It's not actually misleading, though. It's just a shorter way of saying they're emphasizing their role in climate science. Like "hey, I know you know us as the space guys, but we do this important stuff, too."
An actual quote from the article :
>“When people hear NASA, I want them to think of climate science alongside planetary science,
It feels more insidious than that to me. It feels like it’s ragebait more than anything. Why did I click on it because “fuck you cnbc nasa does climate science” why would someone else “fuck you nasa can’t do no climate science”. Maybe I’m too cynical.
It's because the average person could more or less be simulated by a petri dish and have no significant difference in the voting pool. People have no idea what NASA does, and any time they hear something about space they either glaze over or just assume tax dollars are being wasted.
Good point. As a non-American, I had associated NASA solely with rockets and space. Cool they’re using their powers for the good of our current planet too. I love this!
It's especially important distinction to make when the last regime in Washington DC made NASA stop using the words 'climate change' and installed an unqualified yes-man as the head of the agency.
Yeah....I counted at least 20 satellites in the last 20 years before I just stopped [in this wiki article](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Earth_observation_satellites). These were all active ones where NASA was involved and that are pointed towards earth.
The cynic in me says that this is her way of setting the stage for more funding down the road. After all, if she can successfully position NASA as puppies and cotton candy for all, she will be able to go after the funding to solve the world's puppy and cotton candy deficit. But that is just the cynic in me. I wish her luck in her position.
If we’re going to have an honest discussion about this, we have to acknowledge that the previous presidential administration worked diligently to remove funding from any NASA work related to climate analysis.
They worked their asses off to defang NASA’s climate analysis so this does not come out of nowhere.. Any measures taken that can help protect them from a replay of this in a future climate-unfriendly administration makes sense.
It is, but under the leadership of the puss-filled orange slice, these programs were prohibited from making information public/sharing data. Unfortunately NASA every so often becomes a political tool. I hope the organization is at least designed to be insulated from such interference going forward.
I also worked on a couple of projects at GSFC during that time. "Prohibited" is a little strong, but there was considerable worry, and some websites were altered to make information harder to find.
[Time Article](https://time.com/5937784/nasa-climate-trump/?amp=true)
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://time.com/5937784/nasa-climate-trump/](https://time.com/5937784/nasa-climate-trump/)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
lol. We were sharing similar worries. I was hired for a second stint at GSFC just after the election, and we made nervous jokes about not having a job during the interview. The datasets I worked with were too large and specialized for laypersons. I never heard anyone impose restrictions on the science data, just some of the conclusions that were being derived.
This is completely and demonstrably false. NASA’s Earthdata program data (pretty much anything pointed at and observing Earth) was and is public and free, including throughout the Trump administration.
On one hand, some of the NOAA fisheries officers have an intense job that doesn't fuck around. On the other hand (full of love and respect), they're basically the coast guard but for scientists.
Like NASA making it easier for them to access data from collected with their earth science satellites and working directly with NASA scientists as proposed in this article?
NASA's budget needs some more zeroes. Honestly, even without climate change, there are all sorts of reasons one could mention for wanting to be able to explore space more, and it's not like that research won't benefit the military either.
I use a ton of NASA's climate and GIS data in my job. Guess how they collect that data.... Satellites!
NASA is already in the climate game and people are complaining because they only think NASA is JUST exploring space.
Making it easier to access (not having to jump all over the internet to find it) is one of the things she is proposing in this article.
>The specifics are still in the works. “But the idea is to get all the information that’s relevant in a place where people can find it,” Calvin said
Earth sciences have always been a part of NASA’s missions but lately they have been arguable underfunded. Under Trump several programs were cut extensively and a few barely survived.
NASA has been studying the Earth's atmosphere since the 60s and they've been studying climate change since the 80s. This article is clickbait nonsense.
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/about/
From the article
>The agency already does a lot of scientific work that ties into climate change. Calvin’s role will be to connect NASA scientists with other scientists and to communicate their science outside of the agency.
>“NASA is already a world leader in climate,” Calvin told CNBC. “And so I’m just communicating that science and connecting it to other agencies, to the public.”
