As a leading agency observing and understanding environmental changes to Earth, NASA has joined the National Climate Task Force. President Joe Biden issued an executive order Jan. 27, which initially outlined details of the task force.
The administration’s climate agenda outlines putting climate at the center of the country’s foreign policy and national security and encourages a governmentwide approach to climate change.
From the launch of the first weather satellite in 1960, the Television and Infrared Observation Satellite (TIROS-1), NASA has used the vantage of space to study Earth. It remains the only space agency in the world providing end-to-end research on the Blue Planet to analyze and understand the processes involved.
“Climate change is one of the most pressing issues facing us today,” said Gavin Schmidt, acting NASA senior climate advisor and director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York. “Given our unique ability to observe the planet from space and the long-term data records we’ve been able to assemble, NASA is in a prime position to inform policy decisions in the current administration and beyond.”
Working together with our government partners, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the United States Geological Survey, NASA is responsible for building the country’s Earth-observing assets in civil space. More than two dozen NASA satellites measure the height of oceans and inland waters, clouds and precipitation, soil moisture, carbon dioxide, and more. The data collected helps to improve weather forecasts, inform farming practices, and helps decisionmakers at all levels of government and the private sector.
Beyond Earth-observing satellites, NASA is developing predictive modeling technologies to examine policy-specific scenarios and conducting research that contributes to governmentwide sustainability efforts and understanding of climate change. To reduce the environmental impacts of aviation, NASA is conducting research for energy efficient aircraft that employ technologies such as lightweight structures, transformative aerodynamics, and hybrid-electric propulsion.
Through its long-term observations of Earth, providing insight into how the planet is changing, efforts to contribute to sustainable aviation and nurturing partnerships with the private sector, NASA already is poised to help the task force address the most pressing climate change issues today.
For more information about NASA, its missions, and agency programs, visit:
-end-
Is this the same NASA that promotes the 97% meme, except where it is 100%?
Same NASA that’s been building a single new rocket for the last decade or so. Not what they used to be for sure.
Why do we still pay for NASA?
Luke, look up “virtue signaling”.
“…putting climate at the center of the country’s foreign policy and national security…”
Here. Wear these clothes. They’re a little sheer, kind of see-through, but when everybody puts them on, we can celebrate our diverse-ness all together. Sing it: “One world, one love. Let’s get together and feeeel alright…”
When they grow up they’ll put China at the center of the country’s foreign policy and national security.
Beware The “Watermelons”
https://mises.org/library/watermelon-summit
An environmentalist is a totalitarian socialist whose real objective is to revive socialism and economic central planning under the subterfuge of “saving the planet” from capitalism. He is “green” on the outside, but red on the inside, and is hence appropriately labeled a “watermelon.”
“Watermelons” are as numerous as flies on a herd of cattle and will never give up on their pipe dream of a centrally planned socialist world economy…
climate science has nothing to do with socialism.
socialists by and large don’t care about climate.
this is an issue where science based evidence counts, not deeply ingrained political prejudice.
Socialism has everything to do with climate science, as many of the leaders of the CAGW movement have declared over and over again.
People in general don’t care about climate science, because people aren’t doing anything that has noticeable impact on the climate.
There is not, and never has been any science behind the cult of global warming.
I’m embarrased to admit I agree with griff for a change, at least on point 1 above. True climate science should have nothing to do with socialism or any other politics.
The real issue is that climate scientists/activists have co-opted environmental issues to promote political agendas. If you don’t see that, you haven’t been paying attention.
On griff’s point 2, socialists don’t care about climate, but that does not prevent them from using it to bludgeon everybody that opposes their agenda.
As for griff’s point 3, rarely do I see comments from griff or any other “climate activist” that isn’t completely blind to the fact that they cannot understand the science because of their deeply ingrained prejudice.
I kinda agree.
If the scientific research into influences on the behaviors of (climates) was conducted as an interesting area of academic research, that would be fine.
It’s just that activist “climate scientists” have jumped the shark and started proposing taxpayer-funded government policy positions to “fix” purported “emergencies” via totally implausible “solutions” (read: grid scale wind and solar power generation and dispatch).
It reminds me of how the rioters and looters always jump on the bandwagon of “social justice” protests.
(Lots of ” ” in this comment. Apologies to anyone triggered by ” “)
totalitarian socialist is redundant.
You need massive government to force people to live by socialist ideal. The closer socialism gets to communism, the more massive the government has to get.
A famous Russian (?) person once said “Socialism and Communism are the same thing with different names”.
This article implies NASA uses advanced satellites to determine impacts of climate change.
BUT
Gavin users thermometers and buckets
And
Roy uses satellites
and tree thermometers – comparable to reading the bay leaves or Tarot cards or entrails of a chicken and just as accurate
Well, almost as accurate.
You didnt think NASA was about rocket Science did you
Once NASA landed a man on the moon, they had to search around for something else in order to protect their phony baloney jobs.
The executive order is from 27 January and requires many agencies to prepare reports in either 60 or 90 days.
These reports will provide a real opportunity to ridicule the administration.
