Slashdot Mirror
Trump White House Quietly Cancels NASA Research Verifying Greenhouse Gas Cuts (sciencemag.org)
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.
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...
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
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.
In Soviet Russia, Trojan exploits YOU!
One of the biggest issues going on with CO2 is that a number of nations are cheating at this. For most of the western nations, we have loads of ground, sky, and space monitoring. However, nations like CHina, block all ground monitoring except for their own. As such, when groups like IEA report on energy usage, or CO2 emissions, they are simply taking numbers from those govs. Yet, when OCO2 went up, it forced China to admit that they were burning 17% more coal, which interestingly, none of the current figures have been updated with. Right now, OCO2, along with Japanese GOSAT, can do is show relative numbers and not absolute. What is needed now, is absolute measurements, which OCO3, combined with the other 3 sats can provide.
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.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
They withdrew from the PCA a year ago, so monitoring compliance of countries in the Accords is not within the USA's purview anymore.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
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 me to get on your Republican-bashing bandwagon, but the issues at stake are infinitely more complex than that. 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.
We've got easily persuaded societies under political systems that reward the kinds of people least deserving of positions of power.
If anti-science wins votes, then anti-science it is!
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?
First, it has hardly quiet, it was talked about months ago, it was published that the funding was going to other programs that NASA put at a higher priority, and the federal spokesmen even answered questions about the program ending. What would be needed to not make it a silent closing?
Second, the people complaining are those that were making money from it. According to this 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.
The real news is Trump did something quietly.
Table-ized A.I.
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.
I stole this Sig
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 Climate change deniers is that "We don't know if climate change is man made. We don't have enough evidence." So...lets stop collecting more evidence and more science. If you don't have enough evidence, wouldn't you want to ramp up and collect more evidence and study it more? Besides the fact that there are many hundreds of thousands of peer-reviewed documents which come to the same conclusion. i.e. Man made climate change is real and is a fact.
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 again. Capacity isn't use.
New plants are all more efficient than the old ones. They can and will burn coal cleaner, produce more electricity from the same amount of coal.
The number of plants doesn't matter, it's how much coal you burn in them...Fewer bigger plants are better than lots of little ones spread about anyway.
The main reason your argument is stupid though is that the US is only running it's coal plants at about 50% capacity. You could burn 2x the coal as well without building another coal plant (using older dirtier plants to boot). That's if you are entertaining your fantasy scenarios. Back in the real world, neither actually will.
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.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
CO2 is not a pollutant.
And water isn't a poison, so clearly you won't mind being drowned.
SJW n. One who posts facts.