President Trump Cancels Paris Agreement Carbon Monitoring Project

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Climate advocates are devastated that President Trump has pulled the budget of a project aimed at monitoring international compliance with Paris Agreement Pledges.

The Trump Administration Just Jeopardized The World’s Ability to Measure Carbon Emissions

You know, the stuff that’s causing climate change.

CARLY CASSELLA, SCIENCE AS FACT
10 MAY 2018
Apparently, withdrawing from the Paris climate accord wasn’t enough. Now, the Trump administration wants to restrict the world’s ability to measure carbon emissions.

According to a new report from the journal Science, the Trump administration has quietly killed NASA’s Carbon Monitoring System (CMS) – a $10 million-a-year research project, which monitors the flow of Earth’s carbon.

The move jeopardizes plans to verify the national emission cuts agreed to in the Paris climate accords, argues Kelly Sims Gallagher, director of Tufts University’s Center for International Environment and Resource Policy.

“If you cannot measure emissions reductions, you cannot be confident that countries are adhering to the agreement,” Gallagher told Science.

This doesn’t mean that all carbon monitoring and measuring is gone. It just means that leadership in this area will most likely be passed on to Europe, which has one carbon-monitoring satellite of its own, and more on the way.

“We really shoot ourselves in the foot if we let other people develop the technology,” said Duffy.

Read more: https://www.sciencealert.com/the-trump-administration-just-quietly-got-rid-of-nasa-s-carbon-monitoring-system

I don’t see why USA dropping funding for a programme which duplicates European efforts will reduce the world’s carbon monitoring capability, or cause any harm to US interests. The $10 million per year saving might only be a drop in the government budget, but one drop at a time eventually adds up to serious savings.

Advertisements

109 thoughts on “President Trump Cancels Paris Agreement Carbon Monitoring Project

    • Now, the Trump administration wants to restrict the world’s ability to measure carbon emissions.”

      The world can measure anything it wants, more power to them. Just don’t ask us to foot the bill.

    • GOOD START !!!
      NOW……………..STOP FINANCING THE CORRUPT UNITED NATIONS ORGANISATION TOO !!!

      • Just be done with it and pull out of the UN. It’s proven itself to be worse than useless.

    • Now that’s an effective real world idea. It’s the money for Universities from the IPCC that drove the climate deceit of the academic CO2 lynch mob, so corrupt pols could justify taxing fossil fuels and create another trough of legalised taxes and ROcs with with poltical kick backs for politicians and lobbyists to wallow in. Money drives the BS (bad science) that enables the actual technical fraud on the facts of renewable subsidies. Take the money away from those two and the whole scam runs out of the fuel that motivates it most. Malfeasance. Why doesn’t somebody sue the US government for malfeasance re renewable subsidy laws, which make the supposed problems expensively worse in easy to prove science fact?

      • Bizarre bequeaths bizarre, apparently. The UN has or is in the process of morphing on the world stage into the kind of organization that the UN was originally conceived to prevent the development of on the world stage.

  1. “This doesn’t mean that all carbon monitoring and measuring is gone. It just means that leadership in this area will most likely be passed on to Europe, which has one carbon-monitoring satellite of its own, and more on the way.

    “We really shoot ourselves in the foot if we let other people develop the technology,” said Duffy.”

    OK Duffy- I call bullsh!t!

    The CO2 satellites are up there, and the data is SLOWLY becoming available.

    The interesting thing is the serious problems we are having correlating highly industrialized areas as the sources of high concentrations of atmospheric CO2. Except for parts of China, the data just seems to NOT be supportive, and natural sources of CO2 seem to dominate the equation.

    I haven’t looked at this data lately and would appreciate a credible update from someone who has.

    Best, Allan

    Post script:

    This post is still worth reading:
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/murry-salby-responds-to-critics/#comment-1388482

    • I thought that the IPCC themselves accepted years ago (buried somewhere in the supporting docs) that 95+ % of global CO2 emissions were NOT human caused. So what exactly are the CO2 monitoring satellites measuring?

      • They are measuring concentration, not emission rates. Concentration goes up when emission rates exceed sink rates and goes down when sink rates exceed emission rates, Concentration remains the same when sink rates equal emission rates. The IPPC knows that natural emission rates are about 20 times anthropogenic emission rates, but they falsely assume that changes in natural emission rates are balanced out by sink rates over time, but some how don’t fully balance out anthropogenic emissions leaving half to increase concentration. That is a physical impossibility. The polar ocean sinks have no way of telling the difference between natural and anthropogenic emissions. If the sinks are absorbing 95% of the natural, they will absorb 95% of the anthropogenic that improbably travels that far from their sources.

