research paper on change in climate

Climate Change: Evidence and Causes: Update 2020 (2020)

Chapter: conclusion, c onclusion.

This document explains that there are well-understood physical mechanisms by which changes in the amounts of greenhouse gases cause climate changes. It discusses the evidence that the concentrations of these gases in the atmosphere have increased and are still increasing rapidly, that climate change is occurring, and that most of the recent change is almost certainly due to emissions of greenhouse gases caused by human activities. Further climate change is inevitable; if emissions of greenhouse gases continue unabated, future changes will substantially exceed those that have occurred so far. There remains a range of estimates of the magnitude and regional expression of future change, but increases in the extremes of climate that can adversely affect natural ecosystems and human activities and infrastructure are expected.

Citizens and governments can choose among several options (or a mixture of those options) in response to this information: they can change their pattern of energy production and usage in order to limit emissions of greenhouse gases and hence the magnitude of climate changes; they can wait for changes to occur and accept the losses, damage, and suffering that arise; they can adapt to actual and expected changes as much as possible; or they can seek as yet unproven “geoengineering” solutions to counteract some of the climate changes that would otherwise occur. Each of these options has risks, attractions and costs, and what is actually done may be a mixture of these different options. Different nations and communities will vary in their vulnerability and their capacity to adapt. There is an important debate to be had about choices among these options, to decide what is best for each group or nation, and most importantly for the global population as a whole. The options have to be discussed at a global scale because in many cases those communities that are most vulnerable control few of the emissions, either past or future. Our description of the science of climate change, with both its facts and its uncertainties, is offered as a basis to inform that policy debate.

A CKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The following individuals served as the primary writing team for the 2014 and 2020 editions of this document:

• Eric Wolff FRS, (UK lead), University of Cambridge
• Inez Fung (NAS, US lead), University of California, Berkeley
• Brian Hoskins FRS, Grantham Institute for Climate Change
• John F.B. Mitchell FRS, UK Met Office
• Tim Palmer FRS, University of Oxford
• Benjamin Santer (NAS), Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
• John Shepherd FRS, University of Southampton
• Keith Shine FRS, University of Reading.
• Susan Solomon (NAS), Massachusetts Institute of Technology
• Kevin Trenberth, National Center for Atmospheric Research
• John Walsh, University of Alaska, Fairbanks
• Don Wuebbles, University of Illinois

Staff support for the 2020 revision was provided by Richard Walker, Amanda Purcell, Nancy Huddleston, and Michael Hudson. We offer special thanks to Rebecca Lindsey and NOAA Climate.gov for providing data and figure updates.

The following individuals served as reviewers of the 2014 document in accordance with procedures approved by the Royal Society and the National Academy of Sciences:

• Richard Alley (NAS), Department of Geosciences, Pennsylvania State University
• Alec Broers FRS, Former President of the Royal Academy of Engineering
• Harry Elderfield FRS, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Cambridge
• Joanna Haigh FRS, Professor of Atmospheric Physics, Imperial College London
• Isaac Held (NAS), NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory
• John Kutzbach (NAS), Center for Climatic Research, University of Wisconsin
• Jerry Meehl, Senior Scientist, National Center for Atmospheric Research
• John Pendry FRS, Imperial College London
• John Pyle FRS, Department of Chemistry, University of Cambridge
• Gavin Schmidt, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
• Emily Shuckburgh, British Antarctic Survey
• Gabrielle Walker, Journalist
• Andrew Watson FRS, University of East Anglia

The Support for the 2014 Edition was provided by NAS Endowment Funds. We offer sincere thanks to the Ralph J. and Carol M. Cicerone Endowment for NAS Missions for supporting the production of this 2020 Edition.

F OR FURTHER READING

For more detailed discussion of the topics addressed in this document (including references to the underlying original research), see:

• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2019: Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate [ https://www.ipcc.ch/srocc ]
• National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM), 2019: Negative Emissions Technologies and Reliable Sequestration: A Research Agenda [ https://www.nap.edu/catalog/25259 ]
• Royal Society, 2018: Greenhouse gas removal [ https://raeng.org.uk/greenhousegasremoval ]
• U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), 2018: Fourth National Climate Assessment Volume II: Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States [ https://nca2018.globalchange.gov ]
• IPCC, 2018: Global Warming of 1.5°C [ https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15 ]
• USGCRP, 2017: Fourth National Climate Assessment Volume I: Climate Science Special Reports [ https://science2017.globalchange.gov ]
• NASEM, 2016: Attribution of Extreme Weather Events in the Context of Climate Change [ https://www.nap.edu/catalog/21852 ]
• IPCC, 2013: Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) Working Group 1. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis [ https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1 ]
• NRC, 2013: Abrupt Impacts of Climate Change: Anticipating Surprises [ https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18373 ]
• NRC, 2011: Climate Stabilization Targets: Emissions, Concentrations, and Impacts Over Decades to Millennia [ https://www.nap.edu/catalog/12877 ]
• Royal Society 2010: Climate Change: A Summary of the Science [ https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/publications/2010/climate-change-summary-science ]
• NRC, 2010: America’s Climate Choices: Advancing the Science of Climate Change [ https://www.nap.edu/catalog/12782 ]

Much of the original data underlying the scientific findings discussed here are available at:

• https://data.ucar.edu/
• https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu
• https://iridl.ldeo.columbia.edu
• https://ess-dive.lbl.gov/
• https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/
• https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
• http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu
• http://hahana.soest.hawaii.edu/hot/

Climate change is one of the defining issues of our time. It is now more certain than ever, based on many lines of evidence, that humans are changing Earth's climate. The Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences, with their similar missions to promote the use of science to benefit society and to inform critical policy debates, produced the original Climate Change: Evidence and Causes in 2014. It was written and reviewed by a UK-US team of leading climate scientists. This new edition, prepared by the same author team, has been updated with the most recent climate data and scientific analyses, all of which reinforce our understanding of human-caused climate change.

Scientific information is a vital component for society to make informed decisions about how to reduce the magnitude of climate change and how to adapt to its impacts. This booklet serves as a key reference document for decision makers, policy makers, educators, and others seeking authoritative answers about the current state of climate-change science.

READ FREE ONLINE

Welcome to OpenBook!

You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

Show this book's table of contents , where you can jump to any chapter by name.

...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

Switch between the Original Pages , where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter .

Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

Get Email Updates

Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free ? Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released.

April 23, 2024

Advancing action on the UN Sustainable Development Goals

In this Editorial, PLOS Climate's Editor-in-Chief and Executive Editor discuss the work we're doing to support the UN SDGs.

Image credit: PLOS

Propose a Review article

Do you have an idea for a review article for plos climate let us know using our proposal form..

social science & anthropology

Emotional signatures of climate policy support

Myers and colleagues investigate how emotions are associated with support for different types of climate policies.

Image credit: Woman Reading Newspaper by Jean Luc Jarrick, Pixabay License

Politics & Justice

Enhancing Indigenous Peoples’ participation in climate policy processes

Hellin and colleagues discuss opportunities to strengthen the involvement of Indigenous Peoples in the development of climate policy.

Image credit: Amazon by Leonel Barreto, Pixabay License

Impact of climate and land use/land cover changes on malaria incidence in the Ecuadorian Amazon

Araujo Navas and colleagues explore the eco-epidemiology of malaria in the Ecuadorian Amazon.

Image credit: Amazon by Fabián Ponce García, Pixabay License

Quantifying climate risks to infrastructure systems: A comparative review of developments across infrastructure sectors

Verschuur and colleagues review climate risks to infrastructure and methods for quantification.

Image credit: Railway by 652234, Pixabay License

policy & Governance

The role of institutional design in mobilizing climate finance: Empirical evidence from Bangladesh, Brazil, Ethiopia, and Indonesia

Bhandary compares experiences of different countries in developing and implemeting climate finance frameworks.

Image credit: Mountain by 25213972, Pixabay License

Crowded and warmer: Unequal dengue risk at high spatial resolution across a megacity of India

Romeo-Aznar and colleagues investigate the complexities of dengue risk in Delhi.

Image credit: Mosquito by Himas Rafeek, Pixabay License

Climate factors associated with cancer incidence: An ecological study covering 33 cancers from population-based registries in 37 countries

Wang and colleagues use a large dataset to explore correlations between cancer incidence and climate factors.

Image credit: Laboratory by Belova59, Pixabay License

Are forest management practices to improve carbon balance compatible with maintaining bird diversity under climate change? A case study in Eastern North America

Labadie and colleagues explore options for managing forest carbon and biodiversity under climate change.

Image credit: Waters by Joe Breuer, Pixabay License

urban climate

Impacts of projected urban growth on simulated near-surface temperature in Mexico City Metropolitan Area: Implications for urban vulnerability

Miquelajauregui and colleagues assess the impacts of urbanisation on temperatures in Mexico City.

Image credit: City by Mike Ramírez Mx, Pixabay License

Preparing for heat risk is complex: Aligning adaptation and mitigation is essential

Howarth emphasises the need to exploit synergies between adaptation and mitigation in the development of heat risk management strategies.

Image credit: Global Warming by Szabolcs Molnar, Pixabay License

Local social-ecological context explains seasonal rural-rural migration of the poorest in south-west Bangladesh

Clech and colleagues examine how climate change impacts are affecting seasonal migration and adaptation in Bangladesh.

Image credit: Bangladesh by Khurshid Alam, Pixabay License

Negative CO2 Emissions

18-21 June, Oxford, UK

Executive Editor Jamie Males

23-28 June 2024, Pyeongchang, South Korea

@[email protected] on Mastodon

Follow us on Mastodon!

@PLOSClimate on Twitter

Follow us on Twitter!

PLOS Climate on LinkedIn

Follow us on LinkedIn!

Publish with PLOS

• Submission Instructions
• Submit Your Manuscript

Connect with Us

• PLOS Climate on Twitter
• PLOS on Facebook

Get new content from PLOS Climate in your inbox

Thank you you have successfully subscribed to the plos climate newsletter., sorry, an error occurred while sending your subscription. please try again later..

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• v.11(6); 2021

Original research

Health effects of climate change: an overview of systematic reviews, rhea j rocque.

