5 ms·

First Greenhouse Gas Plumes Detected with NASA-Designed Instrument

122 points by mywacaday 2y ago

daft_pink 2y ago
[flagged]
- Isamu 2y ago
  That would be spectacular! Please alert HN when you have a fart seen from space, I am sure we will all clamor to be the first post to comment!
ldoughty 2y ago
And this is exactly why _they_ don't want NASA pointing back to Earth... And why they want them to only have enough funding for the megaprojects that redirect federal money into red states. "There's nothing to see here! Move along!" But really, I'm glad they managed to get this out there despite the political shenanigans. It looks like they manage their own shenanigans by providing information / assistance, while not actually doing the leg work on building it or deploying it... It will help to eventually find the hotspots (which, if in the US, are likely businesses skirting laws for profit... Or poor monitoring by the business). In either case, we can have more information on where to act.
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  What specifically are the “political shenanigans”? Do you have any evidence/links? I personally don’t think studying earth is really what I want out of NASA. I would expect that funding to go towards study of space. For Earth, I would view that as more the job of the EPA or some other agency, and think it’s more appropriate for them to set aside funds for a satellite or whatever they need. But yes it’s interesting to see where there are unexpected plumes. I suspect a lot of those are in third world countries where regulations and rule of law is worse, and it may be hard to address those effectively (except by subsidizing them). Sure there are some examples in the US, but the ones in the article seem much smaller in magnitude.
  - dylan604 2y ago
    Depending on who wins the election, but one party has made publicly known that they will specifically defund or worse the agencies that will report this kind of information. What other examples of political shenanigans do you need? The same party that when they were in office removed the ability of these same agencies from making these type of releases to the point that they created "rogue" social media accounts.
    - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
      > one party has made publicly known that they will specifically defund or worse the agencies that will report this kind of information Evidence on the specific claim you’re making? Defunding government agencies for savings or efficiency is not the same as trying to defund things specifically to hide certain scientific data with some sinister goal. > What other examples of political shenanigans do you need? I’m looking for evidence that supports the GP’s claim. Are there political acts that redirected money from NASA into red states, with an intent to funnel funding based on that political leaning? Is there evidence that they tried (and succeeded?) interfering with specific projects on the grounds that it would show pollution sources that are politically problematic (as opposed to simply defining NASA’s mission as studying things outside of earth)?
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - dylan604 2y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025 Just defunding agencies from reporting science is bad enough regardless of where they move the money. Denying the part because it's not the whole of what you're looking for says more about you than anything else.
      - defrost 2y ago
        The US has been through exactly this before: (2016): On space issues, a senior Trump advisor, former Pennsylvania Rep. Bob Walker, has called for ending NASA earth science research, including work related to climate change. Walker contends that NASA’s proper role is deep-space research and exploration, not “politically correct environmental monitoring.” ~ https://theconversation.com/eyes-in-the-sky-cutting-nasa-earth-observations-would-be-a-costly-mistake-69705 https://theconversation.com/eyes-in-the-sky-cutting-nasa-ear... (2018) Trump White House quietly cancels NASA research verifying greenhouse gas cuts ~ https://www.science.org/content/article/trump-white-house-quietly-cancels-nasa-research-verifying-greenhouse-gas-cuts https://www.science.org/content/article/trump-white-house-qu... And, again, NASA's mission is assisted by testing instrument designs from space on the only planet we have complete surface access to .. otherwise it's just diddling about with remote guesswork sans ground truthing.
- mturmon 2y ago
  I see where you’re coming from, but the reality is not as stark as you have put it. The forces you point to are real, but it’s more complex because many people have seen the value in learning about Earth. A huge reason we have a NASA Earth observing system (and not just weather satellites) is the studies that grew out of the CFC damage to the ozone layer [1]. Ground stations and aircraft and balloons turned out not to be enough to assess it, so the measurements moved to space and use spectroscopy now. (The current fleet: https://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/missions/ https://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/missions/) This has led to comprehensive CO2 observation from space, and sea surface temperature, and many other climate-related measurements including methane. All this goes back many decades at this point. It’s not a few people who managed to launch one satellite! [1] For short, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Observing_System#History_and_development https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Observing_System#History..., but see also: https://muse.jhu.edu/book/3472 https://muse.jhu.edu/book/3472