    • After looking at the NASA carbon monitoring site it seems like it is a complete waste of time and money. How are you going to be able to distinguish natural sources of carbon vs manmade? Especially since nature exchanges 10 times the CO2 with the atmosphere than man puts into it. The whole carbon monitoring project has been a dismal failure. Please note that the EU agency has had to revise CO2 figures put out by China almost every year because the Chinese cheat on telling us about their emissions. Until we can measure every smokestack in the world, any CO2 monitoring project will be a complete waste of money. Trump is right on this one. Now he has to get rid of GISS and fire all the top guys of NOAA and replace them with real scientists who realize that CO2 is not the problem. We need more CO2 NOT less and I see that Dr. Roy Spencer is now agreeing with me.

      • Observation has disproved CO2 as the world’s thermostat and endorsed water as the chief regulator of global temperature, absorbing and emitting heat to move it polward in a system so efficient, it had to be designed intelligently.
        Why do just the upper latitudes see only in winter the warming which boosts the satellite temperature record?
        It’s not just the sun, it’s the ways oceans run, and clouds (in complexity) forming.

      • The co2 monitoring project is useful because it allows defining CO2 concentration on a grid which changes over the year. The models assume energy is captured as a function of CO2 concentration, therefore the “greenhouse effect” can be fine tuned if they have actual data. I suspect this may be a current model flaw.

    • Allan
      The OCO2 satellite images and data were first released in April 2016 as a set of 30 consecutive images.

      Quite revealing. the problem was the NASA images did not fit people’s mental image. Mine is the only report in two years that has utilised these images with a description from my knowledge.

      When you look at them in a time sequence movie you will see what is occurring. Your nine month delay is an atmospheric transport issue. Mauna loa is not a credible reference spot, it’s just been there the longest, that’s why folks use it. The images in the report in the link below are the originals, quite revealing, they have been altered now due to scaling issues.

      I have spent the last twelve months identifying the thermal pressure cycle that records the atmospheric movement cycle southward. How do you measure it, that was the interesting part.
      blozonehole.com.
      Regards

    • Exactly if someone else wants to spend money on monitoring they are welcome it’s just that America have decided to spend their money elsewhere .

    • What exactly are we losing if the US isn’t the country with most advanced carbon detecting sensors in orbit?

  2. That means they won’t be able to monitor the 1600 coal fired power stations being built around the world outside the Western democracies.

    • The satellites are still in orbit; collecting, transmitting and archiving data.

      What is discontinued is the bureaucratic organization dependent upon and feeding on the abundant CO₂ funds.

      From “NASA Carbon Monitoring System

      “Objectives
      • Use the full range of NASA satellite observations, modeling/analysis capabilities, and commercial off-the-shelf technologies to establish the accuracy, quantitative uncertainties, and utility of products for supporting national and international policy, regulatory, and management activities.

      • Prototype the development of carbon Monitoring Reporting and Verification [MRV] systems which can provide transparent data products achieving levels of precision and accuracy required by current carbon trading protocols.

      • Harness unique capabilities of NASA centers and the NASA-funded investigator community, making use of competitive peer review wherever possible.

      • Rapidly initiate generation and distribution of products, both for evaluation and to inform near-term policy development and planning.

      • Engage with, and contribute to, related U.S. and international stakeholders and agencies.”

      Isn’t that a comforting money well spent statement?
      All of those action words describing their objectives, e.g.:
      Use,
      Prototype,
      Harness,
      Rapidly,
      Engage and contribute.

      One of their ‘projects’: (reformatted to assist reading, Certain words are bolded to highlight them)

      “We propose to extend our regional modeling for the Carbon Monitoring System (CMS) to estimate North American CO2 fluxes through mid-2018 in order to take advantage of new datasets with a focus on improving uncertainty quantification.

      CarbonTracker- Lagrange (CT-Lagrange) is a high-resolution regional inverse modeling framework used to quantify CO2 fluxes on regional-to-continental scales that was originally developed to analyze in situ measurements from the North American Carbon Program.

