Trump White House Quietly Cancels NASA Research Verifying Greenhouse Gas Cuts (sciencemag.org) 291
Paul Voosen, reporting for Science magazine: You can't manage what you don't measure. The adage is especially relevant for climate-warming greenhouse gases, which are crucial to manage -- and challenging to measure. In recent years, though, satellite and aircraft instruments have begun monitoring carbon dioxide and methane remotely, and NASA's Carbon Monitoring System (CMS), a $10-million-a-year research line, has helped stitch together observations of sources and sinks into high-resolution models of the planet's flows of carbon. Now, President Donald Trump's administration has quietly killed the CMS, Science has learned.
The move jeopardizes plans to verify the national emission cuts agreed to in the Paris climate accords, says Kelly Sims Gallagher, director of Tufts University's Center for International Environment and Resource Policy in Medford, Massachusetts. "If you cannot measure emissions reductions, you cannot be confident that countries are adhering to the agreement," she says. Canceling the CMS "is a grave mistake," she adds.
The move jeopardizes plans to verify the national emission cuts agreed to in the Paris climate accords, says Kelly Sims Gallagher, director of Tufts University's Center for International Environment and Resource Policy in Medford, Massachusetts. "If you cannot measure emissions reductions, you cannot be confident that countries are adhering to the agreement," she says. Canceling the CMS "is a grave mistake," she adds.
Time for other countries to step up (Score:2, Insightful)
Other countries need to fill in as the US culls science programs and generally sets itself back to the stone age. After all, you'll need to know how much CO2 is being emitted when the US has to come crawling back years from now to buy carbon credits from the EU and China...
First Impulse: Bash America (Score:3, Insightful)
This isn't a uniquely Republican / Democrat United States problem. It's a problem in the UK and and it's a problem in Australia and so likely in most Western Democracies.
Simplistic ideas presented with easy-to-remember slogans defeat any complexity because of how humans work. Very few voters have any understanding of the various issues facing modern society, so politicians can say whatever they want without really being held to account in any kind of realistic fashion.
As a meta-example, it would be easy for
Please mod Parent up. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Republican / Democrat divide is a perfect example of humans inability to process nuance outside their areas of deep understanding, which are generally very narrow if they exist at all.
I think that part of the problem is that our political system with first past the post style voting actively creates a two party system that invariably draws various lines in the sand to create such a divide, removing any room for nuance. There is no major political party with seats at the table that allows someone to be pro-drug, pro-abortion, pro gay marriage, pro-gun, pro border wall, and pro-GMO all at the same time. Such a person isn't going to fit with either dominant party or the positions that they'
Re: (Score:2)
European countries like Germany have their proportional representation systems. That ends up with rainbow alliances where getting a majority large enough to form a government ends up with complex compromise agreements trading policies in order to get into power. Then at any point in time, the government can end up dissolving and requiring a new national election because one party falls out with the others in the alliance.
Just adding a third party can also cause these problems. The UK ended up with a hung pa
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't stop plutocracy, but it certainly helps.
Individuals should fund elections, and individuals solely the constituents of those to be elected. No outside money from anywhere.
Issues-based voting should also reveal ALL of the donors to ALL sides of the issues. Out them.
All lobbying efforts should reveal all of the payers so that we know exactly who they are. Reveal the hidden agendas. Let us know who is behind what. Make the information easily accessible the second the monies are spent, not long afterw
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't stop plutocracy, but it certainly helps.
Ya, but the promotion of Pluto back to a planet will help them hold onto power.
Re: (Score:2)
That ends up with rainbow alliances where getting a majority large enough to form a government ends up with complex compromise agreements trading policies in order to get into power
Making compromises is not actually a bad thing.
Re: (Score:2)
...it would be easy for me to get on your Republican-bashing bandwagon...
I keep looking at the post you're replying to and I don't see the word "Republican" anywhere. Please help me to find it:
Other countries need to fill in as the US culls science programs and generally sets itself back to the stone age. After all, you'll need to know how much CO2 is being emitted when the US has to come crawling back years from now to buy carbon credits from the EU and China...
Re: (Score:2)
Probably because the other team likes to pretend their smart
Yeah, about that...