1 Prairie Climate Centre, The University of Winnipeg, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

Caroline Beaudoin

2 Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec, QC, Canada

Ruth Ndjaboue

3 VITAM Research Centre for Sustainable Health, Quebec, QC, Canada

Laura Cameron

Louann poirier-bergeron, rose-alice poulin-rheault, catherine fallon.

4 CHUQ Research Centre, Quebec, QC, Canada

Andrea C Tricco

5 Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

6 Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Holly O Witteman

Associated data.

bmjopen-2020-046333supp001.pdf

bmjopen-2020-046333supp002.pdf

bmjopen-2020-046333supp003.pdf

bmjopen-2020-046333supp004.pdf

bmjopen-2020-046333supp005.pdf

Data sharing not applicable as no datasets generated and/or analysed for this study. All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information. Additional data are not available.

We aimed to develop a systematic synthesis of systematic reviews of health impacts of climate change, by synthesising studies’ characteristics, climate impacts, health outcomes and key findings.

We conducted an overview of systematic reviews of health impacts of climate change. We registered our review in PROSPERO (CRD42019145972). No ethical approval was required since we used secondary data. Additional data are not available.

Data sources

On 22 June 2019, we searched Medline, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Embase, Cochrane and Web of Science.

Eligibility criteria

We included systematic reviews that explored at least one health impact of climate change.

Data extraction and synthesis

We organised systematic reviews according to their key characteristics, including geographical regions, year of publication and authors’ affiliations. We mapped the climate effects and health outcomes being studied and synthesised major findings. We used a modified version of A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews-2 (AMSTAR-2) to assess the quality of studies.

We included 94 systematic reviews. Most were published after 2015 and approximately one-fifth contained meta-analyses. Reviews synthesised evidence about five categories of climate impacts; the two most common were meteorological and extreme weather events. Reviews covered 10 health outcome categories; the 3 most common were (1) infectious diseases, (2) mortality and (3) respiratory, cardiovascular or neurological outcomes. Most reviews suggested a deleterious impact of climate change on multiple adverse health outcomes, although the majority also called for more research.

Conclusions

Most systematic reviews suggest that climate change is associated with worse human health. This study provides a comprehensive higher order summary of research on health impacts of climate change. Study limitations include possible missed relevant reviews, no meta-meta-analyses, and no assessment of overlap. Future research could explore the potential explanations between these associations to propose adaptation and mitigation strategies and could include broader sociopsychological health impacts of climate change.

Strengths and limitations of this study

• A strength of this study is that it provides the first broad overview of previous systematic reviews exploring the health impacts of climate change. By targeting systematic reviews, we achieve a higher order summary of findings than what would have been possible by consulting individual original studies.
• By synthesising findings across all included studies and according to the combination of climate impact and health outcome, we offer a clear, detailed and unique summary of the current state of evidence and knowledge gaps about how climate change may influence human health.
• A limitation of this study is that we were unable to access some full texts and therefore some studies were excluded, even though we deemed them potentially relevant after title and abstract inspection.
• Another limitation is that we could not conduct meta-meta-analyses of findings across reviews, due to the heterogeneity of the included systematic reviews and the relatively small proportion of studies reporting meta-analytic findings.
• Finally, the date of the systematic search is a limitation, as we conducted the search in June 2019.

Introduction

The environmental consequences of climate change such as sea-level rise, increasing temperatures, more extreme weather events, increased droughts, flooding and wildfires are impacting human health and lives. 1 2 Previous studies and reviews have documented the multiple health impacts of climate change, including an increase in infectious diseases, respiratory disorders, heat-related morbidity and mortality, undernutrition due to food insecurity, and adverse health outcomes ensuing from increased sociopolitical tension and conflicts. 2–5 Indeed, the most recent Lancet Countdown report, 2 which investigates 43 indicators of the relationship between climate change and human health, arrived at their most worrisome findings since the beginning of their on-going annual work. This report underlines that the health impacts of climate change continue to worsen and are being felt on every continent, although they are having a disproportionate and unequal impact on populations. 2 Authors caution that these health impacts will continue to worsen unless we see an immediate international response to limiting climate change.

To guide future research and action to mitigate and adapt to the health impacts of climate change and its environmental consequences, we need a complete and thorough overview of the research already conducted regarding the health impacts of climate change. Although the number of original studies researching the health impacts of climate change has greatly increased in the recent decade, 2 these do not allow for an in-depth overview of the current literature on the topic. Systematic reviews, on the other hand, allow a higher order overview of the literature. Although previous systematic reviews have been conducted on the health impacts of climate change, these tend to focus on specific climate effects (eg, impact of wildfires on health), 6 7 health impacts (eg, occupational health outcomes), 8 9 countries, 10–12 or are no longer up to date, 13 14 thus limiting our global understanding of what is currently known about the multiple health impacts of climate change across the world.

In this study, we aimed to develop such a complete overview by synthesising systematic reviews of health impacts of climate change. This higher order overview of the literature will allow us to better prepare for the worsening health impacts of climate change, by identifying and describing the diversity and range of health impacts studied, as well as by identifying gaps in previous research. Our research objectives were to synthesise studies’ characteristics such as geographical regions, years of publication, and authors’ affiliations, to map the climate impacts, health outcomes, and combinations of these that have been studied, and to synthesise key findings.

We applied the Cochrane method for overviews of reviews. 15 This method is designed to systematically map the themes of studies on a topic and synthesise findings to achieve a broader overview of the available literature on the topic.

Research questions

Our research questions were the following: (1) What is known about the relationship between climate change and health, as shown in previous systematic reviews? (2) What are the characteristics of these studies? We registered our plan (CRD42019145972 16 ) in PROSPERO, an international prospective register of systematic reviews and followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 17 to report our findings, as a reporting guideline for overviews is still in development. 18

Search strategy and selection criteria

To identify relevant studies, we used a systematic search strategy. There were two inclusion criteria. We included studies in this review if they (1) were systematic reviews of original research and (2) reported at least one health impact as it related (directly or indirectly) to climate change.

We defined a systematic review, based on Cochrane’s definition, as a review of the literature in which one ‘attempts to identify, appraise and synthesize all the empirical evidence that meets pre-specified eligibility criteria to answer a specific research question [by] us[ing] explicit, systematic methods that are selected with a view aimed at minimizing bias, to produce more reliable findings to inform decision making’. 19 We included systematic reviews of original research, with or without meta-analyses. We excluded narrative reviews, non-systematic literature reviews and systematic reviews of materials that were not original research (eg, systematic reviews of guidelines.)

We based our definition of health impacts on the WHO’s definition of health as, ‘a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity’. 20 Therefore, health impacts included, among others, morbidity, mortality, new conditions, worsening/improving conditions, injuries and psychological well-being. Included studies could refer to climate change or global warming directly or indirectly, for instance, by synthesising the direct or indirect health effects of temperature rises or of natural conditions/disasters made more likely by climate change (eg, floods, wildfires, temperature variability, droughts.) Although climate change and global warming are not equivalent terms, in an effort to avoid missing relevant literature, we included studies using either term. We included systematic reviews whose main focus was not the health impacts of climate change, providing they reported at least one result regarding health effects related to climate change (or consequences of climate change.) We excluded studies if they did not report at least one health effect of climate change. For instance, we excluded studies which reported on existing measures of health impacts of climate change (and not the health impact itself) and studies which reported on certain health impacts without a mention of climate change, global warming or environmental consequences made more likely by climate change.

On 22 June 2019, we retrieved systematic reviews regarding the health effects of climate change by searching from inception the electronic databases Medline, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science using a structured search (see online supplemental appendix 1 for final search strategy developed by a librarian.) We did not apply language restrictions. After removing duplicates, we imported references into Covidence. 21

Supplementary data

Screening process and data extraction.

To select studies, two trained analysts first screened independently titles and abstracts to eliminate articles that did not meet our inclusion criteria. Next, the two analysts independently screened the full text of each article. A senior analyst resolved any conflict or disagreement.

Next, we decided on key information that needed to be extracted from studies. We extracted the first author’s name, year of publication, number of studies included, time frame (in years) of the studies included in the article, first author’s institution’s country affiliation, whether the systematic review included a meta-analysis, geographical focus, population focus, the climate impact(s) and the health outcome(s) as well as the main findings and limitations of each systematic review.

Two or more trained analysts (RR, CB, RN, LC, LPB, RAPR) independently extracted data, using Covidence and spreadsheet software (Google Sheets). An additional trained analyst from the group or senior research team member resolved disagreements between individual judgments.

Coding and data mapping

To summarise findings from previous reviews, we first mapped articles according to climate impacts and health outcomes. To develop the categories of climate impacts and health outcomes, two researchers (RR and LC) consulted the titles and abstracts of each article. We started by identifying categories directly based on our data and finalised our categories by consulting previous conceptual frameworks of climate impacts and health outcomes. 1 22 23 The same two researchers independently coded each article according to their climate impact and health outcome. We then compared coding and resolved disagreements through discussion.

Next, using spreadsheet software, we created a matrix to map articles according to their combination of climate impacts and health outcomes. Each health outcome occupied one row, whereas climate impacts each occupied one column. We placed each article in the matrix according to the combination(s) of their climate impact(s) and health outcome(s). For instance, if we coded an article as ‘extreme weather’ for climate and ‘mental health’ for health impact, we noted the reference of this article in the cell at the intersection of these two codes. We calculated frequencies for each cell to identify frequent combinations and gaps in literature. Because one study could investigate more than one climate impact and health outcome, the frequency counts for each category could exceed the number of studies included in this review.

Finally, we re-read the Results and Discussion sections of each article to summarise findings of the studies. We first wrote an individual summary for each study, then we collated the summaries of all studies exploring the same combination of categories to develop an overall summary of findings for each combination of categories.

Quality assessment

We used a modified version of AMSTAR-2 to assess the quality of the included systematic reviews ( online supplemental appendix 2 ). The purpose of this assessment was to evaluate the quality of the included studies as a whole to get a sense of the overall quality of evidence in this field. Therefore, individual quality scores were not compiled for each article, but scores were aggregated according to items. Since AMSTAR-2 was developed for syntheses of systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials, working with a team member with expertise in knowledge synthesis (AT), we adapted it to suit a research context that is not amenable to randomised controlled trials. For instance, we changed assessing and accounting for risk of bias in studies’ included randomised controlled trials to assessing and accounting for limitations in studies’ included articles. Complete modifications are presented in online supplemental appendix 2 .

