[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
NATIONAL IMPERATIVES FOR EARTH
AND CLIMATE SCIENCE RESEARCH AND
APPLICATIONS INVESTMENTS OVER
THE NEXT DECADE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 13, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-3
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/science
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
33-104 WASHINGTON : 2007
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chairman
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois RALPH M. HALL, Texas
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California Wisconsin
MARK UDALL, Colorado LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
DAVID WU, Oregon DANA ROHRABACHER, California
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington KEN CALVERT, California
BRAD MILLER, North Carolina ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
NICK LAMPSON, Texas FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
JERRY MCNERNEY, California W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
PAUL KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania JO BONNER, Alabama
DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon TOM FEENEY, Florida
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
MICHAEL M. HONDA, California BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
JIM MATHESON, Utah MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky PHIL GINGREY, Georgia
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
BARON P. HILL, Indiana VACANCY
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona
CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio
C O N T E N T S
February 13, 2007
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Bart Gordon, Chairman, Committee on
Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.......... 9
Written Statement............................................ 10
Statement by Representative Ralph M. Hall, Minority Ranking
Member, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 10
Written Statement............................................ 11
Prepared Statement by Representative Jerry F. Costello, Member,
Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 12
Prepared Statement by Representative Harry E. Mitchell, Member,
Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 13
Prepared Statement by Representative Vernon J. Ehlers, Member,
Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 13
Prepared Statement by Representative Randy Neugebauer, Member,
Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 13
Witnesses:
Dr. Richard A. Anthes, President, University Corporation for
Atmospheric Research (UCAR); Co-Chair, Committee on Earth
Science and Applications from Space, National Research Council,
The National Academies
Oral Statement............................................... 15
Written Statement............................................ 17
Biography.................................................... 26
Financial Disclosure......................................... 27
Dr. Berrien Moore III, University Distinguished Professor,
Director, Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans, and Space,
University of New Hampshire; Co-Chair, Committee on Earth
Science and Applications from Space, National Research Council,
The National Academies
Oral Statement............................................... 28
Written Statement............................................ 29
Honorable James Geringer, Director of Policy and Public Sector
Strategy, Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI)
Oral Statement............................................... 36
Written Statement............................................ 39
Biography.................................................... 55
Discussion
Consequences of Earth Observation Drop-off..................... 56
Priorities and Recommendations of Decadal Survey............... 57
Improvement of Weather Forecasts............................... 58
Details of Decadal Survey Recommendations...................... 60
Addressing Emerging Regional and Global Challenges............. 61
Environmental Data and Ethanol Usage........................... 62
Weather Prediction............................................. 63
Restoration of Dropped NPOESS Instruments...................... 64
Record of Hurricane and Cyclone Intensity...................... 66
Need of Satellite System for Agricultural Production........... 66
Consequences of Gaps in Data Records........................... 67
Physical Improvements vs. Environmental Improvements........... 68
Global Dimming................................................. 69
Remote Sensing and Earthquake Activity......................... 70
Potential for Private or International Partnerships in Remote
Sensing...................................................... 71
Impact on American Competitiveness............................. 74
Appendix: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Richard A. Anthes, President, University Corporation for
Atmospheric Research (UCAR); Co-Chair, Committee on Earth
Science and Applications from Space, National Research Council,
The National Academies......................................... 78
Dr. Berrien Moore III, University Distinguished Professor,
Director, Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans, and Space,
University of New Hampshire; Co-Chair, Committee on Earth
Science and Applications from Space, National Research Council,
The National Academies......................................... 83
Honorable James Geringer, Director of Policy and Public Sector
Strategy, Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI)...... 87
NATIONAL IMPERATIVES FOR EARTH AND CLIMATE SCIENCE RESEARCH AND
APPLICATIONS INVESTMENTS OVER THE NEXT DECADE
----------
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2007
House of Representatives,
Committee on Science and Technology,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room
2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bart Gordon
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
hearing charter
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
National Imperatives for Earth
and Climate Science Research and
Applications Investments Over
the Next Decade
tuesday, february 13, 2007
10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
2318 rayburn house office building
Purpose
On February 13, 2007 the Committee on Science and Technology will
hold a hearing to examine the findings and recommendations of the
National Academies report ``Earth Science and Applications from Space:
National Imperatives for the Next Decade and Beyond,'' also known as
the Decadal Survey. The report recommends a prioritized set of
investments in new satellite-borne instruments and spacecraft to gather
Earth, atmospheric, and climate data. These new satellites would
replace our aging space-based observing system to support national
needs for research and monitoring of the dynamic Earth system during
the next decade, as well as identifying important research and
applications directions that should influence planning for the
following decade.
The Decadal Survey panel described the national strategy outlined
in its report as having ``as its overarching objective a program of
scientific discovery and development of applications that will enhance
economic competitiveness, protect life and property, and assist in the
stewardship of the planet for this and future generations.''
The Committee will hear testimony from three witnesses. Two of the
witnesses were the co-chairs of the Decadal Survey, and they will
discuss the findings and recommendations of their report. The third
witness will discuss the application of remote sensing data to meet
agricultural, resource management, and other needs.
Background
Although the development of decadal strategies for astronomy and
astrophysics research has been the practice since the 1980s, the report
examined at this hearing represents the first such decadal strategy to
be developed for Earth science. The National Academies of Science and
Engineering was asked to undertake the task by NASA's Office of Earth
Science, NOAA's National Environmental Satellite Data and Information
Service (NESDIS), and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Geography
Division. The study was overseen by an 18-member executive committee
and carried out be seven thematically organized panels with a total of
more than 80 members. The panels consisted of the following:
1. Earth Science Applications and Societal Needs
2. Land-use Change, Ecosystem Dynamics and Biodiversity
3. Weather (including space weather and chemical weather)
4. Climate Variability and Change
5. Water Resources and the Global Hydrologic Cycle
6. Human Health and Security
7. Solid-Earth Hazards, Resources and Dynamics
Major Findings and Recommendations of the Decadal Survey
Interim Report
The Decadal Survey panel issued an interim report in the spring of
2005, entitled Earth Science and Applications from Space: Urgent Needs
and Opportunities to Serve the Nation. In that report, the panel made
the following observations:
``The current U.S. civilian Earth observing system centers on
the environmental satellites operated by NOAA; the atmosphere-,
biospheres-, ocean-, ice-, and land-observation satellites of
NASA's Earth Observing System (EOS); and the Landsat
satellites, which are operated by a cooperative arrangement
involving NASA, NOAA, and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).
Today, this system of environmental satellites is at risk of
collapse. Although NOAA plans to modernize and refresh its
weather satellites, NASA has no plan to replace its EOS
platforms after their nominal six-year lifetimes end (beginning
with the Terra satellite in 2005), and it has canceled,
descoped, or delayed at least six planned missions, including
the Landsat Data Continuity Mission.
``These decisions appear to be driven by a major shift in
priorities at a time when NASA is moving to implement a new
vision for space exploration. This change in priorities
jeopardizes NASA's ability to fulfill its obligations in other
important presidential initiatives, such as the Climate Change
Research Initiative and the subsequent Climate Change Science
Program. It also calls into question future U.S. leadership in
the Global Earth Observing System of Systems, an international
effort initiated by the current Administration. The Nation's
ability to pursue a visionary space exploration agenda depends
critically on its success in applying knowledge of the Earth to
maintain economic growth and security at home.
``Moreover, a substantial reduction in Earth observation
programs today will result in a loss of U.S. scientific and
technical capacity, which will decrease the competitiveness of
the United States internationally for years to come. U.S.
leadership in science, technology development, and societal
applications depends on sustaining competence across a broad
range of disciplines that include the Earth sciences.''
Final Report
In January 2007, the National Academies released the final report
of the Decadal Survey panel. In the final report, the panel reiterated
the concerns expressed in the Interim Report about the Nation's system
of environmental satellites being ``at risk of collapse.'' In that
regard, the final report states: ``In the short period since the
publication of the Interim Report, budgetary constraints and
programmatic difficulties at NASA and NOAA have greatly exacerbated
this concern. At a time of unprecedented need, the Nation's Earth
observation satellite programs, once the envy of the world, are in
disarray.''
The Decadal Survey panel made a series of recommendations in its
report to address the perceived problems. The first was an overarching
recommendation that:
The U.S. Government, working in concert with the private
sector, academe, the public, and its international partners, should
renew its investment in Earth observing systems and restore its
leadership in Earth science and applications.
Other major recommendations of the report are as follows:
NASA should ensure continuity of measurements of
precipitation and land cover by:
Launching the Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) mission
in or before 2012
Securing a replacement to Landsat 7 data before 2012
The Landsat program has operated for over 30 years. Landsat images
are used by governments, the research community, and the private sector
in a wide variety of applications including monitoring of crop
productivity, documenting changes in land use, water management,
monitoring and tracking ``red'' tides, monitoring changes in coastal
wetlands, citing power and transportation routes, monitoring changes in
glacial features, and many other applications. The current Landsat
instrument is in need of replacement. It is currently producing
degraded imagery and may not have many more years of functionality.
In addition to implementing the re-baselined National Polar-
orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) and
Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES) program and
completing research missions currently in development, NASA and NOAA
should undertake a set of 17 recommended missions, comprised of small
(<$300 million), medium ($300 million to $600 million), and large ($600
million to $900 million) cost missions, and phased appropriately over
the next decade. Larger facility-class (>$1 billion) missions are not
recommended. [See Attachment 1 for list of recommended missions.]
NOAA operates two satellite systems that collect data for weather
forecasting. The polar satellites orbit the Earth and provide
information for medium to long-range weather forecasts. The
geostationary satellites gather data above a fixed position on the
Earth's surface and provide information for short-range warnings and
current weather conditions. Both of these systems are scheduled for
replacement through the NPOESS and GOES-R programs, respectively.
Significant cost and schedule problems have arisen in the NPOESS
program. A number of instruments that would have provided continuity of
our current Earth and climate monitoring programs were planned to fly
on the NPOESS satellites were eliminated from the program to reduce its
cost and complexity.
The suite of 17 priority missions outlined by the NAS are intended
to provide continuity of the Earth science and climate data sets as
well as advance our understanding of the Earth system and climate.
U.S. civil space agencies should aggressively pursue
technology development that supports the recommended missions; plan for
transitions to continue demonstrably useful research observations on a
sustained, or operational, basis; and foster innovative new space-based
concepts.
The above recommendation includes three main points: NASA, as the
primary space research and development agency should increase funding
allotted for the early design and testing phases of technology
development that serves the research and operational missions
recommended in this NAS report. The Panel believes that greater
investments made early in the development of new instrumentation and
spacecraft will result in more robust designs and prototypes which then
move to development and deployment on a smoother, less risky path (and
therefore with a more predictable budget).
The Panel also recommends that NASA develop a new Program to take
on newer, more risky projects and demonstrate their feasibility and
applicability to research and operational needs. The NAS recommends
this program focus on low-cost missions ($100-200 million) and that it
have a strong focus on technical innovation as well as education and
training of future scientists and engineers working in the field of
Earth and climate science.
Finally, the Panel recommended that NOAA allocate increased funding
to support the transition of NASA-developed satellites and spacecraft
that are identified as having operational utility to NOAA's missions.
The transition from research to operations continues to be a
problem for NOAA because there are no funds specified for the
transition activities that must occur to move research satellites and
spacecraft to operational status. Consequently, procurement programs
for operational systems now often carry these costs resulting in higher
risks of cost overruns, schedule slips, and higher risk of breaks in
operational data for weather forecasting.
The NASA Science Mission Directorate should develop a science
strategy for obtaining long-term, continuous, stable observations of
the Earth system that are distinct from observations to meet
requirements by NOAA in support of numerical weather prediction.
Earth system observations should be accompanied by a
complementary system of observations of human activities and their
effects on Earth, and socioeconomic factors should be considered in the
planning and implementation of Earth observation missions and in
developing the Earth Information System.
NOAA, working with the Climate Change Science Program and the
international Group on Earth Observations, should create a climate data
and information system to meet the challenge of ensuring the
production, distribution, and stewardship of high-accuracy climate
records from NPOESS and other relevant observational platforms.
As new Earth observation missions are developed, there must
also be early attention to developing the requisite data processing and
distribution system, and data archive. Distribution of data should be
free or at low cost to users, and provided in an easily-accessible
manner.
NASA should increase support of its Research and Analysis
(R&A) program to a level commensurate with its ongoing and planned
missions.
Data gathered by satellite-based instruments and spacecraft must be
properly documented, analyzed and archived to be useful. Funding for
these activities has traditionally lagged behind funding for the
hardware and software needed to build, launch and operate satellite-
based instruments and spacecraft. In addition to R&A cuts made as part
of an overall budget-balancing exercise, cost-overruns experienced in
the development and procurement of an observing system may lead to cuts
in the funding allocated for analysis of the data generated by the
observing system.
NASA, NOAA, and USGS should increase their support for Earth
system modeling, including provision of high-performance computing
facilities and support for scientists working in the areas of modeling
and data assimilation.
A formal interagency planning and review process should be
put into place that focuses on effectively implementing the
recommendations made in the present decadal survey report and
sustaining and building the knowledge and information system for the
next decade and beyond.
NASA, NOAA, and USGS should pursue innovative approaches to
educate and train scientists and users of Earth observations and
applications. A particularly important role is to assist educators in
inspiring and training students in the use of Earth observations and
the information derived from them.
Witnesses
Dr. Richard Anthes, President of the University Corporation for
Atmospheric Research (UCAR):
Dr. Anthes served as Co-Chair of the Decadal Survey. He has
conducted research directed at better understanding of tropical
cyclones and mesoscale meteorology, as well as on techniques for doing
atmospheric sounding. He chaired the 2003 National Academies Committee
on NASA-NOAA Transition of Research to Operations. Dr. Anthes is a
fellow of the American Meteorological Society and the American
Geophysical Union.
