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?