We have the satellite data to show climate change is real. Now what?
"Unfortunately, the timing of the political agenda sometimes doesn't always align with the climate ambitions we should all have."
Space programs are often concerned with what's happening "out there" in the universe, a large portion of what space agencies like NASA and the European Space Agency (ESA) do is monitor what is happening on the surface of the Earth. This includes keeping track of things like weather, but also human-induced drivers of global warming such as the emissions of greenhouse gasses, deforestation and changes in seasonal ice coverage in Arctic and Antarctic regions. That's important because research has shown human activities are indeed the primary drivers of climate change.
Since 1972, the U.S Geological Survey Landsat Earth Observation satellites have been providing scientists and policy makers with up to date data on a range of features of Earth's surface, and the picture being painted is a grim one. Earth's surface is changing rapidly: polar ice caps are shrinking, highly biodiverse areas are being destroyed , and oceans are growing increasingly polluted, among a raft of other environmental changes.
However, given the volume and availability of data that satellites have captured informing us of the ongoing impacts of human activity on Earth's surface, an important question has to be asked — why has this knowledge not led to large-scale environmental action?
"We can track how much ice the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are losing using satellite observations of changes in their volume, ice flow or gravitational pull. The ice sheets cover vast regions and only satellite observations can help us chart how much ice they are losing and gaining," Inès Otosaka, Director for Operations of the NERC Centre for Polar Observation and Modeling (CPOM), told Space.com.
Related: How satellite data has proven climate change is a climate crisis
Tools vs solutions
Space-based satellites and their ability to observe real-time changes in the atmosphere, along with mapping seasonal and gradual changes in Earth's features such as ice coverage, have radically changed the information landscape in terms of what we know about our relationship with our dynamic planet.
But having the capacity to witness these changes without a clear path towards solving them has been frustrating for many. One pathway forward, suggests Karen Jones, a Senior Policy Analyst at the Center for Space Policy, is increasing accountability.
Get the Space.com Newsletter
Breaking space news, the latest updates on rocket launches, skywatching events and more!
In a recent paper, Jones explains how the merging of satellites with terrestrial and airborne sensors can create an integrated Earth observation data system, which can help identify problematic sources of greenhouse gas emissions such as methane from animal stocks, leaking from fracking operations and busted gas pipelines.
To turn this data into action, Jones says we need to work across disciplinary silos so the space industry,policymakers, landowners, industry and civil society groups can work together to address issues identified by satellite climate observations.
How do we get there? Freely available, open-source data encourages involved parties to be transparent and to cooperate with regulators. It also generally promotes good behavior, climate-wise. Such data release efforts can also empower academics, civil society groups and citizen scientists to work with raw data in ways that can hold polluters or exploiters accountable. One example of this type of interplay is SkyTruth, a nonprofit that lends technical expertise on satellite imagery to Global Fishing Watch, an ocean conservation organization that tracks illegal fishing activity.
The private sector also has a role to play. For instance, we have known for some time that Arctic sea ice is melting. This ice plays an important role in regulating global temperatures as it reflects sunlight back out into space. Recently, U.K start-up Real Ice tried refreezing Arctic sea ice by pouring sea water back on top of the ice to make it thicker and more resilient to melting in the summer months, with promising results.
"In addition to rising sea level, ice sheet melting has far-reaching consequences on the global climate system. The ice sheets are predominantly white and thus help regulate Earth's temperature by reflecting the incoming heat from the sun back to space. The resulting meltwater from ice sheet melting could also potentially affect ocean circulation patterns," Otosaka said.
Economics and environment
The elephant in the room here, really, is having our energy, transport and agriculture sectors continue to rely on fossil fuels for energy.
To see large-scale transitions away from cheap, yet harmful forms of energy, and towards renewable sources, you really need political will that transcends partisan politics (priorities often change as governments come and go), and economic incentive, particularly in a world economy that is still recovering from a global pandemic.
"Unfortunately, the timing of the political agenda sometimes doesn't always align with the climate ambitions we should all have. To address this, we need to continue our efforts to produce robust and reliable information on the ice sheets and sea level rise, and communicate with the general public, stakeholders, politicians, the media and anyone interested in this topic," Otosaka said.