Patient and public involvement

Patients and members of the public were not involved in this study.

Articles identified

As shown in the PRISMA diagram in figure 1 , from an initial set of 2619 references, we retained 94 for inclusion. More precisely, following screening of titles and abstracts, 146 studies remained for full-text inspection. During full-text inspection, we excluded 52 studies, as they did not report a direct health effect of climate change (n=17), did not relate to climate change (n=15), were not systematic reviews (n=10), or we could not retrieve the full text (n=10).

The flow chart for included articles in this review.

Study descriptions

A detailed table of all articles and their characteristics can be found in online supplemental appendix 3 . Publication years ranged from 2007 to 2019 (year of data extraction), with the great majority of included articles (n=69; 73%) published since 2015 ( figure 2 ). A median of 30 studies had been included in the systematic reviews (mean=60; SD=49; range 7–722). Approximately one-fifth of the systematic reviews included meta-analyses of their included studies (n=18; 19%). The majority of included systematic reviews’ first authors had affiliations in high-income countries, with the largest representations by continent in Europe (n=30) and Australia (n=24) ( figure 3 ). Countries of origin by continents include (from highest to lowest frequency, then by alphabetical order): Europe (30); UK (9), Germany (6), Italy (4), Sweden (4), Denmark (2), France (2), Georgia (1), Greece (1) and Finland (1); Australia (24); Asia (21); China (11), Iran (4), India (1), Jordan (1), Korea (1), Nepal (1), Philippines (1), Taiwan (1); North America (16); USA (15), Canada (1); Africa (2); Ethiopia (1), Ghana (1), and South America (1); Brazil (1).

Number of included systematic reviews by year of publication.

Number of publications according to geographical affiliation of the first author.

Regarding the geographical focus of systematic reviews, most of the included studies (n=68; 72%) had a global focus or no specified geographical limitations and therefore included studies published anywhere in the world. The remaining systematic reviews either targeted certain countries (n=12) (1 for each Australia, Germany, Iran, India, Ethiopia, Malaysia, Nepal, New Zealand and 2 reviews focused on China and the USA), continents (n=5) (3 focused on Europe and 2 on Asia), or regions according to geographical location (n=6) (1 focused on Sub-Saharan Africa, 1 on Eastern Mediterranean countries, 1 on Tropical countries, and 3 focused on the Arctic), or according to the country’s level of income (n=3) (2 on low to middle income countries, 1 on high income countries).

Regarding specific populations of interest, most of the systematic reviews did not define a specific population of interest (n=69; 73%). For the studies that specified a population of interest (n=25; 26.6%), the most frequent populations were children (n=7) and workers (n=6), followed by vulnerable or susceptible populations more generally (n=4), the elderly (n=3), pregnant people (n=2), people with disabilities or chronic illnesses (n=2) and rural populations (n=1).

We assessed studies for quality according to our revised AMSTAR-2. Complete scores for each article and each item are available in online supplemental appendix 4 . Out of 94 systematic reviews, the most commonly fully satisfied criterion was #1 (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome (PICO) components) with 81/94 (86%) of included systematic reviews fully satisfying this criterion. The next most commonly satisfied criteria were #16 (potential sources of conflict of interest reported) (78/94=83% fully), #13 (account for limitations in individual studies) (70/94=75% fully and 2/94=2% partially), #7 (explain both inclusion and exclusion criteria) (64/94=68% fully and 19/94=20% partially), #8 (description of included studies in adequate detail) (36/94=38% fully and 41/94=44% partially), and #4 (use of a comprehensive literature search strategy) (0/94=0% fully and 80/94=85% partially). For criteria #11, #12, and #15, which only applied to reviews including meta-analyses, 17/18 (94%) fully satisfied criterion #11 (use of an appropriate methods for statistical combination of results), 12/18 (67%) fully satisfied criterion #12 (assessment of the potential impact of Risk of Bias (RoB) in individual studies) (1/18=6% partially), and 11/18 (61%) fully satisfied criterion #15 (an adequate investigation of publication bias, small study bias).

Climate impacts and health outcomes

Regarding climate impacts, we identified 5 mutually exclusive categories, with 13 publications targeting more than one category of climate impacts: (1) meteorological (n=71 papers) (eg, temperature, heat waves, humidity, precipitation, sunlight, wind, air pressure), (2) extreme weather (n=24) (eg, water-related, floods, cyclones, hurricanes, drought), (3) air quality (n=7) (eg, air pollution and wildfire smoke exposure), (4) general (n=5), and (5) other (n=3). Although heat waves could be considered an extreme weather event, papers investigating heat waves’ impact on health were classified in the meteorological impact category, since some of these studies treated them with high temperature. ‘General’ climate impacts included articles that did not specify climate change impacts but stated general climate change as their focus. ‘Other’ climate impacts included studies investigating other effects indirectly related to climate change (eg, impact of environmental contaminants) or general environmental risk factors (eg, environmental hazards, sanitation and access to clean water.)

We identified 10 categories to describe the health outcomes studied by the systematic reviews, and 29 publications targeted more than one category of health outcomes: (1) infectious diseases (n=41 papers) (vector borne, food borne and water borne), (2) mortality (n=32), (3) respiratory, cardiovascular and neurological (n=23), (4) healthcare systems (n=16), 5) mental health (n=13), (6) pregnancy and birth (n=11), 7) nutritional (n=9), (8) skin diseases and allergies (n=8), (9) occupational health and injuries (n=6) and (10) other health outcomes (n=17) (eg, sleep, arthritis, disability-adjusted life years, non-occupational injuries, etc)

Figure 4 depicts the combinations of climate impact and health outcome for each study, with online supplemental appendix 5 offering further details. The five most common combinations are studies investigating the (1) meteorological impacts on infectious diseases (n=35), (2) mortality (n=24) and (3) respiratory, cardiovascular and neurological outcomes (n=17), (4) extreme weather events’ impacts on infectious diseases (n=14), and (5) meteorological impacts on health systems (n=11).

Summary of the combination of climate impact and health outcome (frequencies). The total frequency for one category of health outcome could exceed the number of publications included in this health outcome, since one publication could explore the health impact according to more than one climate factor (eg, one publication could explore both the impact of extreme weather events and temperature on mental health).

For studies investigating meteorological impacts on health, the three most common health outcomes studied were impacts on (1) infectious diseases (n=35), (2) mortality (n=24) and (3) respiratory, cardiovascular and neurological outcomes (n=17). Extreme weather event studies most commonly reported health outcomes related to (1) infectious diseases (n=14), (2) mental health outcomes (n=9) and (3) nutritional outcomes (n=6) and other health outcomes (eg, injuries, sleep) (n=6). Studies focused on the impact of air quality were less frequent and explored mostly health outcomes linked to (1) respiratory, cardiovascular and neurological outcomes (n=6), (2) mortality (n=5) and (3) pregnancy and birth outcomes (n=3).

Summary of findings

Most reviews suggest a deleterious impact of climate change on multiple adverse health outcomes, with some associations being explored and/or supported with consistent findings more often than others. Some reviews also report conflicting findings or an absence of association between the climate impact and health outcome studied (see table 1 for a detailed summary of findings according to health outcomes).

Summary of findings from systematic reviews according to health outcome and climate impact

Reviews that covered multiple climate impacts are listed in each relevant category.

Notable findings of health outcomes according to climate impact include the following. For meteorological factors (n=71), temperature and humidity are the variables most often studied and report the most consistent associations with infectious diseases and respiratory, cardiovascular, and neurological outcomes. Temperature is also consistently associated with mortality and healthcare service use. Some associations are less frequently studied, but remain consistent, including the association between some meteorological factors (eg, temperature and heat) and some adverse mental health outcomes (eg, hospital admissions for mental health reasons, suicide, exacerbation of previous mental health conditions), and the association between heat and adverse occupational outcomes and some adverse birth outcomes. Temperature is also associated with adverse nutritional outcomes (likely via crop production and food insecurity) and temperature and humidity are associated with some skin diseases and allergies. Some health outcomes are less frequently studied, but studies suggest an association between temperature and diabetes, impaired sleep, cataracts, heat stress, heat exhaustion and renal diseases.

Extreme weather events (n=24) are consistently associated with mortality, some mental health outcomes (eg, distress, anxiety, depression) and adverse nutritional outcomes (likely via crop production and food insecurity). Some associations are explored less frequently, but these studies suggest an association between drought and respiratory and cardiovascular outcomes (likely via air quality), between extreme weather events and an increased use of healthcare services and some adverse birth outcomes (likely due to indirect causes, such as experiencing stress). Some health outcomes are less frequently studied, but studies suggest an association between extreme weather events and injuries, impaired sleep, oesophageal cancer and exacerbation of chronic illnesses. There are limited and conflicting findings for the association between extreme weather events and infectious diseases, as well as for certain mental health outcomes (eg, suicide and substance abuse). At times, different types of extreme weather events (eg, drought vs flood) led to conflicting findings for some health outcomes (eg, mental health outcomes, infectious diseases), but for other health outcomes, the association was consistent independently of the extreme weather event studied (eg, mortality, healthcare service use and nutritional outcomes).

The impact of air quality on health (n=7) was less frequently studied, but the few studies exploring this association report consistent findings regarding an association with respiratory-specific mortality, adverse respiratory outcomes and an increase in healthcare service use. There is limited evidence regarding the association between air quality and cardiovascular outcomes, limited and inconsistent evidence between wildfire smoke exposure and adverse birth outcomes, and no association is found between exposure to wildfire smoke and increase in use of health services for mental health reasons. Only one review explored the impact of wildfire smoke exposure on ophthalmic outcomes, and it suggests that it may be associated with eye irritation and cataracts.

Reviews which stated climate change as their general focus and did not specify the climate impact(s) under study were less frequent (n=5), but they suggest an association between climate change and pollen allergies in Europe, increased use of healthcare services, obesity, skin diseases and allergies and an association with disability-adjusted life years. Reviews investigating the impact of other climate-related factors (n=3) show inconsistent findings concerning the association between environmental pollutant and adverse birth outcomes, and two reviews suggest an association between environmental risk factors and pollutants and childhood stunting and occupational diseases.