Dr. Berrien Moore, Professor and Director of the Institute for the
Study of Earth, Oceans, and Space at the University of New Hampshire:
Dr. Moore served as Co-Chair of the Decadal Survey. His research
has focused on the carbon cycle, global biogeochemical cycles, and
global change. Dr. Moore has served on a number of NASA advisory
committees, and he chaired the Scientific Committee of the
International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP) from 1998-2002. He
currently serves on the Science Advisory Board of NOAA and the Advisory
Board of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR).
Dr. Anthes and Dr. Moore will discuss the criteria the Decadal
Survey Committee used to determine the priorities recommended in the
Report. They will also discuss the utility of the research and
application activities to the Nation and the international community.
Dr. Anthes and Dr. Moore will also provide an assessment of the
President's FY 2008 budget request for NASA and NOAA as they relate to
the recommendations included in the Decadal Survey Report.
Honorable James Geringer, Director of Policy at the Environmental
Systems Research Institute in Wyoming and former Governor of Wyoming:
Former Wyoming Governor James Geringer has been active in the
Alliance for Earth Observations and was the force behind the Western
Governors Association's call for a National Integrated Drought
Information System (NIDIS).
Governor Geringer will discuss the utility of data derived from the
current Earth observing systems we have in place. He will discuss the
applicability of remote sensing data to agriculture, natural resource
management, municipal water supply management, and to tourism and
recreation. The Governor will provide information regarding the
accessibility of remote sensing data to different user communities and
discuss the role of private sector companies that provide value-added
products from remote sensing data. He will also provide a perspective
on how widely remote sensing data are used by government and industry
people working in agriculture and natural resource management.
Chairman Gordon. It is 10 o'clock and time to get started,
so good morning, everyone. I would like to welcome our
witnesses to today's hearing. We look forward to hearing your
views.
As you know, last week the Science and Technology Committee
held the first hearing in Congress on the just-released report
of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). That
hearing provided a useful glimpse into the current scientific
understanding of climate change.
It is clear that the advances in our scientific
understanding of climate change are critically dependent on the
data collection and modeling enabled by our investments in
Earth science research and applications at NOAA and NASA. In
addition, those investments play a crucial role in improving
the accuracy of our weather forecasts, monitoring land use, and
managing our natural resources.
In short, this nation needs to continue to invest in robust
systems of environmental satellites.
Two witnesses--or rather two years ago, one of today's
witnesses, Dr. Berrien Moore, stated that the Interim Report of
the National Academies' Decadal Survey had concluded that the
Nation's system of environmental satellites was, and I quote,
``at risk of collapse.'' That was a sobering assessment.
Now the Decadal Survey is finished, and we will be hearing
their findings and recommendations today.
One of those findings is particularly troubling. And once
again, I quote: ``In the short period since the publication of
the Interim Report, budgetary constraints and programmatic
difficulties at NASA have greatly exacerbated this concern. At
a time of unprecedented need, the Nation's Earth observation
satellite programs, once the envy of the world, are in
disarray.''
I don't think the National Academies could be clearer than
that in voicing its concern. So at today's hearing, I want to
get answers to the following questions.
When the Decadal Survey panel says that the Nation's Earth
observation satellite programs ``are in disarray,'' what does
that mean in specific terms?
What is the impact of that disarray, and why does it
matter?
And, what needs to be done to fix this situation?
Of course, in these times of tight budgets, some will look
at the Academies' recommendations and simply say, ``We can't
afford to do more than we are now.'' However, the simple fact
of the matter is that our nation is getting ready to spend a
lot of money to deal with climate change in the coming years,
both public dollars and private dollars.
We will continue to need good data to make sure that those
investments are wise ones and that we are getting the intended
results. I am worried that we are going to be ``flying blind''
if we don't ensure that the Nation's environmental satellite
system is up to the task of collecting critical climate science
data, and the Decadal Survey is sounding the alarm that unless
we take steps to reverse the current decline, we aren't going
to have the satellite system we need in the coming decade.
And we have got a lot to discuss today, so I want to
welcome our witnesses, and now, I want to recognize Ranking
Member Hall for any opening remarks that he would like to make.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Gordon follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Bart Gordon
Good morning.
I'd like to welcome our witnesses to today's hearing.
We look forward to hearing your views.
As you know, last week the Science and Technology Committee held
the first hearing in Congress on the just-released report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
That hearing provided a useful glimpse into the current scientific
understanding of climate change.
It is clear that advances in our scientific understanding of
climate change are critically dependent on the data collection and
modeling enabled by our investments in Earth science research and
applications at NASA and NOAA.
In addition, those investments play a crucial role in improving the
accuracy of our weather forecasts, monitoring land use, and managing
our natural resources.
In short, this nation needs to continue to invest in a robust
system of environmental satellites.
Two years ago, one of today's witnesses, Dr. Berrien Moore, stated
that the Interim Report of the National Academies' Decadal Survey had
concluded that the Nation's system of environmental satellites was ``at
risk of collapse.''
That was a sobering assessment.
Now the Decadal Survey is finished, and we will be hearing their
findings and recommendations today.
One of those findings is particularly troubling.
Namely: ``In the short period since the publication of the Interim
Report, budgetary constraints and programmatic difficulties at NASA
have greatly exacerbated this concern. At a time of unprecedented need,
the Nation's Earth observation satellite programs, once the envy of the
world, are in disarray.''
I don't think the National Academies could be any clearer than that
in voicing its concern.
So at today's hearing, I want to get answers to the following
questions:
When the Decadal Survey panel says that the Nation's
Earth observation satellite programs ``are in disarray,'' what
does that mean in specific terms?
What is the impact of that disarray, and why does it
matter?
And, what needs to be done to fix the situation?
Of course, in these times of tight budgets, some will look at the
Academies recommendations and simply say ``we can't afford to do more
than we are now.''
However, the simple fact of the matter is that the Nation is
getting ready to spend a lot of money to deal with climate change in
the coming years.
We will continue to need good data to make sure that those
investments are wise ones and that we are getting the intended results.
I'm worried that we are going to be ``flying blind'' if we don't
ensure that the Nation's environmental satellite system is up to the
task of collecting critical climate science data. . .and the Decadal
Survey is sounding the alarm that unless we take steps to reverse the
current decline, we aren't going to have the satellite system we will
need in the coming decade.
Well, we have a lot to discuss today.
I again want to welcome our witnesses, and I now want to recognize
Ranking Member Hall for any opening remarks he would care to make.
Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for calling
today's hearing to examine the recently released Decadal Survey
on Earth Sciences, produced by the National Academies. This
report, which provides strategic advice to the government on
the scope and goals of future Earth-observing missions,
especially those flown by NASA and NOAA, will need great help
to guide the federal investment decisions now and in the years
ahead of us.
I want to begin by thanking Dr. Anthes and Dr. Moore and
all your colleagues that served with you on the National
Academies committee. Drafting the first ever of such a report
could not have been easy, but I am certain that the community
is stronger, and I thank you for it, and perhaps more cohesive
as a result. And I hope you will tell your friends and
colleagues that we are grateful for their very hard work.
Governor Geringer, thank you for taking time from your very
busy schedule today to describe how remote sensing data and
products are used by industry and government. I want to add,
parenthetically, that in my State of Texas and for many
residents in the western states, monitoring and measuring
drought conditions is rapidly gaining importance.
During the last Congress, I was able to work with my
friends here in the House to draft and pass a bill establishing
the National Integrated Drought Information System, and I am
glad that the President agreed to sign it into law. But having
said that, to many in this room, weather forecasting products
are about all we understand. Governor--we look forward to your
testimony, and those of you who ran your governments about the
numerous other applications of remote sensing information.
Beyond articulating the science questions and missions, the
Survey challenges the government to reassess the amount of
funding dedicated to Earth science. It urges government to
increase investment in NASA's Earth sciences program by $500
million a year, about a 33 percent increase over current
levels.
This presents the Administration and Congress with a
tremendous challenge. It is no mystery to everyone in this room
that NASA is struggling to afford its current slate of
programs, from human space flight to aeronautics, astrophysics,
planetary sciences, and redirecting funding from any of these
activities is not an option. We need all of them. Either NASA
maintains the status quo with, perhaps, marginal adjustments in
content to its Earth sciences program or its top-line funding
should be increased. And I strongly prefer the latter. I think
that is what we have to do. We have to increase these fundings.
The report also recommends new missions for NOAA that would
total $565 million over the next 10 years. I hope the witnesses
will help us understand what weather forecasting improvements
these missions would provide and why the Decadal Survey
recommends them.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I do want to be clear. I support
the Decadal Survey and its recommendations. It lays out a
course of research that should be followed. It raises questions
that are of immediate importance to our way of living, and, if
truly implemented, it will provide planning tools that will
help future generations monitor and mitigate the effect of
changes to Earth's weather system. Unfortunately, in the
current budget climate, I fear we cannot fully implement the
recommendations. And in that vein, I intend to ask hard
questions today about which of the recommendations and missions
are most important.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and yield back
the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Ralph M. Hall
Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling today's hearing to examine the
recently released Decadal Survey on Earth Sciences produced by the
National Academies. This report, which provides strategic advice to the
government on the scope and goals of future Earth observing missions,
especially those flown by NASA and NOAA, will be help guide federal
investment decisions now and in the years to come.
I want to begin by thanking Dr. Anthes and Dr. Moore, and all your
colleagues that served with you on the National Academies committee.
Drafting the first-ever such report could not have been easy, but I am
certain the community is stronger, and perhaps more cohesive as a
result, and I hope you'll tell your friends and colleagues that we are
grateful for their hard work.
Governor Geringer, thank you for taking time from your busy
schedule to be with us today to describe how remote sensing data and
products are used by industry and government. I want to add,
parenthetically, that in my State of Texas, and for many residents in
the western states, monitoring and measuring drought conditions is
rapidly gaining importance. During the last Congress I was able to work
with my friends here in the House to draft and pass a bill establishing
the National Integrated Drought Information System, and I'm glad the
President agreed to sign it into law.
But having said that, to many in this room, weather forecasting
products are about all we understand. Governor, we look forward to your
testimony about the numerous other applications of remote sensing
information.
Beyond articulating the science questions and missions, the survey
challenges government to reassess the amount of funding dedicated to
Earth science. It urges government to increase investment in NASA's
Earth Sciences program by $500 million a year, about a 33 percent
increase over current levels. This presents the Administration and
Congress with a tremendous challenge. It's no mystery to everyone in
this room that NASA is struggling to afford its current slate of
programs, from human space flight to aeronautics, astrophysics,
planetary sciences, and heliophysics. Redirecting funding from any of
these activities is not an option. Either NASA maintains the status
quo, with perhaps marginal adjustments in content to its Earth Sciences
program, or its top-line funding should be increased. I strongly prefer
the latter.
The report also recommends new missions for NOAA that would total
$565 million over the next ten years. I hope the witnesses will help us
understand what weather forecasting improvements these missions would
provide and why the Decadal Survey recommends them.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I do want to be clear; I support the
Decadal Survey and its recommendations. It lays out a course of
research that should be followed. It raises questions that are of
immediate importance to our way of living, and if fully implemented, it
will provide planning tools that will help future generations monitor,
and mitigate the effects of changes to Earth's weather systems.
Unfortunately, in the current budget climate I fear we cannot fully
implement the recommendations and in that vein I intend to ask hard
questions today about which of the recommendations and missions are
most important.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and yield back the
balance of my time.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Hall.
I ask unanimous consent that all additional opening
statements be submitted by the Committee Members to be included
in the record. Without Mr. Sensenbrenner's objection, so
ordered.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Costello follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Jerry F. Costello
Good Morning. Thank you Mr. Chairman for calling this hearing to
examine the findings and recommendations of the National Academies
report ``Earth Science and Applications from Space: National
Imperatives for the Next Decade and Beyond,'' also known as the Decadal
Survey.
Today's report represents the first decadal strategy developed for
Earth Science. The Survey Panel has made a series of recommendations to
address the perceived problems regarding our nation's system of
environmental satellites. I am aware that budgetary constraints and
programmatic difficulties at the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) have contributed to the degradation of our Earth
observation programs, specifically the NOAA satellites for data
collection and forecasting.
I recognize that our nation's ability to pursue a visionary space
exploration agenda depends on its success in applying greater knowledge
of the Earth and I look forward to hearing the panel's recommendations.
Further, I am interested in hearing the witnesses' thoughts on how the
U.S. Government should proceed with funding for Earth Science and
Climate Science Research for the upcoming fiscal year and beyond.
I look forward to the testimony of today's witnesses.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mitchell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Harry E. Mitchell
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Last week, we heard from some of the world's top scientists about
the growing threat of global warming who reported to this committee
some of the important findings of the International Panel on Climate
Change.
I think many of us were concerned about what they had to say, and
troubled by the scientific data that demonstrates the threat of global
warming and climate change isn't simply a threat--it's happening all
across the world.
I got a sense from my colleagues at that hearing that many in this
Congress on both sides of the aisle believe that the United States has
an important and unique role to play in solving the climate crisis.
The United States is a world leader in scientific discovery and
innovation, and I think that most of the American people would agree
that we should use our unique spirit and ingenuity for good.
We have especially succeeded when it comes to space exploration. We
put a man on the Moon, have discovered so much about our galaxy, and
the universe. We have worked with the international community to build
a space station.
Yet not all of the important things we have discovered are about
space. We have also learned about ourselves, and the planet Earth.
NASA and NOAA satellites have been instrumental in monitoring so
many things about the Earth. Everything from temperatures and wind
patterns to changes in land, ocean tides, and glacial features--and so
much more.
