Trump's budget takes aim at gold standard measurement of atmospheric carbon dioxide
Measurements made at remote sites around the world, located away from industrial activities, provide the most direct evidence of this global increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. The Mauna Loa Observatory, where the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Oceanic and Atmospheric Research makes carbon measurements, is the most famous of these. Located on the barren slopes of a volcano 11,135 feet above sea level, it's the site of the longest continuous CO2 measurement in the world.
In 1958, American scientist Charles David Keeling began measuring atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide at Mauna Loa and by 1961 had compiled enough data to establish that they were steadily rising. When Keeling's measurements began, the scientific community lacked a comprehensive understanding of the global carbon cycle. Deciding to go to Hawaii to do this, away from local contamination and vegetation, was a stroke of genius. The continuous record of this increase came to be known as ' the Keeling Curve, ' and it showed that if humans keep burning fossil fuels, atmospheric carbon will rise. This, in turn, increases global temperatures.
Think of the measurements recorded at Mauna Loa as a health indicator for the planet — similar to human cholesterol levels being monitored by a doctor. Our view of the world changed the moment when these measurements began. They showed us that humanity can pull the levers of the planetary machine in a way that matters for us all.
By making these measurements, the U.S. government has helped monitor the vital signs of our planet, providing us with an understanding of how serious the problem is.
The Keeling Curve is valuable to science, but it is also a treasure that belongs to humanity as the most poignant indication of our impact on the environment and as a testament to our ability to document it. The Mauna Loa Observatory deserves the same respect as a UNESCO World Heritage site.
But President Donald Trump, a renowned climate change denier, has shown repeatedly that he has no use for scientific data that disproves his preconceived assumptions. Since his second inauguration, he has proposed drastic cuts to science agencies like National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, NASA and the NOAA, so the proposed elimination of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research at Mauna Loa is no great surprise.
While the Senate and House Appropriations Committees have both decided on budgets for NOAA that are only slight reductions from last year, the fate of the agency's Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, which accounts for roughly 10% of the total NOAA budget, remains uncertain because the two budgets still have to be reconciled and voted on by Congress.
Although other nations track atmospheric carbon dioxide in specific regions, none offer global coverage comparable to NOAA's, and none extend as far back as the Mauna Loa data.
Today, NOAA operates a network of four global measurement stations in Alaska, Hawaii, American Samoa and the South Pole, as well as 84 sampling sites in 37 countries worldwide. These sites collect samples, which are then sent to the laboratory in Boulder, Colo., for analysis. The NOAA stations are part of the World Meteorological Organization's Global Atmosphere Watch Programme, and NOAA also calibrates measurements taken by other countries.
These sustained observations enable scientists and policymakers to understand our impact on the environment and make informed decisions. Seeing the data also reveals to the general public the consequences of our actions and the inadequacy of our response to date — atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to increase at an alarming rate.
Interrupting the Mauna Loa time series, the most iconic measurement in use, would be catastrophic. It would be like interrupting the Dow Jones Industrial Average or a graph tracking the rise of the human population. We will never be able to go back and remake those measurements. The observatory provides essential information for the future, and humanity would be impoverished without it.
The U.S. has been an essential partner in an international cooperative endeavor to understand our planet's carbon cycle. Science is a collaborative enterprise, and even the U.S. cannot do it all alone. The Global Carbon Budget utilizes data from NOAA and other sources for its annual reports on the sources and sinks of carbon dioxide, allowing us to understand how the atmosphere, ocean and land respond to our input of emissions.
Academic science funding in the U.S. and elsewhere typically favors hypothesis-based research — specific questions that can be answered by a targeted data set. Routine observations, such as the Mauna Loa carbon record, are not typically funded by National Science Foundation, even though they are fundamental to making discoveries. This is where government agencies like NOAA come in, because it is their mandate to make these observations. NOAA has always funded these measurements because it is part of its mission — to share important knowledge and information with others.
If the Trump administration is successful in the senseless destruction of NOAA's Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, other countries will need to step up and assume the responsibility of making atmospheric carbon observations and be in charge of calibrations. The Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego is making parallel measurements of carbon dioxide at Mauna Loa, but these are supported by philanthropy and are vulnerable to the whims of funders. For now, philanthropic funding is essential to ensure these measurements continue, but it can only be a stopgap measure.
The Keeling Curve is a significant and symbolic achievement for an advanced nation, and the measurements should continue until humanity has no reason to monitor atmospheric carbon in such an intensive way. We, as a society, should be proud to fund it collectively.
