Proposal for NASA to Lead CDR Effort
Josh Horton
Can NASA Stop Global Warming?
LOS ANGELES – In 1961, President John F. Kennedy asserted that the United States “should commit itself to achieving the goal…of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to earth,” by the end of the decade. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration accepted the challenge. From 1969 to 1972, NASA’s Apollo program achieved six manned landings on the moon – missions that expanded human knowledge, stimulated economic growth, bolstered America’s geopolitical standing at a critical time, and inspired people worldwide.
Since then, NASA has repeatedly overcome adversity in pursuit of important breakthroughs and achievements, including exploring the solar system with robotic spacecraft, peering deep into the universe with space telescopes, and building the Space Shuttle and International Space Station. These successes far outweigh NASA’s few failures.
But, since the Apollo program, NASA has lacked a clear, overarching goal to guide its activities. To drive progress in crucial areas, the agency needs a compelling vision that is consequential and relevant to current needs – and it is up to US President Barack Obama to define it.
Obama should challenge NASA to address one of today’s most important issues, global warming, by developing safe, cost-effective technologies to remove carbon dioxide from the planet’s atmosphere and oceans. This mission could be accomplished in two phases.During the first phase, which could be completed by 2020, researchers would identify roughly 10-20 candidate geo-engineering technologies and test them in small-scale experiments. The second phase would include large-scale test demonstrations to evaluate the most promising technologies by 2025.
Developing these technologies is crucial, given that, over the last half-century, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased from roughly 320 parts per million to almost 400 parts per million, heating up the planet and increasing the acidity of the world’s oceans. At this rate, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will exceed 450 parts per million in roughly 25 years.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that this increase will raise the average global temperature by roughly 2°C (3.6°F) over pre-industrial levels. It is widely agreed that exceeding this threshold would trigger the most devastating consequences of climate change. In other words, humanity has less than 25 years to stabilize the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Given this time constraint, decarbonization alone will be insufficient to avert irreversible, catastrophic climate change. In 2000-2011, the world decarbonized at an average annual rate of 0.8%. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology estimatesthat, given current trends, the concentration of atmospheric CO2 will exceed 500 parts per million by 2050, and 800 parts per million by 2100. According to a report by the professional services firm PricewaterhouseCoopers, even if the world decarbonizes at an annual rate of 3% until 2050, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will rise to 750 parts per million, triggering an average global temperature increase of 4°C (7.2°F) over pre-industrial levels.
So, while the world should reduce its reliance on fossil fuels in favor of lower-carbon alternatives as quickly as possible, another approach is needed to avoid crossing the two-degree threshold. The best option is to develop technologies capable of removing large quantities of CO2 from the atmosphere and oceans, offsetting emissions during the transition from fossil fuels. NASA is the best organization for this mission for several reasons.
Geo-engineering (large-scale intervention in the Earth’s climate system aimed at moderating global warming) could have severe unintended consequences. Developing such technologies safely and efficiently will require the kind of creativity, technical competence, understanding of planetary processes, international participation, and global monitoring capabilities that NASA is best equipped to provide.
In a sense, global warming itself is a massive geo-engineering experiment with unknown consequences. NASA’s international experience will enable researchers to explore the options fully, and to develop the most effective technologies for reducing this ongoing experiment’s risks. And NASA’s reputation for comprehensive scientific inquiry will minimize suspicion about the effectiveness of the solutions that it develops – and the associated risks.
The natural processes by which CO2 is removed from the atmosphere and oceans work too slowly to offset current emissions without intervention; NASA’s success will rest on its ability to expedite and accelerate these processes. Promising potential solutions include causing CO2-absorbing rocks to weather more quickly, expanding practices and technologies in farming and forestry that sequester carbon in soil, and fertilizing the ocean to stimulate the growth of plants that consume and sequester CO2.
Far from conflicting with other, more traditional NASA programs, this mission would help to reinvigorate NASA and give its other programs greater focus and significance. This new, overarching vision would motivate NASA to gain a better understanding of the planetary processes that may affect Earth’s future, and to advance its capability to influence these processes if needed. Ultimately, this knowledge could be NASA’s greatest contribution to the world.
We do not have to decide today whether to implement geo-engineering technologies to remove CO2 from the atmosphere and oceans. But, in order to ensure that they can be applied if and when they are needed, we must begin to develop them soon. Obama should act now, lest he miss this crucial opportunity to curtail global warming.
Read more at http://www.project-syndicate.org/online-commentary/nasa-geo-engineering-to-prevent-climate-change-by-jim-hartung#Zga3mmzFMx8bcG38.99
Robert Tulip
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Ken Caldeira
To share that knowledge and information with others, and
To conserve and manage coastal and marine ecosystems and resources.
Ken Caldeira
Carnegie Institution for Science
--
John Nissen
To share that knowledge and information with others, and
To conserve and manage coastal and marine ecosystems and resources.
It has failed to predict changes in the Arctic as regards sea ice, temperature and climate, and it has failed to predict the effect of Arctic amplification on polar jet stream behaviour, weather extremes and hence the climate of the Northern Hemisphere. They seem to have lacked understanding of the force and progression of the vicious cycle of warming, retreat of snow and sea ice with a reduction of albedo leading to further warming.
