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

Trump Is Not Listening To NASA or NOAA on Earth Science. Get Used To It.

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
March 28, 2017
Filed under
Trump Is Not Listening To NASA or NOAA on Earth Science. Get Used To It.

The Mercers, Trump mega-donors, back group that casts doubt on climate science, Washington Post
“Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tex.), chairman of the House science committee, who issued a subpoena to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientists over a study finding that there had been no slowdown or pause in global warming, told the group that it’s time for “good science, rather than politically correct science.” Steven Milloy, publisher of JunkScience.com, said the government has “perverted science.” “There is no science going on in NOAA or NASA or EPA,” said Milloy, who served on the Trump EPA transition team, to chuckles and applause. “There is no such thing as climate science.”
US science agencies face deep cuts in Trump budget, Nature
“So far, the non-political ‘career’ employees at the agency are trying to remain calm and take a conciliatory approach with Trump’s political appointees. “We’ve got four years with this administration, so we are trying to educate rather than confront,” says one senior career official. Waleed Abdalati, a former chief scientist at NASA, offers similar advice to researchers who are worried about potential cuts to Earth-science programmes at NOAA and NASA. “Rumors are counterproductive,” he says. “Rather than complain about what hasn’t happened, we should advocate for what should happen.”
Keith’s note: Just remember folks, that OMB Budget Blueprint Excerpt for NASA “Provides $1.8 billion for a focused, balanced Earth science portfolio that supports the priorities of the science and applications communities, a savings of $102 million from the 2017 annualized CR level. The Budget terminates four Earth science missions (PACE, OCO-3, DSCOVR Earth-viewing instruments, and CLARREO Pathfinder) and reduces funding for Earth science research grants.” This is not a budget document. Its just a snapshot in time. OMB wants to see who screams the loudest – and who doesn’t scream as much. The budget that emerges in a month or two may be very different as a result. If you listen to the anti-climate change rhetoric coming out of the White House and its allied external allies and sympathetic members of Congress, it should be obvious that Earth science has a big target painted on it.

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

89 responses to “Trump Is Not Listening To NASA or NOAA on Earth Science. Get Used To It.”

  1. ThomasLMatula says:
    0
    0

    This of course is the weakness of depending on government for your funding, it immediately brings the work you do into the realm of politics. Researchers may not like that and believe its unfair, but its how the world works.

    Hopefully one outcome of this will be that scientists will start focusing on building a more diverse base of funding similar to the one that existed prior to the big science era that followed WW II.

    • Michael Kaplan says:
      0
      0

      A few misconceptions that are reflected in your comments:

      – Most of the “easy stuff” from a space science point of view has been done. They were the “low hanging fruit.” So most of the time what’s left to do is what you see to call “big science.” Not the stuff for amateurs in their homes prior to WW II.

      – A close reading of the NASA Charter supports the importance of “The preservation of the role of the United States as a leader in … space science and technology and in the application thereof to the conduct of peaceful activities within and outside the atmosphere.” So it’s NASA’s and therefore the U.S. Government’s job to do this, until the NASA charter is changed.

      – Most of the direct products space science have little to no commercial value. There are some exceptions, remote sensing, that are being explored privately. But this exception is largely not really Earth science research, but rather applications of existing research to provide information products that are being sold commercially. Most of earth science and the rest of space science, e.g., planetary science, heliophysics and astrophysics falls into the realm of basic research. These are the kinds of actives that are traditionally shunned by private industry because they don’t produce commercially viable products.

      – Basic research into technologies that enable space science do not produce commercially viable products. One notable example is the invention of the “optical maser” that was originally envisioned to be a highly stable oscillator source for radio telescopes. At the time, one of it’s inventors, Prof. Charlie Townes, was hard pressed was hard pressed to think of any commercially viable uses for the laser. We all know the rest of the story in terms of how the laser has transformed many industries. This is a great example of why Federal funding for basic research is so important to a growing economy. An Administration that fails to recognize this proven fact this puts us all on a path to long term economic stagnation.

      – Our current Administration’s anti-science positions as reflected in the recently released FY18 budget outline need to be reversed. I’m hearing that there’s a lot of opposition on the Hill to much of it, so hopefully much of this will get corrected.

      – It’s very naive to believe that there are sufficient sources of funding available outside of the Federal Government to sustain US leadership in space science. To believe this to be true shows a fundamental lack of insight into the nature of the kinds of projects and their costs that needed to maintain U.S. leadership.

      • fcrary says:
        0
        0

        There is quite a bit of private money around, and, historically, no need to show a financial return. Lowell didn’t build an observatory and fund work to discover Pluto because he expected to turn a profit. A large amount of the funding for scientific research in past centuries was private and driven by personal interest of the rich people (or, as often, their ego and the desire to have their name associated with an impressive discovery.)

        Today, I think the private money is still out there. Note that $500 million is a Discovery mission and a big deal to us. The ten richest people in the world (according to the Forbes 2014) have, on average, a net worth of $60.5 billion each. NASA can barely manage two or three Discovery missions a decade. One of those people could afford to do the same for a tenth of the interest on what they own. I think the personal interest and certainly the egos are there.

        I think the real reason for little science funding of this sort is a preconceived notion. For decades, space science has been something the government funded, and there is an expectation that the government should do so. Rich people donate money to causes which the government is _not_ funding. As long as that’s the impression people have, the money will go to other causes and hobbies.

