4 ms·

This is a bombastic title that has become common on HN as of late. CO2 is primarily measured from ground based instrumentation including especially the Mauna Lo

This is a bombastic title that has become common on HN as of late. CO2 is primarily measured from ground based instrumentation including especially the Mauna Loa Observatory under NOAA. These satellites aren't even very precise in measuring CO2 as they are measuring reflected sunlight.

postflopclarity 1y ago
why destroy them?
- chrisco255 1y ago
  Please see my sibling reply. The data is very inaccurate, it can only scan in 10km tracks, it can't see through clouds (2/3 of the earth's atmosphere at any given time), and so the data it puts out is coaxed into a model, which provide us with nothing we don't already know from ground based instrumentation.
  - panja 1y ago
    Did you read the NPR article? There are more uses than that. Wouldn't it make sense to continuing using it after we invested so heavily into it?
  - kashunstva 1y ago
    > The data is very inaccurate… And that’s the reason they are being destroyed? I find it difficult to believe that the U.S. president has the ability or attention span to parse a fraction of this. And the same seems to apply to a majority of the next layer of decision makers in government. Irrespective of the data quality issues which I have no expertise in, the motivation for this move is important. I understand that whether the satellites are being commissioned for data quality and efficiency issues, or whether they are being shut down for anti-scientific political reasons, they will stop functioning. But if it is the latter, it helps U.S. voters understand the depths of the anti-science, indeed anti-truth orientation of this administration. They have already shown a preference for firing personnel who are oriented toward actual numbers.
  - nielsbot 1y ago
    Not according to this sibling comment, above: > According to your source, the satellite provides the most complete dataset.
  - aredox 1y ago
    >An official review by NASA in 2023 [0] found that "the data are of exceptionally high quality" and recommended continuing the mission for at least three years. [0]https://science.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/2023-nasa-essr-fullreport-final.pdf?emrc=ad85a1 https://science.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/2023-nas...
  - aredox 1y ago
    >the data it puts out is coaxed into a model, which provide us with nothing we don't already know from ground based instrumentation. https://www.npr.org/2025/08/04/nx-s1-5453731/nasa-carbon-dioxide-satellite-mission-threatened https://www.npr.org/2025/08/04/nx-s1-5453731/nasa-carbon-dio... : >That's because measuring carbon dioxide with instruments in various locations on the Earth's surface, as scientists have been doing since the 1950s, doesn't provide information about the whole planet. Satellite data, on the other hand, covers the entire Earth. And that data showed some surprising things. "Fifty years ago we thought the tropical forests were like a huge vacuum cleaner, sucking up carbon dioxide," Denning explains. "Now we know they're not."
- agent327 1y ago
  I wonder if the order was to "destroy that specific satellite", or if this is merely a consequence of the overall reduction in the NASA budget. The first would be scandalous, the second just clickbait.
chrisco255 1y ago
To everyone critical of my statement, have a look yourself: https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/5022 https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/5022 The same seasonal patterns play over and over with very little precision or interesting insights from 2015-2022. "However, the OCO-2 data as observed by the on-board instrument have large data gaps in coverage due to the narrow 10-km ground track and an inability to see through clouds and aerosols. To provide a gap-filled view of Earth’s carbon cycle and atmosphere NASA’s Global and Modeling Assimilation Office (GMAO) ingests OCO-2 retrievals every 6 hours with a modeling and assimilation technique and derives the Gridded Monthly OCO-2 Carbon Dioxide/OCO-2 GEO" It can't measure through clouds which is 2/3 of the earth's atmosphere at any given time. Ground based or flight based instrumentation is absolutely superior for this, and CO2 is already well mixed in the atmosphere so it provides very little insight to keep it going for whatever millions it is costing to run. As I mentioned before the brigade, Moana Loa Observatory and others like it provide far more accurate data and have much more consistent data.
- sam_lowry_ 1y ago
  But the change in reflected vs captured radiation is exactly what causes global warming, no?
- 3mr 1y ago
  Here is the quote above with additional context :- "NASA’s Orbiting Carbon Observatory, 2 (OCO-2) provides the most complete dataset tracking the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂), the main driver of climate change. Since its launch (July 2014), OCO-2 measures sunlight reflected from Earth’s surface to infer the dry-air column-averaged CO2 mixing ratio and provides around 100,000 cloud-free observations. However, the OCO-2 data as observed by the on-board instrument have large data gaps in coverage due to the narrow 10-km ground track and an inability to see through clouds and aerosols. To provide a gap-filled view of Earth’s carbon cycle and atmosphere NASA’s Global and Modeling Assimilation Office (GMAO) ingests OCO-2 retrievals every 6 hours with a modeling and assimilation technique and derives the Gridded Monthly OCO-2 Carbon Dioxide/OCO-2 GEOS Level 3 product." According to your source, the satellite provides the most complete dataset.
- aredox 1y ago
subscribed 1y ago
[flagged]

postflopclarity 1y ago

why destroy them?

