NASA Headquarters History
Office Oral History Project
Edited Oral History Transcript
Claire
L. Parkinson
Interviewed by Jennifer Ross-Nazzal
Washington, DC – 26 June 2008
Ross-Nazzal:
Today is June 26, 2008. This interview with Dr. Claire Parkinson is
being conducted in Washington D.C. for the NASA Headquarters History
Office. Dr. Parkinson is in Washington today to participate in the
NASA Program at the Smithsonian Folklife Festival on the National
Mall. Jennifer Ross-Nazzal is the interviewer, assisted by Sandra
Johnson. Thanks again for joining us today. We certainly appreciate
it. We know your schedule is busy.
Parkinson:
Thanks very much Jennifer. I’m pleased to be here, so thank
you.
Ross-Nazzal:
I thought we could begin by talking about if there were any specific
events or people that resulted in your interest in climatology as
a graduate student, or perhaps even at a younger age.
Parkinson:
My interest as a young child was math. I was totally enthralled by
what you could do through the use of symbols, i.e., that math allows
you to do so much with so little. Math just enthralled me and that
was overwhelmingly my prime interest. So naturally I majored in math
in college. However, this was in the late 1960s; the Vietnam War was
going on, and civil rights were clearly not what they should be in
this country at that time. There were a lot of issues that made me
question how I could go into a career that is entirely theoretically
oriented when so much that I opposed was going on in the world, and
so that's why when I graduated from college, which was in 1970, I
decided that much as I love math, I really couldn’t stay in
it as my career. And that's when I decided I would switch to science,
and in particular, climate issues.
On the positive side, one event in the '60s stood out hugely in my
mind, and that was the first landing on the Moon in July of 1969.
That landing on the Moon, when [Neil A.] Armstrong and [Edwin E. “Buzz”]
Aldrin [Jr.] put down the plaque from NASA that said: "Here men
from planet Earth first set foot upon the Moon, July 1969 A.D. We
came in peace for all mankind." That struck me so much, "We
came in peace for all mankind." More than any other event in
the '60s, that made me feel proud to be an American. That was the
culmination of an amazing string of inspiring NASA accomplishments
in the ‘60s, all of which made me always feel really, really
positively about NASA.
After moving away from theoretical math, I decided I would like to
go to Antarctica. So I went to graduate school at Ohio State University
[Columbus, Ohio], where they had an Institute of Polar Studies, and
I specialized in polar research, both Arctic and Antarctic. I did
get to the Antarctic on an expedition, which was thrilling to do.
After returning to Ohio State, I attended a seminar that a scientist
from the National Center for Atmospheric Research (or NCAR) [Boulder,
Colorado], Warren [M.] Washington, was giving on climate modeling.
Although still young, Warren was already a leader in the new field
of climate modeling. I listened to that seminar and I thought, "Wow,
they can use a computer to figure out where the jet stream is and
all sorts of other stuff,” and I thought, "Studies like
that could really employ my math more than anything I’ve been
doing so far in my graduate work."
I was extremely shy at the time, but I went up to the speaker afterwards—which
was a big step for me—and I asked, "How would a person
get involved in studies like this?" He answered, "Well,
what's your interest?", and I said, "Well, I'm in the Institute
of Polar Studies here, and my interest is in the polar regions."
He then asked, "What would you feel about modeling sea ice?"
and I immediately replied, "That would be great!" He said,
"OK, let's have you come to NCAR for the summer," and I'm
thinking, "Wow, this is moving pretty fast."
So Warren got it arranged that I could go to NCAR that summer and
start working on sea ice modeling, because sea ice is something they
didn't have in their model yet. In fact none of the models at that
time included full-scale sea ice calculations. By the end of the summer,
Warren and I and my advisor at Ohio State all decided this would be
a great topic for my Ph.D. dissertation. So I ended up getting funded
by the National Science Foundation to spend two years—after
I finished the next year of my studies at Ohio State—at NCAR
developing this sea ice model.
At the end of developing the sea ice model, and still finishing up
the writing of my dissertation, I went to a conference in Seattle
[Washington] where I presented the results. Someone from the audience
came up to me after the talk and asked me what my plans were for after
I got my degree. And I said, "Well, I'm so busy getting the dissertation
done that I really don't have any immediate plans yet." He then
asked, "What would you think of working for NASA?," and
I went, "NASA? Wow!" Immediately it became my first choice.
There was no question whatsoever; that was my first choice; that's
where I wanted to work. I said, "I would love to work for NASA!"
So I put in an application, and the next summer, which would be July
of 1978, I started working for NASA at Goddard Space Flight Center
[Greenbelt, Maryland], and I've been there ever since. So I'm just
about done with 30 years at NASA.
Ross-Nazzal:
When you applied to work at NASA, what did you think that you'd be
working on, or what were you told might be some opportunities there
for you?
Parkinson:
I actually was really naïve. I just wanted to work for NASA;
whatever they asked me to do, I'd be willing to do. I really did not
know what they wanted me to work on. When I got to NASA, I was expecting
that they would give me some assignment, and I would do my best at
whatever the assignment was. That was my thought. Well, that's not
the way it works with scientists, but I was naïve. I was from
central Vermont, and everybody I knew who had a job, they'd walk into
their job and they'd get assigned something and they'd do it. I had
no idea that a scientist doesn't work that way.
So I got to NASA ready for them to give me my assignment, and they
said, "Well, we want you to continue working on your sea ice
model," and I said, "Oh, okay! Great, sure.” So working
on my sea ice model was a central reason why they wanted me there.
But they also mentioned a different project that I could be involved
in as well. Specifically, a satellite that was launched in late 1972,
the Nimbus 5 satellite, had an instrument on it, the Electrically
Scanning Microwave Radiometer, or ESMR, and people were working to
understand the ESMR data and generate meaningful data sets from it.
I said that I'd love to work on that project also, and get involved
in the satellite data. So I became involved working on sea ice information
derived from the ESMR data. I was working roughly half time continuing
with the modeling work and roughly half time with the satellite data
analysis, and as time went on it shifted more and more to the satellite
emphasis.
