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.
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.
According to wikipedia, in 2015 the US emitted 16.1 tonnes per person while China emitted 7.7 tonnes and the EU 6.9 tonnes. So, compared to the EU and China, the US has quite a lot of catching up to do. The explosive growth of China is a problem, but they are also taking large scale initiatives to do something about it.
The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head
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.
Exactly.
The NOAA actually does monitor this. It's just another government duplication
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/...
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.
I stole this Sig
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
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.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
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.