        • Michael Kaplan says:
          0
          0

          You are correct that there’s a lot of private money out there. However, I don’t believe that the Paul Allens of the world would be willing to contribute anywhere close to the level of funds that fuel SMD every year, in excess of $5 billion. Look at ground-based astronomy and the challenges that the new generation of extremely large telescopes are having at coming up with the funds for construction. Keep in mind that the NSF also funds ground-based astronomy as well, as does NASA for a few special cases (IRTF and Keck). When you talk about space science missions, you typically add at least another decimal point to the budget and that’s where I have a hard time believing that private money will emerge. That’s a good metric for what’s doable with private money for science. Private money is an important source of funds, but it’s hard to see how it could “compete” or make up for Federal funding.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            It’s hard to imagine private funding at the level of a few billion per year, in the current environment. The rich people involved have no problems donating billions per year to various causes. They do, and actually contribute quite a bit more than that. But they pick who they give their money to. That involves personal interest (Bill Gates, for example, prefers humanitarian to scientific causes), personal ego (how will donating $X billion look in the press reports) and, in my opinion, whether or not it duplicates what someone else is or should be doing. In the case of privately funded science, there is a perception that the government should be funding it. I think that’s a significant barrier which did not exist a century or more ago.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            G. Harry Stine had the solution 35 years ago, just shut down NASA and offer a tax credit for space research in its place.

            Actually that would be an interesting experiment, having Congress offer a $5 billion space exploration tax credit and see which produced more science missions.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            You’d have to come up with a valid metric for “science.” Good luck, since I haven’t seen a good one. Number of papers published? People can crank out lots of short, minimal content papers and win the prize. Press releases and media coverage of the discoveries? That rewards the people who are best at hyping up the results, not the best science.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            True, which is why it would be difficult to prove if it is a success or not. But it would be a relief to taxpayers 🙂

          • Daniel Woodard says:
            0
            0

            There is already a research and experimentation tax credit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wi

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            Exactly. Andrew Carnegie donated what was in his time a large amount to science research, money to build telescopes, dig for fossils, study insects, the entire spectrum. And he was rewarded with respect and having his name on the projects. He even had a large dinosaur named in his honor. The last made him so proud he had several plaster casts made of the fossil that were given to museums all over the world. And let’s not forget Carnegie Quarry at Dinosaur National Monument, a site discovered through funding by Andrew Carnegie. It was he who urged it be made into a National Monument for all Americans and funded it initially.

            And let’s not forget the Smithsonian, which funded most government science before WW11 was founded in the 1840’s by a private donation.

            Its simple arrogance on the part of big science promoters to think taking money from taxpayers is the only way they will be able to do research.

            The current generation of scientists has gone from the gratitude of the first generation of government funded scientists after WWII to a belief that government funding of their pet project is some inalienable right they have being scientists. They don’t even feel the need to justify their work anymore, instead simply attacking and denigrating anyone that dares to questions if the money is well spent or that there might be a better way to support science in America. How sad.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            Private donations run just under $375 billion. That is 75 times that amount.

            https://www.nptrust.org/phi

            But keep in mind that NASA also does things more expensively that a private foundation would. The endless cycles of reviews, approvals, and more reviews that is part of NASA’s culture to defend against failures costs. So are the one off missions so central to winning within its zero sum funding system. And lets not forget the lack of flexibility to try new ideas because of government regulations.

          • Daniel Woodard says:
            0
            0

            “In 2015, the majority of charitable dollars went to religion (32%), education (15%), human services (12%), grantmaking foundations (11%), and health (8%).” Not much room for science there. Our local university gets a lot of donations for football; researchers are on their own. Campaigning with donors takes a lot of time and effort, and often after it all they just lose interest or don’t have the money.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            What sort of grants do those “grant making foundations” fund?

            Later edit: For reference, and if I’m reading their 2015 Annual Report correctly, the W. M. Keck gave out $8.8 million in grants that year, all for education and basic science.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            Football gets it probably because they ask for it and they treat the donors with respect. Have the researchers ever asked for money? And promise to name any discoveries they make after the donors? I would expect not as they were too busy filling out grant applications to the federal government.

          • Daniel Woodard says:
            0
            0

            If you think we aren’t asking, think again. And believe me, we treat everybody with respect. My limited experience in looking for support for our research in the biochemistry of Alzheimer’s disease, in soliciting national foundations, local foundations, quasipublic agencies, individual donors, and venture capitalists, is that unless you can promise to make the donor famous or rich in very short order it is pretty tough.

            Venture capitalists may be impressed by your work, but unless you have a quick route to a killer product they lose interest in a hurry. National foundations usually have established recipients and the same or lower acceptance rate for new proposals as the NIH. I’m not complaining. It’s been interesting. But we have tried it all, and there ain’t no easy run.

            Even $8.8M isn’t much considering the number of research proijects, and the Keck Foundation is one of the relatively small group that funds basic science. It was founded in 1954; if there were many other philanthropists with comparable goals there would be hundreds of such foundations by now. Government funding has been the primary support for basic science for over a century because ultimately the public wants it done.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            Have you contacted the business faculty at your school? The marketing profs could probably make it a class project.

            As for Administration not helping, that is understandable. Government grants give generous amounts of overhead to the school and money for faculty release time, both usually missing from private funding, so they have a financial incentive to encourage you to go after federal grants.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            Writing proposals for government grants also takes a lot of time and effort, and often the proposal isn’t funded. The selection rate for planetary research and analysis grants has been around 20% for years.

      • ThomasLMatula says:
        0
        0

        I am well aware of the NASA charter, and the politics of why it was written during the IGY at the height of the Cold War. It was a key part of the Cold War fought with the Soviet Union and that was the reason for the government’s science strategy. As part of the Cold War, the government had the ability to classified anything discovered involving national security, something easy to do if the government was funding and controlled science research. It also made a good cover for spying as with the recon satellites developed under the Discovery Program.

        But the Cold War is over and the strategy for funding science then may not be as suitable in the Post Cold War World. It also may be even be inefficient in a networked world.

        • Michael Kaplan says:
          0
          0

          That has NOTHING to do with NASA space science.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            It has EVERYTHING to do with NASA space science. NASA wouldn’t exist if it wasn’t for the Cold War. And NASA was focused on space science as the currency of competition because the first pre-NASA satellites were launched as part of the IGY.