In my first few years at NASA, I was working with Jay Zwally, Joey
Comiso, Frank Carsey, Per Gloersen, and Bill Campbell, compiling the
satellite data for the Antarctic sea ice, which is a somewhat easier
problem than the Arctic sea ice, and so that's why we were doing the
Antarctic first. The satellite data, whether it’s sea ice or
something else, allow a global picture that you just cannot get any
other way. Sea ice in particular is something that you simply didn't
have many measurements of prior to the satellite era, because who's
going around measuring sea ice? I mean, it's tough to get to the regions.
It’s cold, it's dangerous, it's very tough. Some measurements
exist prior to satellite data, but not enough to get a solid climate
record.
Sea ice spreads over a huge area. It spreads over, in the wintertime
in the Arctic, about 15 million square kilometers, which is more than
one and a half times the area of the United States. In wintertime
in the Antarctic, it's even more; it's about 18 million square kilometers.
Even in the summertime, the Arctic still has, generally, between five
and seven million square kilometers of sea ice. So it's a huge area
involved. Without satellites, you can't possibly, even with an aircraft
zipping back and forth, get the whole area covered in a few days or
anything routine, whereas with a satellite, you can easily get at
least near-global coverage every few days.
By now, our satellites can actually get near-global coverage every
day. With satellites, suddenly you can get the full global picture
of what’s going on. We finished the Antarctic atlas in 1983,
at which time computers weren't anywhere near what they are now. So
we had to do all sorts of things to develop the techniques of how
to analyze the satellite data to determine something about sea ice.
Other people at Goddard and other NASA Centers were developing techniques
for how to analyze the satellite data for other variables. In our
case, it was sea ice.
At the end of that project of getting our first book out, which was
the Antarctic sea ice atlas [Antarctic Sea Ice, 1973-1976: Satellite
Passive-Microwave Observations], we decided we would tackle the Arctic
problem. By that time, I had had plenty of experience with the Antarctic
book and was put in charge of the Arctic sea ice atlas [Arctic Sea
Ice, 1973-1976: Satellite Passive-Microwave Observations]. So during
the next three years, we worked on the Arctic project. There were
six of us working on it, and I was the lead on this Arctic sea ice
atlas project, to get the Arctic sea ice data compiled and understood,
and the methods developed for how to analyze the data.
Now, this was all done with the data set that was from the Nimbus
5 satellite that was launched in December 1972, and it provided essentially
a four-year record. However, by the time that we got done with these
two atlases and had all the techniques developed, another satellite
with a much better instrument had been launched. The ESMR instrument
from the Nimbus 5 satellite was essentially a trial run, a proof-of-concept
instrument to see whether or not microwave data—which is the
type of data that it was collecting—to see whether or not microwave
data could provide us with important data sets for various phenomena
on the Earth, one being sea ice. We certainly proved with this atlas
work that it was extremely useful for doing this.
Another satellite with a more advanced microwave instrument had been
launched in October of 1978. And so by the time we were done with
these two ESMR atlases, we had this other satellite which had a much
longer record by that time, well exceeding the four-year ESMR record.
The Nimbus 7 satellite, launched in '78, collected almost a nine-year
record. So we were able then to shift our attention from developing
the techniques and the methods of analyzing the sea ice data to actually
looking at whether the sea ice cover is changing over time. By 1989,
we came out with a paper—it was by myself and Don [Donald J.]
Cavalieri [Parkinson, C. L., and D. J. Cavalieri, 1989, “Arctic
sea ice 1973-1987: Seasonal, regional, and interannual variability,”
Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 94]—showing that the longer
record was revealing that the sea ice coverage was decreasing in the
Arctic. This was one of the first indications that maybe Arctic sea
ice is diminishing. Afterwards the sea ice decreases became a central
focus for us, because we realized that maybe something important is
happening in the Arctic, especially since, at this point, we were
starting to get an interest in global warming and the possibilities
of climate changes due to CO2 [carbon dioxide].
Now in the meantime, I was continuing to do some of the modeling work.
One of the things that I did was to use the sea ice model to try to
see what would happen to the Arctic sea ice if indeed temperatures
rise as much as scientists think they might with the eventual doubling
of CO2. The initial paper I did on that topic was for the Arctic,
and it came out in 1979. It was a Parkinson and Kellogg paper, Kellogg
being Will [William W.] Kellogg from the National Center for Atmospheric
Research [“Arctic sea ice decay simulated for a CO2-induced
temperature rise,” Climatic Change, vol. 2]. We looked at the
Arctic case and showed the conditions under which the model simulated
that the Arctic might become ice-free again, which would be the first
time in a very long time, with the Arctic ice-free in the summertime.
Then I did a similar study but for the Antarctic case, and that paper
was with Bob [Robert A.] Bindschadler, and came out in 1984. [“Response
of Antarctic sea ice to uniform atmospheric temperature increases,”
Climate Processes and Climate Sensitivity (edited by J. E. Hansen
and T. Takahashi), Maurice Ewing vol. 5, American Geophysical Union,
Washington, D.C.] So I was continuing to do some modeling work.
I also used the model for an entirely different study. The satellite
data revealed a phenomenon that nobody had expected called the Weddell
Polynya, which was a major area of open water in the midst of the
Antarctic sea ice cover. It occurred in the wintertime in three of
the four ESMR years and so people were thinking, "This is really
interesting" and they were thinking it was likely the usual condition
because it occurred in three of the four years. Well, it's never shown
up again. It was just those three years that it showed up. But I did
use my sea ice model to try to simulate why this might happen. In
my model I changed the wind fields, and by changing the wind fields
I was able to simulate a Weddell Polynya, this open water region in
the midst of the Weddell Sea, which is right off of Antarctica. And
I was also able to change the wind fields differently to end up with
no Weddell Polynya. Now, other people working on the Weddell Polynya
at the same time were looking more at the conditions of the oceans
instead, and they concluded that the polynya was caused by ocean conditions.
Whether it's due to the atmosphere or the oceans, I wouldn't say that
I'm certain one way or the other; quite likely it’s a combination
of the two. But the study was a way in which I could use a model,
a sea ice model, to at least show that in the model, this polynya
could be created by changing the wind fields.
Anyway, I was working on both the modeling and the satellite data.
