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.
Congress

Political Climate Change Ahead for NASA and NOAA

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
January 8, 2015
Filed under , , ,
Political Climate Change Ahead for NASA and NOAA

Senate Commerce Names Subcommittee Chairs: Ted Cruz for NASA, Marco Rubio for NOAA, Space Policy Online
“The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee today announced who will chair its subcommittees in the 114th Congress. Ted Cruz (R-TX) will chair the subcommittee that oversees NASA, while Marco Rubio (R-FL) will chair the one with jurisdiction over NOAA.”
2014 U.S. temperature exceeds 20th-century average for the 18th consecutive year
“Second warmest December boosted 2014 to 34th warmest year for contiguous U.S; eight weather and climate disasters exceeded $1 billion in damages.”
Climate Denier Ted Cruz Is Poised to Become a Lead Senator on Science, New Republic
“Texas Senator Ted Cruz, another climate denier, may be next-in-line to become chair of the Subcommittee on Science and Space, which oversees agencies like the National Science Foundation, NASA, and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.”
Marco Rubio says human activity isn’t causing climate change, LA Times
“I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it,” Rubio said on ABC’s “This Week.”

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

40 responses to “Political Climate Change Ahead for NASA and NOAA”

  1. Chris says:
    0
    0

    *golf clap*

  2. PsiSquared says:
    0
    0

    Wow. Science just isn’t catching a break with this new Congress. Things are beginning to look bleak.

    • dogstar29 says:
      0
      0

      “beginning” to look bleak?

      • PsiSquared says:
        0
        0

        I was being a bit sarcastic with the “beginning” part. Rubio and Cruz sit solidly in the anti-science camps, so it’s less than heartening to see them appointed to head committees that oversee science.

    • david says:
      0
      0

      A sophomore in college with a statistical analysis course or two with access to the data can see through the carbon tax is good ruse that is so popular now. Statistically if you RSS the climate data and throw out the outliers driven by the uncertainty there is no documented warming for the last 26 years. SMH

      • PsiSquared says:
        0
        0

        If you’re going to throw out the outliers, then you’ll have to throw out the unusually hot year of 1998, and you’ll see the warming return.

        Note that you’ll also need to see that the atmosphere is not the only thing that warms. Hint: think about big bodies of water and then look at the data on ocean temperatures.

        You can shake your head all you want, but you have nothing to counter the evidence that points toward a warming climate right now. If you do have such data, I suggest you publish a paper and collect your Nobel prize.

        • david says:
          0
          0

          Sorry, a nobel would be nice but entertaining the fantasy is not really in my area of interest until it affects my pocket book and the future of my kids. A man convinced against his will remains unconvinced still. Links to proponent statements and dire predictions appear to be possible outcomes of a biased monte carlos set. In God we trust all others bring data. See graph and supporting data set.
          http://www.reportingclimate

          • dogstar29 says:
            0
            0

            Space observations permit very accurate measurement of the thermal budget of the earth; the heat provided by the sun and the heat radiated by Earth. The balance has not changed; Earth is absorbing considerably more heat than it radiates. The temperature hiatus has been accurately modeled by Kosaka and Xie when trade winds of unprecedented strength, and the colder Pacific waters they bring to the surface, are included, http://www.nature.com/natur

          • Klaus Berger says:
            0
            0

            I agree with you. Have you seen this old German study of the CO2 level? http://www.biokurs.de/treib

          • david says:
            0
            0

            No, I have not seen this study but its interesting. I think there must be another motivation other than scientific interest or concern with the stewardship of the earth when there is clear evidence the GWA’s basis for argument is flawed. The mantra is too consistent from too many sources that a carbon tax is good. Take this short period since the last solar max. Sunspot activity has been recently at a historical low with cooling effects noticeable but NOAA comes out with an alarmist statement its the hottest its ever been. Horsefeathers.

      • dogstar29 says:
        0
        0

        Sorry, can you provide a reference? The climate data? The outliers? Have you looked at actual atmospheric CO2? Is it your contention that CO2 is not rising and that these precise measurements show only random variation?
        http://alanbetts.com/image/
        Do you deny that atmospheric CO2 is rising to levels unprecedented since the age of the dynosaurs? Science is an effective way of discovering the truth only if you are looking for the truth. If you “know” the truth before you even look at the facts, you will not find the truth.