If they do have this understanding, they have failed to share that knowledge with others.
rongre...@comcast.net
1. Apologies in advance for a too-long note. I think that how best to accelerate R&D on CDR is a topic that needs to be continued on this list. It needs to have an international side as well as a US (NASA, NOAA, etc) side. t needs an SRM component as well. But below, I restrict myself mostly to just US agencies and CDR
2. John's tale of NOAA is very sad. But I believe they should still be involved in CDR RD&D activities - the only subject raised by Josh in reporting the paper by Jim Hartung.
Is there agreement that the same agency should not be in charge of both SRM and CDR? I have come to that conclusion - and the following is only on CDR - and only on the comments by Hartung at
http://www.project-syndicate.org/online-commentary/nasa-geo-engineering-to-prevent-climate-change-by-jim-hartung
3. The next question for me is whether is whether one present existing US agency can or should handle the three main CDR approaches listed by Hartung:
a. "... causing CO2-absorbing rocks to weather more quickly,
b. "...expanding practices and technologies in farming and forestry that sequester carbon in soil, and
c. "...fertilizing the ocean to stimulate the growth of plants that consume and sequester CO2.
4. Hartung earlier also talks of 10-20 possibilities - and I have seen lists that get about that long. Notably missing are artificial trees (coupled with CCS) But note that part "b" has at least four major subsets: afforestation/reforestation, reduced tillage and similar Ag practices, BECCS, and biochar. Biochar has potential important interactions with all three others, as well as the weatherization and ocean topics, but that is getting too detailed for this note.
5. For biochar, the only US Federal agency doing much work now is the ARS part of USDA. I read of a small amount of satellite surveillance by NASA that can be helpful.. But I think the US biochar community would be much happier with USDA leading a crash effort than NASA. But we are talking here of something larger than biochar, which I only use as an example.
6. US federal agencies besides NASA and USDA and that have a potential role in biochar accelerated development are (alphabetically)
DoC (international trade, rural economic development)
DoD (military interest especially in biofuels, but also in hostility minimization)
DoE (biochar should always have an energy production side; biomass now viewed mostly as biofuel source; numerous skilled national labs),
DoI (already helping wind and solar placement; large land manager)
EPA (with responsibility on licensing - and possibly on revenue collections)
NCAR (a lead agency on the CO2 problem)
NOAA (since ocean biomass can feed biochar)
USGS (water and fire responsibilities)
(Not intended as an exhaustive list. I am intentionally leaving out NSF, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, Labor, State, Transportation, Treasuryand some others. Maybe too quick a cut on some of these?)
7. So I conclude, for reasons of speed and the complexities of CDR that President Obama shouldn't choose a single existing agency - even NASA. He has to either create a new agency or a task force. I doubt the former is possible any time soon, given the US political stalemate.
8. So I suggest his only near-time choice is a task force, with some newly assigned "Czar". Despite my reluctance to endorse NASA, I think Jim Hansen would bring the right background to this task. Alternatively, maybe John Holdren? There could be at least a thousand existing Federal employees "seconded" volunteers . Not working n the same building(s).
The funding doesn't have to be proportional to where the new staff comes from. But they might need a million or so each (on average) of budgets (mostly from DoD?), but mostly staying, at least at first, within their existing agencies. A billion dollars in year 1, much for outside contracting - largely for in-place CDR research - not paper studies, would be a nice first year goal. The annual funding could largely come from removing existing fossil fuel tax breaks (about $4 billion per year, I see in one place). The funding for each CDR approach should not be equal - but rather be proportionate to present status towards rapid implementation.
This could/should have a much more aggressive time schedule that that proposed by.Mr. Hartung.
Again, sorry I got carried away. I just don't think we should let this CDR-advancement subject drop and am anxious to hear the views of others. I am perfectly fine with a similar (but not under one umbrella) program for SRM. Perhaps a single agency could handle SRM - but that is not the topic that Mr. Hartung and Josh have raised.
Ron
From: "John Nissen" <johnnis...@gmail.com>
To: kcal...@gmail.com
Cc: joshuah...@gmail.com, geoengi...@googlegroups.com, "John Nissen" <j...@cloudworld.co.uk>
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 8:03:53 AM
Subject: Re: [geo] Proposal for NASA to Lead CDR Effort
Gregory Benford
Given my experience with DARPA, they'd work for specific goals on a milestone basis with the clock running. They studied geoengineering the Arctic years ago, acting under the DOD determination that such effects are a national security issue.
The best run group that could do strato aerosols is plainly the US Air Force, which flies the KC-10 Extenders we would need, and has a half century of experience.
BTW, on CDR, why no ocean sequestration a la CROPS? This we know how to do right now.
Gregory Benford
--
Fred Zimmerman
John Nissen
Hi Fred,
From the presentation at the AGU, it was quite clear that the NOAA, if they do understand what is happening in the Arctic, are not going to tell the public.�� This is gross dereliction of duty.� It is also a cover up of past forecasts, which failed to predict what we can see plainly: a rapid decline in sea ice, and what amounts to abrupt climate change in the Northern Hemisphere.
NOAA is not alone.�� The UK Met Office is also guilty of these failures.