      Under previous CMS-funded efforts we have added footprints (surface influence functions) for NASA remote sensing datasets including ACOS-GOSAT, TCCON, and OCO-2, and we have developed strategies to investigate consistency among in situ and remote sensing datasets and for combining in situ and remote sensing data for flux estimation.
      Footprints (surface influence functions) for over 5 million ground-based, airborne, and satellite measurements have been computed and made freely available to the research community.
      Here we propose to:
      (1) estimate North American fluxes using the first few years of OCO-2 data by extending the CT-Lagrange footprint library,
      (2) investigate errors in estimated fluxes, with particular attention to errors in simulated atmospheric transport by leveraging independent data and modeling activities from the NASA Atmospheric Carbon and Transport – America (ACT-America) and
      (3) conduct a set of continental- scale Observation System Simulation Experiments in preparation for analysis of data from the newly announced Geostationary Carbon Cycle Observatory (GeoCarb) mission.

      Our project will make extensive use of NASA assets, including OCO-2 and TCCON XCO¬2, and solar-induced chlorophyll fluorescence retrievals from OCO-2 and ESA’s GOME-2.

      We will also use and evaluate NASA model products (e.g., MERRA transport fields and CMS flux products), thus strengthening links between CMS and NOAA’s CarbonTracker effort and supporting the development of an integrated Carbon Monitoring System.

      The proposed work will further develop strategies for incorporating diverse CO2 observations into CMS flux products and for quantifying fluxes and their uncertainties at scales relevant for understanding carbon cycle processes and for Monitoring, Reporting and Verification (MRV).”

      Models, data adjustment, manipulation, aggregating disparate sources, presentations and bureaucratic paper shuffling.
      It appears that this organization is a pinnacle point relying upon forms filled by non-government entities and local government sources.
      i.e. A red tape bureaucracy that produces models, reports and embedded bias as their products.

    • “…Let Europe waste their money…”

      Oh, man, and do they:

      1) Europe can’t manage or afford its own national defense
      2) Europe can’t manage or afford its own banks
      3) Europe can’t manage its self-inflicted immigration problem
      4) Europe has great difficulty growing its economy faster than the population growth rate
      5) Europe has great difficulty employing its own citizens
      6) Europe, for the most part, does not allow fracking, forcing it to buy from Russia (or build windmills)
      7) Europe can’t/won’t control diesel auto emissions (its car companies lied about emissions science & compliance)
      8) Europe provides some state retirement pensions to (healthy) 50-year-olds (even earlier to some French railroad workers)
      9) Oh yea, Europe is pissing away billions to drastically increase energy costs

      • Javert,
        Thanks.
        Your #7 –
        “7) Europe can’t/won’t control diesel auto emissions (its car companies lied about emissions science & compliance)”
        reminds me why in this household, we call a well-known German Peoples’ Car Company the Chief Chimp-Choking Cheats.
        And now BMWs seem to stop for no reason on the road – per Jeremy Vine on BBC 2 radio today – and that’s the Rolls Royce owners.

        And I can’t – or chose not to – afford Mercedes.

        Guess my next car will be a bike! I live halfway up a hill climbing to perhaps the highest public park in London.
        And that’s my non-public transport mobility gone.
        [Yes. Other cars are available . . . .]

        Auto

  3. If these are truly ‘carbon monitoring satellites’ they should be used to locate new gas, oil, and coal deposits. If they can’t do that, they’re just not worth it. /s Yes, I know. They detect CO2, not ‘carbon’ as they are advertised to do. But what’s the point of monitoring plant food?

    Hmmmm… They may have some value after all, if they can confirm the positive benefits of increased CO2 enhancing plant growth worldwide. The United States of America providing free plant food for a hungry world should be a real marketing positive at the United Nations! /tic (Not really /s sarcasm, more /tic ‘tongue in cheek’!)

  4. Seattle spent $54 million on its homeless crisis in 2017.
    Given my small town roots, Seattle is a big big city, but, in fact, it is not.
    They want to spend a lot more by higher taxes on the companies that have spurred the growth of the local economy. I guess they don’t like those companies. In this context $10M seems like not a lot of money.

    Anyway, I’m in favor of monitoring CO2 and other gases from a scientific point of view. We might learn something.

    Regarding: “Carbon emissions” & “If you cannot measure emissions reductions, you cannot be confident that countries are adhering to the agreement,” . . .