An opportunity, yeah. I’m not seeing a whole low of public servants sticking their necks out on that one.
Where are all those astronauts and scientists who debunked the catistrophic global warming and climate change emergency, the ones that retired from NASA???
I wish they would speak out now!
Their terms of retirement probably PROHIBIT that!
Oh goody! NASA is ready and raring to go. We will solve this CO2 conundrum soon.Just as soon as we can fund more satellites. Open Biden!
But wait. What happened to the results of the NASA data from the OCO-2 and OCO-3 satellites? OCO-2’s mission is over and OCO-3’s mission expires in May next year. We were told both satellites could measure the entire Earths atmospheric CO2 concentrations to 1 ppm. Are they going to measure it yet again? Are they going to measure it to .5 ppm?
Maybe the results required another “hide the decline” exercise?
Presumably they want NASA under their thumb so that if NASA comes up with anything that goes against the narrative they can squash it PDQ.
NASA to immediately cease using rocket fuel. Wait . . .
speaking of rocket fuel
https://www.foxnews.com/science/see-it-nasa-successfully-tests-worlds-most-powerful-rocket
MarkW,
The article that you linked touts a dubious claim: “NASA successfully tests world’s most powerful rocket”. The article mixes the issues of total stage thrust (a measure of total stage power) and thrust from a single R-25 rocket engine (which was developed for and used previously on the Space Shuttle).
For comparison:
Single R-25 engine maximum thrust (sea-level) = 418,000 lbf
Artemis/SLS total first stage “core” thrust level (sea-level) = 4 x 418,000 lbf =1.67 million lbf, but note that this will be supplemented by two solid rocket boosters adding an additional 8.8 million pounds which would in fact have a Moon-bound Artemis rocket produce the highest total lift-off thrust level ever achieved . . . but this an apples-to-oranges accounting.
Apollo-era F-1 engine maximum thrust (sea-level) =1.52 million lbf
Saturn V total first stage thrust level (sea-level) = 5 x 1.52 million lbf = 7.6 million lbf
Current SpaceX Merlin 1D engine maximum thrust (sea-level) =190,000 lbf
Falcon Heavy first stage thrust level (sea-level) = 27 x 190,000 million lbf = 5.1 milllion lbf
So, NASA’s claim is certainly not true from a historic perspective at either the engine or first stage level, as well as being not true in comparison to the Falcon Heavy in the context of “rocket” referring to first stage total thrust from liquid-fueled rocket engines.
But then again, a lot of things were sacrificed as NASA reinvented itself following the Apollo program . . . apparently among them technical “purity”.
Making aluminium sure helps but it needs lots of reliable treclicity-
Portland Aluminium smelter thrown $150m government lifeline to secure its future (msn.com)
More money in subsidy mining and it’s what the watermelons have reduced us to. Either that or shipping their brainfarts off to China.
Aircraft makers have spent most of the last 120 years or so searching for ways to make lighter aircraft.
Why is it that progressives routinely believe that unless government takes the lead, nothing will happen?
Because progressives have to progress to all government all the time. What did you think they wanted to progress to?
The central tenet of progressivism is that society should be ruled by the educated elite. They think this ensures that government decisions will be guided by ‘science’. Therefore, to oppose government is to oppose progress and science. This of course, ignores the huge engine of non-government society that truly drives civilization. Progressivism is regressive.
More models
How quaint
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”. – H L Mencken
The sad thing is that H L Mencken said that in the 1950s and nothing has changed.
Actually, you can find statements like that all the way back to ancient Greece. Nothing ever changes in politics, it seems.
“In politics, an absurdity is not a handicap” – Napoleon Buonaparte. Not a handicap to the politician, perhaps, but the absurdity of “climate change” is certainly a handicap to the population.
As if US Foreign Policy wasn’t already a humongous train wreck..
e.g. 1) Vladimir Putin says ‘it takes one to know one’ after Joe Biden calls him a ‘killer’
e.g. 2) US and China trade angry words at high-level Alaska talks
e.g. 3) US bombers deployed to Arctic
Then they call in NASA.
A (The Global) Centre of Excellence for Junk Science
(How does it go “They can’t fix funny” “That’s what I call stupid” or something like that)
an’ here was me thinking you were all just being a bit ‘wicked’ about Joe
How wrong could I be?
He REALLY IS demented ain’t he.
He actually is: Perfectly Plot-less
Joe is a loose deck chair.
Former Defense Secretary Gates, who served with Biden, said Biden has been wrong on every foreign policy position for the last 40 years.
Biden is a trainwreck. He’s turning the U.S. into a trainwreck with his delusional thinking.
“Climate change”. It’s not rocket science.
Actually, it isn’t science at all. Funny how they can “see” climate change from space. Yes, and Greta “sees” CO2. Oh the absurdity.
Every time she speaks.
Saint Greta recently did a zoom with the Dali Lama and 2 climate “scientists” to get his blessing for their new religion
These “educated engineers” at NASA seem never to have leant simple idioms at school like “Cobbler, stick to your last.” They should stick to aeronautical and electronic engineering and not imagine they can engineer the climate of the world. This is way, way beyond their abilities.
