Saving Seafood

  • Home
  • News
    • Alerts
    • Conservation & Environment
    • Council Actions
    • Economic Impact
    • Enforcement
    • International & Trade
    • Law
    • Management & Regulation
    • Regulations
    • Nutrition
    • Opinion
    • Other News
    • Safety
    • Science
    • State and Local
  • News by Region
    • New England
    • Mid-Atlantic
    • South Atlantic
    • Gulf of Mexico
    • Pacific
    • North Pacific
    • Western Pacific
  • About
    • Contact Us
    • Fishing Terms Glossary

Idea to cut NASA’s role in climate science could be major loss for Maine, scientists say

November 29, 2016 — Maine scientists are decrying the assertion by a senior adviser to President-elect Donald Trump that the new administration will eliminate or dramatically scale back NASA’s climate research.

The scientists say the elimination of the agency’s earth science programs would be catastrophic for climate science research in Maine, impairing their ability to detect and analyze effects on fisheries, forests and agriculture. Maine is a hub of climate research – especially as it relates to the oceans – and the work relies on data collected by NASA satellites and processed by the agency’s experts.

“If we lose these data sets and capabilities, that will be a major loss to us being able to monitor and track changes here in Maine and in other areas that impact us,” said Andrew Thomas, a professor of oceanography at the University of Maine’s School of Marine Sciences, which receives more than one-sixth of its research funds from NASA. “Basically, you’re chopping off one of your arms and saying, ‘Carry on.’ ” The school’s Satellite Data Lab is using NASA data to analyze effects of melting ice in the Gulf of Alaska and to monitor marine algae production in the California Current.

Bob Walker, a former Pennsylvania congressman who serves as Trump’s space policy adviser, said in interviews last week that the administration would realign NASA’s budget, prioritizing exploration of “deep space” over space-based observations of Earth, which he has previously characterized as “politically correct environmental monitoring.” Earth observations would instead be made by the National Science Foundation or National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, two much smaller agencies with little experience or expertise in space-based climate monitoring.

Read the full story at the Portland Press Herald

Recent Headlines

  • Gulf shrimp advocate urges federal caution in aquaculture expansion
  • OREGON: Oregon’s yelloweye rockfish fishery to reopen after 25 years
  • ALASKA: Kodiak salmon season yields more fish, higher prices than expected
  • US House votes to give Justice Department more tools to go after trade violations
  • The New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC) Seeks Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) Nominees to Serve 2027-2029
  • Respected Recreational Fishing Blogger Blasts Deceitful Forage Fish Campaign
  • NOAA sends Saildrones on mission to track El Niño
  • US States Sue Trump Administration for Weakening Endangered Species Protections

Most Popular Topics

Alaska Aquaculture ASMFC Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission BOEM California China Climate change Coronavirus COVID-19 Donald Trump Florida groundfish Gulf of Maine Gulf of Mexico IUU fishing Lobster Maine Massachusetts Mid-Atlantic National Marine Fisheries Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NEFMC New Bedford New England New England Fishery Management Council New Jersey New York NMFS NOAA NOAA Fisheries North Atlantic right whales North Carolina North Pacific offshore energy Offshore wind Pacific right whales Salmon South Atlantic Virginia Western Pacific Whales wind energy Wind Farms
Tweets by @savingseafood

Copyright © 2026 Saving Seafood · WordPress Web Design by Jessee Productions