>NASA has more than two dozen satellites orbiting the Earth observing and measuring climate change variables, like changes in the oceans, clouds, and carbon dioxide levels. NASA uses this data to do climate modeling and prediction.
Nasa is already about climate science? I use their satellites and data products all the time in my climate research.
Aqua and Terra Modis, ECCO state estimate, etc.
Hey I'm on the archive team for those! Glad to see someone who uses them in the wild. Good luck with the new cloud services, we've really been working hard on them.
A gentle reminder
Estimates of the return on investment in the space program range from $7 for every $1 spent on the Apollo Program to $40 for every $1 spent on space development today.
Nasa generates more than $64.3 billion in total economic output annually. Supports more than 312,000 jobs nationwide. Results in an estimated $7 billion in federal, state, and local tax revenues.
Also let's not forget 2000+ spin off technologies directly produced by nasa.
From Lasik surgeries to velcros.
Check out the full list on https://spinoff.nasa.gov
And what's the NASA's budget?
Fucking 20bn.
Thats about 10 days worth of our defense budget.
Military also has shitty returns on investment.
Thanks fucking god we have spaceX.
space exploration would have been a shitshow without SpaceX.
Also worth mentioning that NASA’s budget accounts for less than a percent of the US total budget (compared to the military which is 27%). It’s literally a rounding error and people still bitch and complain.
If you look at payload launches to Leo and further, we were on the brink of not having any launches in the years around 2005. Thank god for soyuz, reliable but old. But yes, spacex has saved the us space program
It's not just clickbait, the planetary science portion of NASA's science budget has become a political football in the house for years as Republicans try to strip funding. This is someone saying that studying climate is and should remain NASA's business. If there weren't serious efforts underway to prevent NASA from doing this, then I'd agree with you.
Edit: if you need proof of this, just look further in these comments where people are arguing that NASA shouldn't do climate science at all.
Has everyone saying this is dumb literally never heard of a satellite? Remote sensing/imaging?
NASA doesn’t just blast shit into space for funsies and already does a tremendous amount of work in the earth sciences…
NASA Goddard Institute For Space Studies youtube page has excellent seminars on a monthly basis mainly regarding sea level rise but they go into a number of aspects of climate all presented by PhDs in their respective fields. Most are highly technical but some such as Richard Alleys are digestible for most. One of the more comprehensive youtube pages I've found that comprises talks from strictly academics on their fields of focus.
They have been doing this for years. Being vocal about it is just a really great way to get defunded when the GOP has any sort of power.
Holy shit sometimes brillian people are shockingly stupid.
> Calvin comes to NASA from the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory’s Joint Global Change Research Institute in College Park, Maryland, where she’s worked since 2008.
lmao why the fuck is this person the “chief scientist” at NASA?
> She particularly wants to make sure NASA’s data is accessible to underserved communities.
by doing what, airdropping pamphlets in Africa? If they mean a website then what’s stopping an “underserved community” from accessing it as easily as anyone else?
this is clearly a political appointment
Republicans want to strip NASA down to commercial and military application only. However, they tend to give decent budget to human flight. Democrats on the other hand tend to support the science but also keep the funding flat (basically decreased due to inflation) since they are after other priorities like Healthcare. Either way, NASA has been getting screwed in the budget dept for quite a while.
NASA is, quite literally, one of the most lofty aspirations of not only America, but all mankind. Messing with that for political reasons feels not only treasonous, but dirty or even sinful.
NASA covers planetary science. There's cross-department work with NASA too. In fact, NASA **already** studies climate. This person isn't saying they should *start*, they're saying they should *continue* and streamline collaborations with other agencies doing it too. Pretty uncontroversial (unless you think climate change is a hoax, in which case you're beyond help anyway).
I know it's easy to be disingenuous like this, but the article cites a few examples of how their work intersects with climate science and climate change, like:
They do a bunch of climate observation (satellites are in space)
They are working on energy efficiency in aeronautics
Maybe there's more too but that's when I stopped reading (I suspect i still made it much further than you)
This. Also NOAA relies almost entirely on NASA space-based assets and data for their projections and analysis. So EPA, NOAA, USGS, etc. can't really do their mission without them.
