How satellite data has proven climate change is a climate crisis

a thermal image of earth with grey land masses and colorful oceans.
This map shows sea level measured by the Sentinel-6 Michael Freilich satellite from June 5 to 15 of 2021. Red areas are regions where sea level is higher than normal, and blue areas indicate areas where it’s lower than normal. (Image credit: NASA Earth Observatory)

The year 2024 was a record-breaking one, and not in a good way. In July, Earth's average temperature was the highest it has been in at least 175 years, with July 22 specifically being the hottest day on record. This past summer was the hottest summer since about the year 1880, this year's hurricane season started with Beryl — the earliest Category 4 hurricane on record — and a report published in June confirmed that human-driven global warming is at an all-time high. 

But it isn't just the headline-making record-breakers that scientists are worried about. As of this year, glaciers are melting at unprecedented rates due to all this human-induced heat, sea levels are irreversibly rising as a result of those glaciers melting, coastal communities are being ravaged by storms exacerbated through such sea level rise combined with high temperatures, and animals are getting evicted from their homes because Earth is changing too much, too quickly. Just last month, we saw Hurricane Helene destroy towns and claim lives — and its strength has indeed been connected to climate change.

It's certainly heavy to see the facts laid out like this, especially considering how much those paragraphs leave unsaid. This feeling, however, brings to the forefront something very important: it is, on a baseline level, valuable that this information exists at all. Perhaps the biggest limiting step in the fight against climate change is turning facts into actionable tasks and, in turn, convincing policymakers to start making major changes in the way our world is run. The climate crisis is a deceptively political problem, meaning the future of Earth hinges on data — and, depending on how you see it, that data hinges on an unlikely source: space exploration.

"The only way we can draw connections between the various phenomena that drive the complex functioning of our planet, tease out the natural and the human-driven, is to connect the dots among them," Cedric David, a scientist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Southern California, told Space.com. 

"For this, we need an ongoing fleet of space sentinels up high in space," he said. "The same way we do annual checkups at the family doctor, we need to diagnose the health of our own planet."

Related: World Space Week 2024: How space technology arms scientists fighting climate change

What exactly do climate satellites do? 

The word "satellite" is thrown around a lot these days, but in basic terms, it just refers to any object sent to live in our planet's orbit to perform a designated task. We have communications satellites to make our cellphones work, navigation satellites to make Google Maps give us correct driving directions and experimental satellites for the purpose of pure science, like this one that's presently testing solar sail technology. 

Amid the satellite party, we also have climate satellites.

"NASA and other international space agencies inspire the world with our exploration of planets in our solar system and beyond," David said. "But a significant impact that space research has had has also been a much better understanding of our own planet." 

For example, there are satellites with spectrometers that can reveal the concentration of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, which is important because experts have revealed that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are increasing primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels like coal and oil. More carbon dioxide in the atmosphere means a "supercharged" greenhouse gas effect, as the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) puts it — and a supercharged greenhouse gas effect means a global temperature rise. To be clear, there is such a thing as "natural" climate change. But, right now, nature isn't the primary driver of global warming. Human activities are, as research has shown time and again.

Furthermore, there are many satellites, like NASA's Landsat spacecraft, that can procure images of how forests are decreasing in size as industries chop them down to make room for commercial ventures. Imagery can also help track things like changing animal habitats, forced wildlife migration and diminishing food supply for certain species. There are also spacecraft with lasers that can help measure the rate at which ice caps are melting. Still others have synthetic aperture radars that show how our planet responds to earthquakes, which could increase in frequency as the Earth warms. 

Images of Greenland captured by NASA's Landsat 9 satellite showing the rapid melting of snow in the summer of 2023. (Image credit: NASA)

"Having worked at NASA for 10 years, I've seen a good number of remote observations that have really given me pause to reflect," David said. "The most incredible, to me, is gravimetry." 

Satellite gravimetry helps scientists measure Earth's gravitational influence — and most importantly, subtle changes in our planet's gravitational field. As gravitational force is directly correlated with objects of mass, this means the technique can precisely measure when ice mass is lost, how oceans are rising and even fluctuations in groundwater supply. "Satellites can see what we cannot with our own eyes: changes in deep underground water storage that would require us to dig deep in the ground to witness firsthand," David said. 

"That's just mind-blowing."

Earth's future is our future 

The list goes on — and that's a good thing. Having so much data allows scientists to do their due diligence, compiling extensive amounts of evidence for people in power to peruse before making climate-impacting decisions. During huge climate meetings— the COP conferences are probably the most well-known — that evidence can be presented to officials as part of a case for change. Without information, communication isn't easy.

