Republicans Vs NASA Earth Science
Republicans: NASA Wastes Money on Climate-Change Research, National Journal
“NASA controls more than a dozen satellites and spacecraft, monitoring everything from melting ice to water storage to rain and snow. To the agency’s scientists and supporters, these programs are essential to understanding the planet and the changing climate, and part of its core mission. But to congressional Republicans, they are just another example of an administration wasting money on climate-change research, zapping funds away from what NASA should be doing: blasting into and exploring space.
House Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith, a Texas Republican, last week moved a two-year NASA bill through his committee that would shift money away from the Earth Science program to spend on planetary exploration. “There are 13 other agencies involved in climate-change research, but only one that is responsible for space exploration,” Smith said at a recent hearing.”
– NASA Authorization Act Markup, earlier post
– The Planetary Society is Both For and Against Earth and Climate Science, earlier post
– Showdown Over NASA Earth Science Budget Looms, earlier post
“There are 13 other agencies involved in climate-change research, but only one that is responsible for space exploration,” Smith said at a recent hearing.”
I do not have a dog in the climate change hunt. HOWEVER, there are many agencies and such doing this work. It is a popular topic. LOTS of $$ going into this and lots of people doing it. Forgetting the opinion on what motivates Rep Smith, given a limited amount of $ for NASA, shouldn’t NASA focus more on the “weird unpopular?” Eliminating this component from NASA would not affect the study of climate change but would take NASA out of this politically charged atmosphere. Thoughts?
“Eliminating this component from NASA would not affect the study of climate change “
No, it would devastate it.
A VERY nice video on doing earth Science from the space station:
https://youtu.be/jn8yezfH7HM
The House is proposing significant (as in 30% and larger) cuts to NSF, DOE and NOAA climate programs.
The thinking is that if you prevent the science from being done, you don’t have to be confronted by the scientific evidence later.
http://askdescamp.com/wp-co…
The value of just a SINGLE device, the new SMAP likely pays for the whole Earth Science (and much more).
http://www.nasa.gov/multime…
“When it launches on January 29, a new satellite’s mission will be simple: to measure one of the most important but least recognized sources of water on Earth. NASA’s SMAP (Soil Moisture Active Passive) will measure soil moisture across the globe. That may seem like a simple enough concept, but its findings could have a huge impact, from preventing droughts and the spread of disease, to predicting the effects of climate change.
“Most people don’t think about the water under our feet,” says Simon Yueh, SMAP’s lead project scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab. “They take it for granted, but it’s a key part of our water cycle. SMAP will help us by understanding the changes in the weather and the changes happening in our climate.”
Soil moisture might not get much recognition, but the water content in the Earth plays a vital role in our water and carbon cycles. Really dry soil prevents rain clouds from forming, exacerbating the effects of drought. And if there isn’t enough moisture in the soil, seedlings won’t take root and no food is produced.
Part of SMAP’s job will also be to detect whether soil is thawed or frozen, helping to better specify a region’s growing season. Serving as the ultimate “farmers’ almanac,” this particular data will help inform farmers of the ideal planting and harvesting times for their crops.
The ultimate “farmers’ almanac,” SMAP data will inform farmers of the ideal times for planting and harvesting crops.
The data will let also climate scientists know how our carbon cycle is working. Normally, plants pull CO2 from the air and break it into carbon and oxygen; the oxygen gets exhaled, and the carbon gets stored in the roots. Plants can thus act as a “carbon sink” in the carbon cycle. When they’re frozen, however, they stop absorbing CO2. Other times, when there’s a lot of water in a soil, it stimulates plant growth, causing the plant to actually release CO2 instead of storing it. By compiling data on these carbon sources and sinks, SMAP will allow scientists to test and refine current climate models, ultimately improving their ability to predict the impacts of climate change.