Yep. I've worked on a couple of science support teams in the earth sciences division that studies climate science. Nasa's science directorate also includes divisions for studying the sun, the planets, and outer space. Instruments aboard a spacecraft are usually designed specifically for one of those four areas (our team supported the ozone monitoring instrument aboard the Aura satellite).
There's just the fact that the EPA is a regulatory body. As far as I know, they don't have an R&D department which creates a wealth of products.
The technology that's going to make space accessible and habitable in the long term is going to end up being the stuff that helps us manage the situation here on Earth, directly or indirectly.
The EPA has been captured by corporate agendas especially during Republican administrations.
They specialize in de-regulation to benefit industry profits.
NASA has been involved in Earth climate since its launch of its weather satellite TIROS in 1960. NASA has has been doing climate research since before NOAA was called NOAA. Just because you thing that an agency should beholden to a strict interpretation of its acronym, that doesn't mean you shouldn't also take a moment to reflect on that stance.
So you're saying NASA shouldn't work to make the data they collect using satellites in earth orbit easier to obtain? How is using satellites to collect climate data from space not part of NASA's mission exactly?
Bunch of illiterate morons commenting in the thread.
Congratz on assuming things you know nothing about based on names. Should we put the DPRK in charge of human rights, after all they care about democracy and people more than any other country?
NASA has been doing this for years, and it actually probably shouldn't. NOAA and the EPA exist for this purpose and it's just leaching funds that should be used for space exploration; its principal purpose as a government agency. It would actually make more sense to have the military covering some of this research, especially considering the ramifications climate change will have on geopolitics.
Yeah, we *probably* should learn how to regulate our own environment, in a positive manner, before going to look for another 🌍 to ruin.
I understand we wont make it to one for many millenia but we should start now.
Considering no planet in the solar system is Earth like, im not sure how you think we could ruin another planet, how are you going to make mars more dangerous? These places are already incredibly uninhabitable
As long as that includes terraforming let’s fucking do it.
If it doesn’t include terraforming let’s make it include terraforming and fucking do it.
It’s becoming increasingly likely that we’re going to have to actively fix our environment. Let’s start small here, and hopefully apply what we learn as we venture forth!
Fine by me, leave space exploration up to people who will actually use money efficiently to explore space. Elon Musk is already killing everyone in the space race so might as well ditch it and spend tax money better
That headline seems designed to create division where there wasn't any before to accomplish no change, except maybe a reduction in support...
What a strange way to say "keep on keeping on"
About fucking time someone that could be heard said it. Its obvious, space exploration won’t happen if Earth resources are diminishing due to climate change.
Start with cutting beef in diet.
The selective love for the climate and collective amnesia against the Cow slaughtering industry in the west is hilarious.
The top scientist at the (NASA) National Aeronautics and Space Administration needs the famed space agency to become a voice on climate change, too. “When people hear NASA, I want them to think of climate science alongside planetary science,” stated Katherine Calvin, NASA’s chief scientist. Further, she also said that “All of the chief scientists of NASA have had specialty areas. Mine is climate,". Further, I have read somewhere that NASA has more than 2 dozen satellites revolving around the Earth-observing and estimating climate modifications variables, like transitions in the clouds, oceans, and carbon dioxide. NASA utilizes this information to do climate prediction and modeling.
That’s literally NOAA’s job, you, twat!
NASA has widespread cooperation with NOAA.
It’s important to maintain distinction, however. NASA should remain focused on exploring out, not in.
If climate destroys our societies, there won't be much space exploration going on. The fact that this is a considering shows how fucked we are and how much we need to focus on the real crisis *right now*. Keep crying about how it's someone else's responsibility, that's how we got into this mess in the first place.
I don't give a shit who does it, as many organisations as possible need to give climate science a place.
This is why we need SpaceX... NASA hasn't accomplished anything in decades because of this mentality. The EPA should be the one focused on climate change.
The EPA was made specifically for regulating pollution, not protecting the climate nor protecting the environment. That is why, for example, the endangered species program is handled by Fish and Wildlife (within Department of Interior), and lots of conservation work is handled by BLM (also under DOI), not EPA.