Then after realizing that the Arctic ice was decreasing, our sea ice
group at Goddard decided that we would make a major effort to continue
this work and see what was happening to the Arctic sea ice through
the 1990s. By 1999, we had a major paper out, by five people, all
from Goddard. I was the lead author, but everybody else was important
too. The other people were Don Cavalieri, Joey [C.] Comiso, Per Gloersen,
and [H.] Jay Zwally. [“Arctic sea ice extents, areas, and trends,
1978-1996,” Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 104]
Our paper in 1999 showed a serious decline in the Arctic sea ice.
But it also showed that the ice wasn't every year getting less; it
was up and down. But it was a definite decline overall. In the same
year that our paper came out showing the decline of the sea ice cover
from the satellite data, which is essentially showing that it's reduced
in areal extent, a group from the University of Washington [Seattle]
came out with a paper showing from submarine data that the Arctic
sea ice is thinning. The combination of these two papers in 1999 received
a lot of press coverage, because it looked like, "Wow, from all
directions the Arctic ice is decreasing." The Arctic is certainly
one of the regions in the world where it looks like we're getting
the strongest warming in the last few decades; and the Arctic ice
cover has continued to decline, overall, through these decades.
By today, way more people are interested in the topic of Arctic sea
ice. When we started the Arctic work, Goddard was the center of the
world's Arctic sea ice satellite data analysis because nobody else
was all that interested. By now, many groups from around the world,
many groups in the US and outside the US, are very much interested
in this phenomenon of the decrease in the Arctic sea ice, especially
with the ramifications—and there are many ramifications. There
are climate ramifications, because sea ice is white, especially if
it's got a bright snow cover on it, and that means that solar radiation
that reaches the ice gets reflected off, largely going back to space.
If the ice cover retreats and you no longer have the ice there, that
solar radiation comes in and instead gets absorbed in the ocean, staying
in the Earth/atmosphere system. So the presence of the sea ice helps
to keep the Arctic cold.
Now, the Arctic would be cold anyway relative to lower latitudes,
but the presence of the sea ice makes it even colder, and as the sea
ice retreats you get what's called in science a ‘positive feedback,’
because as the sea ice retreats, more and more radiation gets absorbed
in the oceans, therefore encouraging things to warm up even more.
This kind of positive feedback is one of the prime reasons why people
expect climate changes to be greater in the polar regions than elsewhere.
Now, that's not always the case that it is greater, but that positive
feedback is a prime reason why it might be greater.
Last year, a phenomenal decrease occurred in the Arctic sea ice, way
more than had occurred before. We're still not positive that this
decrease is going to continue. Basically, we hope it's not. But there's
certainly a big decrease. At the same time, we're doing all the same
kinds of analyses on the Antarctic sea ice as we do on the Arctic
sea ice, because the data set covers both hemispheres and so whatever
techniques we use for the Arctic we generally also apply to the Antarctic.
And in the Antarctic case, actually since the late '70s, the Antarctic
sea ice has been increasing a little. That's important to know in
order to keep the changes in the Arctic in context.
Ross-Nazzal:
What do you attribute that to?
Parkinson:
Nobody knows for sure. Some people think it might be somehow connected
with some kind of oscillations. It might be connected with the El
Niño-Southern Oscillation. Nobody knows for sure. Another possibility
is: in the 1970s, the Antarctic sea ice actually decreased quite substantially,
and so the possibility exists that maybe the increases since the late
'70s are a slight rebounding from the huge decrease that happened
in the '70s. The decrease was so large in the '70s that even though
trend-wise the trend has been upwards since the late '70s, the Antarctic
sea ice amount is not back up to where it had been in the beginning
of the '70s.
But that brings up another topic. This huge decrease in the '70s in
the Antarctic was reported in the scientific literature in 1981 by
two people from Lamont-Doherty [Earth Observatory], which is part
of Columbia University [New York, New York]. They were George Kukla
and Joyce Gavin. [“Summer ice and carbon dioxide,” Science,
vol. 214] By the time that they reported this substantial sea ice
decrease, we at Goddard had been doing our analyses for a few years,
and we were able to see that the Antarctic ice was not continuing
to decrease. So we wrote a paper that got published in 1983, by Jay
Zwally, myself, and Joey Comiso, all from Goddard, and we showed that
this huge sea ice decrease had been reversed. [“Variability
of Antarctic sea ice and changes in carbon dioxide,” Science,
vol. 220]
But when Kukla and Gavin came out with their paper in 1981, there
was a lot of press coverage of it, and people were saying that this
could be the first real geophysical evidence of global warming. And
this was reasonable in terms of, yes, with warming you expect ice
to retreat, and there was a huge ice decrease in the Antarctic; so
it was reasonable for the press to pick up on it in that way.
But the Antarctic ice changes reversed, and so that gets to the point
about what's happening in the Arctic now, with the possibility that
those changes might reverse also. We saw it happen in the Antarctic,
a huge decrease and yet the system did reverse. So, much as we expect
the long-term trend in the Arctic sea ice cover to continue to be
downward—although we don't expect each year to have less ice
than the year before—we aren’t certain. If this year,
2008, has even less ice than last year, that'll be significant, because
last year was such a low for Arctic sea ice coverage. We think the
winds contributed to making the low sea ice conditions last year.
If this year has even less ice, that'll be sad and serious, but we
don't know whether this will happen or not.
Ross-Nazzal:
I was looking at your resume, and I saw that you had done some work
for Senator Al [Albert A.] Gore [Jr.] when he was working in the US
Senate on the Sea Ice Specialists Panel. Can you tell us about that?
Parkinson:
That was very interesting. It was 1990, and I got invited down to
Senator Gore's office in the Senate, and it was memorable. He was
wanting to learn about what was going on with the sea ice and just
wanting to understand it. He was extremely intelligent. He picked
up things extremely quickly. He clearly didn't know much about sea
ice at the time, but he quickly picked up all the key concepts. It
was just Senator Gore, myself, and his Science Advisor at the time,
so it was just the three of us; and the Science Advisor really wasn't
saying much, so it was basically just me and Senator Gore.
The Science Advisor had told me when I walked in that the Senator
had to speak on the floor of the Senate in half an hour; the meeting
started at nine and therefore it would have to end by 9:15. I said,
"Well, okay, whatever; I’m here to do whatever is wanted."