But oftentimes, satellite data is practical in the short term as well. 

Hurricane watchers, for instance, help meteorologists predict where storms are going to fall — a crucial task, as these storms are bound to grow in intensity as well as frequency as the climate warms — and methane emission trackers can identify where exactly greenhouse-gas hotspots are located. 

David also points out that, in a 2018 report, the U.S. National Academies recommended NASA build a series of spacecraft that will together form the Earth System Observatory, or ESO. This observatory, he explains, would have the duty of sensing the movements of our planet's atmosphere, the generation of rain, the ups and downs of continents and the continued movements of mass around the world. 

However, there's still a lot more that can be done.

"One grand challenge yet remains: the accurate measure of our snowpacks from space. Snow is notoriously difficult to quantify; we can see the area it covers, but it's still difficult to sense how deep it is and how dense it is," he said. "Given that many regions — including California, where I live — for which snowmelt is a primary source of freshwater, advancing our understanding of snow in areas that are difficult to access is imperative."

David believes all of this information is "absolutely essential." But I asked him to pick the one most useful kind of satellite data to have while forming possible solutions to climate change; he picked radar altimetry.

"We've had a series of radar altimetry satellites circling around our Earth in constant operation since 1992 that have allowed us to see the undeniable: oceans are in constant rise," he said. "The 30-year-long curves of sea level rise are unquestionable evidence that our climate is changing."

In other words, we have a continuous stream of data telling us the same thing again, and again, and again: Earth's climate is changing, and it's because of the humans that populate it. It is this kind of data that should be dictating our response. 

"As we continue to explore our universe and inspire people, we are constantly reminded that, so far, the only place where we have found life is right here on Earth," David said. "We can keep looking for a Plan B, but so far, there is only Plan A: our own planet."


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 and explored how space technology can help fill the toolboxes of climate scientists.

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.

Monisha Ravisetti
Astronomy Channel Editor

Monisha Ravisetti is Space.com's Astronomy Editor. She covers black holes, star explosions, gravitational waves, exoplanet discoveries and other enigmas hidden across the fabric of space and time. Previously, she was a science writer at CNET, and before that, reported for The Academic Times. Prior to becoming a writer, she was an immunology researcher at Weill Cornell Medical Center in New York. She graduated from New York University in 2018 with a B.A. in philosophy, physics and chemistry. She spends too much time playing online chess. Her favorite planet is Earth.

  • LijeBaley
    The problem remains the public’s reticence to accept the solutions. Oil and coal interests are still resisting change because those promised high paying green jobs haven’t materialized yet. All those years of fear mongering by anti-nuclear activists have stuck in the public’s mind so building or restarting nuclear plants is still fiercely opposed even though those former critics now admit nuclear is one major solution to the climate crisis. Microsoft wants to restart one of the infamous Three Mile Island reactors. Let’s see how that is received. Massive solar and windmill farms are often resisted too.

    We have met the enemy and he is us.
    Reply
  • Richard Gordon
    "This past summer was the hottest summer since about the year 1880" I guess global warming is cyclic.
    Reply
  • Unclear Engineer
    It isn't just a matter of "the public accepting the solutions".

    There is a lot of work that needs to be done on infrastructure before those solutions are even available to the whole public. If we could magically wave a wand and put electric cars in the homes of everybody in the U.S., in place of their cars with internal combustion engines, we would crash the electric grid when they tried to charge them. Even if we magically enhanced the grid to deal with the loads, we would find that we don't have the storage capacity to hold the generation from solar power during the day to use at night to charge electric vehicles, so we would end up using fossil fuels (and nuclear where that has not already been decommissioned).

    We are making progress in some parts of the world, but a lot of that new infrastructure needs to be further developed to be more effective, reliable, efficient and affordable. I once looked at what it would take for me to install solar and batteries to be able to just charge a Tesla every night after using it hard during the day. The answer at the time was over $100,000. And it would not last forever, the batteries in the home system and the Tesla would need replacing in roughly 10 years, and the solar cells in something like 10 to 20 years, IF they were not storm-damaged during that period of time.

    Prices for those things are coming down. And, the idea of being able to have a home that can be independent of the grid instead of just selling excess power during the day and importing power at night is catching on with the suburban public, if not the regulatory agencies and the power companies (yet?). But, that really is not an option for most city dwellers.

