Wednesday, 2 March 2016

California Dreaming: Instrumentation Error Seems illogical

This was the news release put out by NASA in response to observations of high carbon monoxide readings over the western United States

News release from NASA
Erroneous CO emissions over California cause unrealistic CO concentration in GEOS-5 model

March 1, 2016

IMPORTANT NOTICE: Elevated carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations over California in the GEOS-5 products since February 25, 2016, are incorrect. They are a consequence of unrealistic emissions derived from satellite observations of fires, which led to elevated concentrations of atmospheric CO (as well as other species).

NASA's EOS-Terra spacecraft entered safe mode on February 18, 2016, during an inclination adjustment maneuver. This caused the MODIS instrument to enter safe mode, with the nadir and space-view doors closed. When the Terra MODIS transitioned back to science mode on February 24, 2016, the operating temperatures for the SWIR and LWIR (Short-wave Infrared and Longwave infrared) focal planes have not yet stabilized. As a consequence, some data products have been severely degraded. This includes the "Fire Radiative Power" fields that are used by GEOS-5 to compute emissions of CO, CO2, and carbonaceous aerosols by biomass burning.

GMAO is working to correct this problem. The GEOS-5 analyses will be re-run from February 24, 2016, using only the EOS-Aqua MODIS data, in order to exclude the unrealistic CO emissions. EOS-Terra observations will be re-introduced once the instrument has stabilized.

With my lack of technical and scientific knowledge I was beginning to feel a bit like a conspiracy theorist in questioning NASA's explanation of instrumentational errors to deny the high readings.

So I am very pleased to have the company of Paul Beckwith who rejects the official explanation for very similar reasons to me. I believe he is spot-on.

Paul is no radical as we know. 

I sincerely hope someone will take up Paul's suggestion and do some investigation.

Questioning the NASA version of events
California Dreaming, Instrumentation Error Seems illogical

1 March, 2016

I took the day off to break ice, shop, get my hair cut, and see friends. What a day to take off:).  I stand by both of my videos released on February 29th on the California gas emissions on the major fault lines.

In my opinion NASA’s explanation below makes no sense whatsoever. I am actually amazed that this was claimed, since to me it is not consistent with the images.  Obviously, I will generate more videos to support my views.  

For starters:

1) They only mention CO, and say nothing about CO2 and SO2.
2) The emissions are spatially located over the fault-lines; how could fires aggregate in these regions?
3) There was an Earthquake in New Zealand around Feb 29th that showed CO release.
4) They are trying to say the error was just over California. Really? Was the data wrong over the whole globe?

5) I discussed the idea of “instrumentation error” in my second video yesterday. In my opinion, the explanation from NASA does not address any of the points in my video, which I stand by 100%.
If NASA had said that there was a gamed simulation that got into the data set that would have seemed more realistic to me–still implausible, in my opinion, but harder to prove wrong.  Facebook friends and others, please help me out by doing the following:
A) Go to the USGS site and pick an Earthquake that occurred within the last few months, say over 5 and anywhere in the world.

B) Go to 
Earth NullSchool and look at the CO, CO2 and SO2 data for a few weeks before and after the quake.

C) Share your findings, positive or negative below this post and throughout social media.

D) Do it quickly, in case the Earth NullSchool site is potentially compromised.

Thanks. The fact that NASA is claiming “instrumentation” makes me think even more that my videos are correct. Remember that I am not claiming that a quake will occur. See the conclusion of my second video yesterday to hear my thoughts.
———- ———-
Why was nothing said at all for five days?  By NASA, scientists, satellite engineers, climatologist?  Why was nothing said at all

1 comment:

  1. The data will be rerun according to NASA. Based on the info you've been working with up to March 2nd, how long before you'd rate an 'all clear' after these readings? p.s. So far I haven't seen anyone post that they are waiting for an explanation from the earth.nullschool site itself.