Most reviews concluded by calling for more research, noting the limitations observed among the studies included in their reviews, as well as limitations in their reviews themselves. These limitations included, among others, some systematic reviews having a small number of publications, 24 25 language restrictions such as including only papers in English, 26 27 arriving at conflicting evidence, 28 difficulty concluding a strong association due to the heterogeneity in methods and measurements or the limited equipment and access to quality data in certain contexts, 24 29–31 and most studies included were conducted in high-income countries. 32 33

Previous authors also discussed the important challenge related to exploring the relationship between climate change and health. Not only is it difficult to explore the potential causal relationship between climate change and health, mostly due to methodological challenges, but there are also a wide variety of complex causal factors that may interact to determine health outcomes. Therefore, the possible causal mechanisms underlying these associations were at times still unknown or uncertain and the impacts of some climate factors were different according to geographical location and specificities of the context. Nonetheless, some reviews offered potential explanations for the climate-health association, with the climate factor at times, having a direct impact on health (eg, flooding causing injuries, heat causing dehydration) and in other cases, having an indirect impact (eg, flooding causing stress which in turn may cause adverse birth outcomes, heat causing difficulty concentrating leading to occupational injuries.)

Principal results

In this overview of systematic reviews, we aimed to develop a synthesis of systematic reviews of health impacts of climate change by mapping the characteristics and findings of studies exploring the relationship between climate change and health. We identified four key findings.

First, meteorological impacts, mostly related to temperature and humidity, were the most common impacts studied by included publications, which aligns with findings from a previous scoping review on the health impacts of climate change in the Philippines. 10 Indeed, meteorological factors’ impact on all health outcomes identified in this review are explored, although some health outcomes are more rarely explored (eg, mental health and nutritional outcomes). Although this may not be surprising given that a key implication of climate change is the long-term meteorological impact of temperature rise, this finding suggests we also need to undertake research focused on other climate impacts on health, including potential direct and indirect effects of temperature rise, such as the impact of droughts and wildfire smoke. This will allow us to better prepare for the health crises that arise from these ever-increasing climate-related impacts. For instance, the impacts of extreme weather events and air quality on certain health outcomes are not explored (eg, skin diseases and allergies, occupational health) or only rarely explored (eg, pregnancy outcomes).

Second, systematic reviews primarily focus on physical health outcomes, such as infectious diseases, mortality, and respiratory, cardiovascular and neurological outcomes, which also aligns with the country-specific previous scoping review. 10 Regarding mortality, we support Campbell and colleagues’ 34 suggestion that we should expand our focus to include other types of health outcomes. This will provide better support for mitigation policies and allow us to adapt to the full range of threats of climate change.

Moreover, it is unclear whether the distribution of frequencies of health outcomes reflects the actual burden of health impacts of climate change. The most commonly studied health outcomes do not necessarily reflect the definition of health presented by the WHO as, ‘a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity’. 20 This suggests that future studies should investigate in greater depth the impacts of climate change on mental and broader social well-being. Indeed, some reviews suggested that climate change impacts psychological and social well-being, via broader consequences, such as political instability, health system capacity, migration, and crime, 3 4 35 36 thus illustrating how our personal health is determined not only by biological and environmental factors but also by social and health systems. The importance of expanding our scope of health in this field is also recognised in the most recent Lancet report, which states that future reports will include a new mental health indicator. 2

Interestingly, the reviews that explored the mental health impacts of climate change were focused mostly on the direct and immediate impacts of experiencing extreme weather events. However, psychologists are also warning about the long-term indirect mental health impacts of climate change, which are becoming more prevalent for children and adults alike (eg, eco-anxiety, climate depression). 37 38 Even people who do not experience direct climate impacts, such as extreme weather events, report experiencing distressing emotions when thinking of the destruction of our environment or when worrying about one’s uncertain future and the lack of actions being taken. To foster emotional resilience in the face of climate change, these mental health impacts of climate change need to be further explored. Humanity’s ability to adapt to and mitigate climate change ultimately depends on our emotional capacity to face this threat.

Third, there is a notable geographical difference in the country affiliations of first authors, with three quarters of systematic reviews having been led by first authors affiliated to institutions in Europe, Australia, or North America, which aligns with the findings of the most recent Lancet report. 2 While perhaps unsurprising given the inequalities in research funding and institutions concentrated in Western countries, this is of critical importance given the significant health impacts that are currently faced (and will remain) in other parts of the world. Research funding organisations should seek to provide more resources to authors in low-income to middle-income countries to ensure their expertise and perspectives are better represented in the literature.

Fourth, overall, most reviews suggest an association between climate change and the deterioration of health in various ways, illustrating the interdependence of our health and well-being with the well-being of our environment. This interdependence may be direct (eg, heat’s impact on dehydration and exhaustion) or indirect (eg, via behaviour change due to heat.) The most frequently explored and consistently supported associations include an association between temperature and humidity with infectious diseases, mortality and adverse respiratory, cardiovascular and neurological outcomes. Other less frequently studied but consistent associations include associations between climate impacts and increased use of healthcare services, some adverse mental health outcomes, adverse nutritional outcomes and adverse occupational health outcomes. These associations support key findings of the most recent Lancet report, in which authors report, among others, increasing heat exposure being associated with increasing morbidities and mortality, climate change leading to food insecurity and undernutrition, and to an increase in infectious disease transmission. 2

That said, a number of reviews included in this study reported limited, conflicting and/or an absence of evidence regarding the association between the climate impact and health outcome. For instance, there was conflicting or limited evidence concerning the association between extreme weather events and infectious diseases, cardiorespiratory outcomes and some mental health outcomes and the association between air quality and cardiovascular-specific mortality and adverse birth outcomes. These conflicting and limited findings highlight the need for further research. These associations are complex and there exist important methodological challenges inherent to exploring the causal relationship between climate change and health outcomes. This relationship may at times be indirect and likely determined by multiple interacting factors.

The climate-health link has been the target of more research in recent years and it is also receiving increasing attention from the public and in both public health and climate communication literature. 2 39–41 However, the health framing of climate change information is still underused in climate communications, and researchers suggest we should be doing more to make the link between human health and climate change more explicit to increase engagement with the climate crisis. 2 41–43 The health framing of climate communication also has implications for healthcare professionals 44 and policy-makers, as these actors could play a key part in climate communication, adaptation and mitigation. 41 42 45 These key stakeholders’ perspectives on the climate-health link, as well as their perceived role in climate adaptation and mitigation could be explored, 46 since research suggests that health professionals are important voices in climate communications 44 and especially since, ultimately, these adverse health outcomes will engender pressure on and cost to our health systems and health workers.

Strengths and limitations

To the best of our knowledge, the current study provides the first broad overview of previous systematic reviews exploring the health impacts of climate change. Our review has three main strengths. First, by targeting systematic reviews, we achieve a higher order summary of findings than what would have been possible by consulting individual original studies. Second, by synthesising findings across all included studies and according to the combination of climate impact and health outcome, we offer a clear, detailed and unique summary of the current state of evidence and knowledge gaps about how climate change may influence human health. This summary may be of use to researchers, policy-makers and communities. Third, we included studies published in all languages about any climate impact and any health outcome. In doing so, we provide a comprehensive and robust overview.

Our work has four main limitations. First, we were unable to access some full texts and therefore some studies were excluded, even though we deemed them potentially relevant after title and abstract inspection. Other potentially relevant systematic reviews may be missing due to unseen flaws in our systematic search. Second, due to the heterogeneity of the included systematic reviews and the relatively small proportion of studies reporting meta-analytic findings, we could not conduct meta-meta-analyses of findings across reviews. Future research is needed to quantify the climate and health links described in this review, as well as to investigate the causal relationship and other interacting factors. Third, due to limited resources, we did not assess overlap between the included reviews concerning the studies they included. Frequencies and findings should be interpreted with potential overlap in mind. Fourth, we conducted the systematic search of the literature in June 2019, and it is therefore likely that some recent systematic reviews are not included in this study.

Overall, most systematic reviews of the health impacts of climate change suggest an association between climate change and the deterioration of health in multiple ways, generally in the direction that climate change is associated with adverse human health outcomes. This is worrisome since these outcomes are predicted to rise in the near future, due to the rise in temperature and increase in climate-change-related events such as extreme weather events and worsened air quality. Most studies included in this review focused on meteorological impacts of climate change on adverse physical health outcomes. Future studies could fill knowledge gaps by exploring other climate-related impacts and broader psychosocial health outcomes. Moreover, studies on health impacts of climate change have mostly been conducted by first authors affiliated with institutions in high-income countries. This inequity needs to be addressed, considering that the impacts of climate change are and will continue to predominantly impact lower income countries. Finally, although most reviews also recommend more research to better understand and quantify these associations, to adapt to and mitigate climate change’s impacts on health, it will also be important to unpack the ‘what, how, and where’ of these effects. Health effects of climate change are unlikely to be distributed equally or randomly through populations. It will be important to mitigate the changing climate’s potential to exacerbate health inequities.

Supplementary Material

Acknowledgments.

The authors gratefully acknowledge the contributions of Selma Chipenda Dansokho, as research associate, and Thierry Provencher, as research assistant, to this project, and of Frederic Bergeron, for assistance with search strategy, screening and selection of articles for the systematic review.

Twitter: @RutNdjab, @ATricco, @hwitteman

Contributors: RN, CF, ACT, HOW contributed to the design of the study. CB, RN, LPB, RAPR and HOW contributed to the systematic search of the literature and selection of studies. RR, HOW, LC conducted data analysis and interpretation. RR and HOW drafted the first version of the article with early revision by CB, LC and RN. All authors critically revised the article and approved the final version for submission for publication. RR and HOW had full access to all the data in the study and had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication.

Funding: This study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) FDN-148426. The CIHR had no role in determining the study design, the plans for data collection or analysis, the decision to publish, nor the preparation of this manuscript. ACT is funded by a Tier 2 Canada Research Chair in Knowledge Synthesis. HOW is funded by a Tier 2 Canada Research Chair in Human-Centred Digital Health.

Competing interests: None declared.

Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Supplemental material: This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.

Data availability statement

Ethics statements, patient consent for publication.

Not required.