The Earth observation systems we use are critical to enhancing our
understanding of the planet, and critical to understanding how global
warming is affecting all of us.
The Decadal Survey report that these observation systems are at
``the risk of collapse'' and are in ``disarray'' is unacceptable. The
report makes clear that the state of these systems is because of
``major shift in priorities'' by the Administration. If that's the
case, it's time for new priorities.
I'm encouraged by the recommendations of the Decadal Survey panel
that we should invest in the technology that will grow our ability to
make further scientific discoveries, and I look forward to hearing
their testimony today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ehlers follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Vernon J. Ehlers
It takes a tenacious group of people to scrutinize our Earth
observational challenges and to make recommendations on what we might
do to ensure we are able to improve our forecasting and observational
capabilities. I am pleased the members of the Decadal Survey committee
were up to the task. The findings of the report are a wake-up call and
will help scientists and policy-makers consider future missions flown
by NASA and NOAA in addition to understanding the consequences of gaps
in our observational capabilities.
I am especially concerned about the future capabilities of the
National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System
(NPOESS) and am glad that the Decadal Survey Committee has not endorsed
many of the proposed cost-cutting measures to limit the escalating
costs of the program. I realize NPOESS has been plagued by cost-
overruns, but I believe we have to carefully weigh the long-term impact
of removing NPOESS sensors on our global environmental monitoring
capabilities. NPOESS oversight will continue by this committee and we
welcome your survey's wisdom in determining the most strategic future
for the program.
Finally, coherent integration is imperative in successful
observation, and I look forward to learning more about how we can
ensure that the consumers of Earth observation information can use this
data. I thank our witnesses for being here today and look forward to
their testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Neugebauer follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Randy Neugebauer
Mr. Chairman:
Thank you for holding this hearing. I welcome the opportunity to
take part in this important discussion and look forward to hearing from
our distinguished panelists.
As we discovered from the hearing last week, climate change is an
extremely important issue, yet controversial at the same time. While
most of us agree that global warming is occurring, there are disputes
regarding the cause and degree of this change. Part of this
disagreement stems from the evolving nature of science.
Science is a process of constant re-evaluation of old hypotheses
and theories, collection of new data, and continuous development of new
models and approaches to critical questions. In order to properly
understand climate change, it is critical that we have access to
accurate data and technology. Therefore, I look forward to hearing the
expert testimonies and recommendations of the panelists regarding the
satellite technology we need to continue to gather accurate Earth,
atmospheric, and climate data.
For many years the U.S. has led the world when it comes to space
exploration and scientific development. I look forward to working with
my colleagues in this regard to ensure that the U.S. will continue to
be a global leader of research, technology, and innovation.
We in Congress, and in this committee especially, are called upon
to make scientific and environmental policy that will affect our
economy; our security; and our general welfare; and not just for us,
but for future generations of Americans, as well.
Thank you.
Chairman Gordon. We are fortunate to have three
distinguished witnesses at today's hearing. I will now yield to
Representative Udall to introduce the first witness.
Mr. Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning.
It is my privilege to introduce Dr. Richard Anthes today.
He is the President of the University Corporation for
Atmospheric Research, otherwise known as UCAR, a non-profit
consortium of 70 member universities that award Ph.D.s in
atmospheric and related sciences. He is the co-chair of the
National Research Council's Earth Science Decadal Survey. Dr.
Anthes is a highly-regarded atmospheric scientist, author,
educator, and administrator who has contributed considerable
research to the field. He has published over 100 peer-reviewed
articles and books and participated on or chaired over 400--
excuse me, 40 different U.S./national committees. Dr. Anthes is
currently President of the American Meteorological Society. His
many research contributions involve particularly the areas of
tropical cyclones and mezoscale meteorology, including the
development of the first successful three-dimensional model of
the tropical cyclone, which evolved into one of the world's
most widely used mezoscale models, the Penn State NCAR
Mezoscale Model, which is now in its fifth generation.
Welcome, Dr. Anthes.
Dr. Anthes. Thank you very much, Congressman Udall. I don't
think I have ever been introduced by a Congressman before, and
that saves me 30 seconds of my five minutes.
I would like to start out with----
Chairman Gordon. If you don't mind, sir, let us go ahead,
and we will recognize the other witnesses----
Dr. Anthes. Oh, okay.
Chairman Gordon.--and then we will begin with you. But you
are correct, you were well introduced there.
Our second witness is Dr. Berrien Moore, who is the other
co-chair of the National Academies' Decadal Survey. Dr. Moore
is a Professor and Director of the Institute for the Studies of
Earth, Oceans, and Space at the University of New Hampshire.
Welcome.
Our third witness is former Wyoming Governor, Dr. Jim--I
mean, rather Jim Geringer. Governor Geringer has been very
active in the Alliance for Earth Observations, and he was the
force behind the Western Governors Association call for a
National Integrated Drought Information System.
I want to welcome each of you and look forward to your
testimony.
You will each be given five minutes for your spoken
testimony. Your written testimony will be included in the
record for the hearing. With my friend, Mr. Rohrabacher's
indulgence, I will say that we will try to be liberal with your
five minutes, because this is very important, and we want to
hear from you.
When all three of you have completed your testimony, we
will begin with questions. Each Member will have five minutes
to question the panel.
Doctor, we will begin with you.
STATEMENT OF DR. RICHARD A. ANTHES, PRESIDENT, UNIVERSITY
CORPORATION FOR ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH (UCAR); CO-CHAIR,
COMMITTEE ON EARTH SCIENCE AND APPLICATIONS FROM SPACE,
NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL, THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
Dr. Anthes. Okay. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Minority Member, and Members of the
Committee, thanks for inviting us here to testify here today.
I would like--this is one of my favorite rooms in the whole
world, because of that--the statement, ``Where there is no
vision, the people perish,'' from Proverbs 29:18. I think that
is what we need to keep our eye on, not the individual
observations, not the individual dollars, but we really do need
a vision for Earth science and applications from space. And I
just love that saying. It is a perfect lead in.
Our vision from our Decadal Survey is carried over,
actually, from the Interim Report. And I want to read it to
you. I think it is very important. I believe in it deeply.
``Understanding the complex, changing planet on which we live,
how it supports life, and how human activities affect its
ability to do so in the future is one of the greatest
intellectual challenges facing humanity. It is also one of the
most important challenges for society as it seeks to achieve
prosperity, health, and sustainability.''
So this is the dual message, the dual vision of our report,
that understanding the Earth is one of the most exciting
intellectual challenges we can think of. And it is also
critically important for applications of immediate and long-
term benefit to humanity.
As detailed in our report and further emphasized by the
latest issue of the IPCC, which came out a couple weeks ago,
our society is faced with a number of profound scientific and
societal challenges, including climate change and all of the
aspects of the climate change that is occurring at an
unprecedented rate. And yet, at a time when the need has never
been greater, we are faced with an Earth observation program
that will dramatically diminish in capability over the next
five to ten years.
As you mentioned already, our Interim Report said that the
system of U.S. environmental satellites was at risk of
collapse. This judgment was based on the observed precipitous
decline in funding and the consequent cancellation, descoping,
and delay of a number of critical missions and instruments.
Otherwise, let me interject here and deviate from my
prepared talk a little bit.
This is not primarily about money and decreasing budgets.
It is primarily about doing the job that needs to be done for
society, and the modest investments that are required will
repay themselves many times over. So please focus on the
benefits to society, the intellectual challenges, and what we
are proposing as a balanced system rather than the declining
budgets.
So I have been asked, you know, what will we lose if we
don't do what the Decadal Survey mentions. And I think my
colleague, Dr. Moore, will give you some examples, but let me
just give you some examples that are not really in the Survey.
Weather forecasts and warnings may start becoming less
accurate. We have seen a tremendous run-up of increased
accuracy in weather forecasting and warnings over the last 30
years, primarily because of Earth observations from space. The
Hurricane Katrina forecast was incredibly accurate, saving,
perhaps, 100,000 lives, one of the few bright spots in that
whole tragic episode. But we are actually in danger, if the
observations continue to decrease, of losing that improving
weather forecasts and warning capabilities. Very serious.
The Earth is warming because of a small imbalance in
radiation between the sun and the Earth, a very small
difference between two very large terms. What is coming in from
the sun, a huge number and what is going back out to space. We
need to measure that small imbalance very accurately. We need
to measure what is coming in from the sun and what is going out
from the Earth so that we know whether the Earth is going to
warm up faster, whether it is going to slow down in its warming
up, and finally, when we reach a new equilibrium and there is
no more change. Climate models have improved steadily over the
past years, but they are far from perfect. They don't do very
well on regional scales, which is what we are really interested
in. Is the dryness in the west going to continue? Are
hurricanes going to become more frequent or more intense? Those
kinds of things. So we need the observations to improve the
climate models. We could never rely on models without
observations.
Sea levels are rising, and the ice around the Earth is
melting. But how fast? Is this going to accelerate--these
things going to accelerate or decelerate, slow down? We have
got to measure sea level and the ice around the Earth,
especially in Greenland.
As I mentioned, there is controversy about whether the
frequency and intensity of tropical storms or hurricanes is
going to increase or decrease. We simply don't know. And
without observations, we won't be able to resolve that critical
issue.
And finally, Earth science is built fundamentally on
observations, not theory and not models. And it will--it is
impossible for me to sit here and predict what discoveries
won't be made in the next 20 years if we don't have
observation. I can't do that, but I can surely say that if the
present trend of decreasing observations continues, we will--
the rate of scientific progress will be greatly slowed.
So the plan we recommend calls for undertaking 17 new NASA
and NOAA missions from the period 2008 to 2020 as well as
restoring some of the capabilities lost on NPOESS and GOESS.
Our recommendations for NASA can be implemented in a cost-
effective manner. I think my colleague, Dr. Moore, will talk
about this. We are merely--to do the required program, and
again, the required program is what is important, not the
money, we need to simply restore the NASA Earth sciences budget
to what it was five years ago.
Finally, implementing these missions will not only greatly
reduce the risks to the people of our country in the world of
natural hazards of all kinds, it will support more efficient
management of natural resources, including water, energy,
fisheries, ecosystems that support the economy and our lives
and--so that the cost of this program is repaid many times
over.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before
you today, and I look forward to any questions that you might
have.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Anthes follows:]
Prepared Statement of Richard A. Anthes
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Minority Member, and Members of the
Committee: thank you for inviting me here to testify today. My name is
Richard Anthes, and I am the President of the University Corporation
for Atmospheric Research, a consortium of 70 research universities that
manages the National Center for Atmospheric Research, on behalf of the
National Science Foundation, and additional scientific education,
training and support programs. I am also the current President of the
American Meteorological Society. I appear today in my capacity as Co-
Chair of the National Research Council (NRC)'s Committee on Earth
Science and Applications from Space: A Community Assessment and
Strategy for the Future.
The National Research Council is the unit of the National Academies
that is responsible for organizing independent advisory studies for the
Federal Government on science and technology. In response to requests
from NASA, NOAA, and the USGS, the NRC has recently completed a
``decadal survey'' of Earth science and applications from space.
(``Decadal surveys'' are the 10-year prioritized roadmaps that the NRC
has done for 40 years for the astronomers; this is the first time it is
being done for Earth science and applications from space.) Among the
key tasks in the charge to the decadal survey committee were to:
Develop a consensus of the top-level scientific
questions that should provide the focus for Earth and
environmental observations in the period 2005-2020; and
Develop a prioritized list of recommended space
programs, missions, and supporting activities to address these
questions.
The NRC survey committee has prepared an extensive report in
response to this charge, which I am pleased to be able to summarize
here today. Over 100 leaders in the Earth science community
participated on the survey steering committee or its seven study
panels. It is noteworthy that this was the first Earth science decadal
survey, and the committee and panel members did an excellent job in
fulfilling the charge and establishing a consensus--a task many
previously considered impossible. A copy of the full report has also
been provided for your use.
The committee's vision is encapsulated in the following
declaration, first stated in the committee's interim report, published
in 2005:
``Understanding the complex, changing planet on which we live,
how it supports life, and how human activities affect its
ability to do so in the future is one of the greatest
intellectual challenges facing humanity. It is also one of the
most important challenges for society as it seeks to achieve
prosperity, health, and sustainability.''
As detailed in the committee's final report, and as we were
profoundly reminded by the latest report from the International Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC), the world faces significant and profound
environmental challenges: shortages of clean and accessible freshwater,
degradation of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, increases in soil
erosion, changes in the chemistry of the atmosphere, declines in
fisheries, and above all the rapid pace of substantial changes in
climate. These changes are not isolated; they interact with each other
and with natural variability in complex ways that cascade through the
environment across local, regional, and global scales. Addressing these
societal challenges requires that we confront key scientific questions
related to ice sheets and sea level change, large-scale and persistent
shifts in precipitation and water availability, transcontinental air
pollution, shifts in ecosystem structure and function in response to
climate change, impacts of climate change on human health, and
occurrence of extreme events, such as hurricanes, floods and droughts,
heat waves, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions.
Yet at a time when the need has never been greater, we are faced
with an Earth observation program that will dramatically diminish in
capability over the next 5-10 years.
Last April, my co-chair, Dr. Berrien Moore, came before Congress to
testify in response to release of the committee's 2005 interim report.
His testimony highlighted the key roles played by NASA and NOAA over
the past 30 years in advancing our understanding of the Earth system
and in providing a variety of societal benefits through their
international leadership in Earth observing systems from space. He
noted that while NOAA had plans to modernize and refresh its weather
satellites, NASA had no plans to replace its Earth Observing System
platforms after their nominal six year lifetimes end. He also noted
that NASA had canceled, scaled back, or delayed at least six planned
missions, including a Landsat continuity mission. This led to the main
finding in the interim report, which stated ``this system of
environmental satellites is at risk of collapse.''