    Despite all the rosy predictions of cost savings and job growth, the fact of the matter is that it is going to cost real people real money to change over our infrastructure to a "green" system. Most of the fighting is going to be about who has to pay for what. "Tax the rich" is a popular concept, but a quick look at the total wealth of "the rich" tells the truth that even that is a tiny fraction of the needed total investment. There is some economic trickery used as bait, where initial investments are subsidized for early adopters and the subsidies are hidden in the affordability analyses. But, some of those subsidies are currently coming to an end, such as the regulations forcing the electric companies to pay for excess residential solar generation at prices much higher than they would pay for the same amount of power from other commercial producers at the same time of day. And, if the government gives everybody a "tax break" on a new electric car, it will need to raise taxes on everybody (or increase the deficit and make our children and their children pay for it, plus the huge interest penalties, too).

    So, we really need to be much smarter about how to engineer the transition process.

    Getting back to how satellites can help with that - we really need to be able to see where pollutants are being emitted, not just where they end up, if we want to be able to focus on the biggest impactors. And we need to be able to measure total global effects in a uniform manner to gauge progress. That is what satellites can do for us.
    Reply
  • LeeF
    Richard Gordon said:
    "This past summer was the hottest summer since about the year 1880" I guess global warming is cyclic.
    No, that's when modern record keeping began. The last time it was this hot was 3-5 million years ago.
    Reply
  • Unclear Engineer
    Leef, It was probably hotter a lot more recently than 3-5 million years ago.

    There have been many cycles of glaciation and meltoff over the last 3 million years. Initially, the cycle was about 50,000 years between warm periods, but about 900,000 years ago, it changed to about 100,000 years per cycle.

    During previous interglacial periods, sea levels sometimes rose more than they have so far this cycle. During the last interglacial period about 100,000 years ago, sea level reached a peak 25 feet higher than it is now. I remember reading about a 65 foot higher peak sea level several cycles earlier. It is a good bet that there were some rather warm years back then, before we had record-keeping humans. And single years are probably not discernable in the geological record with the accuracy needed to make year-to year comparisons with the present.

    That doesn't mean we aren't eventually headed for global conditions similar to 3 to 5 million years ago, before the current (just ended?) cycles started. But, we are probably not yet out of the global conditions that have been experienced in previous warm periods. We may have already passed the point where we are unable to prevent getting back to the conditions that existed millions of years ago. It takes time for global temperatures to reach equilibrium when there is a change in net heating or cooling effects. There is no question that we are in a heating-up period at the moment.
    Reply
  • LeeF
    Unclear Engineer said:
    It isn't just a matter of "the public accepting the solutions".

    There is a lot of work that needs to be done on infrastructure before those solutions are even available to the whole public. If we could magically wave a wand and put electric cars in the homes of everybody in the U.S., in place of their cars with internal combustion engines, we would crash the electric grid when they tried to charge them. Even if we magically enhanced the grid to deal with the loads, we would find that we don't have the storage capacity to hold the generation from solar power during the day to use at night to charge electric vehicles, so we would end up using fossil fuels (and nuclear where that has not already been decommissioned).

    We are making progress in some parts of the world, but a lot of that new infrastructure needs to be further developed to be more effective, reliable, efficient and affordable. I once looked at what it would take for me to install solar and batteries to be able to just charge a Tesla every night after using it hard during the day. The answer at the time was over $100,000. And it would not last forever, the batteries in the home system and the Tesla would need replacing in roughly 10 years, and the solar cells in something like 10 to 20 years, IF they were not storm-damaged during that period of time.

    Prices for those things are coming down. And, the idea of being able to have a home that can be independent of the grid instead of just selling excess power during the day and importing power at night is catching on with the suburban public, if not the regulatory agencies and the power companies (yet?). But, that really is not an option for most city dwellers.

    Despite all the rosy predictions of cost savings and job growth, the fact of the matter is that it is going to cost real people real money to change over our infrastructure to a "green" system. Most of the fighting is going to be about who has to pay for what. "Tax the rich" is a popular concept, but a quick look at the total wealth of "the rich" tells the truth that even that is a tiny fraction of the needed total investment. There is some economic trickery used as bait, where initial investments are subsidized for early adopters and the subsidies are hidden in the affordability analyses. But, some of those subsidies are currently coming to an end, such as the regulations forcing the electric companies to pay for excess residential solar generation at prices much higher than they would pay for the same amount of power from other commercial producers at the same time of day. And, if the government gives everybody a "tax break" on a new electric car, it will need to raise taxes on everybody (or increase the deficit and make our children and their children pay for it, plus the huge interest penalties, too).

    So, we really need to be much smarter about how to engineer the transition process.

    Getting back to how satellites can help with that - we really need to be able to see where pollutants are being emitted, not just where they end up, if we want to be able to focus on the biggest impactors. And we need to be able to measure total global effects in a uniform manner to gauge progress. That is what satellites can do for us.
    "If we could magically wave a wand and put electric cars in the homes of everybody in the U.S., in place of their cars with internal combustion engines, we would crash the electric grid when they tried to charge them."