Of course, they both may be too terrified by the stark reality of the situation to tell us what is happening. But the result is that the window of opportunity to do something about it, namely to cool the Arctic using geoengineering technology, has nearly closed.� Once closed, the failures of NOAA and the Met Office will be seen to have been fatal for humanity: a clear consequence of loss of the reflective cooling capacity of the Arctic is that global warming will spiral upward beyond human endurance.� The situation is scary - but it has to be faced by rational response, which at present is being denied because nobody is prepared to carry out the necessary emergency geoengineering to cool the Arctic.�� We must be brave and get a move on before it is too late.� We may only have a few months to decide which technologies to use, develop and test them, and get the deployment up to full strength.� It sounds quite impossible - but failure would be catastrophic - we have to succeed - we can succeed.
Cheers,
John
--
On 28/02/2013 16:01, Fred Zimmerman wrote:
John,
Slamming NOAA is not going to help much. �I am pretty confident that NOAA is well aware of its responsibilities under the law and equally well aware of the state of climate science. �It would be more productive to focus energy on rallying the public to support increased funding for NOAA and for all civilian science and space science activities. �If Congress writes a law �telling NOAA to do more on climate science, and appropriates the funds for it to happen, I am confident that NOAA will do a bang-up job.�
Of course, this all goes back to resources and priorities, which means dealing with the mess that is the US economy & budget, and that means building the broadest possible coalition around "reality based" governance that prioritizes science and smart policies. GE is only going to happen (or be avoided as unnecessary) if there is a huge coalition around it, and NOAA needs to be part of the "us", not part of the "them".
CHeers,
Fred
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 10:03 AM, John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com> wrote:
�Hi Ken,�I was present at the launch of the NOAA updated report on the state of the Arctic at AGU in December*.��
NOAA has singularly failed in its mission:
�
To understand and predict changes in climate, weather, oceans, and coasts,
To share that knowledge and information with others, and
To conserve and manage coastal and marine ecosystems and resources.
It has failed to predict changes in the Arctic as regards sea ice, temperature and climate, and it has failed to predict the effect of Arctic amplification on polar jet stream behaviour, weather extremes and hence the climate of the Northern Hemisphere.� They seem to have lacked understanding of the force and progression of the vicious cycle of warming, retreat of snow and sea ice with a reduction of albedo leading to further warming.�
If they do have this understanding, they have failed to share that knowledge with others.
�They have neither taken�action or recommended action to cool the Arctic as required to preserve the Arctic coastal and marine ecosystem, which are threatened by the virtual disappearance of the sea ice�at the end of summer during this decade, as can be determined from a simple extrapolation of sea ice volume.�
They have ignored the advice of arguably the world's top sea ice expert, Professor Peter Wadhams, on the above matters.
�Cheers,�John�* At the press launch, a�question was raised whether there was anybody in the room who knew about a proposal for geoengineering to cool the Arctic.��I started to answer, but was told to shut up and was ushered out of the room!� Thus NOAA are guilty of suppression of knowledge as well as the above failings!�--�
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 4:00 AM, Ken Caldeira <kcal...@carnegiescience.edu> wrote:
NASA's mission is to�"pioneer the future in�space exploration,�scientific discovery�and aeronautics research."
NOAA usually takes on operational tasks.�They are typically not considered an operational agency.� �
Of course, the mission of various agencies can be modified.
PS. NOAA's misison is:
To understand and predict changes in climate, weather, oceans, and coasts,�
To share that knowledge and information with others, and�
To conserve and manage coastal and marine ecosystems and resources.
_______________
Ken Caldeira
Carnegie Institution for Science�Dept of Global Ecology
260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
Caldeira Lab is hiring postdoctoral researchers.
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 1:54 AM, Josh Horton <joshuah...@gmail.com> wrote:
Curiously, no mention of possible NASA involvement in SRM--seems a bit more obvious...
Josh
LOS ANGELES � In 1961, President John F. Kennedy asserted that the United States �should commit itself to achieving the goal�of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to earth,� by the end of the decade. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration accepted the challenge. From 1969 to 1972, NASA�s Apollo program achieved six manned landings on the moon ��missions that expanded human knowledge, stimulated economic growth, bolstered America�s geopolitical standing at a critical time, and inspired people worldwide.
Illustration by Dean Rohrer
Since then, NASA has repeatedly overcome adversity in pursuit of important breakthroughs and achievements, including exploring the solar system with robotic spacecraft, peering deep into the universe with space telescopes, and building the Space Shuttle and International Space Station. These successes far outweigh NASA�s few failures.
But, since the Apollo program, NASA has lacked a clear, overarching goal to guide its activities. To drive progress in crucial areas, the agency needs a compelling vision that is consequential and relevant to current needs � and it is up to US President Barack Obama to define it.
Obama should challenge NASA to address one of today�s most important issues, global warming, by developing safe, cost-effective technologies to remove carbon dioxide from the planet�s atmosphere and oceans. This mission could be accomplished in two phases.During the first phase, which could be completed by 2020, researchers would identify roughly 10-20 candidate geo-engineering technologies and test them in small-scale experiments. The second phase would include large-scale test demonstrations to evaluate the most promising technologies by 2025.