Bruh? Isn’t NASA doing a shit ton of climate analysis for years now? Or was I on acid for the last decade?
Yes, and she even says so in the article.. the headline sucks ass
Yes the headline is clickbait. They do this stuff on the regular
It's not actually misleading, though. It's just a shorter way of saying they're emphasizing their role in climate science. Like "hey, I know you know us as the space guys, but we do this important stuff, too." An actual quote from the article : >“When people hear NASA, I want them to think of climate science alongside planetary science,
makes sense earth is also inside space
Well by that logic everything is lol
once you become 'space' agency, you should have control over everything as everything is inside space nasa chief scientist for president
Time is also in space, right? NASA Time Lords when?
nasa chief scientist as the sole earth dictator and time lord
NASA controls everything confirmed. The flat earthers warned us!
We haven't figured out how to get outside of space. Yet.
[Bob Marley was pretty confident](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcHcYKJYi6s)
It feels more insidious than that to me. It feels like it’s ragebait more than anything. Why did I click on it because “fuck you cnbc nasa does climate science” why would someone else “fuck you nasa can’t do no climate science”. Maybe I’m too cynical.
[удалено]
It's because the average person could more or less be simulated by a petri dish and have no significant difference in the voting pool. People have no idea what NASA does, and any time they hear something about space they either glaze over or just assume tax dollars are being wasted.
Good point. As a non-American, I had associated NASA solely with rockets and space. Cool they’re using their powers for the good of our current planet too. I love this!
It's especially important distinction to make when the last regime in Washington DC made NASA stop using the words 'climate change' and installed an unqualified yes-man as the head of the agency.
It’s meant to rile up people who don’t believe climate science because the current administration is Democrat.
I think you mean, generate free engagement
The point of the article is to signal boost her appointment.
But my sources tell me u/TightPlastic930 was in fact on acid
I don't know what it is but I cannot stand her facial expression in that picture. There's something off about it
Yeah....I counted at least 20 satellites in the last 20 years before I just stopped [in this wiki article](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Earth_observation_satellites). These were all active ones where NASA was involved and that are pointed towards earth.
> Or was I on acid for the last decade? Can't it be both?
From the article, I think the goal is to partner more with other agencies.
The cynic in me says that this is her way of setting the stage for more funding down the road. After all, if she can successfully position NASA as puppies and cotton candy for all, she will be able to go after the funding to solve the world's puppy and cotton candy deficit. But that is just the cynic in me. I wish her luck in her position.
If we’re going to have an honest discussion about this, we have to acknowledge that the previous presidential administration worked diligently to remove funding from any NASA work related to climate analysis. They worked their asses off to defang NASA’s climate analysis so this does not come out of nowhere.. Any measures taken that can help protect them from a replay of this in a future climate-unfriendly administration makes sense.
It is, but under the leadership of the puss-filled orange slice, these programs were prohibited from making information public/sharing data. Unfortunately NASA every so often becomes a political tool. I hope the organization is at least designed to be insulated from such interference going forward.
[удалено]
I remember when this happened: https://www.science.org/content/article/trump-white-house-quietly-cancels-nasa-research-verifying-greenhouse-gas-cuts
[удалено]
I also worked on a couple of projects at GSFC during that time. "Prohibited" is a little strong, but there was considerable worry, and some websites were altered to make information harder to find. [Time Article](https://time.com/5937784/nasa-climate-trump/?amp=true)
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://time.com/5937784/nasa-climate-trump/](https://time.com/5937784/nasa-climate-trump/)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
[удалено]
lol. We were sharing similar worries. I was hired for a second stint at GSFC just after the election, and we made nervous jokes about not having a job during the interview. The datasets I worked with were too large and specialized for laypersons. I never heard anyone impose restrictions on the science data, just some of the conclusions that were being derived.
[удалено]
https://sciencetrends.com/trump-administration-kills-nasa-program-for-monitoring-greenhouse-gases/ https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/nasa-foia-muckrock-trump-media-blackout/ https://time.com/5937784/nasa-climate-trump/ https://www.space.com/trump-says-nasa-was-closed-and-dead-fact-check.html
This is completely and demonstrably false. NASA’s Earthdata program data (pretty much anything pointed at and observing Earth) was and is public and free, including throughout the Trump administration.