David Ho is a professor in the Department of Oceanography at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. Find him on Bluesky at @davidho.bsky.social.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
World's Longest Lightning Strike Crossed 515 Miles From Texas to Kansas
A bolt of lightning that arced across the sky from Texas to Kansas in the fall of 2017 has officially smashed the record for the world's longest. During a major thunderstorm in October 2017, the colossal crack of jagged electricity streaked across the Great Plains of North America for 829 kilometers (515 miles) – a distance that surpassed the previous record by 61 kilometers. "We call it megaflash lightning and we're just now figuring out the mechanics of how and why it occurs," says geographical scientist Randy Cerveny of Arizona State University and the World Meteorological Organization. "It is likely that even greater extremes still exist, and that we will be able to observe them as additional high-quality lightning measurements accumulate over time." Related: Lightning Really Does Strike Twice, And This Is Where It Happens Most Lightning is one of the most breathtaking phenomena on Earth. It occurs when turbulent conditions in the atmosphere jostle particles around, rubbing them together to generate charge. Eventually, so much charge builds up that it has to go somewhere, producing a discharge of millions of volts across the sky. The lightning bolt with the previously greatest-known horizontal distance was recorded on 29 April 2020, when a cloud-to-cloud megaflash covered a distance of 768 kilometers across parts of Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Both the previous and current record-holders were detected using the NOAA's GOES-16 and GOES-17 geostationary weather satellites, which are equipped with Geostationary Lightning Mappers (GLMs) that continuously monitor the sky for extreme lightning. GOES-16 was launched in late 2016, and managed to record the giant storm of October 2017, but the megaflash wasn't detected until a team led by atmospheric scientist Michael Peterson of Georgia Institute of Technology's Severe Storms Research Center revisited the data. Most lightning bolts are relatively small, less than 10 miles long, and have a tendency to strike vertically. But some travel horizontally through the clouds, and if the cloud complex is particularly large, that can mean giant bolts of lightning. Anything more than 100 kilometers long is considered a megaflash. Measuring a megaflash is painstaking work that involves putting together satellite and ground-based data to reconstruct the extent of the event in three dimensions. This helps determine that the megaflash is one single lightning strike, as well as measuring just how big it is. Because the strike is often at least partially obscured by cloud, such megaflashes are easy to miss. The GOES satellites are a major part of the puzzle, since they continuously monitor the sky. They also identified the longest-lasting lightning strike on record back in 2022, a colossal flash that lasted 17.102 seconds during a storm over Uruguay and Argentina in June 2020. It's no coincidence that both megaflashes occurred over the Great Plains. This region is a major hotspot for the mesoscale convective system thunderstorms that are most conducive to megaflashes. So, if the record is to be broken in the future – which is a strong possibility – it could come from the same region. "The extremes of what lightning is capable of is difficult to study because it pushes the boundaries of what we can practically observe. Adding continuous measurements from geostationary orbit was a major advance," says Peterson. "We are now at a point where most of the global megaflash hotspots are covered by a geostationary satellite, and data processing techniques have improved to properly represent flashes in the vast quantity of observational data at all scales. "Over time, as the data record continues to expand, we will be able to observe even the rarest types of extreme lightning on Earth and investigate the broad impacts of lightning on society," Peterson concludes. The result has been published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. Related News Stunning New Video Reveals Deepest-Known Undersea Life Forms How a Giant Earthquake Triggered a Surprisingly Small Tsunami Giant Earthquake Off Russian Coast Triggers Mass Evacuations as Far as Hawaii Solve the daily Crossword
New York Post
9 hours ago
- New York Post
Why many women over age 52 have a higher risk of getting STIs
STIs are on the rise — but it's not just frat bros and free-lovers feeling the burn. While younger people still account for the majority of cases, studies show that some of the steepest spikes are happening in people 55 and up. Experts have offered several explanations for the surge, but research suggests there's a risk factor affecting many midlife and older women that has largely flown under the radar and could be playing a key role. Advertisement 4 More Americans are having sex in their senior years thanks to advancements in medicine. Monkey Business – More than a million American women hit menopause each year — and it's not just hot flashes and mood swings they're facing. The transition, which wraps up around age 52 on average, marks the end of reproductive years and is driven by a drop in estrogen as the ovaries slow hormone production. While vaginal dryness and loss of elasticity are well-known symptoms, research from Ohio State University (OSU) shows that menopause can also weaken the vaginal tissue itself, making it more prone to tearing. Advertisement That vulnerability comes down to changes at the cellular level. The vagina's surface is made up of multiple layers held together by key proteins like desmoglein-1 (DSG1) and desmocollin-1 (DSC1). 