Developing these technologies is crucial, given that, over the last half-century, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased from roughly 320 parts per million to almost 400 parts per million, heating up the planet and increasing the acidity of the world�s oceans. At this rate, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will exceed 450 parts per million in roughly 25 years.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that this increase will raise the average global temperature by roughly 2�C (3.6�F) over pre-industrial levels. It is widely agreed that exceeding this threshold would trigger the most devastating consequences of climate change. In other words, humanity has less than 25 years to stabilize the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Given this time constraint, decarbonization alone will be insufficient to avert irreversible, catastrophic climate change. In 2000-2011, the world decarbonized at an average annual rate of 0.8%. The�Massachusetts Institute of Technology estimatesthat, given current trends, the concentration of atmospheric CO2 will exceed 500 parts per million by 2050, and 800 parts per million by 2100. According to�a report by the professional services firm PricewaterhouseCoopers, even if the world decarbonizes at an annual rate of 3% until 2050, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will rise to 750 parts per million, triggering an average global temperature increase of 4�C (7.2�F) over pre-industrial levels.
So, while the world should reduce its reliance on fossil fuels in favor of lower-carbon alternatives as quickly as possible, another approach is needed to avoid crossing the two-degree threshold. The best option is to develop technologies capable of removing large quantities of CO2 from the atmosphere and oceans, offsetting emissions during the transition from fossil fuels. NASA is the best organization for this mission for several reasons.
Geo-engineering (large-scale intervention in the Earth�s climate system aimed at moderating global warming) could have severe unintended consequences. Developing such technologies safely and efficiently will require the kind of creativity, technical competence, understanding of planetary processes, international participation, and global monitoring capabilities that NASA is best equipped to provide.
In a sense, global warming itself is a massive geo-engineering experiment with unknown consequences. NASA�s international experience will enable researchers to explore the options fully, and to develop the most effective technologies for reducing this ongoing experiment�s risks. And NASA�s reputation for comprehensive scientific inquiry will minimize suspicion about the effectiveness of the solutions that it develops � and the associated risks.
The natural processes by which CO2 is removed from the atmosphere and oceans work too slowly to offset current emissions without intervention; NASA�s success will rest on its ability to expedite and accelerate these processes. Promising potential solutions include causing CO2-absorbing rocks to weather more quickly, expanding practices and technologies in farming and forestry that sequester carbon in soil, and fertilizing the ocean to stimulate the growth of plants that consume and sequester CO2.
Far from conflicting with other, more traditional NASA programs, this mission would help to reinvigorate NASA and give its other programs greater focus and significance. This new, overarching vision would motivate NASA to gain a better understanding of the planetary processes that may affect Earth�s future, and to advance its capability to influence these processes if needed. Ultimately, this knowledge could be NASA�s greatest contribution to the world.
We do not have to decide today whether to implement geo-engineering technologies to remove CO2 from the atmosphere and oceans. But, in order to ensure that they can be applied if and when they are needed, we must begin to develop them soon. Obama should act now, lest he miss this crucial opportunity to curtail global warming.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
�
�
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
�
�
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
�
�
Ron
Ron
Hi Fred,
From the presentation at the AGU, it was quite clear that the NOAA, if they do understand what is happening in the Arctic, are not going to tell the public. This is gross dereliction of duty. It is also a cover up of past forecasts, which failed to predict what we can see plainly: a rapid decline in sea ice, and what amounts to abrupt climate change in the Northern Hemisphere.
NOAA is not alone. The UK Met Office is also guilty of these failures.
Of course, they both may be too terrified by the stark reality of the situation to tell us what is happening. But the result is that the window of opportunity to do something about it, namely to cool the Arctic using geoengineering technology, has nearly closed. Once closed, the failures of NOAA and the Met Office will be seen to have been fatal for humanity: a clear consequence of loss of the reflective cooling capacity of the Arctic is that global warming will spiral upward beyond human endurance. The situation is scary - but it has to be faced by rational response, which at present is being denied because nobody is prepared to carry out the necessary emergency geoengineering to cool the Arctic. We must be brave and get a move on before it is too late. We may only have a few months to decide which technologies to use, develop and test them, and get the deployment up to full strength. It sounds quite impossible - but failure would be catastrophic - we have to succeed - we can succeed.
Cheers,
John
--
On 28/02/2013 16:01, Fred Zimmerman wrote:
John,
Slamming NOAA is not going to help much. I am pretty confident that NOAA is well aware of its responsibilities under the law and equally well aware of the state of climate science. It would be more productive to focus energy on rallying the public to support increased funding for NOAA and for all civilian science and space science activities. If Congress writes a law telling NOAA to do more on climate science, and appropriates the funds for it to happen, I am confident that NOAA will do a bang-up job.
Of course, this all goes back to resources and priorities, which means dealing with the mess that is the US economy & budget, and that means building the broadest possible coalition around "reality based" governance that prioritizes science and smart policies. GE is only going to happen (or be avoided as unnecessary) if there is a huge coalition around it, and NOAA needs to be part of the "us", not part of the "them".
CHeers,
Fred
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 10:03 AM, John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Ken,
I was present at the launch of the NOAA updated report on the state of the Arctic at AGU in December*.
NOAA has singularly failed in its mission:
To understand and predict changes in climate, weather, oceans, and coasts,
To share that knowledge and information with others, and
To conserve and manage coastal and marine ecosystems and resources.