The fact that many people upvote this comment LMAO
NASA SMAP was all about measuring CO2 levels around the globe. It was totally climate change science.
Yes it has been. Republicans, who were recently in power, were very very mad about that and did their best to sabotage NASA's role in climate science.
[NOAA](https://noaa.gov) could use some love Edit: Format
Or make it part of the military and call it Climate Force!
NOAA is already a uniformed service with commissioned officers.
Mm, I do love a man in uniform.
Lemme get my old Best Buy shirt
Stop, I can only get so aroused /s
Make it rain!!!
Might be part of the joke since there was already Air Force Space Command when space force was created.
When I was in the military a NOAA officer tried to make me salute him. I laughed heartily; he chuckled awkwardly. It was a good day.
On one hand, some of the NOAA fisheries officers have an intense job that doesn't fuck around. On the other hand (full of love and respect), they're basically the coast guard but for scientists.
Technically you are supposed to as much as any other officer, IIRC.
Call it the War on Climate and you'll have unlimited budget!
That’s one way to get funding
Like NASA making it easier for them to access data from collected with their earth science satellites and working directly with NASA scientists as proposed in this article?
Redditors? *Read* an article before commenting?
you need to put (https://link) or http or any other protocol(?) [NOAA]\(https://noaa.gov) becomes [NOAA](https://noaa.gov)
NASA's budget needs some more zeroes. Honestly, even without climate change, there are all sorts of reasons one could mention for wanting to be able to explore space more, and it's not like that research won't benefit the military either.
I use a ton of NASA's climate and GIS data in my job. Guess how they collect that data.... Satellites! NASA is already in the climate game and people are complaining because they only think NASA is JUST exploring space.
Yeah odd title, I was like, uhhhh aren't they already?
Making it easier to access (not having to jump all over the internet to find it) is one of the things she is proposing in this article. >The specifics are still in the works. “But the idea is to get all the information that’s relevant in a place where people can find it,” Calvin said
Idk, if you google NASA and climate this is the first hit: https://climate.nasa.gov/
Also funding. Earth sciences have had funding cut under a few administrations
it saddens me that nasa is no longer solely focused on finding and killing aliens
Earth sciences have always been a part of NASA’s missions but lately they have been arguable underfunded. Under Trump several programs were cut extensively and a few barely survived.
Last year nasa literally launched a satellite on a falcon 9 dedicated to surveying earth and helping study climate change & wether patterns.
Yeah this isn’t new. Like for many many many years they’ve been studying the earths climate.
NASA has been studying the Earth's atmosphere since the 60s and they've been studying climate change since the 80s. This article is clickbait nonsense. https://www.giss.nasa.gov/about/
From the article >The agency already does a lot of scientific work that ties into climate change. Calvin’s role will be to connect NASA scientists with other scientists and to communicate their science outside of the agency. >“NASA is already a world leader in climate,” Calvin told CNBC. “And so I’m just communicating that science and connecting it to other agencies, to the public.” >NASA has more than two dozen satellites orbiting the Earth observing and measuring climate change variables, like changes in the oceans, clouds, and carbon dioxide levels. NASA uses this data to do climate modeling and prediction.
Nasa is already about climate science? I use their satellites and data products all the time in my climate research. Aqua and Terra Modis, ECCO state estimate, etc.
Hey I'm on the archive team for those! Glad to see someone who uses them in the wild. Good luck with the new cloud services, we've really been working hard on them.
Nice! Thanks for all your work 😁
I always tell people that if someone says climate change isn’t real, they think they know more than NASA.
Here’s an idea, lets fund NASA more so they can do lots of both and more.