Since the publication of the interim report, the Hydros and Deep
Space Climate Observatory missions were canceled; the flagship Global
Precipitation Mission was delayed for another two and a half years;
significant cuts were made to NASA's Research and Analysis program: the
NPOESS Preparatory Project mission was delayed for a year and a half; a
key atmospheric profiling sensor planned for the next generation of
NOAA geostationary satellites was canceled; and the NPOESS program
breached the Nunn-McCurdy budget cap. As you have all heard, the
certified NPOESS program delays the first launch by three years,
eliminates two of the planned six spacecraft, and de-manifests or de-
scopes a number of instruments, with particular consequences for
measurement of the forcing and feedbacks that need to be measured to
understand the magnitude, pace, and consequences of global and regional
climate change. It is against this backdrop that I discuss the present
report.
As you will see in the report, between 2006 and the end of the
decade, the number of operating missions will decrease dramatically and
the number of operating sensors and instruments on NASA spacecraft,
most of which are well past their nominal lifetimes, will decrease by
some 35 percent, with a 50 percent reduction by 2015 (see Figure 1
below). Substantial loss of capability is likely over the next several
years due to a combination of decreased budgets and aging satellites
already well past their design lifetimes. This will result in an
overall degradation of the system of Earth observing satellites, with
the following potential consequences:
After decades of steady improvement, weather
forecasts, including those of severe weather such as
hurricanes, may start becoming less accurate, putting more
people at risk and diminishing the proven economic value of
accurate forecasts.
The ozone hole in the stratosphere has apparently
reached its maximum intensity. Models predict it will start to
slowly recover. Without observations we may not be able to
verify its recovery or explain why it is occurring.
Earth is warming because of a small imbalance between
incoming solar radiation and outgoing radiation from Earth.
Measuring this small imbalance is critical to determining how
fast Earth is warming and when the warming will stop. Without
the measurements we are recommending will not be able to
quantify how this net energy imbalance is changing.
Climate models have improved steadily over the years,
but are far from perfect. We need observations of the Earth
system, the atmosphere, oceans, land and ice to verify and
improve the climate models. These models have real impact on
the U.S. economy, in predicting El Nino and other seasonal
fluctuations in climate, which are used in energy, water and
agriculture management.
Sea level is rising and ice around the world is
melting, yet there is uncertainty in how fast these are
occurring and whether or not they are accelerating or
decelerating. Without the observations we are recommending, we
will be unable to know for sure how these rates are changing
and what the implications will be for coastal communities.
There is controversy about whether the frequency and
intensity of hurricanes are increasing as the climate warms;
observations of the atmosphere and oceans are required to
resolve this important issue.
The risk of missing early detection of earthquakes,
tsunamis, and volcanic eruptions will increase.
Air quality forecasts, which require the global
perspectives of satellites to identify pollution transport
across borders, will become less accurate, with negative
implications for both human health and urban pollution
management efforts.
Earth science is based fundamentally on observations.
While it is impossible to predict what scientific advances will
not occur without the observations, or what surprises (like the
ozone hole) we will miss, we can be sure the rate of scientific
progress will be greatly slowed without a robust set of Earth
observations.
In its report, the committee sets forth a series of near-term and
longer-term recommendations in order to address these troubling trends.
It is important to note that this report does not ``shoot for the
Moon,'' and indeed the committee exercised considerable constraint in
its recommendations, which were carefully considered within the context
of challenging budget situations. Yet, while societal applications have
grown ever-more dependent upon our Earth observing fleet, the NASA
Earth science budget has declined some 30 percent in constant-year
dollars since 2000 (see Figure 2 below). This disparity between growing
societal needs and diminished resources must be corrected. This leads
to the report's overarching recommendation:
``The U.S. Government, working in concert with the private
sector, academe, the public, and its international partners,
should renew its investment in Earth observing systems and
restore its leadership in Earth science and applications.''
The report outlines near-term actions meant to stem the tide of
capability deterioration and continue critical data records, as well as
forward-looking recommendations to establish a balanced Earth
observation program designed to directly address the most urgent
societal challenges facing our nation and the world (see Figure 3 below
for an example of how nine of our recommended missions support in a
synergistic way one of the societal benefit areas--extreme event
warnings). It is important to recognize that these two sets of
recommendations are not an ``either/or'' set of priorities. Both near-
term actions and longer-term commitments are required to stem the tide
of capability deterioration, continue critical climate data records,
and establish a balanced Earth observation program designed to directly
address the most urgent societal challenges facing our nation and the
world. It is important to ``right the ship'' for Earth science, and we
simply cannot let the current challenges we face with NPOESS and other
troubled programs stop progress on all other fronts. Implementation of
the ``stop-gap'' recommendations concerning NPOESS, NPP, and GOES-R are
important--and the recommendations for establishing a healthy program
going forward are equally as important. Satisfying near-term
recommendations without placing due emphasis on the forward-looking
program is to ignore the largest fraction of work that has gone into
this report. Moreover, such a strategy would result in a further loss
of U.S. scientific and technical capacity, which could decrease the
competitiveness of the United States internationally for years to come.
Key elements of the recommended program include:
1. Restoration of certain measurement capabilities to the NPP,
NPOESS, and GOES-R spacecraft in order to ensure continuity of
critical data sets.
2. Completion of the existing planned program that was used as
a baseline assumption for this survey. This includes (but is
not limited to) launch of GPM in or before 2012, securing a
replacement to Landsat 7 data before 2012.
3. A prioritized set of 17 missions to be carried out by NOAA
and NASA over the next decade (see Tables 1 and 2 below). This
set of missions provides a sound foundation for Earth science
and its associated societal benefits well beyond 2020. The
committee believes strongly that these missions form a minimal,
yet robust, observational component of an Earth information
system that is capable of addressing a broad range of societal
needs.
4. A technology development program at NASA with funding
comparable to and in addition to its basic technology program
to make sure the necessary technologies are ready when needed
to support mission starts over the coming decade.
5. A new ``Venture'' class of low-cost research and
application missions that can establish entirely new research
avenues or demonstrate key application-oriented measurements,
helping with the development of innovative ideas and
technologies. Priority would be given to cost-effective,
innovative missions rather than ones with excessive scientific
and technological requirements.
6. A robust NASA Research and Analysis program, which is
necessary to maximize scientific return on NASA investments in
Earth science. Because the R&A programs are carried out largely
through the Nation's research universities, such programs are
also of great importance in supporting and training next
generation Earth science researchers.
7. Sub-orbital and land-based measurements and socio-
demographic studies in order to supplement and complement
satellite data.
8. A comprehensive information system to meet the challenge of
production, distribution, and stewardship of observational data
and climate records. To ensure the recommended observations
will benefit society, the mission program must be accompanied
by efforts to translate raw observational data into useful
information through modeling, data assimilation, and research
and analysis.
Further, the committee is particularly concerned with the lack of
clear agency responsibility for sustained research programs and the
transitioning of proof-of-concept measurements into sustained
measurement systems. To address societal and research needs, both the
quality and the continuity of the measurement record must be assured
through the transition of short-term, exploratory capabilities, into
sustained observing systems. The elimination of the requirements for
climate research-related measurements on NPOESS is only the most recent
example of the Nation's failure to sustain critical measurements.
Therefore, our committee recommends that the Office of Science and
Technology Policy, in collaboration with the relevant agencies, and in
consultation with the scientific community, should develop and
implement a plan for achieving and sustaining global Earth
observations. This plan should recognize the complexity of differing
agency roles, responsibilities, and capabilities as well as the lessons
from implementation of the Landsat, EOS, and NPOESS programs.
Mr. Chairman, the observing system we envision will help establish
a firm and sustainable foundation for Earth science and associated
societal benefits through the year 2020 and beyond. It can be achieved
through effective management of technology advances and international
partnerships, and broad use of satellite science data by the research
and decision-making communities. Our report recommends a path forward
that restores U.S. leadership in Earth science and applications and
averts the potential collapse of the system of environmental
satellites. As documented in our report, this can be accomplished in a
fiscally responsible manner, and I urge the committee to see that it is
accomplished.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I am
prepared to answer any questions that you may have.
Supporting Tables and Graphics
Biography for Richard A. Anthes
Since 1988 Dr. Richard Anthes has been President of the University
Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR). He is a highly regarded
atmospheric scientist, author, educator and administrator who has
contributed considerable research to the field. UCAR is a non-profit
consortium of 70 member universities that award Ph.D.s in atmospheric
and related sciences. UCAR manages the National Center for Atmospheric
Research, in addition to collaborating with many international
meteorological institutions.
Dr. Anthes has published over 100 peer-reviewed articles and books
and participated on or chaired over 40 different U.S. national
committees. His many research contributions in the areas of tropical
cyclones and mesoscale meteorology include the development of the first
successful three-dimensional model of the tropical cyclone which
evolved into one of the world's most widely used mesoscale models, the
Penn State-NCAR mesoscale model, now in its fifth generation (MM5). In
recent years he became interested in the radio occultation technique
for sounding Earth's atmosphere and was a key player in the highly
successful proof-of-concept GPS/MET experiment. This grew into an
internationally sponsored project called COSMIC (Constellation
Observing System for Meteorology, Ionosphere and Climate) which
recently launched a globe-spanning constellation of six satellites,
expected to improve weather forecasts, monitor climate change, and
enhance space weather research.
Dr. Anthes has also received numerous awards for his sustained
contributions to the atmospheric sciences. In October 2003 he was
awarded the Friendship Award by the Chinese government, the most
prestigious award given to foreigners, for his contributions over the
years to atmospheric science and weather forecasting in China. He is
Co-Chair of the National Research Council's Committee on Earth Science
and Applications from Space: National Imperatives for the Next Decade
and Beyond. Dr. Anthes is currently President of the American
Meteorological Society.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you. Right on time.
Dr. Moore.
STATEMENT OF DR. BERRIEN MOORE III, UNIVERSITY DISTINGUISHED
PROFESSOR, DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF EARTH, OCEANS,
AND SPACE, UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE; CO-CHAIR, COMMITTEE ON
EARTH SCIENCE AND APPLICATIONS FROM SPACE, NATIONAL RESEARCH
COUNCIL, THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
Dr. Moore. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Minority
Member, and Members of the Committee, thank you inviting--for
inviting me to testify today.
I would like to repeat what my colleague, Rick Anthes,
said. At a time when the need has never been greater, we are
faced with an Earth observation program that will dramatically
diminish in capability over the next five to ten years.
Now we can ask, ``Why did this occur?'' Simply stated, the
NASA Earth science budget declined, in real terms, by a third
from the year 2000 to now. And as you well know, technical and
managerial difficulties in the NPOESS program offset the budget
increases for NOAA's planned satellites over the same period.
And regardless of where or whether blame is placed, we are
still in the same situation. That is where we are.
The Survey set forth a strategy for a strong, balanced
national program in Earth science to reverse this trend. It
recommends, as Rick said, that the Nation commit to leadership
in Earth's observations in part through implementing a series
of 17 missions carefully chosen to augment and replace our
aging satellite fleet. The set of recommended 15 new missions
to NASA may seem large numerically, but we believe that through
focusing on smaller missions and avoiding large, multi-
instrumented platforms, a robust strategy for the future of
Earth science can be achieved with reasonable investments. As
Rick Anthes just said, the program could be restored if we
could just simply get back to the year 2000 levels.
I would like to call attention to what happened. It is in
my written testimony. To show this 33 percent decline in real
terms from 2000 to the present.
What about the future?
Is the President's fiscal year 2008 budget adequately
preparing us for the future?
In short, no.
The President's budget provides only a brief respite to a
dramatically diminished observational system. The respite,
lasting until 2010, does allow us to move forward with plans to
measure global rainfall, the Global Precipitation Mission, and
general land cover characteristics to the Landsat, but by 2012,
the budget will leave NASA's Earth science with nearly 50
percent less buying power in comparison to the year 2000 and
unable to pursue the critical topics just described by my
colleague. The fall by 2012 will put us at a 20-year low in
real terms for Earth science.
NOAA's budget also appears to be inadequate to solve the
cost of growth within the NPOESS and GOES-R programs and to
mitigate some of the NPOESS losses by reinstating the solar and
Earth radiation measurements, which, as Rick just said, are
central to the climate system. Reinstating the high-resolution
measurements of the atmospheric ozone profiles, a key
measurement to allow to understand the post-CFC era, and
realizing an operational active radar-based measurement of sea
surface winds.
Can anything be done now about the Committee's
recommendations for the next decade?
Definitely, yes.
For instance, the Survey presented a set of guidelines for
managing the implementation of the new missions that included
early investments in technologies. This is an opportunity for
the new decade, starting now. NASA should consider investing
$10 million per year per mission across the first half of the
15 missions. That takes an investment of $70 million. With that
investment, we could actually begin to implement the Decadal
Survey right now.
It would also send a message that we are proceeding to
develop the needed and recommended Earth observing program.
These investments would avoid technological surprises that have
plagued other programs. And I think that, in itself, is a
reason to go forward with that kind of technology-based
building.
Now how can we justify increasing resources in this time of
particularly difficult budget issues, as Congressman Hall
noted?
I believe it is because of the benefits: more reliable
forecasts of infectious diseases; the identification of active
faults and the monitoring of crustal movements to improve
building code designs in earthquake-prone regions; better
weather forecasts, particularly for severe storms; climate
predictions based on better understanding of carbon sources and
sinks, ocean temperature, ice sheet volume changes, and, as we
have noted, the inputs from the sun and the thermal response of
the Earth; enhanced precipitation and drought forecasts to
improve water quality management and water resource management;
and improved land-use agriculture to ocean productivity
forecasts for better planning harvest cycles; and finally, more
reliable air quality forecasts to enable effective urban
pollution management and to protect the elderly and other
populations at risk.