It has failed to predict changes in the Arctic as regards sea ice, temperature and climate, and it has failed to predict the effect of Arctic amplification on polar jet stream behaviour, weather extremes and hence the climate of the Northern Hemisphere. They seem to have lacked understanding of the force and progression of the vicious cycle of warming, retreat of snow and sea ice with a reduction of albedo leading to further warming.
If they do have this understanding, they have failed to share that knowledge with others.
They have neither taken action or recommended action to cool the Arctic as required to preserve the Arctic coastal and marine ecosystem, which are threatened by the virtual disappearance of the sea ice at the end of summer during this decade, as can be determined from a simple extrapolation of sea ice volume.
They have ignored the advice of arguably the world's top sea ice expert, Professor Peter Wadhams, on the above matters.
Cheers,John* At the press launch, a question was raised whether there was anybody in the room who knew about a proposal for geoengineering to cool the Arctic. I started to answer, but was told to shut up and was ushered out of the room! Thus NOAA are guilty of suppression of knowledge as well as the above failings!--
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 4:00 AM, Ken Caldeira <kcal...@carnegiescience.edu> wrote:
NASA's mission is to "pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery and aeronautics research."
NOAA usually takes on operational tasks. They are typically not considered an operational agency.
Of course, the mission of various agencies can be modified.
PS. NOAA's misison is:
To understand and predict changes in climate, weather, oceans, and coasts,
To share that knowledge and information with others, and
To conserve and manage coastal and marine ecosystems and resources.
_______________
Ken Caldeira
Carnegie Institution for Science
Dept of Global Ecology
260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
Caldeira Lab is hiring postdoctoral researchers.
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 1:54 AM, Josh Horton <joshuah...@gmail.com> wrote:
Curiously, no mention of possible NASA involvement in SRM--seems a bit more obvious...
Josh
LOS ANGELES – In 1961, President John F. Kennedy asserted that the United States “should commit itself to achieving the goal…of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to earth,” by the end of the decade. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration accepted the challenge. From 1969 to 1972, NASA’s Apollo program achieved six manned landings on the moon – missions that expanded human knowledge, stimulated economic growth, bolstered America’s geopolitical standing at a critical time, and inspired people worldwide.
Illustration by Dean Rohrer
Since then, NASA has repeatedly overcome adversity in pursuit of important breakthroughs and achievements, including exploring the solar system with robotic spacecraft, peering deep into the universe with space telescopes, and building the Space Shuttle and International Space Station. These successes far outweigh NASA’s few failures.
But, since the Apollo program, NASA has lacked a clear, overarching goal to guide its activities. To drive progress in crucial areas, the agency needs a compelling vision that is consequential and relevant to current needs – and it is up to US President Barack Obama to define it.
Obama should challenge NASA to address one of today’s most important issues, global warming, by developing safe, cost-effective technologies to remove carbon dioxide from the planet’s atmosphere and oceans. This mission could be accomplished in two phases.During the first phase, which could be completed by 2020, researchers would identify roughly 10-20 candidate geo-engineering technologies and test them in small-scale experiments. The second phase would include large-scale test demonstrations to evaluate the most promising technologies by 2025.
Developing these technologies is crucial, given that, over the last half-century, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased from roughly 320 parts per million to almost 400 parts per million, heating up the planet and increasing the acidity of the world’s oceans. At this rate, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will exceed 450 parts per million in roughly 25 years.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that this increase will raise the average global temperature by roughly 2°C (3.6°F) over pre-industrial levels. It is widely agreed that exceeding this threshold would trigger the most devastating consequences of climate change. In other words, humanity has less than 25 years to stabilize the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Given this time constraint, decarbonization alone will be insufficient to avert irreversible, catastrophic climate change. In 2000-2011, the world decarbonized at an average annual rate of 0.8%. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology estimatesthat, given current trends, the concentration of atmospheric CO2 will exceed 500 parts per million by 2050, and 800 parts per million by 2100. According to a report by the professional services firm PricewaterhouseCoopers, even if the world decarbonizes at an annual rate of 3% until 2050, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will rise to 750 parts per million, triggering an average global temperature increase of 4°C (7.2°F) over pre-industrial levels.
So, while the world should reduce its reliance on fossil fuels in favor of lower-carbon alternatives as quickly as possible, another approach is needed to avoid crossing the two-degree threshold. The best option is to develop technologies capable of removing large quantities of CO2 from the atmosphere and oceans, offsetting emissions during the transition from fossil fuels. NASA is the best organization for this mission for several reasons.
Geo-engineering (large-scale intervention in the Earth’s climate system aimed at moderating global warming) could have severe unintended consequences. Developing such technologies safely and efficiently will require the kind of creativity, technical competence, understanding of planetary processes, international participation, and global monitoring capabilities that NASA is best equipped to provide.
In a sense, global warming itself is a massive geo-engineering experiment with unknown consequences. NASA’s international experience will enable researchers to explore the options fully, and to develop the most effective technologies for reducing this ongoing experiment’s risks. And NASA’s reputation for comprehensive scientific inquiry will minimize suspicion about the effectiveness of the solutions that it develops – and the associated risks.
The natural processes by which CO2 is removed from the atmosphere and oceans work too slowly to offset current emissions without intervention; NASA’s success will rest on its ability to expedite and accelerate these processes. Promising potential solutions include causing CO2-absorbing rocks to weather more quickly, expanding practices and technologies in farming and forestry that sequester carbon in soil, and fertilizing the ocean to stimulate the growth of plants that consume and sequester CO2.