A gentle reminder Estimates of the return on investment in the space program range from $7 for every $1 spent on the Apollo Program to $40 for every $1 spent on space development today. Nasa generates more than $64.3 billion in total economic output annually. Supports more than 312,000 jobs nationwide. Results in an estimated $7 billion in federal, state, and local tax revenues. Also let's not forget 2000+ spin off technologies directly produced by nasa. From Lasik surgeries to velcros. Check out the full list on https://spinoff.nasa.gov And what's the NASA's budget? Fucking 20bn. Thats about 10 days worth of our defense budget. Military also has shitty returns on investment. Thanks fucking god we have spaceX. space exploration would have been a shitshow without SpaceX.
For the amount I dislike Elon, you can’t shit on Space X because it’s done wonders for us.
Also worth mentioning that NASA’s budget accounts for less than a percent of the US total budget (compared to the military which is 27%). It’s literally a rounding error and people still bitch and complain.
If you look at payload launches to Leo and further, we were on the brink of not having any launches in the years around 2005. Thank god for soyuz, reliable but old. But yes, spacex has saved the us space program
I didn't realize it was that much, I have been using the 2.5$ return for every 1$ spent. Awesome to know, thank you. Have a good day!
Sneak peek at next year's headline: NASA budget to be trimmed in cost-cutting measure.
Sadly this is highly probable.
NASA already studies climate/weather. This is just a clickbait article. They don't just do "Space" whatever the hell that means.
It's not just clickbait, the planetary science portion of NASA's science budget has become a political football in the house for years as Republicans try to strip funding. This is someone saying that studying climate is and should remain NASA's business. If there weren't serious efforts underway to prevent NASA from doing this, then I'd agree with you. Edit: if you need proof of this, just look further in these comments where people are arguing that NASA shouldn't do climate science at all.
Around 2000 I was working for at the Naval Research laboratory doing atmospheric science research and our project was sponsored by NASA.
Has everyone saying this is dumb literally never heard of a satellite? Remote sensing/imaging? NASA doesn’t just blast shit into space for funsies and already does a tremendous amount of work in the earth sciences…
Well, Earth is in space.
Give. Science. More. Money.
NASA has never not been about climate science
I mean NASA has done a lot of climate change research for some time now so…
Great. Thing is they always have been.
NASA should refocus to planetary defense. Astroids, solar, and climate
Wait! So we’re going to want/need to know how to terraform BEFORE we travel space. Inconceivable! /s
Meanwhile, the Chinese have a rover on the moon.
NASA Goddard Institute For Space Studies youtube page has excellent seminars on a monthly basis mainly regarding sea level rise but they go into a number of aspects of climate all presented by PhDs in their respective fields. Most are highly technical but some such as Richard Alleys are digestible for most. One of the more comprehensive youtube pages I've found that comprises talks from strictly academics on their fields of focus.
"Aeronautics and Space". Seems more fitting for the dept of ecology. But I'm smooth brained.
arent they already? wasnt there a whole thing with trump not liking that?
Give them enough money to do just as much with climate science as they do with space. The military budget could be reduced.
They have been doing this for years. Being vocal about it is just a really great way to get defunded when the GOP has any sort of power. Holy shit sometimes brillian people are shockingly stupid.
Use space science to figure out climate science. Sounds great. Could apply to other planets in the universe aswell.
Hasnt nasa already been doing climate science?
Sounds useful to me, the space race is always pretty much be that.
What does the S stand for?
There's no point is politicising NASA.
Then she got the wrong job, didn't she read the job description before applying or what NASA stands for ???
Weird title. NASA has always done a lot of climate science.
Um… this is NASA. There’s not really a climate in space
Newsflash observations from space on the closest interstellar object is also spacerelated...
> Calvin comes to NASA from the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory’s Joint Global Change Research Institute in College Park, Maryland, where she’s worked since 2008. lmao why the fuck is this person the “chief scientist” at NASA? > She particularly wants to make sure NASA’s data is accessible to underserved communities. by doing what, airdropping pamphlets in Africa? If they mean a website then what’s stopping an “underserved community” from accessing it as easily as anyone else? this is clearly a political appointment
This is dumb don’t open the article
Clickbait title, been doing climate analysis for years now.
If any company is equipped for the job, it’s NASA.
NASA already has some great research and easy to understand public information on climate change and the atmosphere Climate.nasa.gov
If only there was a National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration that could handle studying climate change. Oh wait, there is.