'These proteins strengthen the vaginal lining and restrict pathogen access to deeper tissue, reducing the risk of infection,' Dr. Thomas L. Cherpes, associate professor of otolaryngology at OSU, wrote in The Conversation. Advertisement 4 Menopause can bring a host of uncomfortable symptoms, including vaginal changes. – In their research, Cherpes and his colleagues found that postmenopausal women have significantly lower levels of DSG1 and DSC1 than women who haven't gone through the transition. To see how this might impact infection risk, the researchers removed the ovaries of mice in a lab to mimic estrogen loss in postmenopausal women. Compared to mice with intact ovaries, those without had far lower levels of DSG1 and DSC1 in their vaginal tissue. Advertisement The team also found that these mice were more vulnerable to infection with herpes simplex virus type 2 (HSV-2), which causes genital herpes. They were less able to clear chlamydia infections from the lower genital tract as well. The findings help explain why postmenopausal women are more susceptible to STIs than their younger counterparts. Notably, when Cherpes and his colleagues applied estrogen cream to the mice without ovaries, it restored the vaginal lining's integrity and fully protected them from HSV-2 infection. 4 The vaginal tissue is more vulnerable to tearing after menopause, opening the door to infection. megaflopp – 'While additional research is needed, findings from our lab suggest that estrogen-containing compounds used to relieve vaginal irritation and other symptoms of genitourinary syndrome of menopause can also reduce susceptibility to STIs among older adults,' Cherpes wrote. Sex doesn't stop — and neither do the risks Americans might not like to talk about it, but older adults are still very much having sex. A 2018 survey found nearly 40% of people aged 65 to 80 are sexually active, and almost two-thirds remain interested in sex. Advertisement More recent AARP data shows that 26% of 60- to 69-year-olds and 17% of those 70 and older have sex weekly. 'Hormone-replacement therapy, vaginal lubricants and the approval of sildenafil (Viagra) and its relatives have extended people's sex lives,' Dr. Sandra Adamson Fryhofer told the American Medical Association. But while more people are living longer and staying sexually active, more are also paying the price. 4 Sex-crazed seniors are fueling a major spike in STIs nationwide. David – Advertisement 'Rates are highest in the under 25 age group, which accounts for about 50% of STIs, but we're definitely seeing a rise in infections in the older population, particularly in people over 65,' Dr. Angelina Gangestad said in an interview with University Hospitals. Between 2010 and 2023, the number of Americans over 65 diagnosed with chlamydia, gonorrhea or syphilis rose by roughly three-, five- and sevenfold, respectively, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Research also suggests women over 50 are at greater risk for HIV than their younger peers. Advertisement In addition to the effects of menopause, experts say several other factors are likely fueling the rise. Condom use is significantly lower among older adults compared to younger people. One study found that just 3% of Americans aged 60 and older have used a condom in the past year. Older adults also tend to have less knowledge about STIs, including how they spread, what symptoms look like and how to prevent them. Advertisement To make matters worse, research suggests that many doctors don't ask older patients about their sex lives — and seniors aren't exactly jumping to bring it up with their family or friends, either. 'No one wants to think about grandma doing this,' Matthew Lee Smith, an associate professor at the Texas A&M School of Public Health, told NBC News. 'You certainly aren't going to ask grandma if she was wearing condoms — and that's part of the problem, because every individual regardless of age has the right to intimacy.'
Scientific American
13 hours ago
- Scientific American
Strong Support for NASA and Project Artemis Will Advance the U.S.
During President Trump's first term in office, he signed Space Policy Directive 1, signaling the administration's desire to bring American astronauts back to the moon. This directive, and similar ones, later became Project Artemis, the lunar campaign with broader ambition to get the U.S. on Mars. But will we get to the moon, not to mention Mars? As the space race against China barrels forward, the White House first proposed $6 billion in total cuts to NASA funding, a roughly 24 percent reduction that experts said would be the largest single-year cut to agency funding in history. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. But in the aftermath of President Trump signing the ' One Big Beautiful Bill,' which did reintegrate certain funds for Project Artemis, Congressional appropriations committees have continued to push back against the administration's myriad cuts to NASA, which for the space agency's science unit alone was a 47 percent reduction to approximately $3.9 billion. The Senate committee's bill kept NASA science funding, integral to the support of Artemis and its mission, roughly at their current levels, while the House draft halved the cuts proposed by the White House. The Senate appropriations committee also firmly rejected the president's original proposal to terminate Project Artemis's Space Launch System and Orion Spacecraft after the conclusion of the Artemis III mission. This conflict and dizzying back and forth regarding America's moonshot project suggests a question: Are we committed to Artemis and the broader goal of understanding space? Or to put it another way: Do we want to win this new race to the moon? The current administration owes us an answer. There's more than just a soft-power victory over China's taikonauts at stake. This endeavor is about cementing the U.S. as a technological superpower, a center for understanding space and our solar system, and in due course, setting us up to be the first to live and work on the moon. Americans support this goal. A recent CBS News poll shows broad support for sending astronauts back to the moon. But it will be hard for the administration to reconcile its anti-government spending message with a full-throated support of Artemis and related missions. This isn't the first time the U.S. has faced such a debate. In the winter of 1967, Senator Clinton P. Anderson and his space committee initiated an inquiry into the disastrous Apollo 1 fire that killed three American astronauts. Letters flooded into Congress. Concerned citizens across the country offered their theories about the cause of the conflagration. But others asked a more poignant question that was at the center of national debate: Why are we going to the moon in the first place? 