Far from conflicting with other, more traditional NASA programs, this mission would help to reinvigorate NASA and give its other programs greater focus and significance. This new, overarching vision would motivate NASA to gain a better understanding of the planetary processes that may affect Earth’s future, and to advance its capability to influence these processes if needed. Ultimately, this knowledge could be NASA’s greatest contribution to the world.
We do not have to decide today whether to implement geo-engineering technologies to remove CO2 from the atmosphere and oceans. But, in order to ensure that they can be applied if and when they are needed, we must begin to develop them soon. Obama should act now, lest he miss this crucial opportunity to curtail global warming.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Andrew Lockley
For my tuppence, I think we'll have complete organizational paralysis on this for a long time. Noone will risk a cosy job by actually doing anything.
Therefore, it will take researchers nibbling away at research issues - using tiny budgets to do tiny experiments.
After perhaps a decade or two of such baby steps, someone in authority might actually have the courage or sheer fear to do a larger experiment.
The cost of geo from global GDP is tiny, but the cost of the technology out of a puny research budget is huge. That's why I think we need to obsess over cost - because no research at all will get done if we have to do anything expensive, such as buying a plane.
A
Joshua Horton
Josh
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/geoengineering/IGV8AgHq3ds/unsubscribe?hl=en.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
Robert Tulip
Can NASA Stop Global Warming?
LOS ANGELES – In 1961, President John F. Kennedy asserted that the United States “should commit itself to achieving the goal…of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to earth,” by the end of the decade. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration accepted the challenge. From 1969 to 1972, NASA’s Apollo program achieved six manned landings on the moon – missions that expanded human knowledge, stimulated economic growth, bolstered America’s geopolitical standing at a critical time, and inspired people worldwide.Illustration by Dean Rohrer
Since then, NASA has repeatedly overcome adversity in pursuit of important breakthroughs and achievements, including exploring the solar system with robotic spacecraft, peering deep into the universe with space telescopes, and building the Space Shuttle and International Space Station. These successes far outweigh NASA’s few failures.But, since the Apollo program, NASA has lacked a clear, overarching goal to guide its activities. To drive progress in crucial areas, the agency needs a compelling vision that is consequential and relevant to current needs – and it is up to US President Barack Obama to define it.Obama should challenge NASA to address one of today’s most important issues, global warming, by developing safe, cost-effective technologies to remove carbon dioxide from the planet’s atmosphere and oceans. This mission could be accomplished in two phases.During the first phase, which could be completed by 2020, researchers would identify roughly 10-20 candidate geo-engineering technologies and test them in small-scale experiments. The second phase would include large-scale test demonstrations to evaluate the most promising technologies by 2025.Developing these technologies is crucial, given that, over the last half-century, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased from roughly 320 parts per million to almost 400 parts per million, heating up the planet and increasing the acidity of the world’s oceans. At this rate, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will exceed 450 parts per million in roughly 25 years.The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that this increase will raise the average global temperature by roughly 2°C (3.6°F) over pre-industrial levels. It is widely agreed that exceeding this threshold would trigger the most devastating consequences of climate change. In other words, humanity has less than 25 years to stabilize the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.Given this time constraint, decarbonization alone will be insufficient to avert irreversible, catastrophic climate change. In 2000-2011, the world decarbonized at an average annual rate of 0.8%. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology estimatesthat, given current trends, the concentration of atmospheric CO2 will exceed 500 parts per million by 2050, and 800 parts per million by 2100. According to a report by the professional services firm PricewaterhouseCoopers, even if the world decarbonizes at an annual rate of 3% until 2050, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will rise to 750 parts per million, triggering an average global temperature increase of 4°C (7.2°F) over pre-industrial levels.So, while the world should reduce its reliance on fossil fuels in favor of lower-carbon alternatives as quickly as possible, another approach is needed to avoid crossing the two-degree threshold. The best option is to develop technologies capable of removing large quantities of CO2 from the atmosphere and oceans, offsetting emissions during the transition from fossil fuels. NASA is the best organization for this mission for several reasons.Geo-engineering (large-scale intervention in the Earth’s climate system aimed at moderating global warming) could have severe unintended consequences. Developing such technologies safely and efficiently will require the kind of creativity, technical competence, understanding of planetary processes, international participation, and global monitoring capabilities that NASA is best equipped to provide.In a sense, global warming itself is a massive geo-engineering experiment with unknown consequences. NASA’s international experience will enable researchers to explore the options fully, and to develop the most effective technologies for reducing this ongoing experiment’s risks. And NASA’s reputation for comprehensive scientific inquiry will minimize suspicion about the effectiveness of the solutions that it develops – and the associated risks.The natural processes by which CO2 is removed from the atmosphere and oceans work too slowly to offset current emissions without intervention; NASA’s success will rest on its ability to expedite and accelerate these processes. Promising potential solutions include causing CO2-absorbing rocks to weather more quickly, expanding practices and technologies in farming and forestry that sequester carbon in soil, and fertilizing the ocean to stimulate the growth of plants that consume and sequester CO2.Far from conflicting with other, more traditional NASA programs, this mission would help to reinvigorate NASA and give its other programs greater focus and significance. This new, overarching vision would motivate NASA to gain a better understanding of the planetary processes that may affect Earth’s future, and to advance its capability to influence these processes if needed. Ultimately, this knowledge could be NASA’s greatest contribution to the world.We do not have to decide today whether to implement geo-engineering technologies to remove CO2 from the atmosphere and oceans. But, in order to ensure that they can be applied if and when they are needed, we must begin to develop them soon. Obama should act now, lest he miss this crucial opportunity to curtail global warming.