    . . . a farce of the 1st order.

    • Agreement? What Agreement? The Paris Agreement is not binding! The are no consequences for detractors!

    • John F. Hultquist

      If you “might” learn something by monitoring CO2 and other gases, go ahead, pay for it yourself.

      The issue isn’t “you might learn something”, it’s prioritizing the taxpayer-spend for more urgent demands to “learn something” (eg cancer cure). If you want to noodle around measuring CO2, then pay for it yourself. Don’t drag the rest of taxpayers in on your boondoggle.

    • Please please folks it drives me nuts when bloggers use the term “carbon” emissions or levels.
      It’s Carbon Dioxide we are talking about here – not lumps of coal or pencil “lead”
      Let’s not demonize plant food.

      • Europe’s military couldn’t defend against an unruly pack of Cub Scouts (let alone Russia or Iran).

      • Europe’s military could do something, if allowed. But top brass order are always the same: flee, and don’t hurt anyone in the process.
        Same for police.

  5. The first big warning flag:

    CARLY CASSELLA, SCIENCE AS FACT

    Science is a method.
    Science is not a “thing”.
    Science as a method is not something that needs defending.

    The Left wants the naive public to think science is FACTS (a thing) and thus immutable and thus in need of defending.

    This is Orwellian Neo-Marxism at its finest by CARLY CASSELLA.

    Claiming science as fact is the politicization of science exactly as Dr Michael Crichton warned about in his Appendix I to “State of Fear.”

    Dr Crichton wrote:

    “Once again, the measures being urged have little basis in fact or science. Once again, groups with other agendas are hiding behind a movement that appears high-minded. Once again, claims of moral superiority are used to justify extreme actions. Once again, the fact that some people are hurt is shrugged off because an abstract cause is said to be greater than any human consequences. Once again, vague terms like sustainability and generational justice — terms that have no agreed definition — are employed in the service of a new crisis.”
    source: State of Fear by Dr Michael Crichton, Appendix 1

    This nonsense of CO2 emissions monitoring by something that is not a treaty for the US, and thus has zero Congressional authority* for expenditure of taxpayer moneies must stop.

    *Congress is the People’s voice in the Federal government. It is this fact, enshrined in the separation of powers in the US constitution, that the Left hates. They hate the fact that Congress can check both the Executive and the Judiciary. That is, they hates that the People can check their vision of an ever-expanding government power, aka Marxism. It is this reason why Obama and the Democrats have made a strategic goal to neutralize Congress in all of its constitutional duties of overseeing and putting the other two branches in check.

  6. “I don’t see why USA dropping funding for a programme which duplicates European efforts will reduce the world’s carbon monitoring capability, or cause any harm to US interests”

    Well, Eric, I can’t argue with that. The thing is, that’s not what is happening. You apparently read the article, or you would not be able to omit the important parts, like what a few of the 65 projects measure, so you know very well that you are misrepresenting what it says.

    • So, Kristi, tell us what important parts he left out,and what the few projects that measure stuff we need to know are?

      SR

    • Kristi

      So, these magical Europeans, who want to replace the USA as a superpower, can’t figure out how to measure the other 65 things?

      Europe can’t come up with $10M to measure 65 things? That’s only $154,000 per thing.

      Exactly why does all this matter?

  7. “The move jeopardizes plans to verify the national emission cuts agreed to in the Paris climate accords, argues Kelly Sims Gallagher, director of Tufts University’s Center for International Environment and Resource Policy.”

    Someone needs to send Kelly Sims Gallagher the memo that the US is formally withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement effective November 2020. The notification of Intent to Withdraw was already sent in 2017 by President Trump, who controls US foreign policy. President Trump is not bound by any treaty because there is no treaty. The Worst US President Ever (#44) refused to submit his Paris Agreement signature achievement to the US Senate for ratification. So nullification by Trump is straightforward and quite legal. And expending taxpayer money on additional requirements of something your are withdrawing from would be Waste.

    Someone should also send Ms Gallagher a copy of the US constitution as she is obviously lacking an understanding of Separation of Powers between the co-equal branches.

    • Much like the Iran deal. Subvert the Constitutional system in order to get around the people and states having their Senators reject it. Thankfully Trump has a pen too, and knows how to use it and in both instances I doub’t even the most leftist wacko justice can stop him. Endorsement by the UN or any other body but the Senate, a treaty does not make.

