marklynas.orgIce satellite launch ends in disaster 10 October 05
We know many things about the earth system, but we don’t yet have comprehensive data on how ice sheets at the poles may be thickening or thinning in response to global warming. The launch of Cryosat was supposed to plug this knowledge gap, with a polar-orbiting satellite taking constant radar measurements of changes in land and sea ice. Many in the climate community held high hopes for the launch – including myself (I went on BBC television news to extol its virtues on Saturday) – which is why the failure of the launch is such a cruel blow. Apparently the second and third sections of the rocket, a converted Soviet nuclear missile, failed to separate, and the £90 million satellite plummeted into the Arctic Ocean. According to the BBC today, scientists are determined to rebuild from scratch and try again, but this will take at least three years – and also depends on whether the necessary cash can be found.
Comments
Douglas Coker
October 10th, 2005 at 04:07 PM
You really would think that some government or governments somewhere could find £90m. This is a very small sum and when other other less desirable spending is continuing apace should be easy to find.
And what about all those mega-rich philanthropists. Branson would be well advised to drop his plans for his own personal oil facility and spend on this satellite instead. And then there’s Bill Gates and many more. Does the Fortune listing include e-mail addresses?
Douglas Coker
Lynn Vincentnathan
October 11th, 2005 at 03:06 AM
we don’t need any more evidence to start reducing GHGs post haste (I think scientists have proved it 20 times over). And even if temperatures get to 135 F in winter, and all the ice at both poles melts, the skeptics will never believe in AWG. They sort of remind me of those tech skeptics who were totally against umbrellas, horseless carriages, etc….They’re just unable to envision a better future.
Lynn Vincentnathan
October 11th, 2005 at 03:13 AM
Yes, we don’t need more evidence about AGW, because some skeptics are coming around. Now what they argue is that adaptation is better than GHG reduction (see link below), and as we all know no one can possibly do both (at least no moron can do both). Here’s an idea, why not take all (orsomeof) that money saved from reducing GHGs & pump it into abatement. That way even abatement won’t cost….
See: “Adapting now is the way to duck disaster”
http://www.climateark.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=47102
Lynn Vincentnathan
October 11th, 2005 at 03:13 AM
Yes, we don’t need more evidence about AGW, because some skeptics are coming around. Now what they argue is that adaptation to GW effects is better than GHG reduction (see link below), and as we all know no one can possibly do both (at least no moron can do both). Here’s an idea, why not take all (or some of) that money saved from reducing GHGs & pump it into adaptation. That way even adaptation won’t cost….
See: “Adapting now is the way to duck disaster”
http://www.climateark.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=47102
Tara
October 11th, 2005 at 05:13 AM
sorry haven’t read the link yet but have heard that line of reasoning before and it clearly stinks. The next step in related thinking that has me quite worried is when GW damage to certain ecosystems is used as a justification to exploit those ecosystems becuase supposedly they are beyond repair. Has anyone come across such perverse thinking? I always wonder if it will be used to justify oil exploration in the great barrier reef in australia. cheers Tara