Read more at http://www.project-syndicate.org/online-commentary/nasa-geo-engineering-to-prevent-climate-change-by-jim-hartung#Zga3mmzFMx8bcG38.99
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to mailto:geoengineering%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to mailto:geoengineering%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to mailto:geoengineering%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to mailto:geoengineering%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/geoengineering/IGV8AgHq3ds/unsubscribe?hl=en.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to mailto:geoengineering%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
John Nissen
You may be right. We have a situation akin to Apollo 13, where we desperately need to find a way to cool the Arctic before the heating from albedo loss becomes insuperable. Our life support system is in jeopardy.
Would Jim Hansen be the man to lead the team? I am afraid that in his most recent papers he has neglected the heating from albedo loss, which is growing exponentially as the sea ice area collapses and snow retreats. This heating may have reached the equivalent of 0.8 W/m2 heating averaged globally and annually. The September volume trend is clearly to zero by 2015 - which is terrifying. We need a brave man or woman to face up to the reality and take up the challenge to find a solution.
Cheers,
John (just returned from the film "Lincoln" - what moral leadership!)
--
John Nissen
Our evidence is solid but ignored by government.� Attached is the latest version of our complaint to the UK government.� We are seeking legal advice as to whether the government is acting properly in the interests of the citizens of this country.� But of course, such a complaint could be made to other governments who should know better.
Cheers,
John
--
On 01/03/2013 23:51, Fred Zimmerman wrote:
John, what is the scientific basis for your extreme degree of alarm? Fred
On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 6:44 PM, John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Robert,
You may be right.� We have a situation akin to Apollo 13, where we desperately need to find a way to cool the Arctic before the heating from albedo loss becomes insuperable.� Our life support system is in jeopardy.
Would Jim Hansen be the man to lead the team?� I am afraid that in his most recent papers he has neglected the heating from albedo loss, which is growing exponentially as the sea ice area collapses and snow retreats.� This heating may have reached the equivalent of 0.8 W/m2 heating averaged globally and annually.� The September volume trend is clearly to zero by 2015 - which is terrifying.� We need a brave man or woman to face up to the reality and take up the challenge to find a solution.
Cheers,
John (just returned from the film "Lincoln" - what moral leadership!)
--
On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 6:36 PM, Robert Tulip <rtuli...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
�NASA has an excellent global reputation as the agency that solved the technical problems of reaching the moon with the Apollo Project.� We need a new Apollo Project today to address climate change, the primary security problem facing our planet.�Applying technology at scale can address the triple bottom line of economic, ecological and social sustainability. Emergency response is needed using solar radiation management while long term reform of energy systems is developed through carbon dioxide removal.��President Obama can show American vision and leadership by committing to stabilise global climate in this decade, as President Kennedy committed to sending a man to the moon and back in the 1960s.�NASA could do it.Robert Tulip
LOS ANGELES � In 1961, President John F. Kennedy asserted that the United States �should commit itself to achieving the goal�of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to earth,� by the end of the decade. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration accepted the challenge. From 1969 to 1972, NASA�s Apollo program achieved six manned landings on the moon ��missions that expanded human knowledge, stimulated economic growth, bolstered America�s geopolitical standing at a critical time, and inspired people worldwide.
Illustration by Dean Rohrer
Since then, NASA has repeatedly overcome adversity in pursuit of important breakthroughs and achievements, including exploring the solar system with robotic spacecraft, peering deep into the universe with space telescopes, and building the Space Shuttle and International Space Station. These successes far outweigh NASA�s few failures.But, since the Apollo program, NASA has lacked a clear, overarching goal to guide its activities. To drive progress in crucial areas, the agency needs a compelling vision that is consequential and relevant to current needs � and it is up to US President Barack Obama to define it.Obama should challenge NASA to address one of today�s most important issues, global warming, by developing safe, cost-effective technologies to remove carbon dioxide from the planet�s atmosphere and oceans. This mission could be accomplished in two phases.During the first phase, which could be completed by 2020, researchers would identify roughly 10-20 candidate geo-engineering technologies and test them in small-scale experiments. The second phase would include large-scale test demonstrations to evaluate the most promising technologies by 2025.Developing these technologies is crucial, given that, over the last half-century, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased from roughly 320 parts per million to almost 400 parts per million, heating up the planet and increasing the acidity of the world�s oceans. At this rate, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will exceed 450 parts per million in roughly 25 years.The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that this increase will raise the average global temperature by roughly 2�C (3.6�F) over pre-industrial levels. It is widely agreed that exceeding this threshold would trigger the most devastating consequences of climate change. In other words, humanity has less than 25 years to stabilize the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.Given this time constraint, decarbonization alone will be insufficient to avert irreversible, catastrophic climate change. In 2000-2011, the world decarbonized at an average annual rate of 0.8%. The�Massachusetts Institute of Technology estimatesthat, given current trends, the concentration of atmospheric CO2 will exceed 500 parts per million by 2050, and 800 parts per million by 2100. According to�a report by the professional services firm PricewaterhouseCoopers, even if the world decarbonizes at an annual rate of 3% until 2050, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will rise to 750 parts per million, triggering an average global temperature increase of 4�C (7.2�F) over pre-industrial levels.