- whazor 2y ago
  It’s likely that countries will get CO2 satellites to point fingers at each other. Ending up with everyone monitoring everyone. Also, CO2 import taxes will be introduced to protect local industries like steel, fertiliser, and cement. For businesses it is actually in the best interest to get clarity on the rules early on. If they stay behind on technology to reduce emissions, they might eventually lose out.
Sandbag5802 2y ago
I wonder with this data, it'll push communities to do something about these plumes if they are close to their home.
leptons 2y ago
Wow, Texas. But, I'm not sure if the data is complete across the globe yet. There doesn't seem to be much data over China yet.
- dylan604 2y ago
  And even if there were data from China, there's very little that could be done about it. It's not like the US could shame the plank in their eye.
  - throwup238 2y ago
    Just because we can’t do anything about it doesn’t mean that China won’t. They haven’t been completely unresponsive to internal pressure on air pollution and armed with public data, the government might want to take action. Most countries in the world don’t have the resources to run these kinds of satellites anyway so they depend on NASA/ESA to make this kind of data available to decision makers.
    - dylan604 2y ago
      It would make much more sense for the country that NASA is part of to use the data to make changes within itself. Let's focus on the changes we can control not the changes we wish others to make. The problem is that within the US this is believed to be junk science, fake news, and whatever other nonsense labels used.
      - leptons 2y ago
        Your insistence that we leave China alone is puzzling. More data is always good. China can do what they want with the data, and historically they have made enormous progress in de-carbonizing their society to the point that they are the largest users of solar power in the world, by far. Nobody should care what some idiots in the US think about this satellite or the data it produces, they aren't the ones that this data is for, their brains are broken, and they won't be the ones taking action. I'm very happy this sattellite is up there, scanning every part of the earth. And yes, the US definitely can exert pressure on offending countries through all kinds of measures. These greenhouse gasses don't just affect the country they are coming from, it affects the entire planet, and the first step towards fixing the problem is understanding the problem, and this data is a valuable tool towards understanding the problem. Not sure what your agenda is, but your nay-saying is part of the problem.
noiv 2y ago
Here's the interactive map with nearly 6.5k plumes detected: https://data.carbonmapper.org/#1.04/31.9/19.2 https://data.carbonmapper.org/#1.04/31.9/19.2
- perihelions 2y ago
  This is an unusual one: one of California's largest methane plumes (689 kg/hr) is a cheese factory, https://data.carbonmapper.org/?details=CH4_other_250m_-120.85340_37.42350%3Fstatus%3Dnot_deleted#15.19/37.422263/-120.849006 https://data.carbonmapper.org/?details=CH4_other_250m_-120.8... What exactly is going on there? Are they dumping some sort of nutrient waste into a, wastewater pond?
- abdullahkhalids 2y ago
  The link says there are 17379 Plumes and 6418 Sources globally.
nascamallai 2y ago
[flagged]
- throwaway4220 2y ago
  (Ignoring obvious denialism here) Knowing where methane is literally pouring out for the taking is useful if you want to burn it for energy.
- _moof 2y ago
  Water vapor, which contributes between 41% and 67% of the Earth's greenhouse effect, has been part of the atmosphere since Earth first formed. Liquid water - clouds - contributes between 25% and 31%, and has likewise been part of the atmosphere since before the existence of humans. In other words, the effect of atmospheric water has had billions of years to reach equilibrium. Atmospheric water, at a global scale, is also not significantly affected by human activity. The remainder of the greenhouse effect is caused by gases like CO2 and methane, which are affected by human activity. They contribute significantly - CO2 is a mere 0.04% of the atmosphere but is responsible for between 18% and 26% of the Earth's greenhouse effect, methane 6% - and we have significantly altered the concentration of these gases since the Industrial Revolution. The amount of CO2 has nearly doubled, and the amount of methane has more than doubled. So no, this mission is not a waste of time.
tagami 2y ago
The project is funded by 501(c)(3) non-profit Carbon Mapper. Tanager-1 was built by Public Benefit Corp and publicly traded Planet Labs. I understand that the funding raised from the non-profit paid for the licensing of the technology developed at JPL, NASA's only federally funded R&D center managed by CalTech.
ajoseps 2y ago
It will be interesting to take the data and normalize it by population density. It won’t be a perfect metric since I’m guessing a lot of these plumes will have their source material sourced from elsewhere e.g. landfills, recycling centers, manufacturing