Another potential benefit of measuring soil moisture becomes instrumental in locations like sub-Saharan Africa, where deadly diseases such as malaria are rampant. Monitoring the moisture in the soil and understanding the mosquito breeding grounds could allow disease control officials to identify high risk areas and keep people away from those locations.
Eventually, Yueh says, when missions like SMAP become more common, people will be able to use soil moisture information like a daily weather forecast. “When people go outside for the day, they’ll automatically check the SMAP data and will know whether it’s a good day to go dirt biking or plant their tomatoes—that’s the hope.”
Umm, Earth Science is planetary science. We take our analysis and understanding of Earth and apply it to processes seen on other bodies (e.g. the Moon, Venus, Mars, etc.).
Shhh! Some Republicans do not know that Earth is a planet. Then again there are some Democrats who don’t know what planet they are on …
Since the “Earth” is a flat disk surrounded by water, 6000 years old, and held up by an endless tower of Koch Brothers money,….
how can “planets”, those bright stars that mysteriously move around in the sky as signs and wonders of Divine prophesies, be somehow comparable??
Actually it’s the back of an enormous turtle, swimming in a sea without an end, according the vizier to the 8th cen Caliph Harun al-Rashid (according to Edward Teller)…. ( One old lady, asked what held up the turtle and the sea, said “It’s turtles, all the way down.”)
And we apply the knowledge gained from other planets to better understand the Earth. The damage to Earth’s ozone layer by halogen ions was first understood by scientists studying chemical processes in the upper atmosphere of Venus.
This Republican posturing is a sop to the global warming deniers in their Base. If they were serious about supporting space travel, exploration, and science, they’d kill SLS, not Earth science at NASA.
In the 1960’s there was no climate science. No satellites, No interest. We went to the moon. I do not remember any planetary science. Now the hardware that NASA puts up is used for planetary science. NASA is involved in planetary science because it runs the hardware that they put up. However, NASA also puts up communications satellites, but is not in the communication business.
We say NASA is not doing XXX well, but then we want it to do XXX and YYY and ZZZ.
All that hardware and data collection could be placed under another agency and the work continue. Those scientists who are current enough and smart enough and useful enough could work for one of those agencies. Some of the “dead wood” you all rail against all the time would be cut.
“Republicans of this era (as opposed to Reagan and Bush I, who supported climate research), are trying to cut funds to study the climate and environment across the board, of all agencies.”
Now this IS an issue, and political. Still, I still cannot find a reason why NASA could not remove itself from this area and leave it to someone else.
The simple reason why NASA could not remove itself from this “area and leave it to someone else” is that NASA cannot change its own charter. If you want that to happen, I suggest you lobby politicians to change NASA’s charter. As it stands, studying/monitoring the climate of Earth fits fully within NASA’s charter and is part of what NASA is charged to do.
What happened in the 60’s is irrelevant.
I suggest you review the state of the art in satellite instrumentation to study climate in the 60’s as compared to the state of the art now. I also suggest you review the international political dynamic that drove NASA’s activities in the 60’s and note how that political dynamic does not exist now, thankfully.
Explorer 7 – 1959 “the first Earth (thermal) radiation budget measurements from space and initiated the era of satellite studies of the climate”
Which communication satellites does it put up that it doesn’t run?
NASA has put up satellites for various telecommunication companies. NASA is no longer in charge of those. It put up military communication satellites. NASA now has nothing to do with those. James Webb, SLS (for what it is worth) appear to be in need of focused attention. I am NOT advocating cutting budget, just organizing the players better.
Commercial communications satellites are ‘put up’ on commercially manufactured launch vehicles by private arrangement between the satellite owners and the launch vehicle builders, under a license issued by the Department of Transportation. Military satellites are ‘put up’ by the Air Force and/or the National Reconnaissance Office, which contracts with the launch vehicle builders. NASA has no involvement with either type of launch. The mere fact that something rides into space on a rocket does not mean that NASA had any involvement or responsibility in that launch.