chrisco255 1y ago
Please see my sibling reply. The data is very inaccurate, it can only scan in 10km tracks, it can't see through clouds (2/3 of the earth's atmosphere at any given time), and so the data it puts out is coaxed into a model, which provide us with nothing we don't already know from ground based instrumentation.
- panja 1y ago
  Did you read the NPR article? There are more uses than that. Wouldn't it make sense to continuing using it after we invested so heavily into it?
- kashunstva 1y ago
  > The data is very inaccurate… And that’s the reason they are being destroyed? I find it difficult to believe that the U.S. president has the ability or attention span to parse a fraction of this. And the same seems to apply to a majority of the next layer of decision makers in government. Irrespective of the data quality issues which I have no expertise in, the motivation for this move is important. I understand that whether the satellites are being commissioned for data quality and efficiency issues, or whether they are being shut down for anti-scientific political reasons, they will stop functioning. But if it is the latter, it helps U.S. voters understand the depths of the anti-science, indeed anti-truth orientation of this administration. They have already shown a preference for firing personnel who are oriented toward actual numbers.
- nielsbot 1y ago
  Not according to this sibling comment, above: > According to your source, the satellite provides the most complete dataset.
- aredox 1y ago
  >An official review by NASA in 2023 [0] found that "the data are of exceptionally high quality" and recommended continuing the mission for at least three years. [0]https://science.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/2023-nasa-essr-fullreport-final.pdf?emrc=ad85a1 https://science.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/2023-nas...
- aredox 1y ago
  >the data it puts out is coaxed into a model, which provide us with nothing we don't already know from ground based instrumentation. https://www.npr.org/2025/08/04/nx-s1-5453731/nasa-carbon-dioxide-satellite-mission-threatened https://www.npr.org/2025/08/04/nx-s1-5453731/nasa-carbon-dio... : >That's because measuring carbon dioxide with instruments in various locations on the Earth's surface, as scientists have been doing since the 1950s, doesn't provide information about the whole planet. Satellite data, on the other hand, covers the entire Earth. And that data showed some surprising things. "Fifty years ago we thought the tropical forests were like a huge vacuum cleaner, sucking up carbon dioxide," Denning explains. "Now we know they're not."
agent327 1y ago
I wonder if the order was to "destroy that specific satellite", or if this is merely a consequence of the overall reduction in the NASA budget. The first would be scandalous, the second just clickbait.

chrisco255 1y ago

To everyone critical of my statement, have a look yourself: https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/5022 https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/5022 The same seasonal patterns play over and over with very little precision or interesting insights from 2015-2022. "However, the OCO-2 data as observed by the on-board instrument have large data gaps in coverage due to the narrow 10-km ground track and an inability to see through clouds and aerosols. To provide a gap-filled view of Earth’s carbon cycle and atmosphere NASA’s Global and Modeling Assimilation Office (GMAO) ingests OCO-2 retrievals every 6 hours with a modeling and assimilation technique and derives the Gridded Monthly OCO-2 Carbon Dioxide/OCO-2 GEO" It can't measure through clouds which is 2/3 of the earth's atmosphere at any given time. Ground based or flight based instrumentation is absolutely superior for this, and CO2 is already well mixed in the atmosphere so it provides very little insight to keep it going for whatever millions it is costing to run. As I mentioned before the brigade, Moana Loa Observatory and others like it provide far more accurate data and have much more consistent data.

sam_lowry_ 1y ago
But the change in reflected vs captured radiation is exactly what causes global warming, no?
3mr 1y ago
Here is the quote above with additional context :- "NASA’s Orbiting Carbon Observatory, 2 (OCO-2) provides the most complete dataset tracking the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂), the main driver of climate change. Since its launch (July 2014), OCO-2 measures sunlight reflected from Earth’s surface to infer the dry-air column-averaged CO2 mixing ratio and provides around 100,000 cloud-free observations. However, the OCO-2 data as observed by the on-board instrument have large data gaps in coverage due to the narrow 10-km ground track and an inability to see through clouds and aerosols. To provide a gap-filled view of Earth’s carbon cycle and atmosphere NASA’s Global and Modeling Assimilation Office (GMAO) ingests OCO-2 retrievals every 6 hours with a modeling and assimilation technique and derives the Gridded Monthly OCO-2 Carbon Dioxide/OCO-2 GEOS Level 3 product." According to your source, the satellite provides the most complete dataset.
aredox 1y ago

subscribed 1y ago

[flagged]