  8. This was an excellent decision . NASA climate scientists have no one to blame but themselves .
    They mislead through omission , just like the Comey play book that eventually comes back to bite them in the ass .
    $10 million is nothing but a down payment on the $1 billion the Obama administration robbed tax payers of
    in fraudulent disbursement to the UN Green Climate Fund .
    An Executive Order is insufficient authority to pay out billions that have not been approved by Congress .
    Otherwise President Trump would simply start writing Executive Orders to build a wall .
    Pay the money back Green Climate Fund before you hurt the UN further .

  9. Looking at the NASA website it appears that CMS is doing a lot more than just operating satellites and publishing the data. Rather it is an attempt to spin the data to a politically correct conclusion.

    The CO2 monitoring satellite has been a huge problem for the nature deniers as it shows that CO2 concentrations are not correlated with industrial activity; rather man-made CO2 is lost in the variability of natural emissions.

    Getting NASA back to its correct role of operating satellites and making the data available is a sensible move.

  10. “I don’t see why USA dropping funding for a programme which duplicates European efforts will reduce the world’s carbon monitoring capability, or cause any harm to US interests. The $10 million per year saving might only be a drop in the government budget, but one drop at a time eventually adds up to serious savings.”

    A principled skeptical view of AGW would hold that we have no certainty about

    1. How much warming C02 will cause
    2. Whether or not we can safely cut emissions
    3. Whether or not countries abide by their committments.

    We simply don’t know.

    When we have uncertainty one thing that helps is observations.

    This is just another example of skeptics acting like believers. They Believe that there is no way C02 could
    have bad effects. Consequently they see no need for observation. They trust Europe to do it right, consequently they see no reason for confirmation.

    FFS.

    • You have missed/ignored the duplication part of that paragraph.

      As far as I can tell, CMS is not doing anything that is not being done elsewhere.

      Also CMS is about processing, not observations. OCO-2 is still going to be observing and, hopefully, the raw data will become available, without NASA’s spin.

    • Now that’s rich! Mosh telling skeptics what “a principled skeptical view” should be.

    • Consequently they see no need for observation. They trust Europe to do it right, consequently they see no reason for confirmation.

      How long must we continue to waste valuable resources confirming that we didn’t beat our wife?

    • Nice deflection Mr Mosher.
      Your 3 points are not consistent with the following:
      “The move jeopardizes plans to verify the national emission cuts agreed to in the Paris climate accords, argues Kelly Sims Gallagher, director of Tufts University’s Center for International Environment and Resource Policy. “If you cannot measure emissions reductions, you cannot be confident that countries are adhering to the agreement,” Gallagher told Science.”

      Since the U.S. is no longer a part of nor believes in the Paris accord, there is no reason we should participate in monitoring who is or is not adhering to it. Perhaps Mayor Bloomberg will replace the money with his own.

      • ” Perhaps Mayor Bloomberg will replace the money with his own.”

        There’s an idea! Just think how virtuous Bloomberg could appear to be! And for a measly $10 million. Pocket change when it comes to promoting his virtuous image..

    • Mosher,

      FFS indeed.

      Why don’t you give us your very own principled viewpoint about AGW (or what constitutes an appropriate, meaningful, and cost-effective program of NASA), rather than your projections about what a principled skeptical viewpoint would entail?

      But this time, do make the effort to spell properly.

      CO2, not (C02)
      Commitments, not commitments.

      FFS LOL.

    • “A principled skeptical view of AGW would hold that we have no certainty about

      1. How much warming C02 will cause”

      Oh, I think we do: There has never been a runaway Greenhouse effect on Earth even with atmospheric CO2 concentrations much larger than today and much larger than would occur if humans burned every fossil fuel available, and yet there has been no runaway Greehouse, no matter how high the atmospheric CO2 concentrations have been in the past, so I think we can safely say that atmospheric CO2 won’t cause a Runaway Greenhouse in the future, either .

    • A principled skeptical view of AGW is that the null hypothesis holds until proven otherwise. We’ve had more than 30 years and Trillion$ of dollars wasted with no verifiable results showing otherwise.

      That’s enough! It’s past time to stop funding this crap.

    • While it is true that we don’t know down to a thousandth of a degree how much warming CO2 will cause.
      On the other hand we can look to the past and see that CO2 levels more than 10 times higher than the worst case scenario didn’t cause any problems.