Climate change and other environmental crises show that we are yet to integrate our global economic system with the physical environment. It can be hard to motivate people into action unless the problem is at your doorstep, so a balance needs to be struck between long-term thinking, and quality of life in the short term. By 2050, global energy demand is expected to grow by 50%, while the COP26 climate agreements have us reaching not zero by 2050.
How will we power the future? That's the ultimate question.
This article is part of a special series by Space.com in honor of World Space Week 2024, which ran from Oct. 4 to Oct. 10.
Join our Space Forums to keep talking space on the latest missions, night sky and more! And if you have a news tip, correction or comment, let us know at: community@space.com.
Conor Feehly is a New Zealand-based science writer. He has earned a master's in science communication from the University of Otago, Dunedin. His writing has appeared in Cosmos Magazine, Discover Magazine and ScienceAlert. His writing largely covers topics relating to neuroscience and psychology, although he also enjoys writing about a number of scientific subjects ranging from astrophysics to archaeology.
-
Green Avenger Ok, please tell us what "normal" is for your data? What is normal ice cover? What is normal sea level? What is normal temperature?Reply
When were the data points normal in the past, and for how long?
You claim to have evidence we are changing from normal, so where is it? -
billslugg Are the numbers spiked? Interpolated? Adjusted in any way? Is this "thermometer data" held to a "tree ring" baseline like Mann did? Did Hadley congratulate these people like they did Mann on his "neat trick" in comparing apples and oranges?Reply -
kenhughes
Of course climate change is proven. The climate has always been changing. The big question is, do human activities drive it? It is obvious that human produced CO2 cannot be a significant cause. The oceans are by far the biggest emitter of CO2 with their temperature driven by the Sun. Please don't take us for idiots. YOU are the idiots, thinking we are going to believe what you tell us.Admin said:Free, open source climate data can help bridge the gap between information and environmental action.
We have the satellite data to show climate change is real. Now what? : Read more -
FactsNotFeelings
Exactly. I still have a copy of the 1977 all sciency and all Time magazine cover of the "Coming Ice Age".... Reminds somehow of the Treasure of the Sierra Madre quote (to paraphrase) "Evidences? We ain't got no evidences. We don't need no evidences. I don't have to show you any stinking evidences." . So-called scientist use biased models, then they all, by consensus, agree on the biasies and then swear by them. Those of us with actual experience and knowledge and - dare I say it - critical thinking capabilities, actually know "models" by design (aka biases) are terminally flawed. Then again, when you want "funding" and need to manipulate the masses, you have to tell those lies loud and long. ;-)Green Avenger said:Ok, please tell us what "normal" is for your data? What is normal ice cover? What is normal sea level? What is normal temperature?
When were the data points normal in the past, and for how long?
You claim to have evidence we are changing from normal, so where is it? -
astroken There is no climate emergency. You know its not science when scientists with a different view are deplatformed or sacked from academia for attempting to debate the science . 500 experts wrote a letter to the UN recently in an attempt to be heard. They said:-Reply
1. Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warmimg
2. Warming is slower than predicted
3.CO2 is not a pollutant and we could do with more of the stuff to assist plant life
4.Global warming has NOT increased natural disaters. But facts are inconvenient arent they?
5.Climate policy must reflect scientific and economic realities
Oh and the Maldives is still above water and a prime holiday destination. -
scvblwxq It is still so cold that outside of the Tropics that humans have to live and work in heated buildings, use heated transportation, and wear warm clothes most of the year.Reply
_
Humans are a tropical species. When it is cool or cold our blood vessels constrict to conserve heat this raises our blood pressure causing increased deaths from heart attacks and deaths in the cooler months.
_
‘QuickStats: Average Number of Stroke* Deaths per Day, by Month and Sex — National Vital Statistics System, United States, 2021’
“In 2021, the average number of stroke deaths per day was highest in January (275 for females and 212 for males) and then declined to a monthly low in June (235 for females and 180 for males)”
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7249a7.htm_
‘When Throughout the Year Is Coronary Death Most Likely to Occur?’
“Conclusions—Even in the mild climate of Los Angeles County, there are seasonal variations in the development of coronary artery death, with ˜33% more deaths occurring in December and January than in June through September.”
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/01.cir.100.15.1630_
This study says that around 4.6 million people die each year from cooler weather compared to around 500,000 that die each from warmer weather. Where temperature is concerned, cold weather is the big killer of humans.