About 9:15, Senator Gore gets on the phone and he's saying, "Change
my timeslot with somebody else. I’m in a very important meeting."
I'm sitting there thinking, "Important meeting? He's just talking
to me!" But anyway, I thought, “Okay!” Then we kept
talking, and every once in a while he would get on the phone and say,
"Switch my time with somebody else"; and we ended up talking
for over an hour and a half, and it was just an incredibly good discussion.
He clearly picked up point after point after point about why sea ice
is important to the climate system.
Then right after our meeting, Senator Gore formed the short-lived
Sea Ice Specialists Panel. We only had one meeting with him, but it
was shortly after my initial meeting in his office. He asked me to
bring some other people from Goddard, other sea ice specialists, and
there were some people who came from out of town also. So we met with
him in one key meeting, during which his central focus was to initiate
with the Navy an activity during which the Navy would declassify some
of the submarine data. This ended up being a major benefit to sea
ice studies, because submarine data were the best available data to
see what the sea ice thickness had been, as at that time, satellites
were not yet able to obtain sea ice thickness. A satellite is up now,
launched in 2003, that can get thickness, or at least an approximation
to it. But nothing in the way of satellites could get sea ice thickness
as early as 1990. So the submarine data were the best possible ice
thickness data, and Senator Gore really made a major effort to get
those data—whatever could be declassified without a problem
national security-wise—to get them declassified so that scientists
could use them. Then it was a group at the University of Washington
that picked up, as the submarine data were declassified, and started
analyzing those data. The group, led by [Dr.] Drew [A.] Rothrock,
published a paper that came out in 1999 showing the thinning of the
ice cover from the submarine data. [“Thinning of the Arctic
sea-ice cover,” Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 26]
Ross-Nazzal:
Since his [Senator Gore’s] book has come out, have you seen
any change in your work and the interest of climatology, or at Goddard?
Parkinson:
There's been a huge change in the past decade; not necessarily because
of his book, but because of so many things, including [Dr.] Jim [James
E.] Hansen, and including the huge range of evidence that there's
serious warming going on, plus the possibility that the warming could
be in large part attributed to humans, or at least in some part attributed
to humans. But also an interest exists because not all the evidence
is in the same direction; so there's considerable room for questioning
many of the conclusions. We certainly don't know enough yet, but the
interest has been so much greater than it was when I got into the
field or so many of the others got into the field.
I think that for many of us, there's no way when we got into Earth
sciences that we ever thought any media people would interview us
about our work. I mean, there's just no way we thought that way. Then
the topic became of interest to the press, and so that was definitely
a change. Different people have adjusted in different ways. Some go
for it and actually aggressively seek out press attention. Others
won't speak to the press at all. And others are kind of in between,
like me, which is to say yes, we’ll answer questions when they're
asked, but we don't go out aggressively seeking press attention. So
it's all combinations, and certainly at Goddard in the very branch
that I'm in, I could classify people into each of those three categories.
There are definitely all types.
Ross-Nazzal:
Do you do a lot of work with the current or past administrations or
other Congress members?
Parkinson:
I actually don't. I haven't had much contact with Congress; no.
Ross-Nazzal:
Okay, I was just curious about that. You've done work with satellites.
Have you done any work with the Space Shuttle and maybe some of the
flight crews in terms of just Earth observations of the Arctic or
Antarctic ice?
Parkinson:
No, I haven't actually done that either, although one of my good friends
from Goddard became an astronaut, [Dr.] Piers [J.] Sellers. So that's
cool to see him as an astronaut and watch his missions in particular.
But no, I haven't done that.
Ross-Nazzal:
Okay, I was just curious if the Shuttle had contributed at all to
your work.
Parkinson:
No. Not directly.
Ross-Nazzal:
Shall we turn our attention to the Aqua Satellite?
Parkinson:
Sure. The Aqua satellite. I became Project Scientist for Aqua; at
the time it was called EOS [Earth Observing System]-PM, PM referring
to afternoon. There was also an EOS-AM for the morning, which became
the Terra satellite, after which EOS-PM became the Aqua satellite.
In fact, I became Project Scientist in April of 1993, and the Terra
Project Scientist was Piers Sellers, the one who became an astronaut
a few years later. I became Aqua Project Scientist in 1993. This was
a mission that would not launch until 2002.
There's a heck of a lot of work before a launch occurs. First, the
instruments have to be built, plus the spacecraft—what's called
the bus, where you put all the instruments. The spacecraft bus has
to be built, the instruments have to be built, all of the development
has to take place to prepare the algorithms and the computer programs
to analyze the data once the satellite is launched. So lots of pre-launch
work is needed, and this was taking place in those years from 1993
to 2002. My time then was spent about half time with the Aqua spacecraft
project, and the other half time still on my sea ice research.
Lots of people are involved in a spacecraft program. As Project Scientist,
I was a focal point for the science, but there's also a Project Manager,
and he's the one really in charge of getting the spacecraft built,
getting the instruments constructed, and all that. There's a large
amount of work divided between the Project Manager and the Project
Scientist, but the Project Manager, he's definitely full-time. This
is very much a full-time job for a Project Manager as he prepares
for a satellite to get launched, and he's got a huge amount of responsibility.
The Project Scientist, as you're coming up to launch, is concentrating
more on making sure that the science teams are kept informed and are
getting all the needed algorithms and software prepared for eventual
data analysis. In our case with Aqua, we have five science teams.
We have six instruments, five science teams, one of which is centered
in Japan, which is for an instrument on Aqua, the AMSR-E [Advanced
Microwave Scanning Radiometer for EOS] instrument, that's provided
by Japan. So we have four US science teams and one Japanese science
team. Our US science teams all have foreign members on them, and so
they’re not just US, but they’re centered in the US.
So a lot of people are involved. These science teams are associated
with one or more particular instruments, and as you're coming up to
the launch date the teams are trying to get the algorithms ready that
will utilize the satellite data, which come down just as strings of
numbers from different wavelengths—sometimes individual wavelengths,
sometimes bands of wavelengths—of radiation. You're just getting
information about radiation from the satellite, but what you want
to convert it into is information about the Earth. So you’ll
have people working on algorithms for converting the radiation data
into sea ice information, other people working on converting the data
into vegetation information, others sea surface temperature, others
atmospheric temperature, others cloud coverage, just a huge slew of
things. So the scientists are working to get all the algorithms developed;
and as Project Scientist I'm a focal point for this and we have meetings
and other communications to make sure everything's moving along and
to help resolve any conflicts or uncertainties.
