Clime Inaction: Datafication and Polarization of Climate Change

Harrison Teele

2 May 2025

HST401 - Seminar in Science Writing

Professor Horgan

Clime Inaction: Datafication and Polarization of Climate Change

NASA’s Earth Science Technology Office (ESTO) has requested $2.378 billion in funding for the 2025 fiscal year (NASA Budget Request Summary). Though just a fraction of NASA’s $25.3 billion in funding for the same year, ESTO’s portion is not spare change. Their budget invests in the continuation of Earth science observations to enhance our understanding of our planet, climate impacts, as well as maintain existing databases that are paramount in climate science. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) similarly requested $6.6 billion for funding to allow them to “improve existing critical services and capabilities while investing in new data and services” (Rick Spinrad, NOAA Administrator). These are just a few out of dozens of global space agencies requesting funding to further Earth science and our overall understanding of the climate. Every budget request cites an expansion in data infrastructure, with 35% of ESTO’s overall budget devoted strictly towards “[enhancing the] understanding of Earth systems and climate change”. While not inherently harmful, the datafication of the climate has led to fewer policy changes and increasingly expansive databases. As these databases seem to endlessly report that the latest CO2 emissions are (unsurprisingly) increasing at 430.44 parts per million (DailyCO2), or that ocean temperatures are (again, unsurprisingly) increasing, we must move past pure data acquisition and shift inaction into action.

NASA ESTO oversees dozens of Earth science projects via their own research or through university and academic partnership. Among these, the New Observing Strategies (NOS) initiative remains as one of their most extensive projects to date. The NOS mission statement is as follows:

Optimize measurement acquisition using many diverse observing capabilities, collaborating

across multiple dimensions and creating a unified architecture. (ESTO)

In short, NOS aims to create their own internet of climate and sensor data, which they call a SensorWeb. From computer models to managing financial risks of future missions via simulation, NOS remains purely data-driven. Stevens Institute of Technology partnered with the NOS initiative under the direction of the Systems Engineering department to develop the NOS-Testbed, or NOS-T. The testbed aimed to host a digital engineering environment, used as a foundation to test and further develop satellite mission concepts. The testbed relied on public satellite data hosted by NASA and NOAA to gain information on satellite identifiers and trajectories. To further develop the testbed, the research team designed certain test scenarios to demonstrate the capabilities of the project. FireSat+ was one of our flagship test cases (fig. 1). We gathered historical data of wildfires locations starting from 1990, and would randomly activate those wildfire events in the simulation. Certain satellites would cruise along their normal trajectories, and we would measure the response time from a satellite to the nearest ground station relative to the wildfire, and from there the viewer can assume the ground station would alert local authorities.

Figure 1: FireSat+ simulation in progress. Red/yellow circles show inactive/active wildfires, orange circles indicate ground station range and blue dots represent active satellites.

It should come to no surprise that NOS-T required an immense amount of data collection from local records all the way up to active NOAA satellite databases. ESTO lists the societal applications for NOS, namely the project’s ability to “respond quickly [and] on-demand to unexpected events (hurricanes, volcanoes, etc)” and “leverage ‘out of network’ assets for emergencies (DOD-, NOAA-, Foreign-, etc.)” (ESTO). These applications struck me as being somewhat vague in principle, and had me questioning the purpose of data-driven simulations and their applications to concrete climate action. I struggled to come to terms with the fact that NOS, actually, does not do anything for policy change or action beyond simply maintaining and utilizing public databases. NOS is just one of dozens of similar data-driven projects, and I would hope those aware of the climate issue see these projects as somewhat disturbing. For the amount of manpower put into these research initiatives, it yields very little, if any, in actual policy.

The datafication of climate change has brought on a major disconnect between the climate scientists at federal agencies and those who advocate for policy change to reduce our harm to the climate. In 2013, NOAA published a database on the Gulf of Mexico’s “dead zone”,  a region of the gulf with lower oxygen due to nutrient runoffs from the Mississippi River. NOAA reported the dead zone as significantly larger than previous years (fig. 2), purporting it as a record dead zone for the area. If true, this would impact fisheries and other public fishing ventures in a region that heavily relies on commercial and recreational fishing for revenue (NOAA Fisheries). The figure was eventually corrected in NOAA’s SEAMAP Summer Groundfish Survey (fig. 3). Researchers Michael and Joshua Courtney from the University of Colorado criticized NOAA for publishing inaccurate data, citing concerns over impacts the released data would have on the fishing industry in the area. Human error is inevitable, however to what extent should we allow this room for error in pure data? 

Figure 2: Gulf of Mexico dead zone, June 2013, according to NOAA

Figure 3: Updated Gulf of Mexico dead zone, June 2013, corrected by NOAA

NOAA has been criticized as becoming a glorified database focused on pure reporting rather than actual climate resilience and policy advocacy. Their data is required for climate observation and understanding the impacts human actions have, but NOAA have reached a tunnel-vision of sorts, providing hundreds of databases but pushing little in local or federal governments for action. Samantha Jo Fried from American Scientist questions this. “If more Earth remote sensing data won’t lead to public engagement with—and clearer action on—issues of climate change, what will?” (Fried, 2020). I believe this to be the root of the climate issue, as millions of dollars in funding are put in to maintain and develop new ways to acquire data to view the same trends with little action put forward to relieve those trends.

This is not to say that nothing is being done. Policy changes have occured, and agencies like NASA and NOAA are mindful that efforts need to be done based on the data we collect. NASA publishes their Climate Adaptation Plan, where they identify climate risks of missions and infrastructure and how they can lessen their own impact on the environment. Specifically, they provide information on each operating center’s thermal and moisture levels and how they can contribute to lessening their heat emission or water usage (fig. 4).