‘Global, regional and national burden of mortality associated with nonoptimal ambient temperatures from 2000 to 2019: a three-stage modelling study’
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00081-4/fulltext_
This study from 2015 says that cold weather kills 20 times as many people as hot weather and that moderately warm or cool weather kills far more people than extreme weather. ‘Mortality risk attributable to high and low ambient temperature: a multi-country observational study’ https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)62114-0/fulltext -
OldGazer
Climate change is a hoax. Proponents can't come up with any worthwhile 3rd party verifiable empirical data because there isn't any. There never was any and there never will be any. Bill Gates won't plant trees because according to him trees make carbon an we all know that dieing stars (novas and supernovas) make carbon and everything else that exists in the universe. Carbon Dioxide is the gas of life on our planet. Plants use it and give off Oxygen and water in the process. When the concentration of atmospheric CO2 increases, plant life flourishes. If we were to remove CO2 entirely plant life and every other living thing on this planet would die. The bottom line is we are being lied to and it's all about having control. They want us to give up our cars, shut down our farms, live in "15 Minute Cities" and eat Soylent Green so they can jet back and forth to Davos and eat strawberry jam. Read, Study, Think Critically, Resist...Admin said:Free, open source climate data can help bridge the gap between information and environmental action.
We have the satellite data to show climate change is real. Now what? : Read more -
Helio What we need is more science, less politics. Science + politics = politics. It seems to me that it's the UN milking climate change for their own agenda. The IPCC has not been the ones to scream "turn or burn". (ok, I borrowed that one. ;))Reply
The key issue is climate sensitivity -- what amount of change in temperature will come from this or that increase or decrease for a given variable. It's extremely complicated.
Hurricane predictions, I assume, have fewer variables and their impacts more predictable. They predicted up to 15 ft. surge into Tampa Bay. Actual surge was a drop by abut 5 feet.
All I'm saying is that we should be getting the bigger picture of scientific modeling. -
COLGeek
Do you actually believe all of this? Seriously?OldGazer said:Climate change is a hoax. Proponents can't come up with any worthwhile 3rd party verifiable empirical data because there isn't any. There never was any and there never will be any. Bill Gates won't plant trees because according to him trees make carbon an we all know that dieing stars (novas and supernovas) make carbon and everything else that exists in the universe. Carbon Dioxide is the gas of life on our planet. Plants use it and give off Oxygen and water in the process. When the concentration of atmospheric CO2 increases, plant life flourishes. If we were to remove CO2 entirely plant life and every other living thing on this planet would die. The bottom line is we are being lied to and it's all about having control. They want us to give up our cars, shut down our farms, live in "15 Minute Cities" and eat Soylent Green so they can jet back and forth to Davos and eat strawberry jam. Read, Study, Think Critically, Resist... -
COLGeek
I would imagine that hurricane modeling for a specific event is far less complex than global modeling. Hurricanes are weather events that are subject to change, as we just saw with Milton. It was still catastrophic, just in other areas. Let's not forget that.Helio said:What we need is more science, less politics. Science + politics = politics. It seems to me that it's the UN milking climate change for their own agenda. The IPCC has not been the ones to scream "turn or burn". (ok, I borrowed that one. ;))
The key issue is climate sensitivity -- what amount of change in temperature will come from this or that increase or decrease for a given variable. It's extremely complicated.
Hurricane predictions, I assume, have fewer variables and their impacts more predictable. They predicted up to 15 ft. surge into Tampa Bay. Actual surge was a drop by abut 5 feet.
All I'm saying is that we should be getting the bigger picture of scientific modeling.
I am slightly amused by folks who mistrust the science we do know of. More is always better, no doubt. Unfortunately, many will never be swayed and that isn't a matter of science.
Science should be free of a political agenda or ideology, agreed. Methinks the current trends of disbelief and skepticism have completely allowed many to ignore reality, in often incredibly misinformed ways.
While not in response to this thread, I overheard a serious conversation about "the government has been controlling the weather since the 1950s" today. How the recent hurricanes were intentional. These gents were dead serious and it only spiraled worse into political conspiracy theory lunacy.
The climate changes science has noted is not an "either/or" concern. The overwhelming evidence is that human activity exacerbates the natural cycles. Also, CO2 isn't the only issue, there are a number of manmade and man worsened things wafting through the atmosphere. All of this matters.
It is appalling how many allow politics to blind them to basic science. This doesn't bode well for us all.