Thank you very much, and I will be happy to answer any
further questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Moore follows:]
Prepared Statement of Berrien Moore III
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Minority Member, and Members of the
Committee: thank you for inviting me here to testify today. My name is
Berrien Moore, and I am a Professor of systems research at the
University of New Hampshire and Director of the Institute for the Study
of Earth, Oceans, and Space. I appear today, like Dr. Anthes, in my
capacity as Co-Chair of the National Research Council (NRC)'s Committee
on Earth Science and Applications from Space.
As you know, the NRC is the unit of the National Academies that is
responsible for organizing independent advisory studies for the Federal
Government on science and technology. The NRC has been conducting
decadal strategy surveys in astronomy for four decades, but this is the
first decadal survey in Earth science and applications from space.
On March 2, 2006, I testified before this committee at a hearing
entitled, NASA's Science Mission Directorate: Impacts of the Fiscal
Year 2007 Budget Proposal. At that hearing, I showed the table below,
which is taken from the 2005 Interim Report of our study. This table
shows the effects of the FY '06 budget.\1\ I then discussed my concerns
about the proposed cuts in the FY '07 budget, especially the continuing
reductions in funding for Research and Analysis, which I believed was
having a very negative effect on a program already pared to the bone.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Note that the Glory mission was subsequently restored. The
latest plan for LDCM is to implement the mission as a free-flyer.
Since my appearance, there have been further cancellations and
delays of NASA missions and dramatic and deleterious changes in plans
for the next generation of NOAA meteorological satellites, especially
regarding their capability to support the needs for prediction,
assessment, and mitigation of the effects of climate change.
With this as background, I will now turn to the questions posed to
me in advance of this hearing.
1. How did the Decadal Survey committee determine the priorities that
it recommended the Nation pursue in Earth and climate science research
and applications?
As noted in testimony of my co-chair, Dr. Richard Anthes, the
Decadal Survey's vision, which was first expressed in the committee's
2005 Interim Report,\2\ is for a program of Earth science research and
applications in support of society. The present report reaffirms this
vision, the fulfillment of which requires a national commitment to a
program of Earth observations from space in which practical benefits to
humankind play an equal role with the quest to acquire new knowledge
about the Earth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ National Research Council, Earth Science and Applications from
Space: Urgent Needs and Opportunities to Serve the Nation, The National
Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Interim Report described how satellite observations have been
critical to scientific efforts to understand the Earth as a system of
connected components, including the land, oceans, atmosphere,
biosphere, and solid-Earth. It also gave examples of how these
observations have served the Nation, helping to save lives and protect
property, strengthening national security, and contributing to the
growth of our economy\3\ through provision of timely environmental
information. However, the Interim Report also identified a substantial
risk to the continued availability of these observations, warning that
the Nation's system of environmental satellites was ``at risk of
collapse.'' As noted above, in the short period since the publication
of the Interim Report, budgetary constraints and programmatic
difficulties at NASA and NOAA have greatly exacerbated this concern. At
a time of unprecedented need, the Nation's Earth observation satellite
programs, once the envy of the world, are in disarray.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ It has been estimated that one third of the $10 trillion U.S.
economy is weather-sensitive or environment-sensitive (NRC, Satellite
Observations of the Earth's Environment: Accelerating the Transition of
Research to Operations, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.,
2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The decadal survey was led by an Executive Committee that drew on
the work of seven thematically-organized study panels:\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The Panel Chairs were members of the Executive committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Earth science applications and societal needs.
2. Land-use change, ecosystem dynamics, and biodiversity.
3. Weather (including space weather\5\ and chemical weather\6\
).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The term space weather refers to conditions on the Sun and in
the solar wind, magnetosphere, ionosphere, and thermosphere that can
influence the performance and reliability of space-borne and ground-
based technological systems and that can affect human life and health.
\6\ There is no single definition of chemical weather, but the term
refers to the state of the atmosphere as described by its chemical
composition, particularly important variable trace constituents such as
ozone, oxides of nitrogen, and carbon monoxide. Chemical weather has a
direct impact in a number of areas of interest for this study,
especially air quality and human health.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Climate variability and change.
5. Water resources and the global hydrologic cycle.
6. Human health and security.
7. Solid-Earth hazards, resources, and dynamics.
As described in Chapter 2 of our final report, each of the panels
used a common template in establishing priority lists of proposed
missions (see Table 1 below). The potential to deliver tangible
benefits to society was an overriding consideration for panel
deliberations.
Because execution of even a small portion of the missions on the
panels' short lists was not considered affordable, panels worked with
each other and with members of the Executive Committee to pare the
number of missions; they also developed synergistic mission ``rollups''
that would maximize science and application returns across the panels
while keeping within a more affordable budget. Frequently, the
recommended missions represented a compromise in an instrument or
spacecraft characteristic (including orbit) between what two or more
panels would have recommended individually without a budget constraint.
All the recommendations offered by the panels would merit support--
indeed, the panels' short lists of recommendations were distilled from
the over 100 responses that we received in response to a request for
mission concepts, as well as other submissions--but the Executive
Committee took as its charge the provision of a strategy for a strong,
balanced national program in Earth science for the next decade that
could be carried out with what are thought to be realistic resources.
Difficult choices were inevitable, but the recommendations presented in
this report reflect the committee's best judgment, informed by the work
of the panels and discussions with the scientific community, about
which programs are most important for developing and sustaining the
Earth science enterprise.
The recommended NASA program can be accomplished by restoring the
Earth science budget in real terms to the levels of the late 1990s.
2. What are the practical benefits of the research and applications
activities that your Decadal Survey recommended?
Our report presents a vision for the Earth science program; an
analysis of the existing Earth observing system and recommendations to
help restore its capabilities; an assessment of and recommendations for
new observations and missions needed for the next decade; an
examination of and recommendations concerning effective application of
those observations; and an analysis of how best to sustain that
observation and applications system. A critical element of the study's
vision is its emphasis on the need to place the benefits to society
that can be provided by an effective Earth observation system on a par
with scientific advancement.
The integrated suite of space missions and supporting and
complementary activities that are described in our report will support
the development of numerous applications of high importance to society.
Expected benefits of the fully-implemented program include:
Human Health
More reliable forecasts of infectious and vector-borne
disease outbreaks for disease control and response.
Earthquake Early Warning
Identification of active faults and prediction of the
likelihood of earthquakes to enable effective investment in
structural improvements, inform land-use decisions, and provide
early warning of impending earthquakes.
Weather Prediction
Longer-term, more reliable weather forecasts.
Sea Level Rise
Climate predictions based on better understanding of ocean
temperature and ice sheet volume changes and feedback to enable
effective coastal community planning.
Climate Prediction
Robust estimates of primary climate forcings for improved
climate forecasts, including local predictions of the effects
of climate change; determination in time and space of sources
and sinks of carbon dioxide.
Freshwater Availability
More accurate and longer-term precipitation and drought
forecasts to improve water resource management.
Ecosystem Services
More reliable land-use, agricultural, and ocean productivity
forecasts to improve planting and harvesting schedules and
fisheries management.
Air Quality
More reliable air quality forecasts to enable effective
urban pollution management.
Extreme Storm Warnings
Longer-term, more reliable storm track forecasts and
intensification predictions to enable effective evacuation
planning.
3. How consistent is the President's FY 2008 budget request for NASA
and NOAA with the recommendations of the Decadal Survey Committee?
It is important to note we were, of course, not privy to the
details of the President's fiscal year 2008 budget, which was developed
prior to the release of our final report. The NRC report is a forward-
looking document and therefore focuses primarily on the new missions;
whereas, the Interim Report dealt with the difficulties and challenges
of the Earth observing programs at NASA and NOAA, as they existed in
early 2005.
Let me address first the President's FY '08 budget request for NASA
Earth science. It is a mixture of some good news and bad news. The
primary good news is the small bottom line increases for 2008 and 2009.
These increases address the needs of currently planned missions already
in development, the completion of which is consistent with the decadal
survey's baseline set of assumptions.
Unfortunately, the out-year budgets reveal fundamental flaws in the
budget and NASA's Earth science plans--the budgets are totally
inadequate to accomplish the decadal survey's recommendations.
In 2010, the Earth science budget begins to decline again and
reaches a 20-year low, in real terms, in 2012. This decline reflects
that the 2008 budget contains no provision for new missions, nor does
it allow us to address the significant challenges facing our planet.
The 2008 budget also ignores our repeatedly stated concern about
declines in the Research and Analysis portion of the Earth science
budget. The Interim Report raised this concern about the FY 2006 budget
and the importance of a robust Research and Analysis program is
reaffirmed in the final report, but regrettably, the FY 08 budget for
R&A is 13 percent below the FY '06 budget in real terms. These
disturbing broad trends are captured in Figure 1.
Before turning to NOAA, I want to emphasize that the problems in
the out-years appear to be due entirely to the lack of adequate
resources. In fact, at a NASA townhall meeting that followed the
release of our report on January 15, 2007 at the 2007 annual meeting of
the American Meteorological Society, the head of NASA's Earth Science
program stated that the recommendations in our report provided the
roadmap for the Earth Science program we should have.
The NOAA NESDIS budget picture is also a mixture of some good and
bad news. In this case, the budget takes a small downturn in FY08,
followed by significant growth in FY09-FY10, before turning down again
in FY11 (Figure 2). It remains to be seen whether this $200 M/year
growth in FY09 and FY10 can enable restoration of some of the lost
capabilities to NPOESS and GOES-R. There appears to be no budgetary
wedge for new starts. Finally, for a variety of reasons, the NOAA
NESDIS budget is far from transparent, especially in the out-years, and
the level of detail that is readily available makes it difficult to
respond adequately to Committee's question.
4. What will be the impact if present trends in Earth and climate
science research and applications investments continue?
As detailed in our report and as summarized by my co-chair, between
2006 and the end of the decade, the number of operating U.S. missions
will decrease dramatically and the number of operating sensors and
instruments on NASA spacecraft, most of which are well past their
nominal lifetimes, may decrease by some 35 percent. If present trends
continue, reductions of some 50 percent reduction are possible by 2015.
Were this to pass, we would have chosen, in effect, to partially
blind ourselves at a time of increasing need to monitor, predict, and
develop responses to numerous global environmental challenges. Vital
climate records, such as the measurement of solar irradiance and the
Earth's response, will be placed in jeopardy or lost. Measurements of
aerosols, ozone profiles, sea surface height, sources and sinks of
important greenhouse gases, patterns of air and coastal pollution, and
even winds in the atmosphere are among the numerous critical
measurements that are at risk or simply will not occur if we follow the
path of the President 2008 budget and the proposed out-year run out.
Taking this path, we will also forgo the economic benefits that
would have come, for example, from better management of energy and
water, and improved weather predictions.\7\ Again, as my co-chair notes
in his comments and testimony, without action on the report's
recommendations, a decades-long improvements in the skill in which we
make weather forecasts will stall, or even reverse; this may be
accompanied by diminished capacity to forecast severe weather events
and manage disaster response and relief efforts. The Nation's
capabilities to forecast space weather will also be at risk, with
impacts on commercial aviation and space technology.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ In a typical hurricane season, NOAA's forecasts, warnings, and
the associated emergency responses result in a $3 billion savings. Two-
thirds of this savings, $2 billion, is attributed to the reduction in
hurricane-related deaths, and one-third of this savings, $1 billion, is
attributed to a reduction in property-related damage because of
preparedness actions. Advances in satellite information, data
assimilation techniques, and more powerful computers to run more
sophisticated numerical models, have lead to more accurate weather
forecasts and warnings. Today, NOAA's five-day hurricane forecasts,
which utilize satellite data, are as accurate as its three-day
forecasts were 10 years ago. The additional advanced notice has a
significant positive effect on many sectors of our economy. See
statement and references therein of Edward Morris, Director, Office of
Space Commercialization, NOAA, Hearing on Space and U.S. National
Power, Committee on Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces,
U.S. House of Representatives, June 21, 2006. Available at: http://
www.legislative.noaa.gov/Testimony/morris062106.pdf
\8\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The world is facing significant environmental challenges: shortages
of clean and accessible freshwater, degradation of terrestrial and
aquatic ecosystems, increases in soil erosion, changes in the chemistry
of the atmosphere, declines in fisheries, and the likelihood of
significant changes in climate. These changes are occurring over and
above the stresses imposed by the natural variability of a dynamic
planet, as well as the effects of past and existing patterns of
conflict, poverty, disease, and malnutrition. Further, these changes
interact with each other and with natural variability in complex ways
that cascade through the environment across local, regional, and global
scales. In summary, absent a reversal of the present trends for Earth
observation capabilities, we see the following:
Weather forecasts: After decades of steady
improvement, weather forecasts, including those of severe
weather such as hurricanes, may become less accurate, putting
more people at risk and diminishing the proven economic value
of accurate forecasts.
Earthquakes, tsunamis, landslides, and volcanic
eruptions: We risk missing early detection of these and other
hazards. We also lose our ability to assess damage and mitigate
the loss of further human life once they have occurred.
Satellite monitoring of volcanic plumes, for example, has a
very real impact on air traffic control.
Water resources: We lose many of the needed
observations to monitor the health of our water storage
reservoirs, and predict droughts with sufficient time to
mitigate their impact.
Oceans: Sea level is rising and ice around the world
is melting, yet there is uncertainty in how fast these are
occurring and whether or not they are accelerating or
decelerating. We will become less able address these issues,
and assess their implications for our coastal communities.