            A couple of senators didn’t just wake up one day and say to themselves, I love reading Sky and Telescope, let’s give a couple of billion of taxpayers’ dollars to do space science research.

            NASA was created simple to show the world during the Cold War are space scientists were better than the Soviet Union’s space scientists. But as with all government agencies, it has continued on long after its original function ended.

    • Michael Spencer says:
      0
      0

      Riiggghhhttt…let’s depend on the kindness of strangers, rather than a sensible governmental policy towards research.

      Given the rush to concentrate wealth that we’ve been experiencing in the US over the past decades they are about the only ones who will be able to afford it.

      • fcrary says:
        0
        0

        Unfortunately, “a sensible governmental policy towards research” is dependent on who happened to win the last election. Government funding is, to a great extent, “depending on the kindness of strangers”, with the _hope_ that those people will be sensible. Private funding of research didn’t work too badly before the mid-twentieth century. Not perfectly, by any means, but it was
        the norm, and research did get funded.

        • Michael Kaplan says:
          0
          0

          By and large, the “game has changed” making it much more costly to pursue the highest priority science questions now than it was more than 70 years ago.

          Could Alan Stern have sold New Horizons to Paul Allen? Knowing Alan and his tenacity, it wouldn’t have surprised me if he tried along the way. If he couldn’t make that sale, it’s hard to see someone else succeeding.

          So I believe that it’s naive to believe that anything other than Federal funding will be the dominant source of funds for space science for the foreseeable future. Does that means that scientists shouldn’t try to seek other sources of funding? Probably not, but one needs to be realistic regarding the chances of success of those efforts.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            That’s an interesting hypothetical, about Alan Stern asking Paul Allen to fund a Pluto mission. Let me modify it a little bit. What if Alan could have told Paul, “NASA decided not to do any outer planet/KBO science for the next two decades; they’re putting all their money into other things.” Would that have improved his chances of getting Paul Allen to pony up a billion for a Pluto mission? In other words, do you think the expectation that NASA should be funding things like this harm the sales pitch for donations and/or private funding? I think it does.

          • Michael Kaplan says:
            0
            0

            It’s basically a gendanken experiment so it’s hard to say one way or the other as there’s no precedent for it.

          • kcowing says:
            0
            0

            I raised $158,000 to try and rescue a NASA satellite.

          • Michael Kaplan says:
            0
            0

            A very deserving effort. Job well done, Keith! Are there any examples of private space missions doing cutting edge science?

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            Why would Paul Allen want to compete with NASA? That is one problem with government funding, it crowds out private effort. If the government is doing it why should I worry about doing it? And if the government experts think its not worth it why should I fund it.

            BTW he did build Cyclops for SETI, (the Allen Array) a project NASA scientists wanted to do for decades, but never made it high on their list. But since NASA doesn’t do SETI he wasn’t in competition any longer.

          • Michael Kaplan says:
            0
            0

            Again, you demonstrate a fundamental lack of the facts. The reason why NASA didn’t fund SETI was because was PREVENTED from having anything to do with SETI. Why? Because of an action taken by the Senate led by Senator William Proxmire in the early 1980s when he gave NASA the “Golden Fleece Award” for work that NASA funded on SETI. Basically, NASA was BLOCKED from any further investments in SETI. Can you show ANY evidence that the Allen Array was decadal survey priority? Of course you can’t because it wasn’. Please do your homework to get facts correct before making stuff up to fit your ideology.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            I’m not enthusiastic about reading another Decadal Survey (the Planetary and Heliophysics ones are about all I can take…) But Wikipedia does claim, “The panel for the Astronomy and Astrophysics Decadal Survey in its report, Astronomy and Astrophysics in the New Millennium, endorsed SETI and recognized the ATA (then called the 1-Hectare Telescope) as an important stepping stone towards the building of the Square Kilometer Array telescope (SKA). The most recent Decadal report recommended ending the US’s financial support of the SKA.”

            That may not be a high priority, and it may not even have been mentioned in the summary chapter. That often happens to good, scientific work that is on everyone’s top ten list, but down around number seven or eight. In a way, that’s what private funding may be best for: Supporting the science that everyone thinks is important, but not important enough to be one of the four or five top priorities in a Decadal Survey. All it takes is one, rich individual to say, “I don’t care; it’s a priority to me and I’m the one who’s paying.”

          • Michael Kaplan says:
            0
            0

            I spent 7 years in a job at NASA Hqs. responsible for implementing the Bahcall report (NAS Astrophysics Decadal for the 90s). In Astrophysics, the recommendations are for NASA AND the NSF. The reason is that “it’s all about the science.” Science doesn’t care if its being done from the ground or from space (or even from the air, in terms of airborne astronomy). So it’s important to first prioritize the science and then to develop a prioritized mix of ground and space projects, with attention being paid to TRL of various required technologies, mission lifecycle cost estimates, international activities, and appropriate agency roles.

            I’m sure that if a credible, willing private donor ever came along wanting to contribute a project addressing high priority science, everybody would love it. But to date, one has never emerged in any kind of significant way.

            One other thing to keep in mind that in Astrophysics, every project is normally at least a factor of ten higher in performance that any predecessor in some metric, e.g., spatial resolution, sensitivity, etc. So this means that these projects are almost always unique in several aspects and always very hard. So that’s the principal reason for much of the cost growth, not the usual dribble about Government inefficiency.

            NASA SMD’s strategy has been to chart the long term scientific strategy to implement the NASA Decadal Survey scientific priorities in a manner consistent with Agency and White House priorities. This is the way “the game” has been played for decades. Our understanding of the universe has changed enormously because of these efforts. Textbooks are routinely re-written as a result of these projects.

            It’s my view that making Federal investments in fundamental science, like NASA space science, is something great countries just do. The same goes for the arts. So I see the numerous budget cuts to fundamental science and technology across the board in the FY18 budget proposal as taking us in the opposite direction from making us “great.”