122 points by mywacaday 2y ago

daft_pink 2y ago

[flagged]

Isamu 2y ago
That would be spectacular! Please alert HN when you have a fart seen from space, I am sure we will all clamor to be the first post to comment!

ldoughty 2y ago

And this is exactly why _they_ don't want NASA pointing back to Earth... And why they want them to only have enough funding for the megaprojects that redirect federal money into red states. "There's nothing to see here! Move along!" But really, I'm glad they managed to get this out there despite the political shenanigans. It looks like they manage their own shenanigans by providing information / assistance, while not actually doing the leg work on building it or deploying it... It will help to eventually find the hotspots (which, if in the US, are likely businesses skirting laws for profit... Or poor monitoring by the business). In either case, we can have more information on where to act.

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
What specifically are the “political shenanigans”? Do you have any evidence/links? I personally don’t think studying earth is really what I want out of NASA. I would expect that funding to go towards study of space. For Earth, I would view that as more the job of the EPA or some other agency, and think it’s more appropriate for them to set aside funds for a satellite or whatever they need. But yes it’s interesting to see where there are unexpected plumes. I suspect a lot of those are in third world countries where regulations and rule of law is worse, and it may be hard to address those effectively (except by subsidizing them). Sure there are some examples in the US, but the ones in the article seem much smaller in magnitude.
- dylan604 2y ago
  Depending on who wins the election, but one party has made publicly known that they will specifically defund or worse the agencies that will report this kind of information. What other examples of political shenanigans do you need? The same party that when they were in office removed the ability of these same agencies from making these type of releases to the point that they created "rogue" social media accounts.
  - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
    > one party has made publicly known that they will specifically defund or worse the agencies that will report this kind of information Evidence on the specific claim you’re making? Defunding government agencies for savings or efficiency is not the same as trying to defund things specifically to hide certain scientific data with some sinister goal. > What other examples of political shenanigans do you need? I’m looking for evidence that supports the GP’s claim. Are there political acts that redirected money from NASA into red states, with an intent to funnel funding based on that political leaning? Is there evidence that they tried (and succeeded?) interfering with specific projects on the grounds that it would show pollution sources that are politically problematic (as opposed to simply defining NASA’s mission as studying things outside of earth)?
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - dylan604 2y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025 Just defunding agencies from reporting science is bad enough regardless of where they move the money. Denying the part because it's not the whole of what you're looking for says more about you than anything else.
    - defrost 2y ago
      The US has been through exactly this before: (2016): On space issues, a senior Trump advisor, former Pennsylvania Rep. Bob Walker, has called for ending NASA earth science research, including work related to climate change. Walker contends that NASA’s proper role is deep-space research and exploration, not “politically correct environmental monitoring.” ~ https://theconversation.com/eyes-in-the-sky-cutting-nasa-earth-observations-would-be-a-costly-mistake-69705 https://theconversation.com/eyes-in-the-sky-cutting-nasa-ear... (2018) Trump White House quietly cancels NASA research verifying greenhouse gas cuts ~ https://www.science.org/content/article/trump-white-house-quietly-cancels-nasa-research-verifying-greenhouse-gas-cuts https://www.science.org/content/article/trump-white-house-qu... And, again, NASA's mission is assisted by testing instrument designs from space on the only planet we have complete surface access to .. otherwise it's just diddling about with remote guesswork sans ground truthing.
mturmon 2y ago
I see where you’re coming from, but the reality is not as stark as you have put it. The forces you point to are real, but it’s more complex because many people have seen the value in learning about Earth. A huge reason we have a NASA Earth observing system (and not just weather satellites) is the studies that grew out of the CFC damage to the ozone layer [1]. Ground stations and aircraft and balloons turned out not to be enough to assess it, so the measurements moved to space and use spectroscopy now. (The current fleet: https://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/missions/ https://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/missions/) This has led to comprehensive CO2 observation from space, and sea surface temperature, and many other climate-related measurements including methane. All this goes back many decades at this point. It’s not a few people who managed to launch one satellite! [1] For short, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Observing_System#History_and_development https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Observing_System#History..., but see also: https://muse.jhu.edu/book/3472 https://muse.jhu.edu/book/3472
whazor 2y ago
It’s likely that countries will get CO2 satellites to point fingers at each other. Ending up with everyone monitoring everyone. Also, CO2 import taxes will be introduced to protect local industries like steel, fertiliser, and cement. For businesses it is actually in the best interest to get clarity on the rules early on. If they stay behind on technology to reduce emissions, they might eventually lose out.