• Climate Change - A Global Issue
• Dag Hammarskjöld Library
• Research Guides

Major Reports

• A Global Issue
• At the United Nations
• Books & Journals
• Consulting the Experts
• Keeping up to date
• Data & Statistics
• AR6 - 6th IPCC Assessment Report / Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change The main activity of the IPCC is to, at regular intervals, provide Assessment Reports of the state of knowledge on climate change. The IPCC is now in its sixth assessment cycle, in which it is producing the Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) with contributions by its three Working Groups and a Synthesis Report, three Special Reports, and a refinement to its latest Methodology Report.

• Global Landscape of Climate Finance 2023 / Climate Policy Initiative Date: 2023 Provides information about which sources and financial instruments are driving investments, and how much climate finance is flowing globally. The report aims to provide an updated picture on how, where, and from whom finance is flowing toward low-carbon and climate-resilient actions globally, and to improve understanding of how public and private sources of finance interact.

This site contains links and references to third-party databases, web sites, books and articles. It does not imply the endorsement of the content by the United Nations.

• << Previous: At the United Nations
• Next: Books & Journals >>
• Last Updated: Jan 5, 2024 5:23 PM
• URL: https://research.un.org/en/climate-change

Suggested Searches

Climate change.

• Expedition 64
• Mars perseverance
• SpaceX Crew-2
• International Space Station
• View All Topics A-Z

Humans in Space

Earth & climate, the solar system, the universe, aeronautics, learning resources, news & events.

NASA Wins 6 Webby Awards, 8 Webby People’s Voice Awards

NASA’s CloudSat Ends Mission Peering Into the Heart of Clouds

Hubble Celebrates 34th Anniversary with a Look at the Little Dumbbell Nebula

• Search All NASA Missions
• A to Z List of Missions
• Upcoming Launches and Landings
• Spaceships and Rockets
• Communicating with Missions
• James Webb Space Telescope
• Hubble Space Telescope
• Why Go to Space
• Astronauts Home
• Commercial Space
• Destinations
• Living in Space
• Explore Earth Science
• Earth, Our Planet
• Earth Science in Action
• Earth Multimedia
• Earth Science Researchers
• Pluto & Dwarf Planets
• Asteroids, Comets & Meteors
• The Kuiper Belt
• The Oort Cloud
• Skywatching
• The Search for Life in the Universe
• Black Holes
• The Big Bang
• Dark Energy & Dark Matter
• Earth Science
• Planetary Science
• Astrophysics & Space Science
• The Sun & Heliophysics
• Biological & Physical Sciences
• Lunar Science
• Citizen Science
• Astromaterials
• Aeronautics Research
• Human Space Travel Research
• Science in the Air
• NASA Aircraft
• Flight Innovation
• Supersonic Flight
• Air Traffic Solutions
• Green Aviation Tech
• Drones & You
• Technology Transfer & Spinoffs
• Space Travel Technology
• Technology Living in Space
• Manufacturing and Materials
• Science Instruments
• For Kids and Students
• For Educators
• For Colleges and Universities
• For Professionals
• Science for Everyone
• Requests for Exhibits, Artifacts, or Speakers
• STEM Engagement at NASA
• NASA's Impacts
• Centers and Facilities
• Directorates
• Organizations
• People of NASA
• Internships
• Our History
• Doing Business with NASA
• Get Involved
• Aeronáutica
• Ciencias Terrestres
• Sistema Solar
• All NASA News
• Video Series on NASA+
• Newsletters
• Social Media
• Media Resources
• Upcoming Launches & Landings
• Virtual Events
• Sounds and Ringtones
• Interactives
• STEM Multimedia

NASA’s Optical Comms Demo Transmits Data Over 140 Million Miles

Sols 4166-4167: A Garden Full of Rocks

European Service Module

NASA Shares Lessons of Human Systems Integration with Industry

Work Underway on Large Cargo Landers for NASA’s Artemis Moon Missions

NASA Open Science Initiative Expands OpenET Across Amazon Basin  

Amendment 11: Physical Oceanography not solicited in ROSES-2024

NASA Data Helps Beavers Build Back Streams

Sols 4164-4165: What’s Around the Ridge-bend?

Sols 4161-4163: Double Contact Science

NASA’s Chandra Releases Doubleheader of Blockbuster Hits

Explore the Universe with the First E-Book from NASA’s Fermi

Dr. Douglas Hudgins

NASA Photographer Honored for Thrilling Inverted In-Flight Image

NASA’s Ingenuity Mars Helicopter Team Says Goodbye … for Now

NASA Langley Team to Study Weather During Eclipse Using Uncrewed Vehicles

NASA’s Near Space Network Enables PACE Climate Mission to ‘Phone Home’

Amendment 10: B.9 Heliophysics Low-Cost Access to Space Final Text and Proposal Due Date.

Washington State High Schooler Wins 2024 NASA Student Art Contest

NASA STEM Artemis Moon Trees

NASA Glenn Joins Big Hoopla STEM Challenge

First NASA Mars Analog Crew Nears End of Mission

Diez maneras en que los estudiantes pueden prepararse para ser astronautas

Astronauta de la NASA Marcos Berríos

Resultados científicos revolucionarios en la estación espacial de 2023

Climate change research.

Science in Space: April 2024

Everyone on Earth is touched by the effects of climate change, such as hotter temperatures, shifts in rain patterns, and sea level rise. Collecting climate data helps communities better plan for these changes and build more resilience to them.

The International Space Station, one of dozens of NASA missions contributing to this effort, has multiple instruments collecting various types of climate-related data. Because the station’s orbit passes over 90 percent of Earth’s population and circles the planet 16 times each day, these instruments have views of multiple locations at different times of day and night. The data inform climate decisions and help scientists understand and solve the challenges created by climate change.

While crew members have little involvement in the ongoing operation of these instruments, they do play a critical role in unpacking hardware when it arrives at the space station and in assembling and installing the instruments via spacewalks or using the station’s robotic arm.

One investigation on the orbiting lab that contributes to efforts to monitor and address climate change is ECOsystem Spaceborne Thermal Radiometer Experiment on Space Station ( ECOSTRESS ). It provides thermal infrared measurements of Earth’s surface that help answer questions about water stress in plants and how specific regions respond to climate change. Research confirmed the accuracy of ECOSTRESS surface estimates 1 and found that the process of photosynthesis in plants begins to fail at 46.7 degrees C (114 degrees F). 2 Average temperatures have increased 0.5 degrees C per decade in some tropical regions, and temperature extremes are becoming more pronounced. Rainforests are a primary producer of oxygen and, without sufficient mitigation of the effects of climate change, leaf temperatures in these tropical forests soon could approach this failure threshold.

The Total and Spectral Solar Irradiance Sensor ( TSIS ) measures total solar irradiance (TSI) and solar spectral irradiance (SSI). TSI is the total solar energy input to Earth and SSI measures the Sun’s energy in individual wavelengths. Energy from the Sun drives atmospheric and oceanic circulations on Earth, and knowing its magnitude and variability is essential to understanding Earth’s climate. Researchers verified the instrument’s performance and showed that it made more accurate measurements than previous instruments. 3,4 TSIS maintains a continuity of nearly 40 years of data on solar irradiance from space-based observations.

To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video

The Global Ecosystem Dynamics Investigation ( GEDI ) observes global forests and topography using light detection and ranging (lidar). These observations could provide insight into important carbon and water cycling processes, biodiversity, and habitat. One study used GEDI data to estimate pan-tropical and temperate biomass densities at the national level for every country observed and the sub-national level for the United States. 5

Earth Surface Mineral Dust Source Investigation ( EMIT ) determines the type and distribution of minerals in the dust of Earth’s arid regions using an imaging spectrometer. Mineral dust affects local warming and cooling, air quality, rate of snow melt, and ocean plankton growth. Researchers demonstrated that data from EMIT also can be used to identify and monitor specific sources of methane and carbon dioxide emissions. Carbon dioxide and methane are the primary human-caused drivers of climate change. Increasing emissions in areas with poor reporting requirements create significant uncertainty in the global carbon budget. 6 The high spatial resolution of EMIT data could allow precise monitoring even of sources that are close together.

The station’s Orbiting Carbon Observatory-3 ( OCO-3 ) collects data on global carbon dioxide during sunlit hours, mapping emissions of targeted local hotspots. This type of satellite-based remote sensing helps assess and verify emission reductions included in national and global plans and agreements. Monitoring by OCO-3 and the Italian Space Agency’s PRecursore IperSpettrale della Missione Applicativa (PRISMA) satellite of 30 coal-fired power plants between 2021 and 2022 showed agreement with on-site observations. 7 This result suggests that under the right conditions, satellites can provide reliable estimates of emissions from discreet sources. Combustion for power and other industrial uses account for an estimated 59% of global human-caused carbon dioxide emissions.

The Stratospheric Aerosol and Gas Experiment III-ISS ( SAGE III-ISS ) measures ozone and other gases and tiny particles in the atmosphere, called aerosols, that together act as Earth’s sunscreen. The instrument can distinguish between clouds and aerosols in the atmosphere. A study showed that aerosols dominate Earth’s tropical upper troposphere and lower stratosphere, a transition region between the two atmospheric levels. Continuous monitoring and identification of these layers of the atmosphere helps quantify their effect on Earth’s climate. 8

An early remote sensing system, ISS SERVIR Environmental Research and Visualization System ( ISERV ), automatically took images of Earth to help scientists assess and monitor disasters and other significant events. Researchers reported that this type of Earth observation is critical for applications such as mapping land use and assessing carbon biomass and ocean health. 9

John Love, ISS Research Planning Integration Scientist Expedition 71

Search this database of scientific experiments to learn more about those mentioned above.

1 Weidberg N, Lopez Chiquillo L, Roman S, Roman M, Vazquez E, et al. Assessing high resolution thermal monitoring of complex intertidal environments from space: The case of ECOSTRESS at Rias Baixas, NW Iberia. Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment. 2023 November; 32101055. DOI: 10.1016/j.rsase.2023.101055.

2 Doughty CE, Keany JM, Wiebe BC, Rey-Sanchez C, Carter KR, et al. Tropical forests are approaching critical temperature thresholds. Nature. 2023 August 23; 621105-111. DOI: 10.1038/s41586-023-06391-z.

3 Richard EC, Harber D, Coddington OM, Drake G, Rutkowski J, et al. SI-traceable spectral irradiance radiometric characterization and absolute calibration of the TSIS-1 Spectral Irradiance Monitor (SIM). Remote Sensing. 2020 January; 12(11): 1818. DOI:  10.3390/rs12111818.