Climate: We are losing critical observations of the
Earth system, the atmosphere, oceans, land, and ice needed to
verify and improve the climate models. These models will be
increasingly important to the U.S. economy because they best
capture the likely patterns of future climate change and
variability.
Ecosystems: We lose the ability to assess the health
of our forests, wetlands, coastal regions, fisheries, and
farmlands and to determine the impact and effectiveness of
regulations designed to protect our food supply.
Health: Land-use, land cover, oceans, weather,
climate, and atmospheric information observations, now used by
public health officials to determine the effects of infectious
diseases, skin cancers, chronic and acute illnesses resulting
from contamination of air, food, and water are all at risk. As
an example, air quality forecasts, which use the global
perspective of satellites to identify pollution transport
across borders, will become less accurate, with negative
implications for both human health and urban pollution
management efforts.
I would like to thank the Committee for inviting me to testify, and
I would be delighted to answer any further questions.
Chairman Gordon. Governor.
STATEMENT OF HONORABLE JAMES GERINGER, DIRECTOR OF POLICY AND
PUBLIC SECTOR STRATEGY, ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS RESEARCH
INSTITUTE (ESRI)
Mr. Geringer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the
Committee, Ranking Member Hall. I appreciate the opportunity to
be with you today.
I am Jim Geringer. As you have introduced me, I am with the
Environmental Systems Research Institute, a leader in
geospatial information systems. I served as Governor of
Wyoming. I also represent the Alliance for Earth Observations,
which is a group of people who are interested in an observation
system of a totally integrated type that includes academia,
non-profits, non-governmental, as well as industrial members.
My past includes time as an ag-producer, a farmer. I have
used Earth observation information for several years and also
worked on the unmanned space program, launching, among other
things, a Global Positioning Satellite system that we knew as
NABSTAR, at the time.
I deeply appreciate what Dr. Moore and Dr. Anthes have put
together through their committee. I serve on the Mapping
Science Committee also under the National Research Council. I
am not associated with their activity, but I very well
understand the quality and breadth of reports that just--don't
just happen. It takes a lot of effort.
My role here, I believe, is to speak from the practical
point of view, those who have to do something with the
information. For all of the college degrees that there might
be, the Bachelors, the Masters, and the Ph.D.s, I think mine is
more relevant as the BT, the ``been there'' degree.
As a former governor and ag-producer, my staff used to say,
``It doesn't take a rocket scientist to be governor, but it
helps.''
One example I would give is what Congressman Hall already
brought up, the National Integrated Drought Information System.
My part of the Rocky Mountain west is still suffering from a
significant drought. I know that we would certainly like to
balance out what New York is getting right now.
Drought can last long and extend across larger areas than
hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, earthquakes, and it causes
hundreds of millions of dollars in losses, and it certainly
dashes our hopes and dreams. And when the 19 western governors
got together and said, ``We would like to support the use of
satellite and other observation information to lessen droughts'
impact on our region,'' we requested the NIDIS system, as it is
called, because rather than spending billions of dollars,
federal dollars, in particular, on drought assistance after the
fact, we would rather spend more on avoidance before the fact.
The strongest case for NIDIS and then extending on through
the broader Earth observation activities is to enable risk
management by individuals to make better judgment and policy
decisions by business, by government, and shifting from our
practice of reaction and restitution to one of prediction and
mitigation.
The Decadal Survey goes far beyond just climate change. It
highlights many other Earth science areas of practical benefit.
Looking at what is happening with increased populations located
in high-risk zones, such as earthquake faults or near sea
coasts, the shortage of clean and accessible freshwater, the
shortage of water, as a commodity, will be the dominate issue
from here forward, human health and security, degradation of
both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, soil erosion, invasive
species, and certainly our opportunity to do disaster--better
disaster management. So all of those are even beyond the
climate change issues that have already been raised.
There is also a concern that I would bring to you that the
lack of access to and the relevance of remotely-sensed data
frustrates a lot of users. We need to devote more time asking
the users what they need and help them find it. Many times it
is available. They just don't know it is there. We need a
streamlined process for accessing remotely-sensed data by the
public, policy-makers, educational communities, as well as
industry.
In terms of three broad areas of recommendation I would
bring to you, based on the Decadal Survey. Number one, enable
the best possible personal and policy decisions, the best
information for all kinds of people, providing our citizens
with information, technology, and tools to monitor and respond
in their own way to our changing world, protecting their lives,
livelihood, and property. Number two, provide an Integrated
Earth Observation System, otherwise known as IEOS, to assure
U.S. competitiveness. Our American competitiveness is slipping
without the projects and the missions described by the two co-
chairmen here. And number three, designate clear leadership
responsibilities to resolve the issues and attain the goals
identified in the Decadal study.
Our United States private sector capabilities lead all
other nations today. With activities such as GoogleEarth,
Microsoft, Yahoo, and our own product at ESRI, providing online
mapping sites using remotely-sensed imagery that the public now
takes for granted. Other private sector companies, such as
GeoEye and DigitalGlobe, well known in Colorado, provide high-
resolution imagery for tourism, real estate, insurance
companies to use. It has enabled corrections to legal
descriptions, settled land ownership disputes, Light Detection
and Ranging, or LiDAR, sensors are used to map terrain and to
define flood plain mapping and allow state and local
governments to aid in their own development decisions.
There are so many sources that are brought to bear in
addition to satellite imagery to mitigate and respond to
catastrophic events.
And I was also asked to specifically address how Earth
observations are used in the agricultural sector. But first,
let me address how they are not.
Current Earth observations are highly fragmented, with
different systems that were set at different times by different
organizations and by different Congresses for different
reasons, and few, if any, of them are cross-correlated,
especially within the federal space. NOAA has their weather
observations. The FAA has surface observations. The USGS has
stream gauging, and the Department of Agriculture, through the
NRCS, employs snow pack telemetry. We do not have a coherent,
integrated system to deliver each of the products so that we
can tell their relationships and their interrelationships.
Satellite remote sensing, indeed, though, is broadly used
in sustainable agriculture: forestry; responsible natural
resource stewardship both in the public and the private domain;
monitoring foreign and domestic yearly yields on harvests of
food and fiber to predict where the balances and the imbalances
might occur; measuring soil erosion from wind and water;
evaluating the impact of climate change; detecting the presence
of invasive species, plants, animals, insects, and diseases
that affect a wide range of agriculture; detecting and
measuring contamination of soil, water, and air resources;
looking at landscape health; measuring resources involved with
the development of biofuels, and certainly with the shift from
food production to biofuels being able to monitor that.
So remotely-sensed observations support the entire
agriculture value stream from monitoring and detecting change,
identifying solutions, taking action, and then finding out, in
return, what the result of those actions were.
There are many uses of agriculture in--such as
hyperspectral imagery by individual farmers and ranchers all
the way up to what you are doing on this committee, Mr.
Chairman and Members of the Committee. Whatever the user is,
they want objective, timely, and accurate information. And
timeliness is, by far, the most important, because the value of
information is the highest when uncertainty is the highest, and
it is certainly--uncertainty is certainly common in
agriculture.
One of the statements in the report says that satellites--
and I quote, ``Satellite observations have spatial and temporal
resolution limitations and hence, alone, do not provide a
picture of Earth's system that is sufficient for understanding
all of the key physical, chemical, and biological processes.''
What we need is a system of space, ground, airborne, and ocean-
based sensors, both public and private, that can gather
complementary information and can be integrated with a minimum
of duplication. In addition, we need a national network of web-
based information integration of how our collective efforts,
and I had proposed in the appendix attached to my written
remarks how we could integrate that through a geospatial-
enabled information system.
So to sum up, we can build on the Decadal Study results by
ensuring that the United States has long-term Earth-observation
capability and that it is maintained, certainly whatever we
heard this morning is we are not even maintaining; addressing
the void in leadership and how the vision can pull it all
together; addressing a single point of contact or program
office within the Office of Science and Technology Policy;
improving our research to operations efforts across all
agencies; establishing a common, integrated information
infrastructure readily available through web portals to the
public and policy-makers alike; implement the U.S. Integrated
Earth Observation System, IEOS, which is part of the Global
Earth Observation System of Systems, or GEOSS; and then begin a
dialogue with the private sector, industry, academia, and non-
governmental organizations to assure that all observation
assets respond to the needs of all of our various sectors, as
well as to consider new technology solutions. A high-level
commission that includes the private sector, non-governmental,
and governmental representatives, particularly state and local,
could further examine and develop an integrated plan for Earth
observations.
Mr. Chairman, thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Geringer follows:]
Prepared Statement of James Geringer
Chairman Gordon, Ranking Member Hall, Members of the Committee,
special guests, ladies and gentlemen. I am Jim Geringer, currently
Director of Policy and Public Sector Strategy for Environmental Systems
Research Institute (ESRI), the industry leader for geospatial
information systems. I served as Governor of Wyoming from 1995 to 2003.
I am also a representative of the Alliance for Earth Observations, a
nonprofit initiative to unite the private sector in the mission to
promote the understanding and use of Earth observations for societal
and economic benefit. My past includes time spent as an agricultural
producer and user of Earth observation information and several years
with the unmanned space program configuring remote sensing satellites.
I will relate some of my perspective from each of these roles.
We each benefit from Earth science, remote sensing and location-
based information every day. Through TV, newspapers, PDAs and online
information, we check the weather, the latest headlines and map out
where to meet someone for dinner. On a broader scale, we can track
indicators of change across our planet. The National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reported that last year was the
warmest on record for the United States. My part of the Rocky Mountain
West continues to suffer extreme drought. Last week's report from the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirms what we
already knew anecdotally--that human activity is adversely affecting
our climate.
Today's discussion centers on Earth science and applications from
space and the requisite analytical tools that are necessary to make use
of the data. As a former governor, agricultural producer and now
involved with geospatial technology, I support the programs dealing
with Earth science, applications, and observational technologies for
public use, business decisions, and everyday personal choices.
I thank Drs. Berrien Moore and Rick Anthes for their leadership as
Co-Chairs of the National Research Council (NRC) study, Earth Science
and Applications from Space: National Imperatives for the Next Decade
and Beyond, which is the focus of this hearing. I congratulate them and
the other members of the Committee for an exceptional report. I serve
on a related committee under the NRC, the Mapping Science Committee, so
I know that the quality and breadth of reports such as this don't just
happen; they require a very dedicated and concerted effort.
Response to the Report
Quoting from the report, ``the United States' extraordinary
foundation of global observations is at great risk. Between 2006 and
the end of the decade, the number of operating missions will decrease
dramatically and the number of operating sensors and instruments on
NASA spacecraft, most of which are well past their lifetimes, will
decrease by 50 percent.'' A fifty percent reduction in today's space-
based information systems is in sharp contrast to ever increasing
demand.
Quoting further, the Committee was ``challenged by the rapidly
changing budgetary environment of NASA and NOAA environmental-satellite
programs. By definition, decadal surveys are forward-looking documents
that build on a stable foundation of existing and approved programs. In
the present survey, the foundation eroded rapidly over the course of
the study.'' It is difficult maintain your vision from a crumbling
vantage point.
I offer three recommendations to the Committee for your
consideration and deliberation:
Enable the best possible personal and policy
decisions by providing our citizens with information,
technology and tools to monitor and respond to our changing
world, thereby protecting lives and property;
Provide an integrated Earth observation system to
assure U.S. competitiveness;
Designate clear leadership responsibilities to
resolve the issues and attain the goals identified in the
Decadal Study.
Enable the Best Decisions
The American people need and deserve the most comprehensive and
timely information possible about our world. The value of objective,
timely, and accurate information has never been higher. We all would
like to have predictable certainty and security, in our lives. The
value of information is high when uncertainty is high. Today nearly
every issue we face has increasing uncertainty which drives the
necessity for better information. We devote funding and resources to
modern medicine to keep our bodies healthy using the best information;
likewise, we should have quality information about our nation's food
supply, water supply, energy, climate change and national security or
face more and more uncertainty. In today's world of RSS feeds, 24-hour
news channels and e-mails that propagate rumor far faster than truth,
information that is dangerously incomplete is being used to influence
decision-makers. Today's media and Internet capabilities can and should
provide more and better information. Remote sensing with the right
analytical technology can provide an objective and accurate assessment
of the situation before decisions are made with information that has
not yet been validated.
We should develop a culture among agencies and levels of government
to share data, applications and predictions, then serve the results to
the public so that we individually and collectively are more self-
reliant, less vulnerable and can assure long-term sustainability for
our world.
A policy-maker in Washington, a water resource manager in the West,
a farmer in Indiana each must have good information upon which to base
decisions. We must have access to the most accurate and comprehensive
science information to develop a policy of sustainability for ourselves
and for future generations.
Earth Observations Are Vital to American Competitiveness
Integrated Earth observation capabilities are vital to American
competitiveness. The Decadal Survey helps us realize that the U.S.
Earth observation capability is not keeping up with expectations and
our competitiveness is at risk. We must have the global information
infrastructure that is critical to our interconnected society.
Comprehensive science information ensures that decisions will be made
based on evidence rather than anecdotes. Long-term, sustained data is
needed to identify trends. Without U.S. long-term climate data, the
IPCC assessment would not have been possible.
Small satellites such as the Disaster Monitoring Constellation
(DMC) from the United Kingdom, Algeria, China, Nigeria and Turkey,
provide information for disaster prediction and mitigation. But one of
the most effective applications has been the monitoring of opium
production in Afghanistan. A constellation of low-cost satellites
showed that the area under opium cultivation grew to a record 165,000
hectares in 2006 compared to 104,000 hectares in 2005. The U.S. is not
alone in innovative approaches.