Then the launch in 2002: it was May 4th of 2002 that we finally launched.
The last year before launch there are so many safety-oriented meetings.
As I went through that last year before launch and all the meetings
we had, I was so impressed with how much NASA cares about making sure
these satellites launch safely. I realized that if they care that
much about a satellite that's just got hardware on board, then obviously
with the Shuttle or any other manned or womanned flight, NASA does
everything it possibly can to make sure these flights are safe. But
they're extremely complicated, and no one can be certain they’ll
be successful. With the Aqua mission, we had spent nine years working
on this mission, yet we knew the night of that launch, that it could
blow up. I mean, there's no assurance that these missions are going
to launch and operate safely no matter how much effort is put into
it, and it is a huge amount of effort. Every little thing is checked
and checked and checked and checked.
Anyway, the launch was from Vandenberg Air Force Base out in California.
It was in the middle of the night, at 2:55 in the morning. That was
cool. The timing of the launch, people sometimes ask, "Is that
for secrecy reasons or anything?" No, it's definitely not for
secrecy reasons. NASA's launch schedules are always known beforehand
by the public; at least as far as I know, they’re always open.
The precise launch timing is to get the satellite into the orbit that’s
desired. The particular orbit we wanted to get Aqua into would have
the satellite going north across the equator at 1:30 in the afternoon
and then south across the equator at 1:30 in the morning. To get it
into the precise orbit that we wanted—which was also a sun-synchronous
orbit, meaning that it will keep coming up at 1:30 in the afternoon
as the Earth spins underneath it, all synchronized with the sun—in
order to get it into that orbit, it had to be launched within a 10-minute
launch window between 2:55 in the morning and 3:05. We had to launch
within that 10-minute window or the launch would be delayed to the
next night, when we could try again. Fortunately, it went off successfully
that first night. So much depends on the first hour and a half after
launch. Of course, most people are most concerned about seeing the
rocket go up and seeing the spacecraft get up and launched safely,
and that was a huge moment when that happened.
Ross-Nazzal:
Were you there?
Parkinson:
I was there, yes, I was there. That was a huge moment when the launch
took place, but I had been told, "Claire, don't breathe a real
sigh of relief until the solar array comes out." The solar array,
or solar panel, is all folded up on launch because it's quite large,
and the rocket couldn't fit the solar panel without having it folded
up during launch. So it's all folded up until after the spacecraft
is freed from the rocket, and then it comes out with an accordion-type
unveiling. That took place one hour and twelve minutes after launch.
So that's when you can breathe your sigh of relief.
It’s kind of cool, the whole launch sequence. We launched out
of Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, after which the spacecraft
goes south across the equator, over the South Pacific, then over Antarctica.
We lose contact with the spacecraft while it’s over the South
Pacific, until a station in Antarctica is able to make contact; so
that's a big moment, getting the contact from the Antarctic station.
Then after the spacecraft completes its passage over Antarctica it
moves northward, toward Africa. NASA has stations in Africa so that
we can make contact again. It was over Africa that the spacecraft
separated from the last bit of the rocket. Most of the rocket falls
off right at launch, within minutes of launch. But there's the second
stage of the rocket that keeps pushing the spacecraft along south
across the Pacific and then over Antarctica and then northward toward
Africa. It was within sight of one of NASA's ground stations in Africa
that the spacecraft actually separated completely, so that was a big
relief when that happened.
Then it's a little further, as the spacecraft is going over Europe
for the first time, that the solar array comes out. So the solar array
safely gets out, and that's when everybody can really cheer. In the
mission control area out there at Vandenberg, that's a big moment
there because that's the moment at which their job is done and the
control shifts over to Goddard. So at that moment, we're all cheering
and everybody's hugging each other. And I as the science representative,
I'm thanking everybody because of course they're making this mission
possible by succeeding. So that was a great, great event. So that
was the launch.
After launch, there’s a 120-day checkout period to, one by one,
turn on the instruments, check them all out, make sure everything's
working. Then at the end of the checkout period, our so-called ‘prime
mission’ starts, and it’s a six-year prime mission. We've
been getting a huge amount of data, and scientists around the world
are using these data.
And not only scientists, as the Aqua data have gotten way more use
from non-scientists than we really expected. That's been a huge plus.
We have on board the capability of direct broadcast, so therefore
the satellite as it's orbiting the Earth, it's broadcasting whatever
data it's collecting, and anybody with an appropriate antenna can
pick the data up, can get the data immediately. Because of that, people
are able to get these data real-time and use them real-time. One important
group that has used the direct broadcast of the Aqua data is the US
Forest Service. When there are large fires in the US, forest fires
or other types of fires, they show up really well in the Aqua data.
The US Forest Service is able to get these data real-time, and then
use the data to help decide where to deploy their fire fighters on
that particular day.
That's true with the Terra satellite also. Terra crosses the equator
at 10:30 in the morning and at night. So these two sister satellites,
Aqua and Terra, can together get more complete coverage because of
the different times of day that they're collecting data. The US Forest
Service uses both the Aqua and Terra data and the US Military uses
them also, because the data show the dust storms in Iraq really well.
Weather forecasters use the Aqua data because Aqua gets good atmospheric
temperatures and water vapor amounts, and those are the two key things
you want to forecast the weather. So the Aqua data have been used
by a lot of different people in addition to the scientists, which
was the prime purpose for the satellite. Its data were primarily for
the science and the scientists, but they’ve been used by a lot
of others also. So it's very pleasing to have this successful mission,
and to feel that I'm a small part of helping this mission.
Ross-Nazzal:
Will the mission continue? You said that there was a six-year window,
but it sounds like the satellite is still operating.
Parkinson:
Yes. The satellite is still operating really well. We've got enough
fuel so that we could continue operating probably until about the
year 2015. So we hope that it will succeed up until about 2015. That's
the hope; but each year from here on out is sort of like an extra
bonus year, after the first six. So as many bonus years as we get,
that's good.