        • david says:
          0
          0

          Deny is not the term I would use at it implies there is a truth that I refuse to admit. To quote Pontius Pilot, “Quid est verities?” Yes, I question the science and the motives. Reads like the policy makers were inspired by Asimov’s 1959 essay titled “No more ice ages”. BTW if you never read it, you might consider it. Its a great read. Next will be the crises over sequestered phosphorus due to indoor plumbing from Asimov’s next essay from 1959 “Life’s bottleneck”. But I digress, A 50 year graph represents 0.00000000001087 of the population. Not statistically significant by any stretch. The geological record doesn’t support the assertion the levels of CO2 in the current day atmosphere are high from historical levels and doesn’t support the assertion the CO2 level is directly proportional to the global temperature.

          http://www.biocab.org/carbo

          I would also suggest reading the most current IPCC report on the subject. Not the executive summary which has unsubstantiated exaggerations when you look at the full report. Not much quantification as should be expected from a truly scientific study but by qualitative statements don’t appear conclusive. Can’t help but think that is why John Kerry made the statement shortly after the report came out “What’s the worst that can happen if we’re wrong?”

          • dogstar29 says:
            0
            0

            If you want a little more data, here is the past 400,000 years,including four ice ages and interglacial periods. CO2 is now higher than it has been since the age of the dynosaurs.

            http://upload.wikimedia.org

            “doesn’t support the assertion the CO2 level is directly proportional to the global temperature.”

            No one has made such an assertion. The relationship is not one of direct proportionality and requires complex modeling. The temperature is also influenced by solar irradiance, atmospheric aerosols, albedo, orbital forcing, and heat exchange with the ocean to name just a few effects. But both modeling and historical records show that increasing CO2 is a major driver of increasing temperature.

            I would hope we would be willing to examine the actual evidence with an open mind and not be driven by politics.

        • HobartStinson says:
          0
          0

          I observe that the CO2 rise does not accelerate with global economic rises and falls. If human energy production were driving this CO2 increase, why are there NO inflections?

  3. numbers_guy101 says:
    0
    0

    These committee changes will add more pressure to NASA for diverting money towards big rocket/space exploration and OUTWARD focused projects. This will be principally to starve any INWARD looking projects, anything climate science related. The beneficiaries on the receiving end of such support should know they are merely a tool, used for this purpose and not because of actual priority.

    In the end, this helps no one, as the outward focused projects will not actually be expected to do anything other than keep the old Shuttle basics in place, and no diversion of funds alone will ever result in enough funds to match the current pretty pictures of space exploration going about. Lacking real change in NASA and it’s industry partners ways of doing business, pushing toward affordability and productivity sooner, within foreseeable budget limits, we will only get unaffordable rockets like SLS and ridiculously expensive spacecraft like Orion – to no where.

    • SpaceMunkie says:
      0
      0

      In the end, the only beneficiaries will be the guys standing in line for NASA handouts. Admission to that line is a hefty re-election contribution.

  4. dogstar29 says:
    0
    0

    Lets us try to keep our heads, at least. Focus on the data. Global warming isn’t going to kill us all tomorrow. But it isn’t going away either, and killing off NASA research, which we desperately need to get hard facts and accurate models, is just burying our heads in the sand.

    • PsiSquared says:
      0
      0

      The evidence pointing toward AGW has only been growing. What is needed is exactly what you said: more science and more data to build more robust models and a better understanding of what is going on.

      • dogstar29 says:
        0
        0

        World climate modeling is complex and better measurements from space are critical simply because there is no way to instrument the entire planet. Even sea level changes can be measured by laser altimetry and gravity mapping. Remote sensing can also pinpoint pollution sources, which may be why some of our legislators don’t want it.

      • HobartStinson says:
        0
        0

        Evidence? There must be dozens of possible causes of global warming. Human activity is one possible cause. Where have you read that all possibilities have been evaluated and compared? How did anyone decide humankind is the culprit and no other causes are at work? Where have you read the levels of uncertainty in the climate models, especially decades out? The uncertainties must be HUGE. Why hang your hat on this one story when other possibilities are not being discussed? Who made this call?

    • Yale S says:
      0
      0

      It is killing some today. It mostly those in the non-Western societies. Rising sea level, the spread of insects and infectious diseases into new areas are hurting now.

      • Bennett In Vermont says:
        0
        0

        Uh, rising sea level is not because of carbon dioxide emissions, it is because the sea level rises as the planet warms as part of the natural cycle of glaciation and then warm periods.

        You would prefer a cooling? Please do some research. Warming periods are times of bountiful harvests and the spread of humanity. Cooling periods are times of famine and the collapse of civilizations.