Re: (Score:2)
A country full of actresses who played Joanie Cunningham?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
U do realize that America has dropped our CO2 as much as Europe has (25% since 1990) while China has gone up 400% over the same time? And it is America that continues to drop our CO2, while Europe has flatlined for nearly 5 years. China had appeared to stall for 201[56] and then rose again last year, and appears to be continuing that rise this year. Do note that China had a MAJOR economic downturn during 201[56] and is back to its previous path.
Re:Time for other countries to step up (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Even Europe at 6.9 is way too much. We need to be down around where greenland, iceland, and costa rica are.
America continues to close coal plants, not build any news ones, and instead, invest mostly into AE (and nat gas plants, which needs to stop). That is why America continues to lower our CO2 emissions while China's, India's, etc continues to grow. OTOH, The problem is t
Re: (Score:2)
Who cares what direction you are heading in if you are not moving fast enough to make a difference? 25 years you have been moving 'in the right direction' and what is the result? You are still twice as bad as China.
Per capita an America uses more coal powered electricity than a Chinese person does. Due to the fact Americans use so more electricity! [shrinkthatfootprint.com]
Re: Time for other countries to step up (Score:2)
We may use "so more electricity" as you put it, but here's a fact for you: The most polluted city in the United States doesn't even break the world's top 1,000 polluted cities list (the highest in the US are mostly clustered in progressive California.)
Re: (Score:2)
American households waste an extreme amount of electricity. [shrinkthatfootprint.com] You could cut back from your current more than 3 times the world average to say Australian levels of just twice the world average, and drop a massive amount of coal. Maybe even enough to drop down to China's levels.
But you just don't want to do it. It's far easier to just complain about other people catching up.Rather than stop to think why you are so far ahead in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Same old Windy, same tired old claims.
Despite China's coal use, they are still less than half your per capita emissions. Like you mentioned earlier, despite the US dropping for 25 years and China rising for 25 years. You still haven't cleaned up to their level and they haven't increased to yours. The real problem is you and people like you who are too afraid to look in the mirror and see who the real polluters are. You are twice China and way above the world average but pretend to be solving the problem.
Ma
Re: (Score:2)
In 2018, however, carbon dioxide emissions from transportation, power plants, homes and businesses should climb about 2.2 percent, the U.S. Energy Information Administration said. That increase would be due to forecasts for a colder winter, higher economic growth and rising gas prices, the EIA said.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually increasingly you are worryingly irrelevant. I'm canadian, 80% of our GDP used to come from the USA.
We are watching you morans sink back into the stone age in horror and checking our GDP. What the poster said is true though, your damn near irrelvant at this point. All USA soft power is completely gone, no one trusts the USA as far as they can throw a fat american, no one wants to even visit your increasingly 4th world country full of poverty jackboot police and hatred of the poor, brown people, a
Re:Time for other countries to step up (Score:5, Insightful)
The idea they need us more than we need them isn't as true as it was in 1990.
The US share of world GDP peaked at around 36% at the end of WW2 and then fell as the world recovered until around 1975. From 1975-2000 it remained at about 21%, then dropped rapidly after 2000 so that today it it's roughly where it was in 1900 -- about 16% -- and is still falling rapidly.
One of the effects of the competition trade liberalization brought is that nobody is indispensable anymore. Look at America's top twenty exports or so. There's nothing we make the world can't get somewhere else, except a few big ticket weapons systems like the F35. Many of our exports, such as cars, or refined petroleum, have significant foreign content already.
The day is coming, if it's not already here, when the US won't be able to dictate economic relations on our terms. Then if the world says we have to trade carbon credits, we'll have to trade carbon credits. And if we don't have our own carbon data we'll just have to use theirs.
Re: (Score:3)
Then if the world says we have to trade carbon credits, we'll have to trade carbon credits.
We won't have to trade carbon credits. We'll still have significant weaponry, so we can just use that instead.
I'm worried that there are enough people in this country who would consider military action to be the better of those options.