Ross-Nazzal:
Was this satellite part of NASA's Mission to Planet Earth [MTPE Enterprise]?
Parkinson:
Yes, definitely; a big part of NASA's Mission to Planet Earth, now
called the Earth Observing System, EOS. Aqua's one of the main three
big satellites, Terra, Aqua, and Aura; and there are a whole lot of
smaller satellites in the Mission to Planet Earth, or EOS, also. So
yes, Aqua is definitely a key player there.
Ross-Nazzal:
What have you learned from the satellite itself in terms of your own
research?
Parkinson:
Well, in terms of mine, I'm so much interested in the long-term that
I'm still trying to hook everything into the long-term, earlier record,
from NASA's Nimbus 5 satellite, NASA's Nimbus 7 satellite, and the
Defense Meteorological Satellite Program’s satellites from 1987
on. So those satellites still remain really important to me, but the
instrument on Aqua that gets the sea ice data of the type that I study
is the AMSR-E instrument, the instrument from Japan. It's done a great
job in showing the sea ice. It gets more spatial detail than we've
gotten with any of the previous instruments, and that's part of the
reason for its name—the acronym is AMSR-E, and the ‘A’
is for "advanced," so it's the Advanced Microwave Scanning
Radiometer for the Earth Observing System, with the E in the acronym
standing for the “Earth Observing System”.
AMSR-E has a large antenna, an unusually large antenna, which is what
allows it to get the improved spatial detail. It gets near-global
data just like the earlier instruments get near-global data, but it's
got the greater spatial detail, which is great because it means that
from these data not only do we get near-global coverage every day—or
every two days at most, but every day generally—we also can
see details that we weren't able to see with the previous instruments.
We're actually able to see breaks between the ice floes. We're able
to see individual ice floes and breaks within the ice cover. And so
it's been a really nice advance to be able to see that spatial detail.
Ross-Nazzal:
That's amazing. Now, something else that I had learned. We were out
on the Web doing some research about you, and we understand in 1999
you went out to the North Pole and were a Chief Scientist for an expedition
out there?
Parkinson:
That was cool too. Yes. It was a NASA expedition to Resolute Bay and
the North Pole. Resolute Bay is a small Inuit community in northern
Canada. The main purpose was the North Pole, but Resolute Bay is where
we tested out all our equipment and we did some webcasts. We did webcasts
both from Resolute Bay and from the North Pole—the first webcast
from the North Pole, and also the first link between the North Pole
and the South Pole. We had a telephone link from the North Pole to
the South Pole while we were there, which is the first time that had
ever been done, so that was exciting, to record a communication ‘first.’
But before that, we stayed in this Inuit community, Resolute Bay,
for the week prior to heading to the North Pole, in order to test
out everything and to work with the Inuit. In particular, we did some
webcasts from the Inuit school, linked with some schools in the US;
and that was an interesting exchange because the kids actually got
to talk with each other and ask each other questions. A US student
asked how the Inuit children could stand living so isolated, in such
a small community, and an Inuit child answered emphatically: “We
like it here”.
We get there; it's in April; it's therefore got sunlight pretty much
all the time because it's so far north [75?N]; and the first day we
get there, this little kid starts following us every place. It gets
to be about 10:30 at night, and I ask this little kid—I mean,
it's perfectly fine to have him with us, we were happy with that,
but it's 10:30 at night—so I ask, "When do you go to bed?"
He goes, "Oh! We go to bed in the wintertime when it's dark out."
I thought, this can't work like this. So the next day we're in the
school, and I'm talking with the principal, and I explain this conversation
with this little kid. And the principal goes, "Oh well, yeah.
When spring comes and the sun's out and these kids have had nothing
but darkness for months, they're allowed to be up all night long and
you can see kids at two o'clock in the morning playing in the streets,
because they’ve just not had light for months.” The total
population of the community is 205 people, so it's totally safe to
be out in the streets, as everybody knows everybody in the community.
It's just so different; it's such a different lifestyle.
Anyway, then we got to the North Pole, and we got there largely by
airplane. But it's floating ice at the North Pole. It's sea ice; it's
not grounded ice, it's floating. So if you're going by airplane, you
can't necessarily know that there's going to be a big enough floe
to land right at the North Pole. We had this all planned out, because
we wanted to get to the exact point of the North Pole, and so we hooked
up with a dogsled team, because a dogsled can much more reliably get
you right to the exact North Pole, whereas with a plane, you might/might
not be able to get there. So we took the plane most of the way, and
then the last couple of miles it was by dogsled, with this dogsled
team. That was neat to get to the North Pole by dogsled.
We did ice thickness measurements at the North Pole. That was a main
purpose, to get some ice thickness measurements. And indeed, the ice
was reasonably thick; it wasn't as thin as what some people were fearing.
On the other hand, if you're just making measurements for a day or
so, the next day it could be a bigger or smaller floe that's there,
because these floes are always moving around. So you really need many
more measurements for any climate change studies. But we were doing
ground truth for the satellites. As we flew most of the way, we were
looking at the ice cover so that we could compare it with the satellite
images, and they were comparing well. The purpose was partly the ground
truth, but also was the outreach effort of doing the webcasts from
the North Pole. It was definitely, definitely an adventure.
Ross-Nazzal:
Did you stay back with the Inuits every day, or did you actually stay
on the ice?
Parkinson:
We stayed overnight on the ice for one night; only one night, but
one night was neat to get to do. It was neat to be able to sleep overnight
in tents at the North Pole. So that was neat, but we were only there
for one night.
Ross-Nazzal:
How large was your expedition?
Parkinson:
I wish I could remember exactly. It was roughly seven people in terms
of the North Pole itself, and it was more for Resolute Bay.
Even the plane ride to the North Pole was so different than normal
plane rides. It was naturally a very small plane, but that wasn’t
a main difference; the main differences related more to security and
weight. On normal plane rides, everyone has to go through security.