            Does that mean there’s no room for private investments in space science? Of course not. Bring them on. But let’s be real about it. I believe that it would be irresponsible and naive to believe that Government investments in NASA space science INHIBIT private investments. Is there any evidence of that being the case? I’ve yet to ever see any.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            That explains a lot. You are heavily invested in the current system which is why you see it as the optimal way to allocate taxpayer funded research grants.

            But why would a private donor want to give money to NASA? Especially when they are already funding it via their taxes.

            Of course there is no evidence, because private donors give where their giving is appreciated it and where they feel government isn’t taking care of it. But few if any will speak about where they decided to not donate money to.

            So your last statement, that is like trying to provide evidence to a bigfoot hunter they don’t exist. Of course you won’t see evidence of it existing.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            “first prioritize the science and then to develop a prioritized mix of ground and space projects”

            That’s typically how things are done within NASA. It does produce good results. But I’m not convinced it produces the best, or most optimal results. By prioritizing the science first, without adequate consideration of the cost, you can hurt the overall program. There is often a tendency to do the first thing on the list of science priorities, regardless of the cost. If the first priority is expensive enough, that can easily mean numbers three to ten on the science priority list don’t happen.

            “in Astrophysics, every project is normally at least a factor of ten higher in performance that any predecessor in some metric”

            You are right this is a reason for the high costs and cost growth. Government inefficiency is also an issue. But programs which are too ambitious (an order of magnitude every time) are the real problem. If JWST had been designed to a factor of two improvement, rather than an order of magnitude, I think it is quite likely it could have flown on the 2000-estimated cost and schedule (2009 and $1.8 billion.) Building on that experience, the next, next-generation space telescope could have made another factor of two improvement in the state of the art for another $2 billion, etc. For the same $8.8 billion JWST has cost, the more gradual approach could have funded almost five generations of factor-of-two improvements, and 2^5 = 32 is more than a factor of ten.

            I’m not even sure a factor of anything improvement is necessary for good science. If you’ve got a telescope which is badly oversubscribed (e.g. receiving proposals with “excellent” and “excellent/very good” reviews for 200% of the available observing time), maybe it’s worth building another, identical facility.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            Exactly, political opinion changed so first Democratic Senator William Proxmire reduced funding in 1982 and then Democrat Senator Richard Bryan cut it completely in 1994. Guess the Democrats are ETI deniers 🙂

            It also shows just how the NASA decision process for funding has taken control of your thinking. There were no decadal surveys when Project Cyclops was proposed in the1970’s, they are a more recent development, part of the ever increasing control being place over all science funding at NASA by scientists.

            BTW here is a link to the Project Cyclops report.

            https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archi

        • Daniel Woodard says:
          0
          0

          I personally have tried for years to get private funding for our research in the biochemistry behind Alzheimer’s disease. Everyone wants a cure yesterday, but private funding is controlled by “venture capitalists” who naturally expect to double thier money in five years. When you mention “basic research” they stop listening.

          The NACA was chartered in 1915 because US industry could not afford the theoretical and applied R&D it needed to keep up. The European countries had recognized the potential of aviation and were already putting government funding into it.

          • muomega0 says:
            0
            0

            Long term R&D to let industry focus in on what they do best “short term gains often at the expense of the environment” so with regulations–a balance of centralized vs decentralized control. Consider this: Red always want ‘competition’ which means duplication of effort. But when it comes to science, Red wants “consolidation” which means no peer review and no independent scientific method verification. These current ‘leaders’ should be ashamed of their behavior.

            The USG needs the scientists to help guide the economic debate on climate, now estimated to be 400T to the world by 2100. (No fcrary, i have not dug into the numbers in detail, but a number so frickin’ large needs data and investigation to resolve the uncertainty 😉 )

            Compare the Average Annual Per Person Cost of Seniors with and w/o Alzheimer’s: $8,427 vs $22,206 and the total is $236B all born by Medicare and Medicaid. If you are a nursing home provider, why cure something paid for by the USG?

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            Sorry, I work with global economic figures all the time so your numbers don’t scare me.

            $400 Trillion may seem large, even over a hundred years, except when you consider the world’s current gross output is around $100 trillion and expanding at 3.5% a year. This means a cumulative world output of about $2,900 Trillion during that same period.

          • muomega0 says:
            0
            0

            Take 100B barrels of oil from Keystone at 4T, now add 200ppm more costs (4 more $T), thats $40-$80 a barrel that the carbon industry is going to aside …yea right. How about all extinctions..how are those paid for? The 2900 Trillion just needs energy, so use wind rather than carbon at lower costs per MW, a much more economical path forward.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            Yes, less kill all the backyard songs birds with wind turbines.

            BTW you do know that the Keystone is simply replacing trains that are now being used to ship that same oil to refineries, dirty diesel trains that put nasty greenhouse gases into the air and run the risk of derailing, do even greater damage to the environment.

            http://oilprice.com/Energy/

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            I can’t reproduce that number. $100 trillion per year is what a quick Wikipedia search came up with. But over a hundred years, that’s $10,000 trillion, not 2,900. Increasing that by 3.5% per year gave a number around $80,000 trillion. But I don’t believe that rate would be stable for a century, don’t know if that’s before or after inflation, etc.

            In any case, a better question is who gets to pay? I can accept that the claimed cost is small compared to a century’s worth of economic output. But will the people paying the costs be the same people receiving the benefits of economic output?

            I’m also willing to assume severe climate change will not automatically alter the bottom line. The people receiving those economic benefits may be willing to spend enough money to maintain their profit margins. But that might not help the rest of us.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            Yes, its just the FV of the $78 trillion 2015 Gross World Budget. I put the numbers in the correct equation and its $40,715 Trillion so that $400 Trillion is just 1% of the total.

            As for who pays, that depends on the actual impact. Several trends in agriculture and manufacturing are continuing to reduce the dependence on natural system that started in the 19th Century. As the effects of climate change emerge they will likely extend those trends.