On June 21, 2004, the Western Governors unanimously adopted a
report entitled, Creating a Drought Early Warning System for the 21st
Century: The National Integrated Drought Information System. I
encourage the Members to download a copy from http://www.westgov.org/
wga/publicat/nidis.pdf. I was pleased to provide testimony on their
behalf before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science &
Transportation, Subcommittee on Disaster Prevention & Prediction last
April that helped with the passage of H.R. 5136 authorizing NIDIS. Last
week the President proposed $4.4 million in the FY 2008 budget to fund
it.
The strongest case for NIDIS is to enable risk management by
individuals, businesses and governments, dramatically shifting from our
practice of reaction and response to one of prediction and mitigation.
Our competitive capability will increase with better risk management.
We cannot do this without accurate and regular satellite observations.
With better sensors, data, applications, tools and ever-improving
technology we should reward risk management over resignation to the
elements.
Of all the commodities sought in our marketplaces today, none will
affect our competitiveness in the future more than water. Not oil or
gold or pork bellies, but water. Our municipalities must have timely
information that enables water policies that minimize or eliminate
water shortages, farmers to plant alternative crops, ranchers to locate
alternatives for grazing, river barges to anticipate low flows in
navigable waterways, and health agencies to control disease.
Space sensors and satellite observations improve our understanding
and response to climate change to sustain international
competitiveness. In today's global economy, innovation is the key to
competitiveness. The United States must stay at the forefront of Earth
observation and geospatial technologies to better forecast and mitigate
the impact of climate change, natural disasters and not only lead the
competition but leave a more sustainable world for our children. The
motivations and aspirations of the next-generation workforce are being
shaped today. We should be setting a long-range vision in place to
encourage today's youth to pursue science, math, technology and
engineering professions to assure future innovation and
competitiveness.
Our commitment today to technology and greater knowledge of the
Earth would allow us to better protect life and property and create
unprecedented opportunities to promote economic vitality. The right
instruments and information systems enable our ability to make
forecasts that help anticipate outbreaks of infectious disease, ensure
adequate water availability and quality, or increase agricultural
productivity.
The recommendations by the NRC report would enable a global view of
issues and activities. But a global view alone is not sufficient to
make policy or decisions. We need researchers, geospatial modeling and
analysis that integrate pertinent sources of data. We should promote
the use of established standards and protocols to assimilate data from
multiple sensors and sources--including commercial providers, State and
local governments, academia and international partners--and provide the
data through user-friendly web portals.
The U.S. private sector capabilities lead other nations. Google,
Microsoft, Yahoo and MapQuest provide online mapping sites with
remotely sensed imagery that we take for granted. In the private
sector, companies such as GeoEye and DigitalGlobe provide high-
resolution satellite imagery. Tourism, real estate and insurance
companies routinely use remote sensing information available online.
High-resolution imagery has enabled corrections to legal descriptions
and settled ownership disputes of land parcels. Light Detection and
Ranging, or LiDAR sensors are used extensively to map terrain and
elevation allowing state and local governments to aid in planning and
development decisions.
Dr. Glenn Hill of Texas Tech University used 3-D imaging to catalog
and preserve the archaeological heritage in Mesa Verde National Park.
If space-based technology were developed to produce images of the
quality created by Hill's team, high-definition 3-D images of entire
national parks would enhance our ability to manage our national parks.
These and many other examples point out how public expectations
continue to increase for good science and timely assessment.
I affirm the comment in the NRC report that ``Satellite
observations have spatial and temporal resolution limitations and hence
do not alone provide a picture of the Earth system that is sufficient
for understanding all of the key physical, chemical, and biological
processes.'' We need a system of space, ground, airborne and ocean-
based sensors, both public and private, that can gather complementary
information and can be integrated with a minimum of duplication. In
addition we need a national network information integration that can be
provided by collective efforts such as a Geographic Information System
for the Nation described in the paper attached to my written testimony
as Appendix A.
Clear Leadership is Essential
Clear leadership is essential to resolve the issues and attain the
goals identified in the Decadal Study. The report before you calls for
increased funding to improve our current national Earth monitoring
capability. Yes, funding is important but the essential missing element
is leadership. Scientific assessment, increased budgets, improved
technical capabilities, and coordinated public-private engagement must
be accompanied by designated, consolidated leadership. Critical
elements including satellite and aircraft sensors, in situ instruments
such as stream gauges, and geospatial information systems, have been
fragmented among our federal agencies, always a secondary mission,
never the priority responsibility.
Earth observation is not a priority mission for any designated
agency at the cabinet level. Not within NASA, the Department of
Commerce, the Department of Interior nor any other federal agency. The
important technologies that enable us to measure climate change and
identify and monitor the impacts to our environment, our lives and our
livelihood are the sole responsibility of no one agency or person. Our
federal policy and programs are fragmented, even duplicative, and fall
short of national goals. Our Earth observation systems that might help
mitigate such things as drought or major disasters are neither
efficient nor integrated. Consequently our current laws and practices
foster dependency rather than enabling risk management, creating
expectations that the Federal Government will bail us out of any and
all misfortunes.
Who should be the lead agency or position for U.S. Earth
observation capabilities? What is our national vision for Earth
observations? How are requirements from the federal operational sector
such as NOAA, USGS, USDA and EPA reflected in our research and
development programs within NASA and NSF? Are requirements from the
private sector being addressed?
Leadership is essential to:
Protect these critical assets;
Develop a national Earth observation strategy to
appropriately addresses climate change and other environmental
challenges based on evidence over anecdote;
Assure economy and efficiency in agency plans and
budgets;
Allow a smooth transition from research to
operations;
Improve U.S. land-observing capabilities to an equal
priority with atmospheric and ocean observations;
Improve capability and cooperation among government,
private sector, academia, and non-governmental organizations;
Assure the much needed integration of our national
and international Earth observation systems;
Develop the products needed to make the best
decisions for our country and future generations.
I support the report recommendation that:
The Office of Science and Technology Policy, in collaboration
with the relevant agencies, and in consultation with the
scientific community, should develop and implement a plan for
achieving and sustaining global Earth observations. Then a
single point of contact or program office at the Cabinet level
should be established to assure complementary rather than
duplicative or fragmented effort for all operational aspects of
Earth observation and analysis.
I urge that the private sector--industry, academia, and non-
governmental organizations--be consulted regarding an integrated plan
for Earth observations through a high-level Commission (e.g.,
Congressional or White House). Good ideas and best practices abound
outside of government.
The U.S. Integrated Earth Observation System (IEOS) would also
advance our national capabilities. IEOS would be the U.S. component of
the Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS), which is now
supported by more than 66 countries and 46 international organizations.
This U.S.-initiated effort is intended to allow federal interagency and
multi-national coordination to assure that disparate environmental-
related data systems here at home and abroad are inter-operable and
compatible. A strong IEOS effort should be characterized by clear
designation of responsibilities, enabled by a web-based system of rapid
communication, and funded across agency boundaries with a clear
purpose. IEOS/GEOSS would improve the capabilities for today's
decision-makers by providing new information products. That is not the
case today. IEOS has neither been funded nor has program leadership
been designated.
We take for granted our capability to use credit or ATM cards
almost anywhere in the world. The financial and banking systems
throughout the world are inter-operable--they exchange, transfer,
translate, and deliver data that is used in decision support tools. If
insufficient funds exist, both the bank and the account holder know.
Decision support tools used by banks flag and even stop transactions.
We should do the same with today's Earth observations systems.
Unfortunately, they are not integrated. Our current systems do not
allow users to easily access, integrate or deliver data, nor do they
include adequate decision support tools. We need a common integrated
information architecture that IEOS/GEOSS would require.
Space-based assets made possible the discovery of the Antarctic
ozone hole, enabled forecasting more than 40 hours beforehand as to
where and when Hurricane Katrina was likely to make landfall, and now
help us to understand the evidence and impacts of climate change. These
same technologies are used by farmers, energy executives, and coastal
managers for their daily operational decisions.
Satellite Measurements for Agriculture and Other Areas
Mr. Chairman, I have generally covered all of the questions in your
letter of invitation for me to testify. I submit these additional
comments:
1. Describe the capabilities and applications made possible by data
derived from remote sensing satellites. What kinds of measurements are
of chief interest to each of the following communities:
Agriculture
Natural resource managers
Municipal water supply managers
Tourism and recreation officials
Each of these communities is heavily dependent on accurate weather
and climate forecasts provided by NOAA and private sector weather
information companies.
Earth observations are widely used for assessments of production
and resource conditions at a point in time. We need to move beyond the
emphasis of a single snapshot to the incorporation of observations made
over time, analyzed by models that can be used to predict yield or
resources status as a consequence of future climate, management,
biological or societal changes.
According to our U.S. Department of Agriculture, remote sensing
associated with sustainable agriculture, forestry, and responsible
natural resource stewardship would include:
Monitoring domestic and foreign yearly yields and
harvests of food, and fiber production at field, local,
regional and global scales.
Measuring soil erosion from wind and water.
Evaluating impacts of global change, especially
climate.
Detecting the presence of, and then monitoring the
spread of invasive species including plants, animals, insects
and diseases affecting agriculture, forestry, and natural
resources.
Detecting and measuring contamination of soil, water,
and air resources, including dispersion of pollutants.
Detecting indicators of landscape health such as the
impacts of resource degradation on agri-ecosystems and natural
ecosystems.
Measuring resources involved in the development and
production of biofuels.
Evaluating the effect on food supplies of
agriculture's shift from food production to biofuels.
Detecting and measuring the impact of, and the
progress of recovery from, episodic catastrophic events such as
drought, flood, hurricanes, tornadoes, volcanic eruptions,
earthquakes and wildfires.
Detecting the effects of bioterrorism such as plant
diseases, water-born pathogens and monitoring progress of
remediation.
Establish metrics for maintenance of soil quality,
especially organic matter, and chemistry.
Detecting and measuring landscape factors indicating
compliance with agreements between landowners/operators and
federal and State agencies such as the Conservation Reserve
Program (CRP), easements, timber sales, rangeland management
and public lands.
Detecting and measuring landscape factors indicating
compliance with international treaties and agreements.
Identifying pathways that transport hazardous waste,
and measuring the amounts and ultimate fates of waste.
Measuring the status and changes of habitat and
effects on plant and animal biological diversity.
Understand the effect of energy development
activities on or near critical habitat for threatened and
endangered species.
Measurements to identify and quantify factors
influencing water quantity, water quality and air quality.
Measuring carbon sequestration strategies to
determine beneficial climate change.
Measuring the long-term effects of the increasing
removal of ground water from underground aquifers.
Calculate the near-term and long-term effects of
urban sprawl on agricultural production, critical habitat and
recreation opportunities.
Agricultural users require direct measurements from hyperspectral
imagery to identify ground cover or to the type and health of
vegetation and soils, such as too much or too little water, fertilizer
or ripeness, on a short time scale of days to weeks. Archived, these
same parameters provide climatologists with longer-trend information,
from seasonal to yearly variations such as El Nino, for capacity
planning such as transportation and silo storage. The Drought Monitor
is consulted by farmers, ranchers, and land managers especially in the
West, and internationally by those who seek competitive advantage in
export markets or where they may gain temporary advantage in their own
country or region when drought would decrease our exports into their
countries.
Natural resource managers use direct measurement by hyperspectral
imagery from aircraft or from space to provide signatures of water
resource conditions such as algae and contaminants. These same
measurements can provide forestry with tree type and conditions of
their health. Measurement of atmospheric temperature and moisture
provide input to atmospheric forecast models that predict future
temperature, precipitation, and severe weather, which could place
healthy resources at risk.
Municipal water supply managers also use atmospheric temperature
and moisture measurements to provide input to atmospheric forecast
models that predict temperature and precipitation for planning in usage
and supply.
Tourism and recreation officials assess atmospheric temperature and
moisture measurements to provide input to atmospheric forecast models
that predict weather and severe hazards for travel and tourist site
conditions.
The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) has recognized 26
Essential Climate Variables (ECVs) documented by the science
community--26 measurements that are critical to the models that
forecast weather and climate.
NASA, the U.S. Geological Survey, the Environmental Protection
Agency, the Department of Energy, the Department of Agriculture, the
Department of Commerce and others are developing, deploying, and
maintaining Earth observation data sets used in key models and decision
support tools.
2. How do these groups gain access to remote sensing data? Is special
training required to understand remote sensing data, and if so, how is
it derived? Do private companies provide value-added products for these
groups?
Groups access remotely sensed data several ways. The NOAA weather
and climate forecasting services (National Weather Service, National
Hurricane Center) provide data and information through NOAA maintained
portals and servers that provide access to over 250 individual
information products, including forecasts. Private sector companies
(Accuweather, ZedX Incorporated, The Weather Channel) access and
exploit this information for individual clients. Commercial companies
such as Google and ESRI provide online portals, and consulting and
software solutions used by many of the companies to visualize
information for several of these markets and to enable modeling and
workflow analysis.
Raw remote sensing data by itself is not entirely useful. Training
and education vary by the level and sophistication of the end user.
Ordinary citizens use data provided through many types of media.
Capabilities range from basic literacy skills up to doctoral research,
certified professionals and technology aware managers. Special
expertise is required to turn data into actionable information. Public
domain and general information is provided through government agencies
while tailored information for special and commercial users is provided
by value-added companies.
User communities throughout the U.S. are generally fairly
sophisticated, benefiting from training and information provided by
NOAA, NASA, and NSF, the Air Force, and professional societies such as
the American Meteorological Society, the National Association of
Broadcasters. Individual companies such as ESRI also provide
specialized training programs. There are thousands of registered
meteorologists and GIS professionals throughout the United States that
are trained in the use of the observations and the Earth science models
that use them to create trends and forecasts.