Re: (Score:2)
So Carbon credits will save the world? By managing pollution with a carrot and stick approach where companies that are good on the environment will have extra assets while companies who are not good for the environment will need to buy these credits (from the companies who are good with the environment). This would encourage green companies to be greener to gain more credits, and for polluting companies to cut their pollution as to save money. As well being a controlled asset, as companies get greener the
Re: Time for other countries to step up (Score:2)
Except the US remains in the #2 spot in manufacturing. China only overtook us because they produce tons of cheap crap like water bottles and t-shirts, whereas our top manufacturing is in capital goods like earth movers, tractors, and jumbo Jets.
Re: (Score:2)
Why NASA? (Score:3, Interesting)
Why would a Climate Monitoring System be under NASA and not NOAA?
I would think that NASA's only role in this should be launching and maintaining the satellites. The Science and Climate Monitoring itself should be under NOAA control.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would a Climate Monitoring System be under NASA and not NOAA?
I would think that NASA's only role in this should be launching and maintaining the satellites. The Science and Climate Monitoring itself should be under NOAA control.
That's an interesting question, though not really relevant, because Trump didn't move the research to NOAA, he just cancelled it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why NASA? (Score:5, Informative)
NOAA was not monitoring the same thing that NASA was doing. You would have a point if the NASA CMS program was moved to NOAA, keeping the same funding, but it's been completely cancelled with nothing to replace it.
Re: (Score:2)
"100% maintained" For now, give it another year or two.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah! And why does the NAVY have PLANES! I mean, HELLO! We have an air force!
Or, you know, maybe Noah and NASA are exploring 2 different things?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Exactly.
The NOAA actually does monitor this. It's just another government duplication
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/... [noaa.gov]
Re:Why NASA? (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly.
The NOAA actually does monitor this. It's just another government duplication
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/... [noaa.gov]
Wrong. NOAA monitors the same variables but though different mechanisms. They use what looks like fixed land based sites and measurements from ocean vessels.
NASA's monitoring involved sampling from Aircraft and satellite measurements. Not only are you measuring CO2 in areas the NOAA can't (different parts of the atmosphere... different parts of the globe), and providing different kinds of data they cant, but you're also providing an independent check on the NOAA data.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wrong. NOAA monitors the same variables but though different mechanisms. They use what looks like fixed land based sites and measurements from ocean vessels.
NASA's monitoring involved sampling from Aircraft and satellite measurements. Not only are you measuring CO2 in areas the NOAA can't (different parts of the atmosphere... different parts of the globe), and providing different kinds of data they cant, but you're also providing an independent check on the NOAA data.
There's no reason why NOAA can't use and study the data. They would have the access to the satellites and data that NASA has.
There's no reason why this couldn't be rolled under NOAA's budget as a cost savings measure since that data could be used internally by NOAA for other projects. It's not like the Satellite coudn't be used for other projects or rolled into upcoming weather satellites.
There's no reason why NASA, a Space Engineering Agency needs to be independently checking NOAA, a Climate Science and Re
Re:Why NASA? (Score:4, Insightful)
If we can shift that 10 Million from NASA to NOAA, and NOAA orders the satellite from NASA and uses the leftover cash for more climate studies instead of hiring climate experts (which NASA would have to do. NOAA already has experts)
NASA already has experts too. You wouldn't actually save any money. You still need the same work to be done. By moving the project from one place to another, you would even incur extra costs and inefficiencies during the transition.
But all of that is completely irrelevant. The project and budget isn't shifted. It's shafted.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no reason why this couldn't be rolled under NOAA's budget as a cost savings measure since that data could be used internally by NOAA for other projects. It's not like the Satellite coudn't be used for other projects or rolled into upcoming weather satellites.
Okay. Was it rolled under NOAA's budget?
Oh....
Re: (Score:2)
And now you're down to pedantic bickering about why we need to spend double the money... my money.
And that's why you fucking lost.
Being so uninterested in the details that you'd write off 4 sentences of explanation as "pedantic bickering" is why your administration is a complete tire fire.
Re: (Score:2)
The Global Monitoring Division of NOAA/Earth System Research Laboratory has measured carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases for several decades at a globally distributed network of air sampling sites
These are measurements from a couple of dozen fixed ground stations. While the form a nice background check, they do not provide much fine detail over where the carbon is coming from, and how it moves through the atmosphere.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure where you get your news... but, the Russia thing is not bullshit. Russia did hack the US and spread FUD on social media to try and influence the election. These are known facts. The Mueller investigation is still going on, so we don't know for sure if there was any collusion or not.