            Interesting, some of those trends in agriculture and manufacturing are likely to drastically reduce the emission of greenhouse gases, not surprising as the less dependent humans are on natural systems due to technology the less impact they will have on natural systems.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            I can’t imagine what V. I. Lenin would say about, “Red always want ‘competition’ which means duplication of effort.” I still can’t get used to people calling conservatives “reds.”

      • ThomasLMatula says:
        0
        0

        When government monopolizes science funding it becomes dependent on what ever government policy is at the moment. A handful of individuals determines winners and losers. The science community is learning this the hard way.

        When private sources fund it (non-profit, individuals, corporations, associations) different viewpoints are funded and the best ideas win, just as with consumer goods.

        What you want is the consumer equivalent of the old Bell telephone system, a closed system where AT&T decided your options for a phone and which room of the house you wanted it hard wired into. The other gives you an open system, the modern smart phone era.

        Which do you think will be better for science? A closed system or an open system?

        • Michael Kaplan says:
          0
          0

          Extremely naive regarding the kinds of science pursued at NASA. Have you ever participated in a review of NASA science proposals? Your comments about it don’t reflect the reality of the breadth of what’s proposed.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            I hate to say it, but you are forgetting a few things. What he wrote does not describe the proposal review process. The proposal selection process, however, considered rather nebulous “programatic reasons” as well as the review panel’s ratings. Some of those programatic reasons are good. But the system does have a built-in potential for bias in favor of the administration’s policies.

            In addition, the amount of money which goes into each of those programs is decided by someone, and the process isn’t exactly transparent. Increasing the funding for space-based geology at the expense of atmospheric science grants isn’t a decision which involves review panels.

          • Michael Kaplan says:
            0
            0

            The two examples you cite would rarely if ever compete against one another. Science priorities are set by decadal surveys. Funding to budget line items by the appropriations process. In terms of grants, proposals are ranked by a peer review process that is mostly followed by selection officials. Review groups, e.g., the “AGs” within planetary science, meet a few times a year to provide feedback at the Division level.

            The process for selecting missions within SMD starts with the decadal survey process in terms of science priorities which translate into new start priorities for non-competed missions, and as guidance for the selection panels for competed missions. The selection official does have some leeway, but in my experience, they pretty much get it right.

            I’ve played in both sides of this process for more than 30 years. It’s not a perfect process, but it works pretty darn well. I’d challenge someone to come up with a better system that conforms with the FAR.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            I’m familiar with all the processes, although I’ve “only” been involved for about 25 years. Doing better would be difficult given FAR requirements.

            Panel reviews for grant proposal are, as you say, “mostly followed by selection officials”. But not always, and no reasons are given departures. (In hindsight, sometimes it’s obvious to people who have been on the panel, but sometimes it isn’t.) Shifting funds within research and analysis program elements isn’t tied to the decadal survey. Over- or undersubscription in one element can be a reason, as can new discoveries or anything that changes the priorities of the responsible people.

            The various AGs are, by nature, able to provide feedback. They are specifically not chartered as advisory committees because, if they were, NASA would a legal responsibility to respond to the feedback in some way.

            The selection process for competed, SMD missions isn’t quite what you describe. The step one proposals are selected primarily on scientific merit, and the Decadal Survey’s priorities have a big influence over that. But the step two (deselect) decisions are heavily weighted towards technical feasibility (can they actually do the proposed mission within the cost and schedule limits.) I’ve heard many complaints about that (e.g. how high-risk, high-payoff proposals are treated, inclusion of risk from government funded equipment, etc.) And you can’t deny there were persistent rumors about bias in favor of a certain NASA center and a university-affiliated lab which happened to be in a state with an influential Senator.

            But I guess all that is tangential to the original point. It wasn’t about how the system currently works. As I said, it isn’t perfect, but I’d be hard pressed to come up with something better, especially with FAR in mind. But the original point was that it could become worse. The system allows room for some flexibility on the part of NASA managers, and that’s not a bad thing at all. But it does mean the administration can issue orders and the flexibility could be used in ways we might not be happy about.

            What, hypothetically, would happen to the next Solar Systems Working (a research and analysis grant program element) selections if someone told the appropriate people that work on atmospheric or climate evolution should not be funded for programatic reasons? That’s setting priorities and using discretionary authority to implement them. It would be perfectly legal (probably; they might have to amend the wording in the call for proposals, but NASA has the authority to do so.)

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            Yes, a very tight monopoly style decision process that discourages innovation by creating a tightly controlled zero sum game. No wonder NASA scientists go bonkers when the size of the pie is cut, because the entire process simple plays one research agenda off against another.

          • Michael Kaplan says:
            0
            0

            Do you have a single molecule of personal experience about anything having to do with NASA space science? Lacking that, coupled with your comments, it’s really hard to take anything that you say seriously.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            Did you ever study organization behavior to learn how a closed decision system excludes new ideas and innovation? How it creates a zero sum game with all the politics associated with it?

            You seem to think the existing system for selecting science winner and losers is the only way to do it. You seem to have no clue on how it simply leads to reinforcing the existing status quo discouraging innovation and breakthrough thinking on how to do space science more effectively.

    • fcrary says:
      0
      0

      Of course, those scientists would probably be funded by industry. So anything they publish could be dismissed as simply towing the corporate line.

      • Michael Kaplan says:
        0
        0

        ..or wouldn’t be published at all if it’s deemed “company proprietary information.”

        • ThomasLMatula says:
          0
          0

          You are both assuming for profit corporations would be doing it. Why?

          Most science before WW II was funded by non-profits, The Carnegie Institute, The Rockefeller Foundation, National Geographic Society who had extensive PR campaigns to build public interest in the good work they were doing or to enable fund raising. They were far more involved with public out reach then current researchers are. And even for the for profits it would be part of their public relations and so open.