    That's not really true. There's now lots of evidence that the opposite should be the case, especially combined with energy efficiency and distributed generation.

    With energy efficiency alone, I managed to reduce my primary energy use by 85% and the resultant loads can mostly be timed whenever I want them to occur mostly without batteries (just in vehicles), and 120% of the remainder is created on-site with solar on just one of my rooftops.

    The advantages of electric vehicles of all sorts is you can choose to charge them when there is excess energy available and either not charge or feed energy back to the grid when there's a shortage. I charge when the solar on my roof is over-producing. I also pre-heat in the winter at the same time and also time my heating and water heating loads with the needs of the power grid.
    Unclear Engineer said:
    Leef, It was probably hotter a lot more recently than 3-5 million years ago.

    There have been many cycles of glaciation and meltoff over the last 3 million years. Initially, the cycle was about 50,000 years between warm periods, but about 900,000 years ago, it changed to about 100,000 years per cycle.

    During previous interglacial periods, sea levels sometimes rose more than they have so far this cycle. During the last interglacial period about 100,000 years ago, sea level reached a peak 25 feet higher than it is now. I remember reading about a 65 foot higher peak sea level several cycles earlier. It is a good bet that there were some rather warm years back then, before we had record-keeping humans. And single years are probably not discernable in the geological record with the accuracy needed to make year-to year comparisons with the present.

    That doesn't mean we aren't eventually headed for global conditions similar to 3 to 5 million years ago, before the current (just ended?) cycles started. But, we are probably not yet out of the global conditions that have been experienced in previous warm periods. We may have already passed the point where we are unable to prevent getting back to the conditions that existed millions of years ago. It takes time for global temperatures to reach equilibrium when there is a change in net heating or cooling effects. There is no question that we are in a heating-up period at the moment.
    There may (or may not) have been a couple of short-duration spikes at or slightly above our current level, but the last time is was consistently this hot was 3 million years ago.
    Reply
  • LeeF
    Unclear Engineer said:
    It isn't just a matter of "the public accepting the solutions".

    There is a lot of work that needs to be done on infrastructure before those solutions are even available to the whole public. If we could magically wave a wand and put electric cars in the homes of everybody in the U.S., in place of their cars with internal combustion engines, we would crash the electric grid when they tried to charge them. Even if we magically enhanced the grid to deal with the loads, we would find that we don't have the storage capacity to hold the generation from solar power during the day to use at night to charge electric vehicles, so we would end up using fossil fuels (and nuclear where that has not already been decommissioned).

    We are making progress in some parts of the world, but a lot of that new infrastructure needs to be further developed to be more effective, reliable, efficient and affordable. I once looked at what it would take for me to install solar and batteries to be able to just charge a Tesla every night after using it hard during the day. The answer at the time was over $100,000. And it would not last forever, the batteries in the home system and the Tesla would need replacing in roughly 10 years, and the solar cells in something like 10 to 20 years, IF they were not storm-damaged during that period of time.

    Prices for those things are coming down. And, the idea of being able to have a home that can be independent of the grid instead of just selling excess power during the day and importing power at night is catching on with the suburban public, if not the regulatory agencies and the power companies (yet?). But, that really is not an option for most city dwellers.

    Despite all the rosy predictions of cost savings and job growth, the fact of the matter is that it is going to cost real people real money to change over our infrastructure to a "green" system. Most of the fighting is going to be about who has to pay for what. "Tax the rich" is a popular concept, but a quick look at the total wealth of "the rich" tells the truth that even that is a tiny fraction of the needed total investment. There is some economic trickery used as bait, where initial investments are subsidized for early adopters and the subsidies are hidden in the affordability analyses. But, some of those subsidies are currently coming to an end, such as the regulations forcing the electric companies to pay for excess residential solar generation at prices much higher than they would pay for the same amount of power from other commercial producers at the same time of day. And, if the government gives everybody a "tax break" on a new electric car, it will need to raise taxes on everybody (or increase the deficit and make our children and their children pay for it, plus the huge interest penalties, too).

    So, we really need to be much smarter about how to engineer the transition process.

    Getting back to how satellites can help with that - we really need to be able to see where pollutants are being emitted, not just where they end up, if we want to be able to focus on the biggest impactors. And we need to be able to measure total global effects in a uniform manner to gauge progress. That is what satellites can do for us.
    Over a 25 or so year period, I cut my energy use to zero and my net cost was negative by over $100,000. If you make the transition intelligently, it can save, rather than cost money.
    Reply
  • Atlan0001
    Why not wipe out the human species and the rest of the species will live in perfect harmony with a perfectly harmonious environment in the universe! Or, just wipe out the of the human species and the rest of the human species live like perfect slave workers to the perfect slave state.