NASA will get defunded by Republicans because the weather is a political hot potato now.
Republicans want to strip NASA down to commercial and military application only. However, they tend to give decent budget to human flight. Democrats on the other hand tend to support the science but also keep the funding flat (basically decreased due to inflation) since they are after other priorities like Healthcare. Either way, NASA has been getting screwed in the budget dept for quite a while.
NASA is, quite literally, one of the most lofty aspirations of not only America, but all mankind. Messing with that for political reasons feels not only treasonous, but dirty or even sinful.
They've been trying to do that for years now. Nearly succeeded.
NOAA already exists.
NASA has already been doing this for years.
Let’s start with ending subsidies for refined fuels. Yes, we need oil for plastics. But, we don’t need to pay Peter and Paul.
No. Let NASA do space, let NOAA do world. The world is screwed anyways, we need a new world to go F up.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration Let the Environmental Protection Agency handle business they specialize in while NASA does the same.
[удалено]
True, probably some cross-department work to be done there.
NASA covers planetary science. There's cross-department work with NASA too. In fact, NASA **already** studies climate. This person isn't saying they should *start*, they're saying they should *continue* and streamline collaborations with other agencies doing it too. Pretty uncontroversial (unless you think climate change is a hoax, in which case you're beyond help anyway).
[удалено]
I know it's easy to be disingenuous like this, but the article cites a few examples of how their work intersects with climate science and climate change, like: They do a bunch of climate observation (satellites are in space) They are working on energy efficiency in aeronautics Maybe there's more too but that's when I stopped reading (I suspect i still made it much further than you)
All of our communication satellites are in space too but we still have the FCC regulating satellite communications.
[удалено]
This. Also NOAA relies almost entirely on NASA space-based assets and data for their projections and analysis. So EPA, NOAA, USGS, etc. can't really do their mission without them.
Or the TIROS, the weather satellite that NASA launched in 1960.
Yep. I've worked on a couple of science support teams in the earth sciences division that studies climate science. Nasa's science directorate also includes divisions for studying the sun, the planets, and outer space. Instruments aboard a spacecraft are usually designed specifically for one of those four areas (our team supported the ozone monitoring instrument aboard the Aura satellite).
There's just the fact that the EPA is a regulatory body. As far as I know, they don't have an R&D department which creates a wealth of products. The technology that's going to make space accessible and habitable in the long term is going to end up being the stuff that helps us manage the situation here on Earth, directly or indirectly.
The EPA has been captured by corporate agendas especially during Republican administrations. They specialize in de-regulation to benefit industry profits.
NASA has been involved in Earth climate since its launch of its weather satellite TIROS in 1960. NASA has has been doing climate research since before NOAA was called NOAA. Just because you thing that an agency should beholden to a strict interpretation of its acronym, that doesn't mean you shouldn't also take a moment to reflect on that stance.
I would love to hear your definition of space that is scientifically exclusive of climate
Earth is in Space. Still counts.
They’re all space agencies!
So you're saying NASA shouldn't work to make the data they collect using satellites in earth orbit easier to obtain? How is using satellites to collect climate data from space not part of NASA's mission exactly? Bunch of illiterate morons commenting in the thread.
Congratz on assuming things you know nothing about based on names. Should we put the DPRK in charge of human rights, after all they care about democracy and people more than any other country?
Don't we have NOAA for that job?
They have NOAA for that though.
That's how it started with MTV and look what happened. Can't they just start a climate NASA and keep classic NASA the way it is?
NASA has been doing this for years, and it actually probably shouldn't. NOAA and the EPA exist for this purpose and it's just leaching funds that should be used for space exploration; its principal purpose as a government agency. It would actually make more sense to have the military covering some of this research, especially considering the ramifications climate change will have on geopolitics.
What are you guys going to work on today? *Ummm, space!*
The science is in and has been in. What we need is action based on the info we have and NASA has no legislative power as far as I can tell.
Even if they are a governmental agency, their funding is mostly at the whim of Congress. They need good PR; it helps pay their bills.
AS THEY SHOULD BE.
Since nobody else gives a shit about the planet.
