The NASA EOS program has proven to be wildly successful. We’ve progressed in leaps and bounds with environmental monitoring that allows coverage of large areas at the same time. Monitoring on land or sea by taking samples only provides a snapshot of one tiny area at one point in time. Satellites such as Sea WIFS and MODIS have allowed us to estimate such parameters like the amount of primary production in the global ocean. One of the goals of the EOS program is quantification of the sources and sinks in the global carbon cycle. This will allow us to better estimate the effects and extent of global warming.
This
quote in the article on Shrub’s hunt for little green men worried me.
From Article:
To pay for it, Bush proposed a five-year, $1 billion increase in NASA's budget, which is now about $15 billion.
Another $11 billion over five years would be reallocated from elsewhere in NASA's budget. :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
Shrub gets to cut environmental studies that might indicate problems with his neo-luddite views on the greenhouse gas theory of global warming. We will have less money to monitor deforestation, sea level rise, or other forms of environmental degradation. Expect programs like EOS to be cut to pay for his vision! I admit am biased because I work ground-truthing environmental satellite data. However, I feel that it is a necessary program if we want to preserve this planet for our children. I don’t oppose a mission to Mars, but feel that it should be done using new money and not robbing existing programs or by increasing the US debt. It seems awfully convenient that Bush is promoting cutting these programs as evidence for the greenhouse theory of global warming increases.