      From that it’s easy to conclude that more CO2 in the atmosphere is incapable of causing any problems.

    • Why should we spend money to monitor compliance to an agreement that we are not a part of?

    • That rationale is why BEST exists. It too is a redundant effort that should be axed.

      But then after a while you begin realize so much of what the US government pays for (for tax money) is effectively just a jobs program. A self-licking ice cream cone that exists for its own benefit.

  11. Trump is inadvertently right to believe that the Paris Treaty is not a solution. Brutal geoengineering is needed immediately and introducing new technologies such as fusion or LENR.

  12. I’m wondering why it took so long ?
    Why on earth should the US shoulder the costs of something they’ve rejected ?
    The US hasn’t jeopardized the world’s ability to measure CO2 – it’s simply declining to pay the bill.

  13. That $10 million could be used to plant a lot of hardwoods, couldn’t it? And clean out invasive species like buckthorn and kudz, and parasites like honeysuckle? Give fingerling trout a chance to grow up a little before they get sent to The Big Waters?

    Just an idea: if it’s true that dread molecule Carbon, a very malleable soul that enjoys the company of many, many other molecules, is even vaguely responsible for a portion of warmth on this little planet of ours, isn’t it a sort of Guardian Against the Ice Again? (GAIA????)

    What? Too early for puns. I like butter and strawberry jam with my morning puns and caffeine.

  14. “Carbon monitoring?” The article author never says “CO2”, just “carbon”, as if they are the same thing. Carbon is soot. CO2 is plant food.

  15. This doesn’t mean that all carbon monitoring and measuring is gone. It just means that leadership in this area will most likely be passed on to Europe

    Go for it, Europe. Monitor & measure away. While you do that, the US will be building stuff that’s actually useful.

  16. It’s all nonsense. There is already a NASA CO2 and Methane observing satellite in orbit, OCO-2. There is also the Japanese GOSAT and, indeed, ESA is launching the whole system, Copernicus, of Earth observing satellites, that will include one observing CO2 and Methane too. NASA, in the meantime, is reorienting its efforts away from the Earth orbit and towards deep space exploration. We have other agencies in the US that look back on Earth, e.g., NOAA.
    It is simply no longer NASA’s job to do this kind stuff. NOAA can, if they want to, contract a launch of their own satellites, of which they have several, with SpaceX.

  17. My daily email from the American Association for the Advancement of Science in America (AAASA)…

    I’m pretty sure that fire would have been noticed without “NASA’s Carbon Monitoring System (CMS), a $10-million-a-year research line”… The photo about as moronic as photos of steam venting from power plant cooling towers accompanied by an idiotic caption about carbon pollution.

    Something this idiotic is always irresistible click bait….

    You can’t manage what you don’t measure. The adage is especially relevant for climate-warming greenhouse gases, which are crucial to manage—and challenging to measure. In recent years, though, satellite and aircraft instruments have begun monitoring carbon dioxide and methane remotely, and NASA’s Carbon Monitoring System (CMS), a $10-million-a-year research line, has helped stitch together observations of sources and sinks into high-resolution models of the planet’s flows of carbon. Now, President Donald Trump’s administration has quietly killed the CMS, Science has learned.

    The move jeopardizes plans to verify the national emission cuts agreed to in the Paris climate accords, says Kelly Sims Gallagher, director of Tufts University’s Center for International Environment and Resource Policy in Medford, Massachusetts. “If you cannot measure emissions reductions, you cannot be confident that countries are adhering to the agreement,” she says. Canceling the CMS “is a grave mistake,” she adds.

    The White House has mounted a broad attack on climate science, repeatedly proposing cuts to NASA’s earth science budget, including the CMS, and cancellations of climate missions such as the Orbiting Carbon Observatory 3 (OCO-3). Although Congress fended off the budget and mission cuts, a spending deal signed in March made no mention of the CMS. That allowed the administration’s move to take effect, says Steve Cole, a NASA spokesperson in Washington, D.C. Cole says existing grants will be allowed to finish up, but no new research will be supported.

    The agency declined to provide a reason for the cancellation beyond “budget constraints and higher priorities within the science budget.” But the CMS is an obvious target for the Trump administration because of its association with climate treaties…

    http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/05/trump-white-house-quietly-cancels-nasa-research-verifying-greenhouse-gas-cuts?utm_campaign=news_daily_2018-05-09&et_rid=237382256&et_cid=2020743

    Note to the pencil-necked geek jack-booted thugs at the AAASA… These tangentially United States are not a party to any climate treaties. Why in the Hell would we spend one dime of taxpayer money on monitoring a treaty to which we aren’t a party?