Sandbag5802 2y ago

I wonder with this data, it'll push communities to do something about these plumes if they are close to their home.

leptons 2y ago

Wow, Texas. But, I'm not sure if the data is complete across the globe yet. There doesn't seem to be much data over China yet.

dylan604 2y ago
And even if there were data from China, there's very little that could be done about it. It's not like the US could shame the plank in their eye.
- throwup238 2y ago
  Just because we can’t do anything about it doesn’t mean that China won’t. They haven’t been completely unresponsive to internal pressure on air pollution and armed with public data, the government might want to take action. Most countries in the world don’t have the resources to run these kinds of satellites anyway so they depend on NASA/ESA to make this kind of data available to decision makers.
  - dylan604 2y ago
    It would make much more sense for the country that NASA is part of to use the data to make changes within itself. Let's focus on the changes we can control not the changes we wish others to make. The problem is that within the US this is believed to be junk science, fake news, and whatever other nonsense labels used.
    - leptons 2y ago
      Your insistence that we leave China alone is puzzling. More data is always good. China can do what they want with the data, and historically they have made enormous progress in de-carbonizing their society to the point that they are the largest users of solar power in the world, by far. Nobody should care what some idiots in the US think about this satellite or the data it produces, they aren't the ones that this data is for, their brains are broken, and they won't be the ones taking action. I'm very happy this sattellite is up there, scanning every part of the earth. And yes, the US definitely can exert pressure on offending countries through all kinds of measures. These greenhouse gasses don't just affect the country they are coming from, it affects the entire planet, and the first step towards fixing the problem is understanding the problem, and this data is a valuable tool towards understanding the problem. Not sure what your agenda is, but your nay-saying is part of the problem.

noiv 2y ago

Here's the interactive map with nearly 6.5k plumes detected: https://data.carbonmapper.org/#1.04/31.9/19.2 https://data.carbonmapper.org/#1.04/31.9/19.2

perihelions 2y ago
This is an unusual one: one of California's largest methane plumes (689 kg/hr) is a cheese factory, https://data.carbonmapper.org/?details=CH4_other_250m_-120.85340_37.42350%3Fstatus%3Dnot_deleted#15.19/37.422263/-120.849006 https://data.carbonmapper.org/?details=CH4_other_250m_-120.8... What exactly is going on there? Are they dumping some sort of nutrient waste into a, wastewater pond?
abdullahkhalids 2y ago
The link says there are 17379 Plumes and 6418 Sources globally.

nascamallai 2y ago

[flagged]

throwaway4220 2y ago
(Ignoring obvious denialism here) Knowing where methane is literally pouring out for the taking is useful if you want to burn it for energy.
_moof 2y ago
Water vapor, which contributes between 41% and 67% of the Earth's greenhouse effect, has been part of the atmosphere since Earth first formed. Liquid water - clouds - contributes between 25% and 31%, and has likewise been part of the atmosphere since before the existence of humans. In other words, the effect of atmospheric water has had billions of years to reach equilibrium. Atmospheric water, at a global scale, is also not significantly affected by human activity. The remainder of the greenhouse effect is caused by gases like CO2 and methane, which are affected by human activity. They contribute significantly - CO2 is a mere 0.04% of the atmosphere but is responsible for between 18% and 26% of the Earth's greenhouse effect, methane 6% - and we have significantly altered the concentration of these gases since the Industrial Revolution. The amount of CO2 has nearly doubled, and the amount of methane has more than doubled. So no, this mission is not a waste of time.

tagami 2y ago

The project is funded by 501(c)(3) non-profit Carbon Mapper. Tanager-1 was built by Public Benefit Corp and publicly traded Planet Labs. I understand that the funding raised from the non-profit paid for the licensing of the technology developed at JPL, NASA's only federally funded R&D center managed by CalTech.

ajoseps 2y ago

It will be interesting to take the data and normalize it by population density. It won’t be a perfect metric since I’m guessing a lot of these plumes will have their source material sourced from elsewhere e.g. landfills, recycling centers, manufacturing