The privacy policy (hyperlinked in original text) states under the security section that attempts to change the web site data is a strictly prohibited illegal offense protected by "Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 and the National Information Infrastructure Protection Act of 1996"You have accessed a U.S. Government Computer System. Visitors are authorized to use this system to acquire MODIS-Atmosphere related data information, images, products, and services only. Access to this system constitutes visitors consent to keystroke monitoring. Any malicious action or intent on this system is prohibited and punishable under Federal Law. Privacy Policy and Important Notices
However, since questioning the government is not yet illegal and their own acts of fraud are potentially yet punishable by the people and for the people, I proceed.
So what is the deal with MODIS, you ask? In their own words:
But what are the Terra and Aqua "platforms" they say they have "launched", next to a depiction of a giant rocket and yet another computer-generated image of a fake satellite using its magic beam on the round planet Earth?One of the most important ecological issues concerning our planet is climate change. It is generally agreed that the Earth's climate will modify in response to radiative forcing induced by changes in atmospheric trace gases, cloud cover, cloud type, solar radiation, and tropospheric aerosols (liquid or solid particles suspended in the air). In order to develop conceptual and predictive global climate models, it is vital to monitor these properties. Two MODIS (Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer) instruments, the first launched on 18 December 1999 onboard the Terra Platform and the second on 4 May 2002 onboard the Aqua platform, are uniquely designed (wide spectral range, high spatial resolution, and near daily global coverage) to observe and monitor these and other Earth changes.
Well, there are more web sites explaining more of the official "global warming" and/or "climate change" story to peruse as you are baffled, awed and humbled by all the science-y things going on.
According to http://science.nasa.gov/missions/terra/
So for its approximately 6-year-long life, (1999 to 2005 R.I.P.) our friend Terra has been covering the "complete Earth" every 16 days. Who has been keeping track of this? Anyone here? No? You mean millions of people aren't "in" on Terra's activity? Do you think perhaps a thousand people are "in" on what the hell Terra is? Do you suppose 100 of them could even prove it is what NASA claims? A dozen? One?A polar-orbiting spacecraft, Terra was launched aboard an Atlas-Centaur IIAS expendable launch vehicle from Vandenberg Air Force Base. Because Terra emphasizes observations of terrestrial surface features, its orbit is designed to cross the equator at this time when cloud cover, which obscures the land surface, is at its daily minimum. The orbit will be adjusted so that it covers the complete Earth every 16 days. This orbit will be maintained with periodic adjustments during the six-year life of the mission.
Good thing Terra's imagery includes political borders, so we know this was taken in Southern California. Terra's mission, lest we overlook this point in the story, is specifically to be a part of NASA's authority over governments. A sound enough motive to make up quite elaborately inaccessible lies indeed.
In short, using people's ignorance of matters to supplant their hunches with pure knowledge of unknown and non-understandable fabrication methods.NASA's Earth Observing System (EOS) consists of a series of spaceborne instruments to monitor crucial components of the Earth system, an advanced data handling system, and teams of scientists who will evaluate on-going climate change and predict future changes. Ultimately, EOS will produce scientifically sound recommendations for environmental policy to national and international bodies to mitigate or prepare for these changes.
Its partner in crime, Aqua, quite hilariously stated on the NASA site as latin for "water" (huhhhh? really?) is said to monitor the lowest sphere of the atmosphere from hundreds of kilometers above it!
Okay, so both of these objects could be replaced by relatively normal high-altitude fliers with the exact same spectrometry equipment, and it would function better than any distant satellites at risk of being pelted by radiation, meteorites or other satellites and/or the space junk. Not to mention simpler ground and ocean-based sensors.
But never mind that. Surely since the Atlas-Centaur rocket was discredited by Wernher von Braun (and not by saying the program was a technical failure but by accusing it of having weak management of all things) it is even stranger to note they launched this most important of data satellites from the selfsame glorified monstrous phallus missile.
The fairy-tales about the failures of these rockets from Wikipedia are either cringe-inducing or hilarious depending on how you imagine them crafting such stories.
So the program, stripped from the remains of the debris, had read: go up down, is that it? Darn lightning bolts! And the former explosion merely from an overlooked pipe in the most crucial, heavily controversial elements of the ridiculous fantasy machine. Oh, sure, they just overlooked a pipe solder. Fuckin' woopsie.Ten more Atlas-Centaur failures occurred, but most of them were high altitude events that occurred late in the launch. There were two exceptions. [NOTE: exceptions to the altitude of the failures, not the fact that they were still failures! -hp] The first was the attempted launch of an Intelsat communications satellite on AC-43 in September 1977. Shortly after liftoff, abnormal temperatures were detected in the Atlas's engine compartment and continued to rise as the booster ascended. At T+33 seconds, a fire broke out, causing control of the vehicle to gradually fail. At T+55 seconds, the sustainer engine shut down and the Atlas pitched over, causing the entire launch vehicle to disintegrate from structural stress. The payload fairing and satellite were stripped from the booster, followed by the Atlas breaking in half and exploding. The Centaur was ejected and flew free until Range Safety issued the destruct command at T+60 seconds. NASA and Air Force officials, already busy investigating the launch failure of a Delta booster three weeks earlier, dredged the Atlas's engines from the ocean floor and sent them to Convair for examination. It was concluded that a gas generator leak caused by improper brazing of a pipe led to overheating and fire in the boattail of the Atlas.
The second involved the launch of a Navy FLTSATCOM satellite in March 1987. Weather conditions were extremely poor that day, with thick clouds and heavy precipitation. Although engineers objected to launching, the NASA program directors gave the go-ahead anyway.[!] The Atlas disappeared into the cloud cover shortly after liftoff and was struck by a lightning bolt. This had the effect of altering a single word in the guidance computer, causing the vehicle to pitch sharply downward and break apart from structural stress.
Do you believe this story? Do you believe just how it has been written?Range Safety issued the destruct command, but there was no evidence that the booster ever received it. Debris rained out of the clouds onto the pad area. This accident was the culmination in the string of disasters that had befallen the US space program since the Titan 34D failure of October 1985 and caused significant reappraisals of weather guidelines at Cape Canaveral.
These people are putting together simulations. Which means they are being entrusted with the very word of His Majesty Lord Science just for making shit up about their use of technology none of us will control.
I don't think we can blame the observed data on a purely scientific sort of data collection process. This has "cloud seeding"/"chemtrails" and elaborate, fanciful story-telling by the Disney clowns in our government written all over it. Just what kind of compassionate understanding those working on the data analysis think they are gleaning from this must be understood in its technofascist military PsyOp context. And therefore, so must the entire concept of an anonymous, "man made global warming" that we are all being economically punished for. We must correct people in their thinking about the political nature of climate change as a solid undeniable science, surely, if we are ever confronted with a bigoted brainwashed person citing NASA data and the climate scientist priesthood that chants it.
The military is one of the single most addicts of oil, they would have the very best access to the most accurate data about their own uses of it, and so I can only assume (at this point) that the entire pseudo-science of "satellite Earth data" gathering is intimately tied to a technological agenda of weather modification and control that must be disguised by fictions of passive, socially- and politically-neutral observation. If the observations data and data versions can be trusted at all.