So, while the world should reduce its reliance on fossil fuels in favor of lower-carbon alternatives as quickly as possible, another approach is needed to avoid crossing the two-degree threshold. The best option is to develop technologies capable of removing large quantities of CO2 from the atmosphere and oceans, offsetting emissions during the transition from fossil fuels. NASA is the best organization for this mission for several reasons.
Geo-engineering (large-scale intervention in the Earth�s climate system aimed at moderating global warming) could have severe unintended consequences. Developing such technologies safely and efficiently will require the kind of creativity, technical competence, understanding of planetary processes, international participation, and global monitoring capabilities that NASA is best equipped to provide.
In a sense, global warming itself is a massive geo-engineering experiment with unknown consequences. NASA�s international experience will enable researchers to explore the options fully, and to develop the most effective technologies for reducing this ongoing experiment�s risks. And NASA�s reputation for comprehensive scientific inquiry will minimize suspicion about the effectiveness of the solutions that it develops � and the associated risks.The natural processes by which CO2 is removed from the atmosphere and oceans work too slowly to offset current emissions without intervention; NASA�s success will rest on its ability to expedite and accelerate these processes. Promising potential solutions include causing CO2-absorbing rocks to weather more quickly, expanding practices and technologies in farming and forestry that sequester carbon in soil, and fertilizing the ocean to stimulate the growth of plants that consume and sequester CO2.Far from conflicting with other, more traditional NASA programs, this mission would help to reinvigorate NASA and give its other programs greater focus and significance. This new, overarching vision would motivate NASA to gain a better understanding of the planetary processes that may affect Earth�s future, and to advance its capability to influence these processes if needed. Ultimately, this knowledge could be NASA�s greatest contribution to the world.
We do not have to decide today whether to implement geo-engineering technologies to remove CO2 from the atmosphere and oceans. But, in order to ensure that they can be applied if and when they are needed, we must begin to develop them soon. Obama should act now, lest he miss this crucial opportunity to curtail global warming.
--To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to mailto:geoengineering%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
�
�
--To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to mailto:geoengineering%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
�
�
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to mailto:geoengineering%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
�
�
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
�
�
--To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to mailto:geoengineering%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--�
�
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to mailto:geoengineering%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/geoengineering/IGV8AgHq3ds/unsubscribe?hl=en.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
�
�
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
�
�
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
�
�
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
�
�
Nathan Currier
At NASA, Earth is Removed from Mission Statement
In February 2006, the phrase "to understand and protect the home planet" was quietly removed from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)'s official mission statement. Because agency mission statements are routinely used to justify research and funding decisions, many scientists were not only surprised to discover the change, but also concerned that the change meant more funding would be shifted away from studies of Earth, including climate change research, and redirected to NASA's planned new series of manned space missions.
A NASA atmospheric chemist commented, “We refer to the mission statement in all our research proposals that go out for peer review…as civil servants, we’re paid to carry out NASA’s mission. When there was that very easy-to-understand statement that our job is to protect the planet that made it much easier to justify this kind of work.”1 NASA scientists responding to a Union of Concerned Scientists survey also expressed concerns that changing priorities and lack of funding were seriously undermining the agency’s ability to continue with high-quality research into climate change.2
The agency’s current mission statement calls on the agency “to pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery and aeronautics research.”3 It is the first time since NASA’s founding in 1958 that the mission statement does not explicitly include mention of the Earth. A NASA spokesperson was quoted in the New York Times as saying that the mission statement was rewritten “to square the statement with President Bush’s goal of pursuing human spaceflight to the Moon and Mars.”4
Scientists’ funding fears are already more than hypothetical. A 2006 report by the National Research Council (NRC, a part of the National Academy of Sciences), noted that funding cuts currently in place at NASA will mean canceling or not replacing several of the agency’s Earth observation satellites. This will, in the words of the NRC report, cause a “severe deficit” in Earth observation capabilities and compromise the government’s ability to “fulfill its obligations in . . . [the] Climate Change Science Program”5
NASA’s previous mission statement was adopted in 2002 in an open process with input from across NASA’s 19,000 employees. In contrast, NASA researchers said the new mission was revised with no discussion or public announcement of any kind.6
1. Revkin, A.C. “NASA’s Goals delete mention of home planet,” New York Times, July 22, 2006.
2. Union of Concerned Scientists and Government Accountability Project, 2007. Atmosphere of Pressure, p.22.
3. 2006 NASA Strategic Plan. NASA Mission Statement on p. 3. Accessed March 8, 2007.
4. Revkin.
5. National Research Council, 2006. Space studies board annual report 2005. Washington D.C.
6. Revkin.
Charles H Greene
Robert Tulip
John Nissen
Who among us works for NASA or has personal contacts with NASA?
John
--
On 03/03/2013 19:39, Peter Carter wrote:
I agree Robert- we should make contact with NASA,Peter C