4 Coddington OM, Richard EC, Harber D, Pilewskie P, Chance K, et al. The TSIS-1 hybrid solar reference spectrum. Geophysical Research Letters. 2021 April 26; 48(12): e2020GL091709. DOI:  10.1029/2020GL091709

5 Dubayah R, Armston J, Healey S, Bruening JM, Patterson PL, et al. GEDI launches a new era of biomass inference from space. Environmental Research Letters. 2022 August; 17(9): 095001. DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/ac8694.

6 Thorpe A, Green RD, Thompson DR, Brodrick PG, Chapman DK, et al. Attribution of individual methane and carbon dioxide emission sources using EMIT observations from space. Science Advances. 2023 November 17; 9(46): eadh2391. DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.adh2391.

7 Cusworth DH, Thorpe A, Miller CE, Ayasse AK, Jiorle R, et al. Two years of satellite-based carbon dioxide emission quantification at the world’s largest coal-fired power plants. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. 2023 November 24; 23(22): 14577-14591. DOI: 10.5194/acp-23-14577-2023.

8 Bhatta S, Pandit AK, Loughman R, Vernier J. Three-wavelength approach for aerosol-cloud discrimination in the SAGE III/ISS aerosol extinction dataset. Applied Optics. 2023 May; 62(13): 3454-3466. DOI: 10.1364/AO.485466 .

9 Kansakar P, Hossain F. A review of applications of satellite earth observation data for global societal benefit and stewardship of planet earth. Space Policy. 2016 May; 3646-54.

Discover More Topics

Latest News from Space Station Research

Station Science 101: Earth and Space Science

NASA is a global leader in studying Earth’s changing climate.

Space Station Research and Technology

Space Environmentalism: Toward a Circular Economy Approach for Orbital Space

Celebrating Earth Day with the National Academies

Rohr Named U.S. Winner of Frontiers Planet Prize

NAS Launches Science and Innovation Fund for Ukraine

• Load More...

Can climate change accelerate transmission of malaria? Pioneering research sheds light on impacts of temperature

Malaria is a mosquito-borne disease caused by a parasite that spreads from bites of infected female Anopheles mosquitoes. If left untreated in humans, malaria can cause severe symptoms, health complications and even death.

In tropical and subtropical regions where malaria is prevalent, scientists are concerned that climate warming might increase the risk of malaria transmission in certain areas and contribute to further spread. However, there is still much to learn about the relationship between temperature and the mosquito and parasite traits that influence malaria transmission.

In "Estimating the effects of temperature on transmission of the human malaria parasite, Plasmodium falciparum," a groundbreaking study published in the journal Nature Communications , researchers at the University of Florida, Pennsylvania State University and Imperial College, combined novel experimental data within an innovative modeling framework to examine how temperature might affect transmission risk in different environments in Africa.

"In broad terms, scientists know that temperature affects key traits such as mosquito longevity, the time it takes for a mosquito to become infectious after feeding on an infected host, and the overall ability of the mosquito to transmit the disease" said Matthew Thomas, a UF/IFAS professor and UF/IFAS Invasion Science Research Institute (ISRI) director. "But what might seem surprising is that these temperature dependencies have not been properly measured for any of the primary malaria vectors in Africa."

"Our findings provide novel insights into the effects of temperature on the ability of Anopheles gambiae mosquitoes -- arguably the most important malaria mosquito in Africa -- to transmit Plasmodium falciparum, the most prevalent species of human malaria in Africa," said Eunho Suh, joint first-author with Isaac Stopard at Imperial College, and assistant research professor at Penn State, who conducted the empirical research as a post-doctoral student in Thomas' previous lab.

The study involved several detailed laboratory experiments in which hundreds of mosquitoes were fed with Plasmodium falciparum-infected blood and then exposed at different temperatures to examine the progress of infection and development rate within the mosquitoes, as well as the survival of the mosquitoes themselves.

"The novel data were then used to explore the implications of temperature on malaria transmission potential across four locations in Kenya that represent diverse current environments with different intensities of baseline transmission, and that are predicted to experience different patterns of warming under climate change," explained Thomas.

The study supports previous research results in demonstrating that various mosquito and parasite traits exhibit intermittent relationships with temperature and that under future warming temperatures, transmission potential is likely to increase in some environments but could reduce in others. However, the new data suggest that parasites can develop more quickly at cooler temperatures and that the rate of parasite development might be less sensitive to changes in temperature, than previously thought.

The data also indicate that the successful development of parasites in the mosquito, declines at thermal extremes, contributing to the upper and lower environmental bounds for transmission.

Combining these results into a simple transmission model suggests that contrary to earlier predictions, the anticipated surge in malaria transmission, attributed to climate warming, may be less severe than feared, particularly in cooler regions like the Kenyan Highlands.

"Some of the current assumptions on mosquito ecology and malaria transmission derive from work done in the early part of the last century. Our study is significant in highlighting the need to revisit some of this conventional understanding," said Thomas.

"While the time it takes for a mosquito to become infectious is strongly dependent on environmental temperature, it also depends on the species and possibly strain of malaria and mosquito," said Suh.

The comprehensive study and findings represent a significant step forward in understanding the intricacies of malaria transmission and paves the way for future research aimed at controlling malaria on a global scale.

"Our work focused on the malaria parasite Plasmodium falciparum in the African malaria vector, Anopheles gambiae. However, Plasmodium vivaxis another important parasite species responsible for most malaria in Asia, as well as the recently reported malaria cases in the U.S.," said Suh. "Like Plasmodium falciparum, the established model describing the effects of temperature on development of Plasmodium vivaxremains poorly validated."

The same is true for other vector-borne diseases, such as dengue or Zika virus, added Suh.

"We need more work of the type we present in the current paper, ideally using local mosquito and parasite or pathogen strains, to better understand the effects of climate and climate change on transmission risk," he said.

• Infectious Diseases
• HIV and AIDS
• Pests and Parasites
• Insects (including Butterflies)
• Global Warming
• Environmental Issues
• Catastrophe modeling
• COX-2 inhibitor
• Climate model
• Sexually transmitted disease
• Scientific method
• Earth science
• Temperature record of the past 1000 years

Story Source:

Materials provided by University of Florida . Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

Journal Reference :

• Eunho Suh, Isaac J. Stopard, Ben Lambert, Jessica L. Waite, Nina L. Dennington, Thomas S. Churcher, Matthew B. Thomas. Estimating the effects of temperature on transmission of the human malaria parasite, Plasmodium falciparum . Nature Communications , 2024; 15 (1) DOI: 10.1038/s41467-024-47265-w

Cite This Page :

Explore More

• Food in Sight? The Liver Is Ready!
• Acid Reflux Drugs and Risk of Migraine
• Do Cells Have a Hidden Communication System?
• Mice Given Mouse-Rat Brains Can Smell Again
• How Do Birds Flock? New Aerodynamics
• Cancer: Epigenetic Origin Without DNA Mutation
• Climate Change Driving Biodiversity Loss
• Why Can't Robots Outrun Animals?
• Evolution of Gliding in Marsupials
• Novel One-Dimensional Superconductor

Trending Topics

Strange & offbeat.

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Coral reefs can't keep up with climate change. So scientists are speeding up evolution

Lauren Sommer

Ryan Kellman

Record levels of heat in the ocean are causing a worldwide mass bleaching event on coral reefs, as seen here on the Great Barrier Reef. Scientists are working on creating more heat-resistant coral to help restore reefs. Veronique Mocellin /AIMS hide caption

Record levels of heat in the ocean are causing a worldwide mass bleaching event on coral reefs. It's the second one this decade, where the delicate skeletons of corals turn a ghostly white.

With mass bleaching only expected to get worse as the climate keeps warming, coral scientists are urgently searching for ways to help reefs endure. Bleaching can kill corals, putting some of the most diverse ecosystems in the world at risk. So scientists are homing in on how bleaching happens.

It boils down to relationship drama between corals and a tiny organism that's too small to see.

Scientists estimate that a quarter of all marine species depend on coral reefs. Biologists say that's a best guess and it's very likely there are species yet to be discovered. Ryan Kellman/NPR hide caption

Corals are the builders of reefs, their skeletons creating the vast infrastructure that tens of thousands of other species depend on. But corals are powered by the tiny algae that live in their tissue, which provide food for them.

"They're these microscopic, sort of nondescript algae," says Matthew Nitschke, research scientist at the Australian Institute of Marine Science, as he magnifies a few under a microscope, revealing golden-brown circles.

Scientists are breeding 'super corals.' Can they withstand climate change?

"People are like: why are you so interested in them?" he says. "And it's because they, for me, are really at the foundation of the ecosystem."

The tiny algae and coral make up one of the most productive roommate relationships on the planet. But as the climate gets hotter, that relationship is increasingly going bad. When ocean temperatures rise, corals get stressed and their algae get expelled. Without their roommates, corals can starve and eventually die.

Studies show that if climate change continues at the same pace, 99% of the world's coral reefs are likely to die off by the end of the century. To buy reefs a little extra time, scientists are breeding both algae and corals to withstand more heat, speeding up the natural process of evolution. But with oceans heating up more rapidly than expected, they're racing against the clock.

"I think anyone who wasn't worried, needs to be worried now," says Kate Quigley, coral biologist at James Cook University in Australia and the Minderoo Foundation. "Nature has time to make mistakes and then adjust. We don't have that time."

"There just doesn't seem be enough time," says Kate Quigley, coral biologist at James Cook University in Australia and the Minderoo Foundation. "We're going from one bleaching event to the next." Ryan Kellman/NPR hide caption

Natural selection in a bottle

The tanks at the Australian Institute of Marine Science, just outside of Townsville in Queensland, are full of delicate branching corals in a vast array of colors. Another lab there is somewhat less eye-catching – full of scientific flasks with clouds of brown algae in them. They're zooxanthellae, the algae that live in coral, but these have been isolated from their coral homes (the algae can live in the ocean without the coral, but coral can't live without algae).

"If you look at a coral, they look bright, they look colorful," Nitschke says. "They're actually mostly translucent and a lot of the color of the coral that you see comes from the algae."

