2 ms·

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 ar

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.
  - dylan604 2y ago
    I'm not saying we shouldn't make a global scan. I'm simply saying that the US telling China to cut back its pollution while doing nothing about its own pollution is just too hypocritical to me, and worthy of being mocked and laughed out of the room by any other country.
    - leptons 2y ago
      You're making up that scenario in your own head. The US isn't telling China anything about pollution based on this sattelite. Trust me, China already knows how awful their air quality is and they are doing something about it themselves. This just gives China one more data point they can use to make life for their own citizens better.
- mistrial9 2y ago
  not very many years ago, the public news in the USA said flatly that climate change was a "hoax" to "get money".. some people still say things like that in public. Meanwhile, the clock is obviously and plainly ticking into irreversible changes. Throw any and all science information into the public now and see what sticks IMHO
- mturmon 2y ago
  Why not both? That is, a global measurement and a regional measurement? (Regional, with airborne and in situ for validation of the large scale measurement.) And appropriate global and regional studies? They are highly synergistic! Maybe something integrated like: https://above.nasa.gov/about.html?#questions https://above.nasa.gov/about.html?#questions
  - dylan604 2y ago
    > Why not both? Without the "moral high ground", there's no way anyone would listen to someone pulling a "pot calling the kettle black", "do as I say not as a I do", or whatever other phrase you like. Attempting to influence someone like that does nothing positive for your image
    - mturmon 2y ago
      Hey, at least I didn’t use the Spanish version, that would have been even worse! I’ll restate. Restricting analysis within national borders does not make scientific sense in many cases. The arctic/boreal region studied in the link I gave is of prime interest to US/NASA because it contains Alaska, and Alaska is exposed to climate change in compelling ways, but it also includes about half of Canada because the processes there are the same and an integrated analysis makes more sense. Besides adjacency, there are other cases where critical regions (Greenland ice sheets come to mind, https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/jpl/nasa-greenland-mission-completes-six-years-of-mapping-unknown-terrain/ https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/jpl/nasa-greenla...) affect the US, even though they aren’t in the US. Ditto for the climate forcing from Saharan dust (https://earth.jpl.nasa.gov/emit https://earth.jpl.nasa.gov/emit). That instrument is interesting bc it was originally put up to observe land composition but it has also been a pathfinder for CH4 detection! Finally,there are analogous biomes overseas that can be studied as what-if cases to see if our models work outside their original domain of application.

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.
- dylan604 2y ago
  I'm not saying we shouldn't make a global scan. I'm simply saying that the US telling China to cut back its pollution while doing nothing about its own pollution is just too hypocritical to me, and worthy of being mocked and laughed out of the room by any other country.
  - leptons 2y ago
    You're making up that scenario in your own head. The US isn't telling China anything about pollution based on this sattelite. Trust me, China already knows how awful their air quality is and they are doing something about it themselves. This just gives China one more data point they can use to make life for their own citizens better.
mistrial9 2y ago
not very many years ago, the public news in the USA said flatly that climate change was a "hoax" to "get money".. some people still say things like that in public. Meanwhile, the clock is obviously and plainly ticking into irreversible changes. Throw any and all science information into the public now and see what sticks IMHO
mturmon 2y ago
Why not both? That is, a global measurement and a regional measurement? (Regional, with airborne and in situ for validation of the large scale measurement.) And appropriate global and regional studies? They are highly synergistic! Maybe something integrated like: https://above.nasa.gov/about.html?#questions https://above.nasa.gov/about.html?#questions
- dylan604 2y ago
  > Why not both? Without the "moral high ground", there's no way anyone would listen to someone pulling a "pot calling the kettle black", "do as I say not as a I do", or whatever other phrase you like. Attempting to influence someone like that does nothing positive for your image
  - mturmon 2y ago
    Hey, at least I didn’t use the Spanish version, that would have been even worse! I’ll restate. Restricting analysis within national borders does not make scientific sense in many cases. The arctic/boreal region studied in the link I gave is of prime interest to US/NASA because it contains Alaska, and Alaska is exposed to climate change in compelling ways, but it also includes about half of Canada because the processes there are the same and an integrated analysis makes more sense. Besides adjacency, there are other cases where critical regions (Greenland ice sheets come to mind, https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/jpl/nasa-greenland-mission-completes-six-years-of-mapping-unknown-terrain/ https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/jpl/nasa-greenla...) affect the US, even though they aren’t in the US. Ditto for the climate forcing from Saharan dust (https://earth.jpl.nasa.gov/emit https://earth.jpl.nasa.gov/emit). That instrument is interesting bc it was originally put up to observe land composition but it has also been a pathfinder for CH4 detection! Finally,there are analogous biomes overseas that can be studied as what-if cases to see if our models work outside their original domain of application.