Although sad, at least the European Union is ready to replace these with the CO2M constellation (originally Sentinel 7) to be launched in 2026. It will have a higher resolution, higher quality, and broader coverage.
OCO-2 was launched in 2014. We’re at 11 years service. What was the project’s service time goal? Was the original goal achieved?
I get the administration is using its power to shock and dismay its opponents and feed red meat to its base. But if this satellite was hit by Elon’s Tesla coup and destroyed, would we not say we reached our goals?
The fossil fuel "won" by prioritizing profits over the environment. IMO, the world is heading straight to +3C and no way to stop it.
We could probably prevent 3.5C, but by then the world will probably be in a massive "war" footing due the 1 billion+ people migration north. Assuming civilization did not collapse.
We are about to not be the main drivers of change. I won’t be so optimistic about it stopping at 3, 3.5 °C or whatever near enough. What may change is how fast we will get there, but we already are reaching the limit set for the end of the century 10 years ago.
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.
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.
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.
>The satellite actually performed a lot better than anyone was expecting, becoming the "gold standard" in space-based carbon dioxide measurements.
>"The mission has also uncovered insights into CO2 emissions from cities, and contributes data supporting the Paris Agreement," NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory adds. "As an unexpected bonus, OCO-2 has even been able to track growing seasons and crops by measuring the 'glow' plants emit when they photosynthesize."
>Data produced by the satellite has been used to create maps of photosynthesis on Earth, providing useful data to farmers as well as scientists, as they monitor farmland, crop yield, and drought.
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.
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.
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.
>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."
>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.
Although sad, at least the European Union is ready to replace these with the CO2M constellation (originally Sentinel 7) to be launched in 2026. It will have a higher resolution, higher quality, and broader coverage.
OCO-2 was launched in 2014. We’re at 11 years service. What was the project’s service time goal? Was the original goal achieved?
I get the administration is using its power to shock and dismay its opponents and feed red meat to its base. But if this satellite was hit by Elon’s Tesla coup and destroyed, would we not say we reached our goals?
Title is misspelled, should be “White House” (two words).
Yes...I thought this was about the band Whitehouse at first
People get what they ask for! :-(
[dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44799468
Source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44796597
In the long run I fear it does not matter.
The fossil fuel "won" by prioritizing profits over the environment. IMO, the world is heading straight to +3C and no way to stop it.
We could probably prevent 3.5C, but by then the world will probably be in a massive "war" footing due the 1 billion+ people migration north. Assuming civilization did not collapse.
We are about to not be the main drivers of change. I won’t be so optimistic about it stopping at 3, 3.5 °C or whatever near enough. What may change is how fast we will get there, but we already are reaching the limit set for the end of the century 10 years ago.
That's we called democracy.
https://www.nber.org/papers/w29320
Pathetic.
[flagged]
[flagged]
Was that ever not obvious?
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.
To everyone critical of my statement, have a look yourself:
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.
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.
> Moana Loa Observatory and others like it provide far more accurate data and have much more consistent data.
This observatory is also being shut down.
But the change in reflected vs captured radiation is exactly what causes global warming, no?
>The satellite actually performed a lot better than anyone was expecting, becoming the "gold standard" in space-based carbon dioxide measurements.
>"The mission has also uncovered insights into CO2 emissions from cities, and contributes data supporting the Paris Agreement," NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory adds. "As an unexpected bonus, OCO-2 has even been able to track growing seasons and crops by measuring the 'glow' plants emit when they photosynthesize."
>Data produced by the satellite has been used to create maps of photosynthesis on Earth, providing useful data to farmers as well as scientists, as they monitor farmland, crop yield, and drought.
https://www.iflscience.com/this-is-illegal-nasa-reportedly-o...
why destroy them?
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.
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.
> 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.
Not according to this sibling comment, above:
> According to your source, the satellite provides the most complete dataset.
>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-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."
>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-nas...
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?
[flagged]