The algae in Nitschke's lab have been grown over hundreds of generations, subjected to an accelerated version of survival-of-the-fittest. They've been exposed to heat, singling out those best able to handle higher temperatures, which then go to produce future algal generations.

"What we're really doing is natural selection in a bottle," he says. "We're really excited about the possibility for that to help corals persist into the future."

Algae in Nitschke's lab, grown over hundreds of generations. They've been exposed to heat, singling out those best able to handle higher temperatures, which then go to produce more heat-tolerant algae. Ryan Kellman/NPR hide caption

Scientists are still trying to tease out exactly what happens between a coral and its algae when temperatures get hot. They depend on a carefully-balanced living arrangement. The algae get a comfy home and nutrients they need from the coral. In return, they do photosynthesis, using sunlight to produce energy for the coral.

But when the ocean heats up, that balance gets upset. Scientists believe one reason is that the warmer water stresses the coral, upsetting the nutrient exchange between the coral and algae. Another reason could be that the hotter water impairs how cells function, causing them to release too much of certain chemicals. The result is that most algae get the boot, leaving the coral without its main food supply.

"They begin to starve," Nitschke says. "That primary energy source – the loss of that during a heat stress event is potentially catastrophic for an individual coral. They are now in a race against time."

Corals bleach, turning ghostly white, when they're under stress from hotter temperatures. If the heat subsides, they can recover. But long periods of heat and repeated marine heat waves cause corals to die, wreaking havoc on one of the most biodiverse ecosystems on the planet. Veronique Mocellin /AIMS hide caption

Buying time for coral

If the heat subsides, corals can recover, slowly building back their algae population. But if the heat persists, or if there are too many marine heat waves back-to-back, the corals die.

Bleaching events are becoming more frequent, putting corals on a path for a mass die-off by the end of the century if the planet warms more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit). The effects could be devastating for marine biodiversity and for human communities. Hundreds of millions of people worldwide live near coral reefs, relying on them for food and coastal protection, since reefs can reduce flooding by absorbing wave energy.

It's why Nitschke and his colleagues have focused on breeding algae. They're in the process of testing them, giving them to tiny brain corals the size of walnuts. In trials, they've found corals inoculated with the heat-tolerant algae seem to resist bleaching for longer .

Corals the size of walnuts have been inoculated with heat resistant algae by Matthew Nitschke and his colleagues at the Australian Institute of Marine Science. They've found corals inoculated with heat-tolerant algae seem to resist bleaching for longer. Ryan Kellman/NPR hide caption

Researchers are also breeding corals themselves to be more heat-tolerant, in the hope that a combination of both a "super coral" and "super algae" can be used to restore reefs someday. Both are "assisted evolution" – a technique to speed up the natural process organisms use to adapt to their environment.

"Assisted evolution is an umbrella term for many things we've been doing in many other systems: agriculture, for pets." Nitschke says. "We're really only just starting to understand what we can do in the coral space."

Research aquarist Andrea Severati peers at large sheets over which coral larvae were released to settle. Once corals have picked their spot, each will be assessed for coral growth and survival. Ryan Kellman/NPR hide caption

Not a "get out of jail free" card

Still, in nature, there is no free lunch. Heat-tolerant algae may not share as many nutrients with their coral hosts, which means corals grow more slowly and reproduce later than they would otherwise. That could hamper their ability to restore reefs impacted by climate change. A key step will be testing the corals and algae on the Great Barrier Reef itself to see how they do.

"The last thing we want to do is make things worse," says Line Bay, a research program director at the Australian Institute of Marine Science. "We don't want to produce lab-adapted corals and then put them out in the real world where they don't do well."

Even if the heat-tolerant corals prove to be successful, the number of coral needed to restore impaired reefs could be enormous. The Great Barrier Reef is more than 1,000 miles long. And regulators will need to assess if the corals pose any risk to wild populations or the ecosystem as a whole.

The corals developed at AIMS are placed by divers on the Great Barrier reef. They are being tested in the ocean, as part of a large field trial.

Credit: AIMS

"Coral reefs are magical places," Bay says. "I think we need to be brave and we should use all the tools at our disposal in a humble and sensitive manner."

Coral scientists are clear about one aspect of the work: it's not a long-term solution. At best, it only buys coral reefs extra time until the effects of climate change become too much.

"It's not our 'get out of jail free' card," Quigley says. "Maybe that gets us to 2030, 2050 for a very few number of species that we can work with. If we don't have an ocean to put them back in that's healthy, no amount of incredible technology or money is worth it."

The hope is that giving coral reefs a few extra years, or even decades, will be enough time for humans to slow the pace of climate change. That means cutting heat-trapping emissions from the largest source – burning fossil fuels – and switching to alternative energy sources like solar and wind.

"We could all be despondent and be hopeless if there weren't great solutions on the table to turn climate change problems around," Quigley says. "We just need to get it on, now, really."

• coral reefs
• Great Barrier Reef
• conservation
• climate change

• Share full article

Advertisement

Subscriber-only Newsletter

To Fight Climate Change, We Need New ‘Political Technologies’

By Peter Coy

Opinion Writer

Science alone won’t stop the planet from overheating. But science coupled with political science just might.

That’s the theme of a new book, “Long Problems: Climate Change and the Challenge of Governing Across Time.” It’s by Thomas Hale, an American political scientist who teaches at the University of Oxford’s Blavatnik School of Government.

Hale argues that people are too quick to throw up their hands because the political will to stop climate change is lacking. For political scientists, he writes, “this is not the end but rather the start of the intellectual challenge.”

Hale has specific ideas for how to change institutions and procedures so that today’s inhabitants of Earth give more consideration to tomorrow’s inhabitants. He calls them, at one point, “political technologies,” a phrase I like.

Long problems such as climate change are ones in which there is a long lag between causes and effects. They are hard to solve, especially with today’s institutions. We don’t act early because we’re uncertain about how big the problem is, and it isn’t as salient as the daily emergencies all around us. Our hesitation gives an opening to obstructionist forces. Today’s decision makers vow to protect the planet for future generations, but the unborn multitudes are mere “shadows” to them, as Hale puts it.

On top of all that, Hale writes, “Institutions created to address the early phase of a long problem struggle to remain useful as the problem’s structure develops over time.” Case in point: The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which was created in 1992. The original concept was for countries to make binding commitments to fight climate change. As the organization has evolved, though, “nothing is agreed until every country agrees on every point,” Hale writes.

That’s not useful. A better approach is the Paris Agreement of 2015, which went into effect the next year. It allows countries to set their own targets for greenhouse gas reductions while triggering a “norm cascade” that induces them to do more and more. Hale likes the Paris Agreement on the whole, though he says it’s not perfect.

Society has already invented institutions and systems that bring future considerations to the fore, Hale writes. The Congressional Budget Office and similar offices in other countries analyze how new legislation will affect economic growth and government finances in the long run. The bond market assesses whether bond issuers, such as governments, will be able to pay back what they owe. Insurance companies — which Hale doesn’t mention — won’t issue policies unless customers take steps to reduce their risks.

On climate, too, there have been efforts to create institutions and processes that help solve Hale’s long problems. Some governments are requiring business to incorporate the “social cost” of carbon into their decisions. And the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change brings together the world’s top experts and issues closely followed reports.

There are many more opportunities for political engineering, Hale writes. He approvingly mentions the Finnish Parliament’s cross-party Committee for the Future and the Finnish Government Report on the Future, which interact. He recommends more experimentation in policymaking — as Chinese leaders put it, crossing the river by feeling for stones.

To get the public and lawmakers thinking more about the future, he endorses Britain’s Climate Change Committee, which he writes “has become a significant political force for the long-term interest,” and similar organizations (some of them not as effective) in Hungary, Israel, Malta, Sweden, Tunisia and the United Arab Emirates.

To insulate long problems from partisan politicking, he recommends the appointment of a trustee to oversee climate decisions, analogous to the way a politically insulated central bank is delegated the authority to conduct monetary policy. The California Air Resources Board is “perhaps the strongest, though still imperfect” example of such an institution in the realm of the environment, he writes. (Hale told me he’s not aware of anything quite like the California agency elsewhere in the world.)

“Long Problems” is a kind of nonfiction counterpart to Kim Stanley Robinson’s science fiction book from 2020, “The Ministry for the Future,” which took seriously the idea that future generations need to be given as much consideration as our own.

Hale is a co-leader of the Net Zero Tracker , which tracks the decarbonization progress of countries and companies, and the Net Zero Regulation and Policy Hub . He told me that he has been involved in helping people at the United Nations prepare for a Summit for the Future, which will be held Sept. 22-23. On the U.N. website is an early draft of a declaration to be issued at the summit, which says among other things that “our conduct today will impact future generations exponentially.”

Anne-Marie Slaughter, the chief executive of the think tank New America who was Hale’s adviser on his doctorate at Princeton, shared a byline with Hale and two of his Oxford colleagues on a policy brief , “Toward a Declaration on Future Generations,” that recommends the U.N. appoint “a special envoy or high commissioner” to be a voice for the future.

I kind of prefer “envoy” because it sounds like the person has literally come from the future.

No one solution will instantly end the political obstacles to fighting climate change. Some of the ideas in Hale’s book may not pan out at all. But I give him credit for focusing on how to solve problems in which the cause and the effect are separated by decades. Getting the “political technology” right is every bit as important as inventing better solar cells, wind turbines and batteries.

Outlook: Oliver Allen

Retail sales rose more than expected in March, but the “booming” pace of growth isn’t likely to last, Oliver Allen, a senior U.S. economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics, wrote in a client note on Monday. “It is hard to see how the strength in consumption can continue for much longer, now that real after-tax income growth has slowed markedly, the bulk of excess savings from earlier in the pandemic has been spent, and a raft of leading indicators point to a marked softening in the labor market,” Allen wrote.

Quote of the Day

“Why do we need to make the rich richer to make them work harder but make the poor poorer for the same purpose?”

— Ha-Joon Chang, “Economics: The User’s Guide” (2014)

Peter Coy is a writer for the Opinion section of The Times, covering economics and business. Email him at [email protected] . @ petercoy

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• 05 January 2022

How researchers can help fight climate change in 2022 and beyond

You have full access to this article via your institution.

