This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Earth Science

Bolden on Supporting President Obama's Climate Action Plan

By Marc Boucher
NASA Watch
June 27, 2013
Filed under , ,

Blog Post: Protecting Planet Earth by Charles Bolden, NASA Blog Post
Having looked back at Earth from outer space, I have seen just how fragile our home planet is – and I’m committed to doing everything I can to help protect it.
Yesterday, President Obama announced an ambitious Climate Action Plan to cut carbon pollution and put us on a more environmentally sustainable course. At NASA, where one of our primary goals is to improve life for everyone on the planet, I’m pleased to say that we have a number of missions already supporting this important work through our robust Earth Science program.

SpaceRef co-founder, entrepreneur, writer, podcaster, nature lover and deep thinker.

13 responses to “Bolden on Supporting President Obama's Climate Action Plan”

  1. dogstar29 says:
    0
    0

    At least there will be one earth science imaging instrument on the Space Station. It’s a start in what should be an ISS primary mission.

    • Bernardo de la Paz says:
      0
      0

      Why? Are there any Earth observation instruments that require or benefit from a human presence? On the other hand, wouldn’t the vibration environment of ISS and the limited ground coverage of its orbital track be detrimental to most Earth observation instruments?

      • dogstar29 says:
        0
        0

        Offgassing and vibration are concerns for astronomical imaging, but can be managed. For earth imaging they are insignificant. There are huge advantages of being on ISS; the presence of personnel to assemble, repair and monitor the instruments, a stable platform, power, and the ability to simply ship parts up as space is available on SpaceX and make continuous upgrades rather than launching an expensive new spacecraft on a newly manifested LV. This reduces cost so much that the entire truss should already be packed with earth-pointing sensors. The big need should already be for downlink data capacity.

        Thanks to the decision to fly with the Russians long ago, the ISS is in a high-inclination 51.6 degree orbit that passes over about 98 percent of the entire population of Earth and passes within line of sight of almost the entire planet. We bought an excellent earth observation orbit at the cost of more shuttle launches. It’s time to put it to work.

  2. ArrogantPresident says:
    0
    0

    Why is the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) tasked to study global warming when there is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration? Could someone explain this? Is it overlapping and duplications of effort to keep public workers employed?

    • wyliec says:
      0
      0

      Because Bolden is simply a shill for the Administration. His hasn’t a clue what the mission of NASA should be. He says what he’s told to say, even if it doesn’t make any sense or fit in with NASA at all.

      • dogstar29 says:
        0
        0

        No, it’s because NASA has launch capacity and spacecraft available which NOAA would have to duplicate. Yes, US government agencies can work together to save money and get the job done. The original NASA mission is to provide practical benefits to America and the world.

        • Anonymous says:
          0
          0

          What does “launch capacity and spacecraft available” have to do with global warming? I
          believe they have to do with the S in NASA. IMHO, NOAA and academia should deal
          with global warming since it has not been proven one way or another… The jury is still out.

          PS: When does the federal government save money?

      • Paul451 says:
        0
        0

        He says what he’s told to say

        You speak from experience.

    • gelbstoff says:
      0
      0

      Climate change is an Earth System Problem. NASA is the only agency that can do Land, Ocean, and Atmosphere often from the same satellite system. Note that there is no “L” in NOAA, and this agency still cannot handle the data storage and re-procesing capabilities needed for climate research. There is very little duplication of efforts. Moreover, I suspect you don’t object to the NAVY and Marines having aviators – a duplication from the Air Force’s pilots – because they have different missions and needs. The same happens with NASA and NOAA.
      g

