'Revolutionary' CO2 maps zoom in on greenhouse gas sources

A new, high resolution, interactive map of United States carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels has found that the emissions aren't all where we thought. The maps and system, called Vulcan, show CO2 emissions at more than 100 times more detail than was available before. Until now, data on carbon dioxide emissions were reported, in the best cases, monthly at the level of an entire state grid. The Vulcan model examines CO2 emissions at local levels on an hourly basis. Purdue researchers say the maps are also more accurate than previous data because they are based on greenhouse gas emissions instead of estimates based on population in areas of the United States.
http://news.uns.purdue.edu/x/2008a/08...

• Category

  Science & Technology

[SundanceVacations]

Best name for a project

[Eli Rabett]

No, people found errors in the satellite software, in particular effects due to the decreasing altitude of the satellites with time not being properly accounted for. It was the newer data that was in error and still may be because the satellite groups have not released their software codes.

It is also wrong to call the satellite data more accurate, but that is another very long tale. It is more global in coverage.

[m1aws]

So, you are admitting the more accurate data needed to be massaged to come in line with the different, less accurate data.

This has already happened far too many times. The old data has never been corrected unless it suited the GW agenda. That is why the IPCC graphs never add up to the old empirical data.

[kellygiz]

Yes, new satellite is more accurate, but it was disagreeing with the rest of the data. That's what Hansen was talking about. That's what the correction was for. Please try to read things objectively.

[m1aws]

New satellite is more accurate or they would not of bothered. Yes it is a problem and no, there is no error in its orbit.

Poor Mann. Using his awry data from Californian tree's that had no relationship with climate data from over the rest of the world then somebody added a big red vertical line on the end. "I guess they had very little left to work with"

"The argument is settled". IPCC are having another junkett. Their new graphs will look like tennis rackets from the about turn.

[kellygiz]

Lets's set this straight... Old satellite agrees with thermometers, new satellite replaces old satellite, new satellite slowly starts disagreeing with thermometers... hmm this is a problem... OH! someone fucked up, here, let's see what happens when when we correct the problem... ok, now new satellite agrees with thermometers. (and all other lines of research). So where in this do you get dishonesty?

And to quote Mann from your article: "I guess they had very little left to work with"

[m1aws]

Was he really? If you read all of his bio you can get a good feel of his mindset and intentions.

"noting that the satellite temperature data had been the last holdout of global warming denialists, and that the correction of the data would result in a change from discussing whether global warming was occurring"

and of course, what should be done about it.

I've worked with line managers who were more subtle than this. He fudged to have the numbers doctored.

[kellygiz]

What do you mean "Scary attitude"? If you knew that Hansen was talking about a real error, why did you say that he was advocating fraud to quiet the sceptics?

[m1aws]

That is correct! A fellow stated the errors were through the decaying orbit. Then you read past the bit I copied and he found the lack of tropo heating was....... problematical.

However, with his scary attitude and the likes of Jones and Wang etc. who have been reduced to propagandists I'm sorry, they have no credibility at all!

Daily Mail, 22nd November 2011 :

"New leak of hacked global warming scientist emails: A 'smoking gun' proving a conspiracy - or just hot air?"

[kellygiz]

You have misinterpreted the statement. There was an error in the satellite data. Hansen was confirming that the CORRECTED (not fudged, not manipulated) satellite data now agreed with the observed data seen on earth. Potholer54 covers this in his first video on climate change "Climate change - The Scientific Debate" at about 5:00. I recommend watching the entire series, and check for accuracy if you like.