Well, on this plane ride to the North Pole, you're expected to have
rifles with you because of the possibility of encountering a polar
bear—in fact, we had to take rifle training, which in my case
meant one shot. Certainly, rifle training was not on my list of priorities;
but we were told we had to take rifle training. So I shot this rifle
once, and that was it. No polar bear would have to be worried about
me, that's for sure, in terms of my rifle. Anyway, you had to have
rifles, and so therefore you certainly don't have any security checks
when you get on the plane. But what you do have to do is, you have
to take yourself and all your luggage and get weighed, yourself and
your luggage. There's this big platform that you stand on with your
luggage and get weighed, because the critical thing is to make sure
the weight's not too much, make sure that you're going to be able
not just to land safely but also to take off safely from the sea ice
floe.
So it was very different from a normal plane flight. We were jammed
into this plane; it was sitting-on-top-of-luggage type jamming in.
It was jammed. But we had to satisfy the weight requirement. In fact,
the weight requirement was such that the plane wasn’t able to
carry enough fuel on board to get us all the way to the North Pole.
We went from Eureka, which is on Ellesmere Island, which is far north
in Canada [at 80?N]. We went from a little airport on Eureka headed
to the North Pole. But we couldn’t carry enough fuel on board
to get all the way to the North Pole and still take ourselves and
our luggage.
So what the pilots had to do was: The day before we left Eureka, the
pilots flew halfway with extra fuel and dropped the extra fuel in
a fuel cache. They just put the fuel on an ice floe and then marked
the ice floe in bright orange so we'd be able to find it, then came
back. So when we flew the next day, we flew halfway and then searched
around. They find the ice floe that's got the fuel cache. We land
on that ice floe and dump our empty fuel bins and put the full ones
on. It is different; getting to the North Pole is very different than
a normal plane flight.
Ross-Nazzal:
Yes, it sounds very rugged and frontier-like.
Parkinson:
It's exciting. It's definitely an adventure. It was an exciting, very
different thing to do, because certainly my normal day is in my office
doing my work. And so my normal day is very much a normal office job.
It's not going out to the North Pole. But it’s neat to have
that experience.
Ross-Nazzal:
Were there any other unique preparations you made besides having to
go through rifle training? That's kind of an interesting safety precaution.
Parkinson:
Well, definitely we had to pay attention to make sure our clothing
was layered, with good insulation; and the clothing was good. So we
had to be careful about the clothing, and other than that, no, nothing
other than more preparations for the webcasts. We had lots of preparations
for the webcast; and the technicians had to prepare the instruments
to make sure we could make contact with the satellites. That was necessary
in order to get the webcasts to work. We had to have communication
links through the satellites.
Ross-Nazzal:
You mentioned so much of the outreach that you did there in Resolute
Bay and then at the North Pole. Can you talk about why that was important
and some of the highlights of that?
Parkinson:
Outreach is extremely important to NASA. Even right in the Space Act
that established NASA back in 1958, it says that NASA needs to engage
in outreach, to get its results out to the public. So outreach has
always been very important to NASA; and certainly I've been involved
in outreach during most of my years at NASA. Probably the first few
years, not a whole lot; but since then I've been involved in a lot
of outreach, just because of its importance. NASA does such incredible
things, and the satellite data enable us to see the world in such
a way that we just could not possibly see it without the global picture
that satellites provide. It's just outstanding what information you
can get from satellites, and the fact that NASA is getting this information
and getting it in so many different fields—hurricane research,
volcano research, land vegetation, oceanography, sea ice, land ice,
etc.—it is important to reveal to the American public this information
that we're getting.
It's also clearly additionally important now that we realize climate
is changing in ways that are affecting humans and could affect humans
a lot more in the future. For instance, although sea ice doesn't have
a potential impact on sea level, because sea ice is already floating
in the sea, land ice does. If the land ice melts substantially, that
water is basically going to go into the oceans, and that's going to
raise sea level, and that's going to affect everybody living along
the coasts, because if sea level goes up, those people are going to
end up getting flooded. So a lot of what we study concerns things
that society's going to have to deal with at some point. Therefore,
it's partly a responsibility but also partly a privilege to be able
to engage in this research and engage in this outreach.
So outreach was a factor in the North Pole expedition; but it's also
a factor in much of the rest of what we do. We certainly, I and other
scientists, give lots of talks. I’m lucky in terms of working
at Goddard because many groups come to Goddard. So I can do a lot
of outreach without even leaving Goddard, because I can speak to teacher
groups that come to Goddard, I can speak to student groups and others.
I find this to be very rewarding if it's an audience that's clearly
interested; and most of these groups, that come all the way to Goddard,
they are interested.
We also get to do outreach outside of Goddard. Last year, one of the
places I went to was actually the school where I had gone to high
school, which was Montpelier High School in Montpelier, Vermont. That
was meaningful, to get to go back to my old high school as a NASA
scientist and give a presentation to the full school in the auditorium
there, showing them part of what NASA does. I think that a lot of
NASA people, whether scientists or engineers or astronauts or others,
really do feel a sense of the importance of letting the outside world
know about what we do, and it is an honor and a privilege to be able
to represent NASA at other places.
Another outreach project I was involved in last year was connected
with the International Polar Year, the IPY, which is going on last
year and this year. There's a large amount of outreach in conjunction
with that, and it's worldwide. One of the activities for the IPY was
a three-day event in the vicinity of Atlanta, Georgia. It was at various
locations in the Atlanta vicinity, and I was involved in that. That
was exciting too, because people are interested in the polar regions
just like they're interested in NASA, and so both were factors generating
enthusiasm there. During those three days, we spoke at museums, we
spoke at middle schools, we spoke at universities, making it a whirlwind
three days of outreach.
We also create outreach products. One of the things I've been involved
in for years is the NASA Science Calendar, and this goes out to lots
of people. It's distributed at conferences and also to lots of school
groups and groups like that. But in addition, there are many other
outreach products. With each mission, we've got outreach items; we’ve
got brochures, we've got pins, we've got stickers, we've got pamphlets,
we've got posters, lots of outreach items.
Another outreach activity that I very much enjoy is working on books.
I've been involved in writing several books and have really liked
that, because when you write a book, you can describe in much more
complete detail the subject matter versus, say, in a research paper
which is limited to maybe ten pages or so. When you write a whole
book, you can really describe something in much greater detail, and
so I've enjoyed the opportunity to be able to do that also.
Ross-Nazzal:
Would you tell us about some of those books? You had mentioned the
atlases.