'I want to say here and now that I think the moon project is the most terrible waste of national funds that I can imagine,' wrote James P. Smith of Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y. in a letter housed at the Legislative Archives in Washington D.C. 'Let [the Russians] go to the moon and let us use our money to end the war in Vietnam and raise our standards of living.' Others pressed their representatives to not give up their support of the Apollo program. Julius H. Cooper, Jr., of Delmar, Md., said in his letter to Anderson's committee: 'Should a manned landing by the Soviets occur on the moon first make no mistake about it the political and scientific repercussions will be tremendous.' Today's America, in many ways, is the same. Social discord, financial struggles, and conflicts abroad continue to consume our country's time, energy and resources. But the value of Project Artemis goes beyond the scientific discoveries and technological advancements that await. The success of this new moonshot will at the very least prevent space dominance from adversaries, including Russia and China, which have partnered together on their own International Lunar Research Station. Both countries have declined to sign onto the Artemis Accords, a worrying sign that these nations don't agree with our approach to the 'peaceful' exploration and use of space. To be clear, this Artemis isn't just a jobs program. Although the work created by these missions will bring a positive economic impact, the reality is that humankind's future is among the stars. Our government should be the one to orchestrate the path there while inspiring the next generation to continue exploring the depths of space. But instead of leaning into the benefits of Project Artemis, the administration is creating hurdles for the moon bound mission. To start, NASA has no permanent leadership. The administration withdrew its nomination of tech billionaire and civilian astronaut Jared Isaacman to lead the space agency, so despite the recent appointment of Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy as interim administrator, NASA will continue for months without a leader pushing Project Artemis forward. And despite Duffy's assurance that Artemis is a critical mission, the message runs hollow if word from the Oval Office doesn't match. Again, the president initially called for the end of the program's Space Launch System and Orion crew capsule following the Artemis III mission for more cost-effective commercial systems. Trump's initial budget also called for the termination of the Gateway station, the planned lunar outpost and critical component of Project Artemis's infrastructure. This would effectively kill the program that President Trump championed with his initial space policy directive. Congress did ultimately provide funding for additional Artemis missions in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, but it remains to be seen whether that reflects a sustained change in the administration's commitment. The success of Artemis requires extended support, not preemptively phasing out critical mission components or funding for NASA's incredibly valuable science missions. Artemis and NASA's science programs contribute an extraordinary amount toward America's technological might, so funding shouldn't be framed as an 'either/or' proposition. Now is the time to brush away uncertainty and put Artemis on a track forward. As critics have pointed out, it is unclear whether NASA has a tangible plan for getting to the moon and back. The lunar landing system is still in the concept stage. This is a chance for the president to show leadership by stepping in and pushing his government to achieve a monumental task, one that he might compare to the success of Operation Warp Speed during his first term. The administration needs to move fast and nominate a leader for NASA who will prioritize Artemis and its core mission. It needs to walk back plans to slim down government that are causing 2,000 senior officials to leave NASA at a time when leadership matters more than ever before. In short, Project Artemis requires financial certainty. The success of the program will come from the willingness of this administration to fully commit to it. In Air & Space magazine's June/July 1989 issue commemorating the 20th anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing, author Andy Chaikin opined on why America hadn't yet gone back. 'One of the lessons of Apollo is that the decision to 'go someplace' can't come from anyone in NASA, or from moon advocates, or from the Mars advocates,' he wrote. 'It's got to come from the top.' If President Trump supports this moonshot, Americans deserve a clear justification straight from the Oval Office. Americans need to buy into the message from the top, whether it's one of technological or political superiority, a desire to discover the unknown, or something else. Ultimately, Senator Anderson's 1967 space committee recommended that the Apollo program continue, with the caveat that improvements needed to be made. Today, boxes of letters sent into the Apollo 1 investigatory committee sit in the Center for Legislative Archives in Washington, D.C., serving as a time capsule of one of America's most contentious debates. Inside one of these boxes there's a handwritten letter from a woman named Ruth B. Harkness, of Wataga, Ill., inquiring about the U.S.'s determination to get to the moon. It distills down the very question we're struggling with now. 'May I ask, Why?' she wrote. Tell us, Mr. President.