  3. The Tinfoil Tricorn says:
    0
    0

    This is illogical, so all of the deforestation and massive burning of trees to make coal on the east coast in the 1700’s along with the non contained fires that happened in the plains, and the rocky mountains produced less carbon dioxide than what we are producing now? Even greater than this at the peak of the industrial revolution in the 1900’s when the skies were turned black with suit over great swaths of the country, it was still less than what is being produced now? How many thousands of coal powered steam locomotives were running globally in the 1900’s? I really believe the climate is changing likely as a pre-curser to a small ice age, there’s ice cores to support that. I don’t believe that human existence can or will do anything about it, (even if trillions is collected to supposedly do something) spending money on changing the carbon is a waste when we should be preparing for the predictable outcome of climate change. There’s billions of dollars in levees and relocation of some low lying areas, in addition to building environmentally controlled growing systems that can be deployed over multiple acres even in freezing temperatures. Trying to stop carbon production is beyond reason, the cost to economies, jobs and to the public gives little or no factual returns. This whole situation equates to collecting money and not having to do anything in evidence of what you have collected. If they truly believe it’s carbon build a 6000 foot tall 10 mile wide carbon scrubber…. but nothing will be built, it’s all just going into someone’s pocket in the name of the environment and science, and it’s the worst version of both.

    • dogstar29 says:
      0
      0

      I hope you will read the facts for yourself. Atmospheric CO2 measurements are hard to argue with, and the rate of burning of fossil fuels today is far faster than at the start of the industrial revolution.

      • The Tinfoil Tricorn says:
        0
        0

        So you have a time machine, where you can use satellite and high altitude sensors to measure actual carbon levels, not just hope that carbon was captured in ice cores or trapped in biological systems? The fidelity of current live electronic sensor based readings out reaches the resolution of the historical perspective. Semantically at the start of the industrial revolution before coal mining really got going you could almost make a plausible argument. Except for that if you go to Valley Forge and visit the interpretive exhibits about charcoal making you’ll learn that everyone burned wood and charcoal year round, forges making iron goods, cooking. Even with the small population the amount of carbon produced per individual outpaced that of their modern equivalent. Each adult burned something everyday! Native Americans, of which there were many at one time had no other fuel sources, they burnt wood period. Globally society had to make carbon to make light, heat, eat and make goods. You can give me numbers that quadruple every 2 years, and I will still tell you carbon is a skewed measure of environmental impact. Global weather is driven by solar activity, most biological systems produce carbon through breathing, the Earth produces carbon through Volcanic activity. If you want to tax and spend find ways to eliminate and control bio toxins, that cause cancer. Clean up all the post industrial revolution Superfund sites that contain creosote, and other even more dangerous and hazardous sites. I mean look at Hanford in Washington State and the INEL in idaho where radioactive byproducts have been detected in plumes under ground in the water table. This is far more important than the invisible enemy of carbon, where there is no accountability. The Carbon war is somewhat of a Orwellian war right out of the book 1984, carbon levels can only be tested by persons with above average tools, the War on Carbon is never ending as when you breath you make carbon, if you should pass gas there’s some carbon and even a few green house gases. In the book people lived in a state of poverty to support the war, while those elite few lived well and spent all their time forging propaganda and watching the public. The enemy doesn’t have to be individuals to have control over a society, the enemy can be made to be carbon, and you will be asked to “buy bonds” = “carbon credits” to pay for it. There are many more serious issues threatening all life on Earth, look to those trying to control water, and create a shortage by banning the use of sea water (desalinization) due to UN water rights. That’s a much bigger issue, because as soon as we solve energy production and eliminate costs there the move will be toward making water very expensive and difficult to access globally. Replacing the huge cost of fuels for new costs in clean water. There are already rules about collecting rainwater in some states like Oregon, where non approved retention basins are illegal. You can expect that this will only get worse including fines for collecting gutter water.

      • The Tinfoil Tricorn says:
        0
        0

        I wrote you a two page reply, it might have been moderated out of existence, to sum everything that I pointed out up… there is no accountability for the usage of carbon credit funds. If you want to be a millionaire start a carbon mitigation environmental org get approved status and grow pete charge the government 60,000 per square inch of pete you grow…. or you could find something similarly inane and about as ineffective and call it carbon neutral. The carbon war creates it’s own carbon war economy end of story.