          • anirprof says:
            0
            0

            And even relative to the lower GDP at the time, far, far less science got done with that model that takes place today.

            Perhaps most importantly, the US was at best barely keeping up with international competitors who had significantly smaller economies than the US, but who did put much more government funding into it.

            I’m not thrilled about a world where American citizens donate a couple of billion dollars to see what happens when you impact 10 tons of cheese into the Moon (which would be cool, I admit), while leaving serious space physics projects totally unfunded beause they are dull, but the Chinese put tens of billions into basic science that has future military applications.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            That is difficult to prove given the cumulative nature of science. For example, there were a lot more science done in the 1930’s than in the 1890’s. While the 1890’s had more science than the 1790’s. And so on…

            And money spent may not be a valid measure since it always cost more for the government to do something than a private group. NSF grants are a good example with a major portion of the money going to “overhead” and release time for researchers rather than the direct costs of the research as was the case in the past.

            And the military always takes care of its own. That is why the Office of Naval Research was created as well as DARPA. And yes, even the ancestor of NASA, NACA.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            But there was also significant, government-funded research. Perhaps less so in the United States and in the nineteenth century, but I can’t help thinking of government-chartered institutions like the Royal Society, Royal Astronomical Society, Greenwich Observatory, the Observatory of Paris, etc.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            True, royalty always was a patron of science, especially in Europe when most scientists were from the Nobility or landed gentry with links to the royal court to get royal favors.

  2. muomega0 says:
    0
    0

    The great con job of 2016 continues.. an article to be read by all.

    Climate change is going to cost trillions, they do not want the liability, as they pursue their ill-gotten American Dream

    As for Smith, Cruz, Ebell, the Mercers, etc, Here is the Truth about Global Temperature Data

    Take a stand and support a carbon tax today.
    Make a real difference in the world.

    • John Thomas says:
      0
      0

      How much temperature change will we get for these trillions? How will poor people pay for these higher energy costs to pay these taxes? How many more people will be unemployed as companies are unable to pay these taxes and go out of business? How accurate are these models that predict future temperatures?

      • muomega0 says:
        0
        0

        Wind energy is less expensive than coal…why would the poor pay more? Renewables will create way more jobs ‘for the poor’ than carbon.

        Building walls and/or relocating from sea level rise alone from carbon will cost $T–Why no carbon tax?

        The Alberta tar sands are estimated to contain enough carbon to raise carbon emissions in the atmosphere by 200 parts per million. That would increase the current level of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere by more than half. It would be more than enough to create more climate change than in the entire history of humanity on earth. It would also render pointless all other efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Even the 2C by the IPCC may be insufficient..many say its game over.

        The world has 53.3 years left to find an alternative to oil before current proved reserves run dry, according to BP New extraction methods are costly, energy intensive, pose environmental threats.

        Why not spend the capital to prevent natural gas leaks to less than 3%–the world clearly has the technology– it would certainly create more jobs. We’re wasting enough natural gas every year to serve the needs of 7 million homes, 20X worse than coal.

        How reliable are climate models?

        Take a moment and open the Sea Level Rise Viewer. Hit Launch. Close the PopUp. Scroll into the Map until Icons Appear. Click on Icon and adjust the sea level rise bar on LHS at a location of your choice.

        • fcrary says:
          0
          0

          “The world has 53.3 years left to find an alternative to oil before current proved reserves run dry, according to BP.”

          Really? And you believe that? If you (or BP) said, “about 50 years”, it would be credible. But that third significant figure implies someone can make an estimate which is accurate to better than 0.2% Saying that demand and consumption are known to the precision, decades in advance, is not believable. The available amount of oil probably isn’t known that well either.

          Some people think adding those significant figure makes the numbers seem more exact and scientific. It really just opens the door to critics who say the claims are obviously bogus. I’d really like people to give numbers like 53.3 years, if the real numbers, with error bars are more like 53.3+-5 years.

          • muomega0 says:
            0
            0

            One would think BP has a good handle on supply and demand. Take a moment and read the important message: “According to BP, drivers whose vehicles rely on burning oil have a little more than a half-century to find alternate sources of energy. Or Walk”

            Let’s Google: ~1.6T Barrels of Proven Reserves/ 100MB per day is 43 years.

            Add in Keystone: ‘economic’ reserves at about 200B, so 5-7 more years unless used entirely by US.. Hey that’s 50 yrs. Oil sands take 1 barrel of energy to produce 3 barrels hence the term ‘economic’. Yes only 10% extracted.

            Massive (?) Oil Discovery in Alaska Is Biggest Onshore Find in U.S. in 30 years Some 1.2 billion barrels of oil have been discovered in Alaska, marking the biggest onshore discovery in the U.S. in three decades. 1.2B/7B/yr…good, but not Massive.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            I hope BP has a good handle on their supply and demand. That’s sort of important to staying in business. But not enough to make predictions with fractional precent accuracy, decades in advance. That just isn’t credible.

            And that was my point. The “important message,” as you put it, is fine. Trying to back it up with numbers which imply unbelievable accuracy is not. It casts doubt on everything else you say, or anyone else making similar statements says, and opens these “important message[s]” up to attacks over being unscientific. The “important message” doesn’t require claiming three-decimal-place accuracy when you don’t really have it.

        • RocketScientist327 says:
          0
          0

          And this is why we cannot have nice things. The hysteria and paranoia of those who worship at the unholy altar of global cooling, global warming, climate change, climate destruction, always come calling with these apocalyptic, dire predictictions you would get from a local tarot card reader from the psychic just down the street.

          #1 This article is from July 14, 2014 so we are actually at about 50 years and change.

          #2 Our climate is changing all the time. We get cold – we get hot – oh no its cold again.

          #3 Our planet has experienced incredibly warm periods of history and ice ages.

          #4 We should do everything possible to find clean energy to include hydro, geo, and solar. Take those windmills and shove them. The flicker sucks, the hum is maddening, and the upkeep is expensive. Wind energy is not conducive to the American way of life but other green technologies are.