    The move jeopardizes plans to verify the national emission cuts agreed to in the Paris climate accords, says Kelly Sims Gallagher, director of Tufts University’s Center for International Environment and Resource Policy in Medford, Massachusetts. “If you cannot measure emissions reductions, you cannot be confident that countries are adhering to the agreement,” she says. Canceling the CMS “is a grave mistake,” she adds.

    Note to “Kelly”… Who the frack cares? We aren’t a party to the Paris accord… Largely because the previous occupant of the White House refused to submit it to the Senate for ratification as a treaty. It was an agreement between Obama and whoever else was dumb enough to sign on to it. It was effectively null and void at the moment the greatest president since Ronald Reagan took the oath of office,

    • I just realized the headline is difficult to read in the original image from the email…

      • Actchally, the “agreement” is composed of many “promises” and no measures of merit or actual numbers except the promised ones.

        No enforcement mechanism, ’cause after all, a promise is only a promise.

        So my point is how in the hell are you measuring “compliance” of promises?

        Gums sends…

    • David, what the *holes at AAASA say is ridiculous. How can “greenhouse gas cuts” be verified from a satellite? That’s been done for yrs by fuel-usage stats that are & have been commonly available.

      • How can you tell if the *holes at AAASA are saying something ridiculous?

        Their lips are moving.

        ;-)

    • “Our dependence on fossil fuel has created an environmental crisis and once again science will be called upon to find a solution. North Carolina, I say to you that the individuals who will develop the clean energy source that will help us break our addiction to fossil fuels could be in one of our classrooms, could be here today. So do not let the messages you’ve heard here today fade away. Contact your representatives and tell them to stand up for science. And if they do not listen, come November, vote for science!”

      From March for Science talk by Sigma Xi Executive Officer and CEO. I seriously doubt that he understands thermodynamics or what he is standing up for. This is the longstanding Science Honor Society that recently joined with AAAS for advocacy purposes. I have been a member for some 4 decades and among an uncertain number have complained to no avail.

  18. If it’s that important of an endeavor, someone else will step up. The important thing for the US is to get NASA out of the climate scam business and back to focusing on their efforts to drop billions of dollars on Mars.

  19. Perhaps Trump just loves doing this sort of thing because…

    … popcorn.

    • We need to find out if Trump has invested in popcorn futures.
      Something useful for Mueller to do.

  20. gosh this really should be a total non-issue… I heard on the “news” this morning that “California’s efforts to prevent climate change are working.” In the time I watched they didn’t mention what study or proof there was for it but hey the headline has been released it must be true!!! Hopefully the report or study that they were referring to will be seen her on WUWT soon!

    Cheers!

    Joe

  21. As usual, the world was looking to the USA to provide a big chunk of money to help monitor the “success” of the Paris Accord. I see absolutely NO further offending action in the decision to stop funding a program designed to help monitor the program that the USA decided to stop funding. It’s just practicing a consistent commitment to getting out of that scam altogether.

    If tax dollars were going towards creating a huge advertising budget to promote the Paris accord, then that funding logically should be nixed too. Anything, in fact, associated with money that aids and abets the Paris scam should be nixed, because it exists for reasons of flawed logic.

    Superficial treatment of a disease is just perfunctory play acting. To get at the root of the infection, you have to treat the entire system that might feed it.

    • That’s the number one driver of, (shudder) Global Warming. Then it’s water vapor, around 13 gasses that make up the atmosphere, natural Co2, and coming in at less then a tenth of a percent, (drum roll) human produced Co2. That is, if you actually look at the science but why bother right?

  22. “The Trump Administration Just Jeopardized The World’s Ability to Measure Carbon Emissions
    You know, the stuff that’s causing climate change.”

    They never can get it right. CO2 is more the result of temperature (climate) change then the cause of it….

    • You’re a denier science hater for saying that. I hope we more towards NASA accumulating all the data rather then keeping that they like and throwing out the naughty cooling measurements. That would be less of a waste of our tax dollars.