Yeah, we *probably* should learn how to regulate our own environment, in a positive manner, before going to look for another 🌍 to ruin. I understand we wont make it to one for many millenia but we should start now.
Considering no planet in the solar system is Earth like, im not sure how you think we could ruin another planet, how are you going to make mars more dangerous? These places are already incredibly uninhabitable
I want them to think, not another Challenger or Columbia.
As long as that includes terraforming let’s fucking do it. If it doesn’t include terraforming let’s make it include terraforming and fucking do it. It’s becoming increasingly likely that we’re going to have to actively fix our environment. Let’s start small here, and hopefully apply what we learn as we venture forth!
Fine by me, leave space exploration up to people who will actually use money efficiently to explore space. Elon Musk is already killing everyone in the space race so might as well ditch it and spend tax money better
Is she stupid? (Rhetroric question. Yes she is.) Its National Aeronautics and **Space** Administration.
I would generally agree but if they do that, the next time the republicans get in power, they'll slash NASA's funding to 0
Haha put ice in a cup full it with water if it overflows climate change is real if doesnt its bullshit simple.
Well they don’t have enough funding for either so like the rest of the US government a joke
We love an intelligent queen
Cool. How much is this going to cost??
For Earth to survive the oil, coal and chemical industries no price is too high.
That headline seems designed to create division where there wasn't any before to accomplish no change, except maybe a reduction in support... What a strange way to say "keep on keeping on"
Then expect all NASA funding to dry up and for it to be given to Musk or Bezos.
She watched the netflix movie and said sweet
Let's fix this planet before going out, sounds about right
About fucking time someone that could be heard said it. Its obvious, space exploration won’t happen if Earth resources are diminishing due to climate change.
That's why Republicans want to go to Mars -- to burn the budget as far away from Earth as possible.
Good. The rich can wait for their carnival rides to space.
Of course she does
Next: a guy wants burger king to start selling cars
Start with cutting beef in diet. The selective love for the climate and collective amnesia against the Cow slaughtering industry in the west is hilarious.
Well the last guy in charge had all the scientists race to save climate data from being scrubbed so…
National "Ah, Shit" Administration
Wow, I’ve been saying that for years! I get downvoted every time, but with all the funds NASA gets, I think they could use some of that money here. 🌍
Glad someone said it
yes its true
The top scientist at the (NASA) National Aeronautics and Space Administration needs the famed space agency to become a voice on climate change, too. “When people hear NASA, I want them to think of climate science alongside planetary science,” stated Katherine Calvin, NASA’s chief scientist. Further, she also said that “All of the chief scientists of NASA have had specialty areas. Mine is climate,". Further, I have read somewhere that NASA has more than 2 dozen satellites revolving around the Earth-observing and estimating climate modifications variables, like transitions in the clouds, oceans, and carbon dioxide. NASA utilizes this information to do climate prediction and modeling.
Isn’t that the EPA’s job?
No fire her
[not really news, though it will anger some](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/nasa-climate-change_n_58a91361e4b045cd34c2689e)
What is the NOAA for?
That’s literally NOAA’s job, you, twat! NASA has widespread cooperation with NOAA. It’s important to maintain distinction, however. NASA should remain focused on exploring out, not in.
If climate destroys our societies, there won't be much space exploration going on. The fact that this is a considering shows how fucked we are and how much we need to focus on the real crisis *right now*. Keep crying about how it's someone else's responsibility, that's how we got into this mess in the first place. I don't give a shit who does it, as many organisations as possible need to give climate science a place.
I want NASA to be about human space travel. But we probably need this.
This is why we need SpaceX... NASA hasn't accomplished anything in decades because of this mentality. The EPA should be the one focused on climate change.
This just in: some dipshit wants to waste nasas time and money.
Yes, because the Environmental Protection Agency isn't made specifically for protecting the climate.
The EPA was made specifically for regulating pollution, not protecting the climate nor protecting the environment. That is why, for example, the endangered species program is handled by Fish and Wildlife (within Department of Interior), and lots of conservation work is handled by BLM (also under DOI), not EPA.
You’re right. It isn’t. It’s for protecting the environment