“Climate change is one of the most pressing issues facing us today,”
Sure, Gavin. You were quite convincing when you squared off with Roy Spencer.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/19/nasas-dr-gavin-schmidt-goes-into-hiding-from-seven-very-inconvenient-questions/
Real scientists don’t hide from debate. They debate as a means to educate and persuade.
Climate scientists don’t debate because they know they can’t defend their nonsense.
Just what we need. More input from schmidt-for-brains.
““Climate change is one of the most pressing issues facing us today,” said Gavin Schmidt”
I’m not at all impressed with his web site: http://www.realclimate.org/ dedicated to the defense of their new religion.
Any site that has to ban opposing voices is demonstrating that even they know their positions are indefensible.
That site won’t ban you but they’ll make you feel unwanted. :-}
Schmidt is a schmuck.
That site allows comments but it gets very, very few. I presume open dialouge is verboten with climate “scientists”.
NASA could do some real science.
1) They measured the enhanced greening of the planet. Now use that data to compute how much energy is being utilized to support this ongoing increase.
2) They have the data on increases in downwelling IR from increases in CO2. It would be fairly straightforward to compute the increase in convection and clouds as a result of that IR. Now compute the energy lost as a result.
Now compare the energy spent on 1) and 2) to the claimed energy increase from CO2. It must decrease that energy if not exceed it. This would be the basis for all future climate models.
Oh, right. That would end the climate crisis so they’ll continue to ignore it.
This should be interesting coming from “scientists” that couldn’t figure out how to make a $20 O-ring seal on a $450,000,000 budget.
To be fair, it was the engineers who warned that it would fail and the project managers deliberately chose to ignor those warnings. (“managers” being the functional description since there was no real leadership displayed in that case)
Sustainable aviation is dependent on drill, baby drill. Frack on!
There is no substitute for high energy density of kerosene fuel. And the only affordable source of that is from petroleum. Even the libtards like John Kerry must know that.
Most of the leading liberals are rich enough that if flying became 10 times as expensive it wouldn’t bother them.
However the fact that most people couldn’t afford to vacation in exotic resorts would be a plus for them. They get to enjoy exotic sites without having to worry about the huddled masses blocking the view.
Adding NASA to the council is good optics for the watermelons. Adds gravitas but won’t produce much unless their budget is increased. And that is the real play.
Launching satellites, developing aircraft and researching hybrid electric propulsion are all in the hands of more efficient private industry. They need something to do to stay relevant.
Not research but to find justification for a predetermined claim. Papers are demanded in response to an executive order. Only results in line with the executive order will be accepted.
Shades of Galileo who was right but accepted only when wrong.
They are in a hurry to destroy the country.
Our grand parents lived through the Great Depression, we will get to enjoy the great Biden Depression. Appropriately enough, both will have been caused by government ineptitude.
Kudos for observing and reporting but once the data adjustment and modelling starts NASA, NOAA and GISS became part of the propaganda machine trying to disassemble modern society’s energy underpinnings based on a failed theory. They start with science and then move quickly to sucking off the public teat while stabbing the taxpayer in the back.
Good luck trying to measure a 2 mm change in sea level from 200 km above the earth, where the sea level change is one hundred-millionth of the orbital height, and a small fraction of wave heights and tidal fluctuations.
NASA should stick to useful things like showing us where hurricanes form and which way they are moving, and if they are a threat to people along the coast.
“NASA should stick to useful things like showing us where hurricanes form and which way they are moving, and if they are a threat to people along the coast.”
Actually that’s NOAA’s job (specifically the National Hurricane Center) NASA just launches the weather satellites. Once they’re aloft NOAA takes control of them. From then on, their use in weather monitoring and forecasting are the work of NOAA. NASA don’t do sh*t. 😉
NASA has overstepped the bounds of its initial charter as defined in public law 85-568.
It specifically says the purpose of the Space Act is to “Provide for research into problems of flight within and outside the earth’s atmosphere, and for other purposes.”
To wit:
This act also provided for the formation of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, to administer and coordinate the above stated purposes.
Its clear that NASA was and is chartered to build and launch aircraft and spacecraft, and to conduct research on aerodynamics, propulsion, and life-support systems. No where does the Space Act authorize the study of Earth or its climate. The processing and research on the data received from aircraft and Earth-orbiting satellites should be the purview of other agencies such as US Geological Survey, Department of Agriculture, Environmental Protection Agency, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-72/pdf/STATUTE-72-Pg426-2.pdf
By definition of the climate scientologists, Gavin Schmidt being a mathematician is not a climatey sciency guy and therefore nothing he says has any standing in climate Scientology.
By their words
From the above article attributed to NASA: NASA “. . . remains the only space agency in the world providing end-to-end research on the Blue Planet to analyze and understand the processes involved.”
At top level, that’s a pretty self-serving statement.
I just observe that, as long as NASA relies on GIGO supercomputer-based global climate models to “analyze” climate, they will never achieve an understanding of such.