  23. “You know, the stuff that causes climate change” OK lets explore this statement

    Since 2002 the CO2 level has gone up over 10% yet the global average temperature (with el ninos removed) has stayed almost the same. hmm what was that about evidence and models….

  24. I cant believe you are all still having these discussions and that the concensus is that “its a waist of time”, “its not my problem” any idea how that sounds on the world stage? The science on co2 is now very, very clear, but its still being looked at by population only as a belief system and its backing some very much already well debunked “data” is still bieng circulated as current. We are burning 21.3 giga Tones of co2 into the atmosphere every year, with new records reached every year. Natural processes only take care of halve that. We are over by apx 10.6 Giga Tons. That doesnt include “Natural releases” (unfortunatly) but the problem there is just how you term the definition. The release of co2 held in the Ice caps, or the depletion of kelp forists could “be termed natural” argued even, but it is still caused by…. ……. If temps rise too much these sorses -will be- released. Scientists are having a tough time on predicting the RATE of this one -not the effect -from a lack of data to model on, but the increase is already well under way,(ice caps hard, kelp easy predictions) anyway.. ATM fosil fuels ARE the biggest release of co2
    This really is a fact!! .. these “natural releases” could surpass our own at some point (thats not actually ok btw) There is a chart of co2 increases into the earths atmosphere that scientists have been closely looking at that help with their climate change models, the data collection thankfully was never abandoned over the years, particularly when sudgested when the correlation of warming was found. even when fundidg was tough/gone. Anti climate scientists havn’t been able to have a halleuluya moment when it comes to this modeling to say it isnt aprominent problem after all. Trouble is they are conceeding, while the model is gettiing stronger with mesurments and facts with time….. but wait, there is a way out of this!.. disrupt the info gathering and go blind. Scientists have stated their concern that America switching off their machiens will make some co2 modeling more difficult in the future. Big buisness argued their case in Australia and the CSIRO got gutted, NASSA may never again be allowed to produce data on climate change? Could the last signatories on emmissions quit due to extra cost, trade agreements? Its all possible. Ill skip all that. But take a look at the modeling results so far, take a look at 2056 and such there is a critical amount to cut down by and it is urgent. Pathways are now, once its gone its gone.Steadilly growing into a grumpy old man, I dont like change much myself, but is a little bit of change so hard? so as to prevent BIG change? There are somethings /processes renuables can never replace, should we use them wisley, or not?? …Why doesnt anyone use the word -wisdom- anymore.

    • “But take a look at the modeling results so far”
      I did. And this is the worst modelling I ever saw. Even crappier than “limit to growth” modelling, and this says much on how (not) trustworthy it is.

      “take a look at 2056 …it is urgent.”
      2056 is 38 years from now. How something in 38 year can be urgent? I swear that, in less than half time, you’ll say, “hell, how could I have been so blind, and worry about climate change, instead of this real issue that was right before my eyes? ”

      “Pathways are now, once its gone its gone. ” So says the snake oil salesman. When someone tells it is NOW or forever gone, the wise man knows he is been conned.

      “Steadilly growing into a grumpy old man, I dont like change much myself, but is a little bit of change so hard? so as to prevent BIG change?”
      Just lead the change yourself, and tell us.

      “There are somethings /processes renuables can never replace, should we use them wisley, or not?? …”
      There is an old tale of wise use of apples. To make the story short:
      A miser stores some apples. Never eats any, save when it is getting rot, with a sigh for the loss. A nephew breaks in, and makes an orgy. The miser is furious. The nephew plays it candid “why, uncle, I just ate the good one, saving the rotten for you”.
      Who was the wiser?

      “Why doesnt anyone use the word -wisdom- anymore.”
      Oh, lots of people do use the word. Always to advocade UNwise things.

  25. “We are burning 21.3 giga Tones of co2 into the atmosphere every year, with new records reached every year. Natural processes only take care of halve that. ”
    Actually Natural process do NOT “only take care of halve that”. Natural process eat up over 10 GT CO2 a year, and rising. It happens to be roughly half of what we humans burn, but it is coincidence, and if we stopped burning, these process would keep going on eating up roughly the same, and pCO2 would drop at ~2ppm/year rate. Would that be good?

    “but wait, there is a way out of this!.. disrupt the info gathering and go blind. ”
    This is funny. Somehow, the 10 million dollar weren’t needed to spend TRILLIONS in a war against coal and fossil fuel, but are now needed? Just explain yourself.

Comments are closed.