What commercial or military communication satellites has nasa put up on the 21st century, operate them or not? (There may or more likely not been cubesat or nanosats as hitchhikers but that is not relevent)
” I do not remember any planetary science.”
What does that mean?
Without details on what programs will be affected, it is hard to evaluate if there would be any harm to science at all with this new budget. Since planet science gets a little more money, the possible scientific gain in planet science may very well offset the loss in earth science, who knows. The important thing is laying out the facts first. Unfortunately no one cares about facts, all they care about is partisan politics trash talk.
Certainly that’s one way to look at it.
Is this what you are saying? That we might lose some earth science, but we’d gain [maybe] some planetary science, so the net amount of new science research is unaffected?
In this sense Congresscritters are doing their jobs- they are setting priorities according to how they perceive the world they live in.
Even if true, I’d have to say that knowing more about our own planet trumps new data about Callisto or Europa, fascinating as they are.
It’s certainly one possibility. As to whether congress should set scientific priorities, it is a different matter, and at the moment no one can change it.
No one denies the importance of planet Earth, that’s why more than 1/3 of the NASA space science fund is allocated to earth science, instead of 1/8 of the planet science budget if it is considered an ordinary planet. The question is why it is such a crisis when earth science is asked to live within their fair share of funds?
Just FYI, the most important scientific contribution NASA made to earth science came from moon missions, which helped to solve the mystery of the origin of the moon, and as a consequence many puzzles about the evolution of the earth. Such breakthrough would never happen if NASA only stares at the earth.
I don’t actually mind the elected representatives meddling herein. That’s what democracy is all about; those of us on the left benefit about as often as those on the right.
But these cuts are so obviously driven by climate denial that claiming it’s just fair share redistribution- a position you’ve staked out several times- is a bit disingenuous, don’t you think?
I’m not sure letting politicians messing with scientific priorities is what democracy is about. To me the attraction of democracy is not what it can do, but what it cannot do.
I don’t know if the congress committee’s view on climate change played any role in this budget, but the president’s political bias certainly played a crucial role in his $1.9B request for earth science. I am neutral to all partisan politics, by fairness I simply mean fairness. Among the sciences supported by NASA, the number of celestial bodies astronomy studies is at least 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, planet science studies about 10, and earth science studies 1. Each branch of the sciences getting roughly 1/3 of the funds simply shows a geocentric view purely based on pragmatic rather than scientific values, but that’s sensible. Obama administration’s budget broke that balance with a policy that equals to claiming earth being the center of the universe, which I consider an insult to all scientists. Because some of you are earth scientists, I suppose you are capable to elucidate why you need more than $1.5 B to do the science. Would that be too much, or disingenuous? I don’t think so.
Better science can be done in all these areas with increased funds. I am disappointed by the cut in planetary sciences. I would like to see the members of Congress ask for increases in all these areas, as NASA as a whole receives a much smaller fraction of the federal budget then it once did. That said, the planets and stars are somewhat less urgent as they do not constitute the home of 7 billion humans. Earth sciences funding should not be reduced from its level this year, as predictive climate models are sorely needed to make informed policy decisions.
Since all the money is borrowed, the fraction of budget/GDP argument is not relevant.
It is not a problem that we are spending too little on science today, but it is a problem that we spent too much and too unwisely in the 80s and 90s. The correlation between funding and science productivity only exist in a small range. The reason is that good science can only be produced by gifted scientists, but only a tiny fraction of human beings are gifted and only that many gifted children are born each year. Increase funding above the level that fully funds talented scientists, you increase the number of untalented, mediocre people in the scientific community. In fact, because of the over expansion of science in the last century, the majority of the science “work force” is made up of untalented people who do science to earn a living. This has poisoned the culture of scientific community, reflected in an increasingly exclusive culture that is characterized by partisanship, lack of real interest in scientific truth, rejection of new ideas, and herd mentality by most who are willing to submit to the views of a few powerful “authorities”. Earth science represents the low end of the scientific intellectual ladder with the lowest threshold to enter, and thus most affected by the problem I mentioned. Without improving the quality of researchers in the community, increasing funding only harms science by creating a parasite class of people who believe they are entitled to tax dollars and national debts.