Parkinson:
Well, the sea ice atlases, those were important, and a big part of
my first ten years at Goddard was working on the sea ice atlases.
Since then, other books that I've done include a book by myself that
came out in 1997 entitled Earth from Above: Using Color-Coded Satellite
Images to Examine the Global Environment. The main title is Earth
from Above. It's an introductory book on satellite imagery and the
use of satellite data to look at the Earth. In the first chapter,
it shows sample pictures that you can get from satellites using visible
radiation, and the first chapter sort of closes with, "However,
if you're using visible data—which are the data that our eyes
see—if there's a cloud in the way you're going to see the cloud,
and you might be wanting to see something at the surface instead."
So the second chapter explains the electromagnetic spectrum and why
we use different wavelengths. Then the next six chapters each cover
one key topic in Earth sciences. Two of the chapters illustrate their
topics using microwave radiation, and those two topics are sea ice
and snow cover. Two chapters use infrared data, and those highlight
sea surface temperatures and vegetation. And two chapters use ultraviolet
data, and those highlight ozone—for instance, describing the
ozone hole—and volcanic emissions. So that's the way the book
is structured.
Regarding doing books like that at NASA, a negative is that a NASA
employee can't get royalties, which is too bad. But a positive is
that I can use NASA funds to buy large numbers of the books and then
hand them out for free to teachers, to students, to others; and that
to me is just a huge, huge plus. To be able to hand these out and
give these to people, some of whom simply would not be purchasing
a book, and get very nice comments back about how they've learned
so much from reading the book, that's a huge plus.
Now, a book that just came out last October that I was heavily involved
in is a different type of book, because it wasn't written by just
one person. It was an edited volume, and I'm one of four editors on
this volume. It's called Our Changing Planet: The View From Space.
This book has lots of people involved, but a central goal that the
four editors emphasized was to make sure that it's written for the
general public, to inform the public about the huge range of what
we're getting from satellite data. So it covers way more topics than
the Earth from Above book, which was an introduction. Our Changing
Planet is written for the general public; you do not need a science
background to understand it. But it covers all sorts of topics.
The four editors are Michael [D.] King, who was at Goddard at the
time, although he's now at the University of Colorado [Boulder]; me,
from NASA Goddard; Kim [C.] Partington, who's from Great Britain;
and Robin [G.] Williams, who's originally from Great Britain and now
is living in the US. Each of the editors also authored some chapters,
but other authors came from around the world, a lot from within NASA,
but others also not from within NASA. The book goes over all sorts
of topics, and in just a few pages on a topic it shows wonderful satellite
images, plus some other illustrations that aren't from satellites,
and text that is hopefully very readable text—that's certainly
the intent.
For just a sample, take the chapter on lightning and the global picture
of lightning strikes around the world, how many lightning strikes
you get at each location around the world. The thing that just stands
out so much that nobody knew before satellites got us the global picture,
is that there's almost no lightning over the oceans. The lightning
is almost all over the land regions. That's incredible. Nobody knew
that. There's some lightning over the oceans, but almost none, and
it's satellite data that allow you to see that.
Other highlights in the book are things like a global map of night
lights around the world. Here, what strikes the eye first is how well
the map represents population. Australia's almost entirely dark except
a few major cities around the coast like Melbourne and Sydney, which
are all lit up. In the US, there’s a huge difference between
the eastern half, which is so much more lit up than most of the western
half except for along the coast where you've got major cities.
But in addition to showing the population, which comes out so clearly,
the map also reflects poverty and wealth levels, because you need
money to have all these lights on at night. So you look at a country
like Cuba and see that it's very dark. That's not because of low population,
it's because of a wealth issue. You look at South Korea and North
Korea; South Korea's all lit up, just like Japan right close to it.
South Korea's really lit up, but North Korea, it's so dark that it
looks like South Korea's an island instead of being part of a peninsula.
Things like that just pop right out with these images.
So the book has all sorts of wonderful global images like that, but
it's also got lots of more regional and more local images, and many
of those are also depicting really interesting things. Like the Larsen
Ice Shelf; the book's got this sequence of three pictures of the Larsen
Ice Shelf from satellites. The Larsen Ice Shelf is an ice shelf along
the Antarctic Peninsula that decayed within a six-week period a few
years ago, and you look at these three pictures within that six-week
period, and it's like, "Wow! This entire ice shelf just crumbled
in this six-week period.” This is an ice shelf that's thought
to have been there for over 1,000 years, and bang, in six weeks it
crumbles, and the satellites allow you to see this. The satellites,
they allow us to see so much, and as I said, it's such a privilege
to be able to help in my small way to transmit this information to
the American public and to others, through my small but personally
very meaningful role at NASA.
Ross-Nazzal:
I'm looking at the clock. I had a couple more questions for you, but
I don't know. I think we covered all of the topics you wanted to cover.
Do you want to take the shuttle? Because we can come back and cover
the rest of the topics, that's fine.
Parkinson:
Well, if you've got a few more questions, let's go with it.
Ross-Nazzal:
Sure, yes. I was curious, what do you think has been your most significant
accomplishment while working at NASA? You're so excited about this
work that you've been doing.
Parkinson:
It's really hard for me to answer that because so much depends on
exactly what one regards as significant. To me, the books are major
products, and I like getting a product out. So to me, the books are
major. One that I didn't mention, I wrote a book on the history of
science [Breakthroughs: A Chronology of Great Achievements in Science
and Mathematics] which was a major product, but a sideline activity.
But that was a major product.
So the books are major products, but I think in my early years at
NASA, the fact that we had to get the techniques developed to take
the data from the satellites and convert them into something meaningful
regarding the Earth, the geophysical Earth, in my case sea ice, to
me, that was important, that we persisted, we got that effort done.
And that effort is what's enabling everybody else now to use these
satellite data so readily, so quickly, so easily. You can go on websites
now and find out where the sea ice was yesterday. When we started,
we took years working on a four-year data set that was years old.
At that time, there was no Internet, there was no e-mail, and the
computers were nowhere near as capable as they are now. So I think
that that development in those early years was maybe significant in
terms of enabling what's so routine now but wouldn't have been routine
without all that effort that was done earlier.
[End
of interview]