:58*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 08:32:44 -0800 (PST), wrote:
How many more millions are they going to spend to re-do this? What a
waste of resources.

Money well spent.

Lib-turds always say that as they waste other peoples money.

The failure of this satellite doesn't represent a
"waste" of resources, it represents a "loss" of resources.

Bad idea...incompetent scientists...waste of time and money.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatoryhttp://www.cloudbait.com

It was a waste of resources as soon as the scam was hatched.

Wingers are responsible for the a trillion dollar deficit and a near
meltdown of the world economy and they say liberals waster
money....

It is said because it is the truth.
Lib-turds never let the truth get in the way of their delusons.

On Feb 25, 5:01*am, Tom P wrote:
mrbawana2u wrote:
On Feb 24, 11:58 am, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 08:32:44 -0800 (PST), wrote:
How many more millions are they going to spend to re-do this? What a
waste of resources.
Money well spent.

Lib-turds always say that as they waste other peoples money.

I guess you think putting a man on Mars is a brilliant way to waste
other peoples money?

It's a stupid way to waste other peoples money and it ain't gonna
happen.
Perfect lib-turd project.

On Feb 25, 9:59*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 00:43:10 -0800 (PST), Catoni
wrote:

* * * * * * * *Now Chris... you're own Global Warming Alarmist high
priest Al Gore has stated that the science is settled, the debate is
over. It wouldn't do for you to go against one of the Global Warming
leaders.
[lib-tard crap flushed]

There are many
questions that are only partially answered; understanding a system as
complex as Earth's climate is a very difficult problem.

That doesn't stop you insipid lib-turds from acting like you have all
the answers, does it, ****tard?

On Feb 24, 7:34*pm, Bawana wrote:
On Feb 24, 6:33*pm, MitchAlsup wrote:

On Feb 24, 5:08*pm, mrbawana2u wrote:

On Feb 24, 11:58*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 08:32:44 -0800 (PST), wrote:
How many more millions are they going to spend to re-do this? What a
waste of resources.

Money well spent.

Lib-turds always say that as they waste other peoples money.

While conserva-turds think all the money spend over in Iraq was well
spent--

Thank the lib-turds running congress for approving all the money,
****wit.


Uh, the GOP ran Congress for 6 of Bush's 8 years, Doofus.

give me [an anal] exploration any day (and twice on sunday).

Fixed it for you, retard.

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
...
On Feb 24, 11:54 am, "James" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Feb 24, 8:50 am, GW SCAM wrote:

Dear NASA; Stay the Hell out of the global warming SCAM! Explore
SPACE
instead, like you used to.

Why in the world would ANYONE cheer the failure of a NASA satellite
designed to provide accurate measurements of CO2 concentrations --
with an important piece of data that we're all fighting about?

Whether you're an AGW Believer or an AGW Skeptic/Denier, isn't "good
science" what we need to determine the truth about CO2 and climate
change? And isn't good data part of what we need to do "good
science"?

The idea that we should be happy about the CO2 satellite crashing just
sounds to me like a recommendation that we should do climate science
in the future by relying on Roman priests examing the patterns of bird
entrails.

As for the idea that NASA should explore "outer space" -- places where
most humans will never go -- to the exclusion of providing important
information about conditions affecting the Earth, where most of us are
always going to live -- that's daft.

Thankfully, NASA expeditions and other efforts at exploring space have
already helped in the development of weather satellites,
communications satellites, etc. It's just perverse as well as utterly
impractical to suggest that this is wrong, and that the only
legitimate function of NASA is to explore conditions on Mars or
Jupiter or Uranus.
-------------------------------
For once I agree with you somewhat. There is no point in cheering a
failed launch. It's merely taxpayer money going down the drain. OTOH,
there should be no missions based on the bias of a contoversial
hypothesis such as GW. The scientific way would include an open
discussion. It's no longer scientific now and most here know that it
never was. It was a misleading, lying and exaggeration from the very
beginning but it's hard to combat when the PR has been as heavy as
this.
The public hasn't fallen for it but since it's such a political thing
now that anything to bolster the hypothesis is fine. If it doesn't do
that, it's merely explained away as it has in the past. That makes it
money down the drain as well, based on continued dogma.