Devastating floods that hit Germany last July were made more likely by the warming climate. Credit: Christof Stache/AFP/Getty

Late last year, the major climate summit in Glasgow, UK — the 26th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations climate convention (COP26) — injected much-needed momentum into the political and business community in the fight to stop climate change. The year ahead represents an opportunity for scientists of all stripes to offer up expertise and ensure that they have a voice in this monumental effort.

Science is already baked into the UN’s formal climate agenda for 2022. In February, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is scheduled to release its assessment of the latest research into how climate warming is affecting people and ecosystems; a month later, the panel is set to provide an analysis of the options for curbing emissions and halting global warming. Combined with last year’s report on climate science , the governments of the world will have a solid review of the state-of-the-art of research on climate change. But the research community’s work stretches far beyond the IPCC.

At the top of governments’ climate agenda is innovation. Existing technologies such as wind and solar power, whose price has plummeted over the past decade, and more-efficient lighting, buildings and vehicles will help to reduce emissions. But if green energy is to push out fossil fuels and fulfil the rising demand for reliable power in low-income countries, scientists and engineers will be needed to solve a range of problems. These include finding ways to cut the price of grid-scale electricity storage and to address technical challenges that arise when integrating massive amounts of intermittent renewable energy. Research will also be required to provide a new generation of affordable vehicles powered by electricity and hydrogen, and low-carbon fuels for those that are harder to electrify, such as aircraft.

Even in the most optimistic scenarios, such clean-energy deployments are unlikely to be enough to enable countries to keep their climate commitments. More innovation will also be needed — for example, in the form of technologies that can pull carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. These have yet to be tested and demonstrated at any significant scale. Governments and funders also need to support scientists in efforts to understand the safety and efficacy of various controversial geoengineering technologies — methods for artificially cooling the planet, such as the addition of particles to the stratosphere to reflect sunlight back into space — if only to determine whether there is sense in even contemplating such alternatives.

Give research into solar geoengineering a chance

There are signs of renewed support for research and innovation in helping to address climate change. In Glasgow, 22 countries, as well as the European Commission (EC), announced plans to cooperate on innovation focused on greening cities, curbing industrial emissions, promoting CO 2 capture and developing renewable fuels, chemicals and materials. The EC has also announced efforts to drive new funds into demonstration projects to help commercialize low-carbon technologies. And China, currently the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases, is creating a vast research infrastructure focused on technologies that will help to eliminate carbon emissions.

China creates vast research infrastructure to support ambitious climate goals

In the United States, under President Joe Biden, the Democrats have also made innovation a linchpin of efforts to address climate change. A bipartisan bill enacted in November will expand green-infrastructure investments, as well as providing nearly US$42 billion for clean-energy research and development at the US Department of Energy over the next 5 years, roughly doubling the current budget, according to the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a think tank in Washington DC. Another $550 billion for climate and clean-energy programmes is included in a larger budget bill that Democrats hope to pass this year. Economic modelling suggests that the spending surge could help to lower emissions in the coming decade while teeing up technologies that will be crucial to eliminating greenhouse-gas emissions in the latter half of the century.

In addition to enabling green innovation, scientists have an important part to play in evaluating climate policies and tracking commitments made by governments and businesses. Many of the initiatives that gained traction at COP26 need science to succeed. That includes evaluating how climate finance — money that wealthy nations have committed to help low-income nations to curb emissions and cope with climate change — is spent. Research is also needed to understand the impacts of carbon offsets and carbon trading, for which new rules were agreed at COP26.

COP26 climate pledges: What scientists think so far

Climate science, too, must continue apace, helping governments and the public to understand the impact of climate change. From floods in Germany to fires in Australia, the evolving field of climate attribution has already made it clear that global warming is partly to blame for numerous tragedies. Attribution science will also feed into an ongoing geopolitical debate about who should pay for the rising costs of climate-related natural disasters, as many low-income countries seek compensation from wealthy countries that are responsible for the bulk of the greenhouse-gas emissions so far.

These and other issues will be discussed again in November at COP27 in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, where it will be crucial to make sure that everyone has a voice and that research supports climate monitoring and innovation everywhere, not just in richer nations.

A new agreement made at COP26 that requires governments to report annually on their climate progress should help to maintain pressure on them to act on climate change. But science and innovation will be equally important to driving ever-bolder climate policies.

Nature 601 , 7 (2022)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-03817-4

Reprints and permissions

Related Articles

• Climate change

Air-travel climate-change emissions detailed for nearly 200 nations

Research Highlight 25 APR 24

NATO is boosting AI and climate research as scientific diplomacy remains on ice

News Explainer 25 APR 24

Hello puffins, goodbye belugas: changing Arctic fjord hints at our climate future

News 25 APR 24

AI-fuelled election campaigns are here — where are the rules?

World View 09 APR 24

Iran frees scientists who studied big cats in surprise move

News 09 APR 24

The EU’s ominous emphasis on ‘open strategic autonomy’ in research

Editorial 03 APR 24

NIH pay raise for postdocs and PhD students could have US ripple effect

India’s 50-year-old Chipko movement is a model for environmental activism

Correspondence 23 APR 24

The Middle East’s largest hypersaline lake risks turning into an environmental disaster zone

Course lecturer for INFH 5000

The HKUST(GZ) Information Hub is recruiting course lecturer for INFH 5000: Information Science and Technology: Essentials and Trends.

Guangzhou, Guangdong, China

The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou)

Suzhou Institute of Systems Medicine Seeking High-level Talents

Full Professor, Associate Professor, Assistant Professor

Suzhou, Jiangsu, China

Suzhou Institute of Systems Medicine (ISM)

Postdoctoral Fellowships: Early Diagnosis and Precision Oncology of Gastrointestinal Cancers

We currently have multiple postdoctoral fellowship positions within the multidisciplinary research team headed by Dr. Ajay Goel, professor and foun...

Monrovia, California

Beckman Research Institute, City of Hope, Goel Lab

Postdoctoral Research Fellow Positions, Division of Rheumatology

We seek two postdoctoral fellows to join the Mustelin/Najjar lab in the Rheumatology division, University of Washington, Seattle, USA, to lead and ...

Seattle, Washington State

University of Washington, Department of Medicine, Division of Rheumatology

Postdoctoral Associate- Computational Spatial Biology

Houston, Texas (US)

Baylor College of Medicine (BCM)

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

We've detected unusual activity from your computer network

To continue, please click the box below to let us know you're not a robot.

Why did this happen?

Please make sure your browser supports JavaScript and cookies and that you are not blocking them from loading. For more information you can review our Terms of Service and Cookie Policy .

For inquiries related to this message please contact our support team and provide the reference ID below.

The Straits Times

• International
• Print Edition
• news with benefits
• SPH Rewards
• STClassifieds
• Berita Harian
• Hardwarezone
• Shin Min Daily News
• Tamil Murasu
• The Business Times
• The New Paper
• Lianhe Zaobao
• Advertise with us

Dubai flooding was up to 40 per cent more intense due to climate change, research shows

DUBAI – Greenhouse gas emissions made recent deadly flooding in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Oman anywhere from 10 per cent to 40 per cent more intense than it would have been in the pre-industrial era, according to a rapid analysis of the event by the World Weather Attribution (WWA) research initiative.

Major storms come irregularly to the south-eastern Arabian Peninsula. When they do, they tend to land under conditions of El Niño, the occasional warming of the eastern equatorial Pacific that plays havoc with weather around the world. (An El Niño has been in place since June.)

Despite accurate forecasting and public alerts in Oman and the UAE, infrastructure there is poorly suited to deal with increasingly intense flash floods: Eighty per cent of Omanis and 85 per cent of Emiratis live on low-lying, flood-prone ground, according to WWA, and 90 per cent of the UAE’s infrastructure is at risk from rising sea level and extreme weather. 

“If there would not have been an El Niño year, it would have not rained in this way. But at the same time, if it would not be for climate change, it would not have rained so heavily as it did now,” said Dr Friederike Otto, a senior lecturer in climate science at Imperial College London and a WWA researcher.

“Both were important factors for driving this event.”

Worldwide, extreme rain has increased in intensity and frequency with the rising temperature, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has found.

Part of the reason has to do with a simply stated fact about air and water discovered in the mid-19th century: For every 1 deg C increase, air can hold about 7 per cent more water. Global and regional findings about rising risks underlie the WWA scientists’ conclusions about the local effects.

But making similar statements about a smaller patch of Earth can be more difficult, because of shorter data records or local limitations on sharing weather station data with researchers.

The scientists said the storm could be a 1-in-25-year event, but could not say how much climate change is worsening El Niño-juiced storms.

A different team of scientists in January found that by mid-century, annual rain in the UAE may rise by up to 30 per cent, with an increase in days seeing 10mm or more of rain. More than 250mm fell on Dubai on April 14 and April 15. 

The rarity and irregularity of massive deluges in the region left the researchers with a small data set to work with, and consequently high statistical uncertainty.

They concluded that climate change worsened the storm based on what the short meteorological record does offer them, combined with regional and global trends, the fact of warmer air holding more water, and that climate-driven circulation changes can worsen such storms.

There are “no other known explanations for the increasing rainfall in the region”, they wrote.

In addition to their climate-science conclusions, the WWA researchers analysed vulnerabilities that exacerbate hazardous conditions and address how Emirati and Omani officials might adapt to future floods.

The flooding killed two dozen people, most of whom were on the move – many had to leave cars on roads – suggesting that warnings failed to reach everyone.

For urban planners, the floods should highlight how the built environment can exacerbate flooding, namely lots of impermeable surfaces and little or no stormwater infrastructure. 

“There was an early warning system being disseminated through the media and news. But the problem is that people do not care about this early warning system,” said Professor Mansour Almazroui, a researcher at the Centre of Excellence for Climate Change Research at King Abdulaziz University, in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

Governments of the region could work with the media to communicate potential danger more thoroughly and effectively, he said, and with each other to improve the quality of weather data available for public consumption.

The intense rainfall drew attention to the UAE’s long-running cloud-seeding programme.

The WWA scientists wrote that even if seeding had happened, it would not have changed the amount of water vapour in the air, which was the major factor in the rainfall.

“Hence,” they wrote, “we can conclude that cloud seeding had no significant influence in the event.” BLOOMBERG

Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.

• Climate change
• Extreme weather
• Scientific research
• Environmental issues
• United Arab Emirates

Read 3 articles and stand to win rewards

Spin the wheel now