Figure 4: NASA Climate Adaptation Plan assessing infrastructure thermal and water emissions/usage

More concrete policies have been passed, such as the National Integrated Drought Information System Reauthorization Act of 2018, or NIDIS. This bill ordered NOAA to maintain and continuously update watershed and drought databases to reflect real-time changes in efforts to better inform local authorities and citizens in high-risk areas (115th Congress). Similarly, the 115th Congress also passed the Weather Research and Forecasting Innovation Act of 2017, once again ordering NOAA to maintain real-time tracking of hurricane and tornado paths for local authorities and governments. This is all in the right direction, where a republican majority congress was able to pass bipartisan legislation based on collected data to better educate, alert, and prepare those who are at risk of climate effects. 

NASA is not blind to the fact that more policy change must be done. 9.3% of NASA’s 2025 budget is allocated towards Earth science, an insignificant amount of budgeting when one looks at the $850 billion budget the Department of Defense has (David Vergun, DoD). The issue with policy change stems from the inherent partisanship of climate change. The republican party of “MAGA” staunchly denies most climate change evidence, with the current Trump administration nominating climate change deniers such as Lee Zeldin to head the Environmental Protection Agency. Zeldin aims to rollback greenhouse gas regulation that was passed under parts of the Clean Air Act (Environmental Protection Network). Zeldin is just one of many in the Trump administration to object the data pushed by NASA and NOAA. It is obvious that public trust in these organizations have dwindled, especially in the far-right. Those who deny the science spew claims that NASA is fear-mongering, that these are natural climate processes, and various other claims to undermine the current science. NOAA has also been under fire, with 1,300 employees terminated in many departments that oversee the National Weather Service and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (Kluger, 2025) If NOAA can not provide accurate information by the minute however, they are simply providing those who oppose them with more ammunition, much like their inaccuracy in the Gulf of Mexico dead zone. These organizations must regain the trust of the country as a whole, not simply maintain the trust established by those who believe in the data.

So what can these organizations do to gain the trust of the right and many others? I believe appropriate and accurate climate reporting can regain a fair amount of bipartisan trust at the federal level, with focus on what is occurring in our climate as opposed to fear-mongering (as the right accuses NASA of). This bipartisan support can foster a new era of funding for Earth and climate science, where researchers can focus on climate resilience and turn their past inaction into concrete action. Climate resilience comes in two forms: Climate mitigation, via clean and efficient energy production, and climate resilience through infrastructure upgrades and other hazard mitigations. The proper bipartisan funding could not only strengthen our infrastructure against increasingly dangerous weather conditions, but also ensure we lessen human impact through green energy solutions. Researchers at NASA and NOAA could also shift from science to advocacy, becoming trustworthy public figures who not only know the data, but can convey it in an educational and urgent manner. This all might seem idealistic, however we are seeing important policy changes in the federal government, with the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 investing $369 billion in clean energy mitigation and production (Inflation Reduction Act, 2022). With further public trust and advocacy, the United States can become the global leader in climate resilience and mitigation.

Organizations are not oblivious to the fact that more needs to be done about our climate. Billions have been invested into observation and research, however some groups have prioritized data acquisition over utilizing that data into public action. Maintaining current climate data is crucial, and with the right amount of trust and effort, this data can turn into action. The mission statement of climate projects is spot on, finding ways to observe and reduce our impact, but those groups are more than capable of turning this data into trustworthy advocacy. With the current administration laying out a bleak future for our climate, it is up to the climate researchers and engineers to advocate for the continued health of our home.

Works Cited

Bharucha, Aaron. “Lee Zeldin Plans to Roll Back Climate Regulations by Denying Greenhouse Gases Threaten Public Health, According to Report.” Environmental Protection Network, 27 February 2025, https://www.environmentalprotectionnetwork.org/lee-zeldin-plans-to-roll-back-climate-regulations-by-denying-greenhouse-gases-threaten-public-health-according-to-report/.

CO2.Earth. Daily CO2. 2025. NOAA GML (Mauna Loa Observatory), https://www.co2.earth/daily-co2#:~:text=428.59%20ppm&text=This%20table%20presents%20the%20latest,a%20day%20with%20few%20exceptions.

Courtney, Michael W., and Joshua M. Courtney. “National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Publishes Misleading Information on Gulf of Mexico "Dead Zone."” 2013.

Fried, Samantha Jo. “How Climate Science Could Lead to Action.” American Scientist, 2020, https://www.americanscientist.org/article/how-climate-science-could-lead-to-action.

IRS.gov. “Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 | Internal Revenue Service.” IRS, 3 March 2025, https://www.irs.gov/inflation-reduction-act-of-2022. Accessed 2 May 2025.

Kluger, Jeffrey. “The True Cost of Trump's Cuts to NOAA and NASA.” Time, 13 March 2025, https://time.com/7267889/climate-cost-of-trump-staff-cuts-noaa-nasa/. Accessed 2 May 2025.

Le Moigne, Jacqueline. New Observing Strategies (NOS) Introduction to the Workshop. 25 February 2020.

NASA. FY 2025 Budget Request. NASA.gov, 2025, https://www.nasa.gov/fy-2025-budget-request/.

NASA. NASA's Climate Adaptation Plan. May 2024, https://www.sustainability.gov/pdfs/nasa-2024-cap.pdf.

NOAA. “Southeast Fisheries Management and Marine Life Protection.” NOAA Fisheries, https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/region/southeast. Accessed 2 May 2025.

NOAA. 2025 NOAA Budget Summary. NOAA, 2025, https://www.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/2024-04/NOAA_Blue_Book_FY25_Budget_Summary.pdf.