Ignorance speaks.

With data you could base an argument....that capability just was lost.

Will you pay for another to prove your argument?

TMT
----------------------------------
We'll put you down as an alarmist. How could you NOT see the bias in the
media, the government, the scientific orgs and even the politicians?
Were you innoculated as a child to prevent the advancement of
intelligence?

On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 07:20:07 -0800 (PST), mrbawana2u
wrote:

That doesn't stop you insipid lib-turds from acting like you have all
the answers, does it, ****tard?

You display a regrettably limited ability to rationally discuss a rich,
important, and complex (both scientifically and socially) topic.
_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

MC wrote:
On Feb 25, 7:46 pm, Quadibloc wrote:

Carbon dioxide is a colorless gas. The Sun's light goes through it
and warms up the Earth just fine. But the long-wave infrared that the
Earth uses to cool off at night... is absorbed by carbon dioxide, and
warms it up.



The major effect is water vapor. CO2 is, by comparison, negligible.

Nope.

'noter madman has graced the newsgroup !!


wrote:
Dear NASA; Stay the Hell out of the global warming SCAM! Explore SPACE
instead, like you used to.

NASA greenhouse gas satellite fails

* Story Highlights
* $273 million project was intended to study effect of greenhouse gases
* NASA: Crew members scrambling to figure out what went wrong with
satellite
* Problem arose several minutes into launch of a rocket carrying the
satellite

(CNN) -- NASA said early Tuesday that it failed to launch a satellite
which
would have monitored greenhouse gases to study how they affect the Earth's
climate.

The rocket carrying the satellite launched at 1:55 a.m. PT (4:55 a.m. ET)
from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, but the "payload fairing
failed to separate," according to a statement on NASA's Web site.

The problems occurred several minutes into the launch.

"We have declared a launch contingency, meaning that we did not have a
successful launch tonight," said George Diller, an agency spokesman.

Project crew members on the ground were trying to determine the cause.
NASA
scheduled a news conference for later in the morning to provide more
details.

The $273 million satellite, called the Orbiting Carbon Observatory, would
have collected "precise global measurements of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the
Earth's atmosphere" to help better forecast the changes in carbon dioxide
"and the effect that these changes may have on the Earth's climate."

So you think losing $273 million dollars plus many more dollars of on
ground effort is funny?

Must be a damn winger.

That kind of thinking is what got us a trillion deficit..

TMT

Quadibloc wrote:

Every night, it gets colder.

Why? Space is a vacuum. You know that a Thermos bottle (or Dewar
flask) keeps things hot or cold. So what is the Earth touching at
night that takes its heat away?

The Earth isn't losing heat efficiently by conduction or convection at
night. It gets cold at night because the Earth radiates heat away into
empty space. But the Earth isn't glowing red-hot, and it certainly
doesn't shine like the Sun. So what is it radiating? The answer is,
long-wave infrared radiation.

Carbon dioxide is a colorless gas. The Sun's light goes through it and
warms up the Earth just fine. But the long-wave infrared that the
Earth uses to cool off at night... is absorbed by carbon dioxide, and
warms it up.

Something has always bothered me about that explanation of the
greenhouse effect: why doesn't the atmospheric CO2 re-emit that black
body radiation out into space at the same wavelength? A good absorber
is a good emitter, right? Where's the asymmetry that allows the
atmosphere to increase in temperature?
--
Dave

MC wrote:
On Feb 25, 7:46 pm, Quadibloc wrote:

Carbon dioxide is a colorless gas. The Sun's light goes through it
and warms up the Earth just fine. But the long-wave infrared that the
Earth uses to cool off at night... is absorbed by carbon dioxide, and
warms it up.


The major effect is water vapor. CO2 is, by comparison, negligible.



Nope.

"The major effect is water vapor. CO2 is, by comparison, negligible."

Yep.