    Or pay the price to colonize and expand out to the Space Frontier letting the would be free of the human species go free of a slave Utopia Earth!

    There is such a thing as a singularly internally diverse and contrary species, the ultimately complex and chaotic apex of the species pyramid species (all the various species of life merging into an incompatible single body of specie for spatial purpose), . . . needing Space Frontier . . . else nature trying for breakout with a new if there be still time for such a carrier-transport species and breakout. Only the lower orders of life do not branch out -- ever warring to branch out to get out of the box -- into the space frontier evolution of the mind! Utopian 'One World-ism' is a death wish for the higher orders of species because all it takes to destroy it is evolution and revolution of the branching tree of life from it ("Give me liberty or give me death!" -- Patrick Henry) (....)!
    Reply
  • Osbert
    Because of climate change, nuclear war and who knows what else, it's all over in 3797.
    Reply
  • Richard Mercer
    LijeBaley said:
    "All those years of fear mongering by anti-nuclear activists have stuck in the public’s mind so building or restarting nuclear plants is still fiercely opposed even though those former critics now admit nuclear is one m All those years of fear mongering by anti-nuclear activists have stuck in the public’s mind so building or restarting nuclear plants is still fiercely opposed even though those former critics now admit nuclear is one major solution to the climate crisis. Microsoft wants to restart one of the infamous Three Mile Island reactors. Let’s see how that is received. Massive solar and windmill farms are often resisted too.
    LijeBaley said:
    Yes, Microsoft has put up $1.6 billion toward restarting one reactor at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania, to power their data centers. It will cost more than that.

    On the other hand, Meta has contracted with Sage Geosystems to turn depleted gas wells into enhanced geothermal energy.
    Sage was started by former Shell Oil workers, in Texas I think.
    Well, there are about 100,000 depleted gas fracking wells in Pennsylvania alone. The drilling has already been done.
    There are 27 states in America that have at least 5-10 thousand abandoned oil and gas wells,
    Unclear Engineer said:
    Leef, It was probably hotter a lot more recently than 3-5 million years ago.

    There have been many cycles of glaciation and meltoff over the last 3 million years. Initially, the cycle was about 50,000 years between warm periods, but about 900,000 years ago, it changed to about 100,000 years per cycle.

    During previous interglacial periods, sea levels sometimes rose more than they have so far this cycle. During the last interglacial period about 100,000 years ago, sea level reached a peak 25 feet higher than it is now. I remember reading about a 65 foot higher peak sea level several cycles earlier. It is a good bet that there were some rather warm years back then, before we had record-keeping humans. And single years are probably not discernable in the geological record with the accuracy needed to make year-to year comparisons with the present.

    That doesn't mean we aren't eventually headed for global conditions similar to 3 to 5 million years ago, before the current (just ended?) cycles started. But, we are probably not yet out of the global conditions that have been experienced in previous warm periods. We may have already passed the point where we are unable to prevent getting back to the conditions that existed millions of years ago. It takes time for global temperatures to reach equilibrium when there is a change in net heating or cooling effects. There is no question that we are in a heating-up period at the moment.
    LeeF said:
    "If we could magically wave a wand and put electric cars in the homes of everybody in the U.S., in place of their cars with internal combustion engines, we would crash the electric grid when they tried to charge them."

    That's not really true. There's now lots of evidence that the opposite should be the case, especially combined with energy efficiency and distributed generation.

    With energy efficiency alone, I managed to reduce my primary energy use by 85% and the resultant loads can mostly be timed whenever I want them to occur mostly without batteries (just in vehicles), and 120% of the remainder is created on-site with solar on just one of my rooftops.

    The advantages of electric vehicles of all sorts is you can choose to charge them when there is excess energy available and either not charge or feed energy back to the grid when there's a shortage. I charge when the solar on my roof is over-producing. I also pre-heat in the winter at the same time and also time my heating and water heating loads with the needs of the power grid.

    There may (or may not) have been a couple of short-duration spikes at or slightly above our current level, but the last time is was consistently this hot was 3 million years ago.
    "As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years.

    In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly TEN TIMES FASTER than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming."
    NASA Earth Observatory
    ----------------------------------------------------------------
    This is from 2010. The warming since 1880 is now almost double, the 0.70C warming NASA was referring to.

    LijeBaley said:
    LijeBaley said:





    LijeBaley said:
    LijeBaley said:

    LijeBaley said:
    LijeBaley said:


    Reply