Trump is mentioned by people on here, not because people are "butthurt", but because his administration pulled the plug on a vital program. It is an idiotic move. Especially given that the common argument of Cli
that's too bad (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: that's too bad (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's what they said about some schmuck writing down mercury thermometer measurements every day in his old notebook a century ago.
Now these measurements allow us to create a nice graph of the temperature changes. Collecting data is useful, even if you don't see an immediate need for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, but my point is that the data could be in a true vacuum when it is first collected.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Your ire is misplaced and the downvote you gave me — wasted. Obesity is, largely, a personal problem (ignoring for a second the idiotic "war on fat" waged by the Federal government for 30 years), but this does not contradict what I said in any way. Because I never suggested, government needs to spend on fighting it.
Re: (Score:3)
CO2 is not a pollutant.
And water isn't a poison, so clearly you won't mind being drowned.
Re: (Score:2)
CO2 is not a pollutant.
Are you sure?
A pollutant is a substance or energy introduced into the environment that has undesired effects, or adversely affects the usefulness of a resource. A pollutant may cause long- or short-term damage by changing the growth rate of plant or animal species, or by interfering with human amenities, comfort, health, or property values.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
This is a huge loss. Hopefully, CONgress overrides (Score:5, Interesting)
Keep in mind that China is NOT the only nation cheating. Plenty of others are cheating as well.
The other real possibility, perhaps one that is better, would be to have private funding of multiple sats. If we can get a pass over areas every hour or two, it will show what is really going on.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you might have found the perfect US political spin for this: it's not that canceling monitoring is bad for the environment, it's that it helps China cheat.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Secondly, putting up OCO3 is NOT about policing. It is about KNOWING who is doing what. There is a difference between policing and just getting intelligence. And that is what scientists do. They gather intelligence on all
Re: (Score:3)
The problem in places like China is they are replacing OLD coal plants with new ones that are multiple sizes bigger, and will burn 2-5x as much coal.
What kind of stupid argument is this?
Show somewhere credible that predicts China will use 2-5 times as much coal?
China already has oodles of spare capacity, if it's 'master plan' as you think it, is just to burn more coal, they would already be doing it. They are trying to cut back. Hundreds of plants have been cancelled. If they were planning for 5x the coal, why would they do that? You just aren't credible WindBourne.
Capacity isn't use. It's quite important for you to understand this so I'll tell you a
Why should the US Gov't care? (Score:4, Informative)
They withdrew from the PCA a year ago, so monitoring compliance of countries in the Accords is not within the USA's purview anymore.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Why should the US Gov't care? (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A slight breeze
fluttering blinds
A Leftist losses their mind.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What does that have to do with what I wrote?
Re: (Score:2)
why? Paris accord was a joke. It solved NOTHING. Just like Kyoto, which was supposed to slow down growth, it did NOTHING. Until we require ALL NATIONS to drop their CO2 and become more like Greenland/iceland/sweden/costa rica in terms of their CO2 emission, these accords will do NOTHING.
Well, they do signal what team you are on, the Virtuous, or the Awful Meanies. That's something, I guess ...
Re: (Score:2)
Misleading Headline (Score:2, Insightful)
Headline doesn't mention that the US is simply not measuring greenhouse emissions to ensure Paris Climate compliance, because after all, why should the US spend money on something it was withdrawn from?
Re: (Score:2)
So the Paris Climate Accords are the only possible reason why you might want to measure atmospheric gas compositions?
Re: (Score:2)
Pissing off people for pennies (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't it obvious?
$10M doesn't seem like much, but if he can cut several small programs like this he can make enough room in the budget for that $650M homeless shelter Melania has been helping out with.
It's pretty clear his old buddy Murray Blum has been helping out with these cuts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Trump learning the ropes? Errr....he learns? 4 bankruptcies in a row didn't teach him anything. Now he's doing to the countries what he did to the banks stupid enough to lend to him.
False assumption (Score:2)
The first sentence makes the assumption that you can manage it. As everybody knows, when you make an assumption, you make an ass out of you and umption.