        All you need to do is some basic research. I would prefer that our planet reach an average temperature experienced during the Roman Warm Period, much warmer that today’s global average (togas anyone?). It beats the hell out of an ice age.

        • Yale S says:
          0
          0

          You are splitting hairs. The warming is the result of greenhouse gas equivalents that causes the oceans to swell. Like the bullet wound is the result of a gun firing. The direct effect of co2 in excess (which you seem to think I think somehow heats water), I is ocean acidification and forced changes to the ecosystem.

  5. RocketScientist327 says:
    0
    0

    All the doom and gloomers on the left – its sad. The FAR and bureaucracy, the arm chair quarterbacking and delegation of “science”, is what is killing NASA.

    It is both a D and a R thing – that is why commercialization is so important.

    The sooner SLS is gone and JWST is “finished” the better. What would really be great is if we got politics out of NASA completely.

    Also – really define, or re-define, NASA. Its all over the place and NASA’s thin resources are spread… well, thin.

    • Yale S says:
      0
      0

      NASA is a government agency using taxpayer money. It is funded and overseen by the executive and legislative branch. Politics is inherent in its very fibers. $18 billion per year is too ripe a plum to leave to rational decision making.

  6. DTARS says:
    0
    0

    God is great!!! Same Neanderthals different tribe. 🙁

  7. John Thomas says:
    0
    0

    Regarding Sen. Rubio’s comment, it appears that the OCO-2 is showing a majority of CO2 coming from vegetation (rotting vegetation?) areas and the ocean (under water volcanoes?). Definitely worth studying, but no clear evidence that human’s are the prime cause.

    • Yale S says:
      0
      0

      the majority of co2 does come from rotting vegetation and animals and animal respiration. That is the way the biosphere works! It’s called the carbon cycle. It is an equilibrium state. It is co2 on current account. The natural balance. The problem is when you ADD co2 that was collected over millions of years and dump it into the environment in a few short decades, the system falls apart. Think of your body temperature. You metabolize food and heat yourself to a semi-steady 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit. A disease process that pushes that balance only 5 or 6 degrees either way for a long time will kill you.

      • John Thomas says:
        0
        0

        How do you know it’s in an equilibrium state? I haven’t seen any significant predictions be met which is a sign they don’t fully understand what’s going on.

      • HobartStinson says:
        0
        0

        Human activity adds only a few percent of the carbon that enters the atmosphere. Natural processes add over 95%. And the amount of carbon that humans add is a mere few ppm in the atmosphere annually. And that is today. The amount humans emit has increased exponentially with the increase in population and energy production over the past century. That means human activity produced orders of magnitude LESS carbon in decades past. Yet the claim is that we humans kicked off this century-long global climate change 100 years ago. At a time when human activity produced parts per BILLION of carbon in the atmosphere. Is that really credible?

    • Klaus Berger says:
      0
      0

      I have read that we humans only put in 3,4 % of the CO2 pro year. Even if we did not exist the level will still go up a little. In addition to that the prime greenhouse gas effect (95 % of it) is from water vapour. Take also a look at this old German study: http://www.biokurs.de/treib

  8. dogstar29 says:
    0
    0

    Then the solution is to open the box and improve the models. This cannot be accomplished without space based observation,

  9. dogstar29 says:
    0
    0

    I’m beginning to understand the problem. The question of climate change has been completely politicized. Although there are numerous scientists studying the matter, the political leadership has their minds made up and is not interested in the facts. What surprises me is that much of the electorate feels the same way.

    • Michael Spencer says:
      0
      0

      This would be the same electorate, one supposes, that pays little or no attention to what is actually happens in Washington, throwing up his hands and claiming it’s a ‘D and R thing equally’.

      Be wary of false equality.

      After reading this thread I am happy to know where so many stand.

    • HobartStinson says:
      0
      0

      I’m surprised that scientists don’t apply the normal scientific method, which includes challenging data and hypotheses, to the discussion of the cause of climate change. All we hear is, “scientific consensus” in the “scientific community” agrees humans cause global warming. By what method of investigation did they arrive at that conclusion? What other hypotheses did they investigate and how? What data or analysis caused them to toss out any other potential causes of warming? What are the uncertainties of the results? There must be dozens of other possibilities that have nothing to do with human activity. Why are there NO articles that discuss ANY of these questions? What are potential causes of warming OTHER than human activity? Strangely political, and non-scientific.