          #5 Many left leaning starlets and politicians give out warnings that if we do not save the earth in X years we all are gonna die or run out of some resource.

          #6 The boy who cried wolf – you should read it.

          #7 China and India but out more Co2 than America.

          #8 NASA should study climate change.

          • Daniel Woodard says:
            0
            0

            The flicker and hum of wind turbines affects a small area, the power produced goes much farther. The costs will become more predictable as more experience is gained. Current estimates of total lifetime operating expense at about 25% of total amortized cost, it is considerably lower than fossil fuel generation. Operating cost includes land rent, insurance, and overhead, actual maintenance parts and labor are less than half the total.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            You forget the extensive damage to wildlife from wind turbines.

            http://savetheeaglesinterna

            “In 2012, breaking the European omerta on wind farm mortality, the Spanish Ornithological Society (SEO/Birdlife) reviewed actual carcass counts from 136 monitoring studies. They concluded that Spain’s 18,000 wind turbines are killing 6-18 million birds and bats yearly.”

            How different than coal power or nuclear power plants where the cooling water provides a haven for birds, especially in winter.

            http://www.mybirdmaps.com/t

          • muomega0 says:
            0
            0

            The results show that even with high-range estimates for renewables compared to low-range estimates for fossil fuels, fossil fuels are responsible for far more bird fatalities than solar or wind

            Wind Farm Bird Deaths vs Fossil Fuel & Nuclear Power Bird Deaths

            Wind farms kill roughly 0.27 birds per GWh.
            Nuclear plants kill about 0.6 birds per GWh. (2.2x wind)
            Fossil-fueled power stations kill about 9.4 birds per GWh. (34.8x wind)

            Edit: Benjamin K. Sovacool is director of the Danish Center for Energy Technology and the Sussex Energy Group as well as a professor.

            Sovacool was a visiting professor at Vermont Law School when he authored The Avian and Wildlife Costs of Fossil Fuel and Nuclear Power which includes 3 pages of references. Many, but not all, think he is a credible source.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            Sorry, but your reference fails to pass the credibility test. Did you actually read the source of those figures? Here it is.

            https://papers.ssrn.com/sol

            First, your figures are based on a faculty accepted paper in a integrated studies journal by a lawyer, not a wildlife biologist. And being faculty accepted means it didn’t go even through peer review to get into what is a none science journal.

            Second, it is an estimated figure (guess) based on the estimated (guess) effects of coal mining and estimated (guess) impact of climate change on bird habitats and its resulting estimated (guess) effect on overall bird populations. In short, like the Drake Equation, you are able to get any number you want based on the numbers (guesses) you put in. No wonder no peer reviewed science journal published it.

            By contrast the reference I provided was based on actually counting the dead birds and bats around sample wind turbines and then determining total impact by multiplying results based on the total number of wind turbines. In short is is good reproducible science. A solid data point, not a WAG to support a political position.

            So, do you have any real numbers to support your claim on birds deaths, or just more guesses.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            Actually, the part I didn’t like was the sampling. The dead birds per GW number for fossil fuels included things like lost habitat from extraction. That was based on a previous study of a few coal mines. Mining can easily be worse for habitats than drilling. The paper contained no serious consideration of whether those few lines were typical or how coal extraction differed from oil extraction. The other parts of the calculations looked similar.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            Yes, and if failed to take into account the impact of mining and manufacturing for the wind turbines.

          • muomega0 says:
            0
            0

            Yes. Siting and species are key. Siting is one factor in the variation of death counts, and some species already ‘get it’ and choose to shift their locations. The Fish and Wildlife service now helps wind companies build where there would be the smallest impact on birds.

            The US now has 10s of GWs of onshore wind, but not much offshore wind, so take a glance at offshore wind maps, where costs are projected at 10 and 7 cents/kWHr by 2020 and 2030, and offshore has 3X the potential US requirements. The Great lakes have GWs as well.

            I noticed you focused on eagles. Was this for dramatic effect? Here is what the FWS says: “Eagles appear to be particularly susceptible” to colliding with wind turbines, compared with other birds. Why? “Many of the areas that are promising sources of wind energy also overlap with eagle habitats. Eagles are at risk because their senses tend to be focused upon the ground as they look for prey, rather than staring ahead to see spinning blades,”

            here is good review: Fact Check: Trump’s Hot Air on Wind Energy and Birds

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            You must not be a birder or you would know those offshore areas are very rich in seabirds.

            http://wingsbirds.com/tours

            But its hard to count the number of birds killed when their remains fall in the ocean, so I guess that is one way to solve the problem 🙂

          • muomega0 says:
            0
            0

            Penguins and polar bears are not affected by wind turbines; rather carbon and fracking gas Antarctic Penguins Declining as Glacier Recedes

            Without action on climate change, say goodbye to polar bears

            Will Adélie Penguins disappear?

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            Typical, proven wrong in one area, shift to another 🙂

            So you are saying you would rather kill off the song birds in your yard to save Polar Bears in the Arctic.

          • muomega0 says:
            0
            0

            Yes, *your* tactic is obvious to most, being proven wrong in one area and shifting to another. Data is the solution and discussion.

            The total CO2 footprint is considered in comparing energy sources, as well as the biodiversity impact hence the summary: support a carbon tax today 🙂

            Wind, solar,.. welcomes biodivesity impacts to the carbon tax. Conservatives and liberals are all in agreement as it also creates more jobs at less cost than carbon, lost in the debate because of Citizens’ United and Gerrymandered Districts. Its FUD to say that wind has a significant impact on offshore bio, for example.

            What is most striking in the report is just how benign offshore wind and other renewables currently appear to be to marine biodiversity.

            For land based systems, the FWS has many additonal ways to reduce impact to the biodivesity, which is already less than carbon. Besides carbon, an interesting solution is to shift the prey away from the turbines-perhaps with a large Keystone oil spill.