“Since all the money is borrowed, the fraction of budget/GDP argument is not relevant
No. It is the defense budget that is borrowed. NASA and everything else is pay-as-you-go from current tax receipts.
2015 deficit estimate: -$486billion
2015 Dept of Defense budget: $495billion
You’re views on science and scientists are bizarre. I recall where you went on and on attacking the qualifications and knowledge of an acknowledged global expert in planetary magnetic fields – TO HIS FACE. See here for an unbelievable display:
https://disqus.com/home/dis…
Well, after my repeated requests of you to stop posting replies to my posts, your keeping doing so strikes me as shameless. I wish to read thoughtful responses rather than those of yours. I will not respond to you the way you hope. A piece of advice, get some self respect and go get a life.
Well, that’s a cheap and easy (but ineffective) way for you to duck out of taking responsibility for your IMNVHO outlandish statements.
Again, if you don’t like people or specific people responding to your posts, don’t post. Your other option is to accept how online forums operate.
It’s not a question of dividing a pie into “fair shares” for a family. Its a question of us, as a society, a nation, and a democracy, deciding how much it is worth to know accurately how and why our climate is changing.
Of course most of them are just more or less ignorant, listening to others they tend to trust because of their prejudices, etc. I think few people that really understood the seriousness of the issue would argue against doing our utmost to address it.
Earth science fundind at NASA has gotten significant increase in recent years as indicated below, well above the overall NASA increase of ~10%.
http://spacenews.com/wp-con…
You are making a misleading error. By artificially beginning your graph in 2008 you start at the bottom of the funding that Bush pushed it down.
If you stretched it back to the nineties, you would see that in current dollars it is still BELOW previous Earth Science funding levels.
The so-called “rise” in levels was simply a return to prior level.
If you started it at FY2009 and left off the FY2016 budget request (which is merely the president’s request, not an actual appropriation), NASA earth science funding has been nearly flat for six years. You could pick and choose your start and end dates to draw a wide range of conclusions.
Earth Scince budget has risen ~50% since 2008, much more than the overall NASA budget increase of about 10%.
http://spacenews.com/wp-con…
This is a repeat post by you
So posts with data the does not support your point of view is rejected. Very nice.
I can “prove” that ambulances are the most dangerous form of transportation using statistics. Since >90% of the passengers in Ambulances end up in the hospital. Statistics dont lie, but liars use statistics….
With e-mail leaks showing the major figures in climate science working to subvert peer review (hide temperature decline), willingness to construct data processing algorithms able to take even randomized input data (or declining trends) and convert it to a hockey stick uptrend (Mann), alteration of ocean core dates by 1000 years (Marcott), and many (many) other instances of fraud, climate science unfortunately has no credibility. Research on the subject cannot be taken at face-value, the saturation with ideology so extreme.
“Fund us regardless of the history of fraud and error or you don’t want your grandchildren to live in a better world” …
Climate has been changing for billions of years with and without people. Such fear of change … embrace it.
These arguments have been refuted so often and in so many places that it’s tiresome just thinking about it.
Jwillet wrote:
alteration of ocean core dates by 1000 years (Marcott), and many (many) other instances of fraud, climate science unfortunately has no credibility.
Marcott wrote:
“Climate has been changing for billions of years with and without people. Such fear of change … embrace it.
You appear to both refute and embrace climate change…
However, to your quote. For hundreds of millions of years, where I am typing this was at the bottom of an inland sea. 10s of thousands of years ago it was under a mile of ice. So what?
Our civilization and the survival of millions to billions of lives depends on minimizing major changes to the environment. The projected (and also current) impacts will have very unpleasant repercussions on us and the biosphere.