Re: (Score:2)
By that logic, the contrary assumption that we cannot manage carbon emissions is equally foolish.
Again using that logic solely as our guide, our only choice is to make our best possible effort to manage carbon emissions, not because we assume it will work, but because that's the only way we'll find out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Its "only" $65 million (Score:2, Insightful)
Such monetary figures equate to a basement project for likes of Michael Bloomberg, Tom Steyer, Al Gore, etc. Each of those charlatans has aircraft and maintenance costs that approach $65 million dollars - just to spew carbon for their collective convenience they're paying it already.
They can pay for this easy
Lets look at the truth. (Score:5, Interesting)
Second, the people complaining are those that were making money from it. According to this [slashdot.org] and other article if you have any financial interest in it, you are not a scientist but a shill. All the people mentioned in the article are nothing but shills and upset "their" money is going to others.
Third, this is a duplication on effort. There are already others who are doing the exact same measurements.
Quietly? (Score:4, Funny)
The real news is Trump did something quietly.
You want this? Tell Congress. (Score:2)
They are supposed to create the budget that includes funding for research such as this. They haven't done a proper budget in years. Besides, how important is this compared to boondoggles like like California's high speed rail "to no where" that is getting Federal money. You can't fund everything so if you have something you care about call up your representative. If you can't be bothered I guess it really isn't that important.
Wouldn't one follow the other?? (Score:3)
NASA's Carbon Monitoring System (CMS), a $10-million-a-year research line, has helped stitch together observations of sources and sinks into high-resolution models
Yes, but...
The move jeopardizes plans to verify the national emission cuts agreed to in the Paris climate accords
Well since the U.S. is not *in* the Paris Climate Accords, why should we spend $10/million a year on something we do not need?
If the countries still clinging to that accord really want the data that badly, they can fund it.
Re: (Score:2)
Well since the U.S. is not *in* the Paris Climate Accords, why should we spend $10/million a year on something we do not need?
Here's a tip that might help you in life. It's good to have information. It allows you to make better decisions.
Re: (Score:2)
You know, I love watching things burn.
Head to the Big Island. I hear lots of stuff is going up in flames there... If you get close enough, it will pop your corn for you; do try.
Re: (Score:2)
Which raises the question: if the con artist doesn't believe in climate change and is scrapping this program because it's not needed, why did he need to build a sea wall to protect his failing golf course?
Ask those in Hawaii about controlling nature much less the climate.
Re: (Score:2)
When you're not a party to the Paris Climate Accords, why measure compliance with the Paris Climate Accords?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, this shouldn't be about any specific governmental agreement or treaty or policy at all.
This is simply about gathering scientific data. Without accurate information, no one on any side of the debate can know what's even going on, let alone decide what to do about it. Completely short-sighted and makes the administration look like they know that their position is wrong and want to hide something for fear of being proven wrong.
You are talking about people (Score:2)
Re:Just say no (Score:5, Insightful)
No to Agenda 21 and its heirs
No to Kyoto and its heirs, specifically the PCA.
I'm more concerned about Trump and his heirs than your crackpot conspiracy theories.
None of these "international agreements" have ever been ratified by the Senate and are therefore not binding on the US or its citizens.
Any programs of dollars spent towards any of these things that were "nodded" to by previous administrations needs to be stopped immediately.
Just because you're not obliged by international treaty doesn't mean you shouldn't do something.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
CO2 isn't pollution.
If you argue that CO2 is a pollutant then start mandatory sterilization and target nations with unsustainable population growth.
Agenda 21 isn't about pollution, it never was. It is about global socialism and economic redistribution and that I'm opposed to.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Agenda 21 is just a conspiracy theory brought to you by Big Oil to make everyone consume more gasoline.
In other words, you're being played, and the oil executes secretly laugh at you as they cash their massive paychecks.
Re: (Score:2)
Have a lie down...relax...try the little pink pills next time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The climate change hysteria is getting out of hand. I can't even notice a slight difference in winters from my childhood (40 years ago now), but somehow we have imminent disaster coming? It doesn't pass most people's sniff test.
You've got to be a paid troll. No human can be this stupid. It's not possible.