            As for mining and manufacturing of wind turbines, one must examine the components: both wind and carbon have generators, but carbon has the an large shafted engine, while wind has composite blades and the stand. Conclusion: Lifecycle CO2 higher with carbon. Note all references not provided.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            Of course you don’t provide all the references, that would show their poor quality…

            I also guess you have no clue where the composites for windmill blades come from nor their environmental impact. I will give you a hint, the Keystone XL will help bring down the costs of composites for American built windmills by reducing the cost of shipping tar sand oil 🙂

            BTW Here is a study for you detailing the impact of composites on the environment.

            http://www.welshcomposites.co.uk/d...

            Again, data not opinions.

          • muomega0 says:
            0
            0

            Read the Summary of Your source, which is in direct contradiction your assessment, listed below. Companies are being investigated spinning climate change risks

            You may have forgotten that CO2 is emitted each year from carbon energy, while wind has debatably more steel (or carbon), so the life cycle needs to be examined.

            Its a myth that wind doesn’t reduce CO2 Now it can be shown that the sceptics who lobby against wind simply have their facts wrong.

            From your linked summary:
            “Composites often have more environmental impacts on production and disposal than more
            conventional materials . In many cases, these are offset by benefits in use due to the lower weight / improved performance of composites”
            So another technique is to simply restate in error the conclusion–is this a Trump U tip?

            IPCC has compiled the data as outlined in the Life cycle of gas emissions of energy sources.

      • Daniel Woodard says:
        0
        0

        I don’t see any evidence that total employment is less with renewable energy. Increased accuracy of models requires accurate data. Shutting down NISTAR, the Earth Radiation Budget sensor on DISCOVR, will cut off some of the most critical data needed to improve that modeling.

      • Colin Seftor says:
        0
        0

        Clean energy doesn’t cost jobs, it makes them:

        buff.ly/2mM4iiK

  3. Daniel Woodard says:
    0
    0

    While many new non-carbon-producing energy sources are needed, nuclear energy is and will continue to be vital. We really need a waste processing and storage site for our nuclear plants. It makes no sense to put this off. The WIPP site at Carlsbad, NM has the appropriate geology. All that is needed is the funding and political will.

  4. Ticked Parent says:
    0
    0

    NASA and NOAA politicized the weather instead of letting the science speak for itself by falsifying data then getting caught and then not allowing other hypothesis to be tested but rather ridiculed and mocked for not towing the politically approved line. That isn’t science it is religious zeal.
    No sympathy you live by the sword you will die by the sword.

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      Can you prove – with facts – what you just wrote? Facts – from peer-reviewed journals by real scientists. People who live at sea level on the gulf coast do not mind this sort of science at all. Quite the contrary.

      • Granit says:
        0
        0

        Heres the data, in a very useable format.

        http://www.psmsl.org/

        Need to consider natural and man-induced land subsidence to get an accurate picture of the true sea rise. That can be difficult. Most sites with 100yr plus records where land subsidence can be shown to be negligible indicate a sea level rise of about 2 mm/year.

    • Daniel Woodard says:
      0
      0

      Trump is ordering NOAA to stop the collection of data from NISTAR, the existing sensor that measures the solar radiation reflected and emitted by the Earth. Shutting off an existing instrument, with trivial cost, that provides critical, objective and accurate data on global warming or cooling isn’t science, it is anti-science.

      • fcrary says:
        0
        0

        That’s probably stating the case too strongly. DISCVR isn’t a climate or atmospheric science mission. If NOAA hadn’t wanted (or needed) a solar wind monitor, it would never have flown. EPIC and NISTAR are on because they were already there. The spacecraft was built for other purposes and then put in storage. If the NISTAR data were critical, rather than very useful, someone would have flown a spacecraft for that reason. No one did, so I think that implies “useful but not critical.” On the other hand, since it’s already up there and operating costs are tiny, shutting it down makes no scientific or financial sense.

        • Daniel Woodard says:
          0
          0

          I agree that was true at the time it was launched, and today there are other satellites measuring the Earth radiation budget, but if this one can be cut off, what of the others? Given the current administration’s adversarial position on climate change, accurate data on radiation budget is essential in developing accurate climate models that will be capable of more accurate prediction. NISTAR is the canary in the coal mine.

        • ThomasLMatula says:
          0
          0

          Yes, DSCOVR is simply the reworked Goresat that space scientists were critical of in the 1990’s since its mission was public relations, not science. And that is why it is being shutdown, because of its propaganda function. Science and finance have nothing to do with it.

          “He (VP Gore) challenged NASA to send a satellite to the L1 Lagrange Point, a spot one million miles from Earth in the direction of the sun, where the two bodies’ gravitational pulls are in equilibrium. Once there, Triana would create a digital age version of Apollo 17’s iconic “blue marble” photograph by beaming back a continuous real-time view of Earth’s sunlit side. This sight would, Gore hoped, heighten consciousness of the planet’s environmental fragility, and encourage contemplation of how global warming could gravely affect it.”

          “The New York Times reported that when it came time to add Triana funding to NASA’s budget, Gore’s vision faced Congressional dissent: The satellite was a “multi-million-dollar screen saver” that would take money from real
          research, said Representative Dave Weldon, a ranking member of the Houses Science Committee; House majority leader Dick Armey called it a “far-out boondoggle.”

          But the administration didn’t need Congress’ approval to start work on the satellite; it shifted money allocated to other Earth and space science missions. With the vice president’s name attached to it, the Triana concept moved through NASA at the bureaucratic equivalent of warp speed.”

          http://www.airspacemag.com/

          Yes, wasting NASA science money for pure political propaganda. But have no fear, this is the second time the plug has been pulled on Goresat, like a good zombie it will probably return.

          • Daniel Woodard says:
            0
            0

            Is accurately measuring the energy the Earth reflects and radiates propaganda? That is what NISTAR does.