“Research on the subject cannot be taken at face-value, Fine, all the more reason to CONTINUE and INCREASE the observations and analysis, if only to expose the fraud you fear.
Before making a decision, we need to get the facts. It’s pretty difficult to see how every one of the thousands of scientists who have published papers on climate change could be conspiring to make it all up, but let’s just say they are. Gather some data yourself. Go outside and actually measure atmospheric CO2 for a year or two. Compare it to historical date. Go to Alaska and count the days that Pt. Barrow is icebound. Look at the data from space. Read the papers, all of them. Show us where they are in error. Where they are accurate, consider the implications. Approach it with an open mind. We need the facts. Many of the facts can only be gathered from space.
This message brought to you by Exxon Mobil and the Koch Brothers. “There is no reason to worry about CO2, just keep on burning our coal and oil, besides, we will all be dead before the really serious part of climate change kicks in.”
If you don’t like the message, just kill (or defund) the messenger. Anyone who worries about what kind of planet we pass on to our grandchildren must be some kind of alarmist anti-American Communist wacko…
It would be fine if the Republicans simply wanted to increase planetary science funding. That isn’t the case. They want to cut climate research. Mr. Posey’s assistant has told me that his view is that NASA should not do climate research at all.
Changes in climate will have an enormous practical impact on our immediate future, more so than almost any other area of NASA research. An accurate model of the Earth’s atmosphere, and particularly human influences on climate, is critical so we are not caught flat-footed. Computer hardware has advanced the the point that very detailed models are feasible. The missing piece is data with which to design these models. The Republicans are making a scientific decision without data, based on their political viewpoint. This misconstrues the very nature of science. In politics, or law, the truth is whatever is decided, whether by politicians, or voters, or judges. But in science, the truth is not decided, it is discovered. The world is what it is, not what we might believe it is, or wish it to be.
It seems wise to avoid entanglement with climate research. The field has decades of predictions that never came true under its belt and a history of circling wagons when gross misconduct and fraud is revealed. There is no basis for credibility given such a history.
When it is said “… Changes in climate will have an enormous practical impact on our immediate future… ” and then sequed obliviously to “… In science, the truth is not decided, it is discovered…. “, unaware of contradiction, I’m reminded how the education of scientists does not prepare them to deal with ideology presented as truth, turning them into little foot soldiers of Marxist revolution without even knowing what that means.
Please accept a clarification. “Significant changes in climate, should they occur, would have an enormous practical impact on our future.” Obviously if no change occurs there will be no impact.
“The field has decades of predictions that never came true under its belt and a history of circling wagons when gross misconduct and fraud is revealed. There is no basis for credibility given such a history.”
The term “history” implies a written record. Please provide a reference to this record of “decades of predictions that never came true” and I will be happy to examine it.
Jwillet wrote:
“I’m reminded how the education of scientists does not prepare them to deal with ideology presented as truth, turning them into little foot soldiers of Marxist revolution without even knowing what that means.”
You got it! After classes on friday nights, all of us science majors used to go join the Communist Party!
Hot Times!
Ted Cruz says “Today, the global warming alarmists are the equivalent of the flat-Earthers, It used to be [that] it is accepted scientific wisdom the Earth is flat, and this heretic named Galileo was branded a denier.”
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/…
In reality the fact that the Earth is spherical rather than flat was demonstrated by Eratosthenes in 240 BC, and (contrary to the urban legend) was well known even before Columbus’ voyage. Galileo’s trial occurred in 1633, 140 years after Columbus, so the shape of the Earth was not at issue. Galileo, a scientist, was branded a heretic by the Catholic Church for his publication of evidence that the Earth was not fixed in space, as the religious conservatives of the day “believed”, but rather revolves around the Sun. He was not a conservative “denier”, he was a progressive scientist introducing evidence of a new idea.
It would appear that Mr. Cruz is misinformed.