The number and diversity of players in the satellite observation
field is growing. New and emerging capabilities offered by GoogleEarth,
Microsoft Virtual Earth 3-D, ESRI's Explorer and others deliver all
types of data and information products to a wide variety of users
particularly through Internet-based web services and data portals that
allow many users to discover and extract information.
As a cautionary note--we risk becoming too complacent about having
imagery and maps right at our fingertips. Visualization is interesting
but can be so shallow as to be misleading. Development of good policy
alternatives and decisions depend on the quality and configuration of
remotely sensed data. Data must be described in terms of metadata, or
its appropriateness for use. Compatibility of diverse date sources is
essential. The casual user of online free imagery may not realize how
much useful spatial and spectral information can come from satellite
sensors and used for analysis. The full value of remotely sensed data
comes from computer programs and analytical models that extract and
transform information from validated and verified sources.
Academia plays a very important role in delivering information
products and training. Our universities not only provide vital
research, but they are also developing the next generation of
scientists, engineers and end users.
We don't just need more data. We need more data that becomes
information to enable decisions. The Data was there that said that the
nursing home in New Orleans was putting the residents at risk. But the
data wasn't available in the right form and wasn't used to make
decisions, a tragic outcome for those who needed it.
You as Members of Congress are enabled through a wide variety of
information through the Library of Congress that helps suggest a range
of policy options that you may use in legislative deliberations.
3. Based on your experience, how broadly are government and industry
using remote sensing data to plan and manage crop production and other
natural resources?
The most positive potential for government and industry alike is to
leverage and integrate information in a complementary way. The most
negative potential is for agencies to be fragmented in approach,
duplicative in some efforts and void in others.
Both government and industry use remote sensing data to plan and
manage many activities including crop production and natural resources.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture, for example, benefits greatly from
access to a robust set of observations and forecasts that are provided
by a wide range of Earth observation systems (public and private).
These are used by the Foreign Agriculture Service (FAS) to provide the
monthly global crop assessment products. These products are key to
policy and management decisions on agriculture worldwide. Business
entities that advise the agriculture community are critically dependent
on NOAA and other sources of near-term weather forecasts and seasonal
to inter-annual forecasts of climate conditions that are used in
decisions of what to plant, when to plant, and when to harvest.
NASA's MODIS satellite has been an invaluable source of information
to detect and fight wildfires in the West. Knowing where the active
fire lines are helps protect the safety of our firefighters. The
sensors help scientists monitor the extent of irrigated agriculture and
deforestation worldwide and provide data that private analysts use to
predict the global agricultural production including which crops will
be in short or over supply.
As industries become more dependent on managing on small margins or
managing against disaster risk, information from remote sensing will
become even more important. Weather risk managers seek to identify the
economic consequences of adverse weather on enterprises and
organizations by relating their revenues, margins and costs to critical
weather variables. A professional market exists that makes its business
in assuming this weather risk. In exchange for a premium or other
benefits, these businesses take on this risk based on indices of
pertinent weather variables, such as average temperature or rainfall.
A couple of years ago, the Metropolitan Area Planning Agency
representing sixty-four member organizations from five counties in
Nebraska and Iowa contracted to provide aerial data acquisition,
digital orthophotography, and production services for over 2,200 square
miles in Nebraska and Iowa. It was a multi-sensor program involving a
large consortium of government user communities. It included a
combination of Lidar mapping, floodplain mapping, data for master
planning, design and construction projects, floodplain analyses, web
services, highway and road design, 3D visualizations, GIS municipal
requirements, and various engineering and public works functions.
There is similar interest in managing the economic impact of
extreme events--earthquakes, hurricanes, monsoon and typhoons--by
utilizing indices based on windstorms, seismic magnitude and seismic
intensity in ways that are very similar to the way the weather risk
market uses weather data. The risk-management business has strong
interest in serious, systematic attempts to improve, expand and
intensify the capture of data relating to our planet. We also see
growing interest in the risk management and insurance industries for
understanding shorter-term weather risk in terms of climate change. In
sum, better, fuller data mitigates data risk and model risk for the
providers of risk capital.
Moving Forward
As noted earlier, the American people deserve the best and most
comprehensive information about our changing planet. Recent revelations
about climate change, particularly as affected by human activity,
elevate the importance of ensuring national climate observing systems.
We must approach our environmental security with as much rigor and
commitment as we approach homeland security.
We should build upon the Decadal Study results by:
Ensuring that the U.S. long-term climate monitoring
capability is maintained;
Addressing the void in Earth observation leadership
and vision;
Establishing a single point of contact or program
office within the Office of Science and Technology Policy;
Improving our research-to-operations efforts across
all relevant agencies;
Establishing a common integrated information
infrastructure;
Implementing the U.S. Integrated Earth Observation
System (IEOS) of the Global Earth Observation System of Systems
(GEOSS);
Immediately beginning a dialogue with the private
sector--industry, Academia, and non-governmental
organizations--to ensure our satellite observation assets
respond to the needs of various sectors as well as to consider
new technology solutions, such as the Geographic Information
System for the Nation described in Appendix A.
Establish a high-level Commission composed of private
sector (industry, Academia, and non-governmental organizations)
representatives to further examine and develop an integrated
plan for Earth observations.
Biography for James Geringer
Native of Wheatland, Wyoming.
B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from Kansas State
University.
Veteran of 10 years active and 12 years reserve in
the U.S. Air Force.
Worked as project officer to launch several space
based satellites for the unmanned space programs of the Air
Force and NASA, including the Global Positioning Satellite
System, remote-sensing early detection/warning systems, the
Interim Upper Stage for the Space Shuttle, the Mars Viking
Lander, activation of the Peacekeeper missile system and
disaster recovery from nuclear, biological and chemical
warfare.
Served in the Wyoming Legislature from 1983 to 1994,
including six years each in the House and the Senate. Committee
chairmanships included Appropriations, Judiciary and Management
Audit.
Contract administrator for the construction of a 1700
megawatt coal-fired electric power generation plant near
Wheatland Wyoming 1977-79.
Went into full-time farming in 1980, continued
through 1994.
First elected as Wyoming Governor in 1994, reelected
in 1998, completed second term in January 2003. Focused on
improving education through standards, accountability and
technology, modernized economic planning to extensively include
technology, changed how natural resource agencies among State,
Federal and local governments worked together, implemented
strategic planning tied to performance based budgeting and upon
leaving office, provided Wyoming state government with a budget
surplus, one of very few states to make that claim early in
2003.
Emphasized community based solutions particularly for
health and social services and promoted the use of consensus
building to resolve difficult issues.
Past Chair of the Western Governors' Association.
Chairman of the Education Commission of the States.
Served on the GeoSpatial One Stop Board of Directors,
National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the
21st Century, the National Commission on Service-Learning, the
National Commission on Teaching and America's Future, Chair of
the National Governors Association Technology Task Force and as
charter member and current Chair of the Board of Trustees,
Western Governors University.
Current memberships: Mapping Sciences Committee under
the National Academy of Sciences National Research Council;
Western Interstate Energy Board; Association of Governing
Boards for higher education; Operation Public Education; the
Board of Governors of the Oquirrh Institute; and, Co-Chair of
the Policy Consensus Initiative.
Joined Environmental Systems Research Institute
(ESRI) in the summer of 2003 as Director of Policy and Public
Sector Strategies, focused on how senior elected and corporate
officials can enable productivity through technology more
effectively in business and government. Primary responsibility
is to facilitate development of a policy for a decision support
system for national location based information integration.
ESRI, the world leader in location based software and
applications, is headquartered in Redlands, California.
Recent keynotes include presentations on health care,
health data standards, alternative energy, education policy,
natural resources, homeland security, the importance of
government services enabled through Internet portals, web-based
infrastructure, e-government planning and sustainability of
Earth's resources.
Received the National Association of State Chief
Information Officers (NASCIO) 2004 National Technology Champion
Award.
Governor Geringer and his wife Sherri have five
children and ten grandchildren. They reside in Wheatland,
Wyoming, the site of ESRI's newest satellite office.
Discussion
Consequences of Earth Observation Drop-off
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Governor. And those were good
recommendations that we certainly want to put in the mix. Thank
you for that real-world suggestion.
Dr. Moore, as you showed us this--the budget, it
demonstrates that, really, these systems have been hit with a
double-whammy. One is the reduction in funding and secondly,
just the ineptitude at NPOESS. It is, you know--the waste of
money there is so disheartening. It--this--that is a major
priority for this committee under Chairman Boehlert, he did his
best to try to get a handle on that, and I don't think that we
got good information, and he--I think he would concur with
that.
I have talked both with the Secretary of Commerce as well
as the President and CEO of Northrup Grumman. They tell me they
are on top of this now, and it is going to be our priority. And
so I hope we are going to see it brought back into line.
But let me--what I would like to ask you about is you
mentioned there were 17 replacement missions, although none of
those are in the budget for 2008, and it is--if history is any
lesson to us, it is--certainly, I think we can assume that all
17 won't be in the future, and very possibly, none.
So can you tell me--can you break that down in terms of
what we are going to lose in terms of just status quo if we
don't have these 17 missions versus what we are going to lose
in terms of keeping up with the state-of-the-art?
Dr. Moore. Yes. Congressman Gordon, let me first agree with
you that circumstances we face today are the result of a
perfect storm. A decline in the NASA budget and then the
failure on the NPOESS leave us in a very precarious position.
What are we not going to have?
We recommended earlier in our--early in the study, for the
early phase, an ICESat follow-on--the ICESat mission failed.
There were difficulties. And yet we know the ICE measurements
are one of the critical measurements as we look at the question
of climate change. The Earth radiation--this is fundamental to
any climate model. That was descoped off of the NPOESS system.
And so now we are vulnerable.
I think the issue of carbon sources and sinks, there is a
mission that is being developed, the Orbiting Carbon
Observatory. But it is sunlight-dependent, and it must operate
in a very clear sky. When you don't study the carbon cycle, the
sources and sinks, because of photosynthesis, adequately with a
sunlight-dependent mission. So we have to have a follow-on that
uses lasers. That is not in the budget.
The issue of hyperspectral, for instance, in determining
disease outbreaks, this is something we have tried to achieve
for a number of years. That is not in the budget.
Air pollution modeling--monitoring, that is not in the
budget.
And I want to go back to one thing that we mentioned
earlier. All we have to do is to get back to where we were. And
so as a percent of GDP, as a percent of the NASA budget, as a
percent of household income, that would be lower in the future
than it was in the year 2000 and the year 1996. At that time,
this country thought that these measurements were important,
and we have just gone down this slide. And I think that the
extraordinary thing is we can achieve this robust program if we
could just simply get the budget restored back to where it was
in the year 2000.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you.
Governor, do you endorse this proposal?
Mr. Geringer. Chairman, yes, there are several features of
this proposal, in particular, the ones that call for innovation
and creative approaches, and a formal planning and program
office, such as through the OSTP, to pull everything together
to consolidate a vision, in a practical way, put a process
together to where it could be administered to phase it and make
it work.
Chairman Gordon. And Governor, as a Republican western
governor, who, as you say, has seen this up firsthand, could
you, again, tell us what you think if--you know, we have all
seen the ad about pay me now or pay me later. I mean, in terms
of money, public and private dollars, in terms of suffering of
folks, just at least in Wyoming and the west, what is your
opinion of what kind of price are we going to pay if we don't
do this?
Mr. Geringer. Well, the price you pay is tough to quantify,
but in terms of just what we enable other people to do, I guess
my focus would be on not the dollars that are spent but the
frustration of individuals who know what they could do if they
had the tools and the information to make decisions, to manage
the risks, to make their own business work.
Now we have five children, 10 grandchildren. They are all
interested in what they might do. And instead of expecting a
job, we would like them to go out and make a job. Well, how do
you make a job if you don't know the information required to
plan your industry, to manage the risk, and to understand the
marketplace? And the marketplace is driven by a lot of external
information, particularly derived from satellites, such as
this. So it is--the cost is beyond dollar amounts. It is just
in our ability to enable the next generation.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you.
My time has expired.
Mr. Hall.
Priorities and Recommendations of Decadal Survey
Mr. Hall. Governor, the Decadal Survey, as you know,
recommends an increase of $500 million per year in NASA's Earth
science budget to implement the Survey's recommendations, but
we are told in what we hear and what we read and what seems to
be every--almost everyone's understanding is that we are not
likely to see that large an increase in NASA's budget any time
in the near future.
Given the limited funding situation, which of the missions
recommended by the Decadal Survey do you believe are the most
important for the Federal Government to implement?
Mr. Geringer. Chairman--Congressman Hall, the--I don't know
that I would pick out any one, but I would pick out an
approach, I guess is the best way to put it.
The recommendation, and this is not a mission in
particular, but it is a recommendation where the--where OSTP
pulls together everything, I think, is one of the lowest costs
and probably a very significant cost-avoidance recommendation.
So we can put together a plan to achieve and sustain. I think
the first concentration needs to be on to sustain what we
expect to be out there. Look at the predictive capabilities for
today's storm here in DC. If we lose that capability, I can't
imagine what would go on outside your doorstep here.
The other things, and Dr. Anthes and I were talking earlier
about GPS systems, the Global Positioning Satellites that are
up there that can be used with suborbital sensors to detect
changes in the atmosphere, major density. It is a relative low-
cost mission that could be accomplished with existing
satellites complemented with a marginal increase in funding.
I particularly like one of the recommendations that says
that the three agencies, principle agencies, NASA, NOAA, and
USGS, should pursue innovative approaches. I think we need to
cut them loose and let them pursue some innovative approaches.
That is one of the things that has always benefited our economy
and our competitiveness. Let us not be so rigid. Let us get
them the tools, the ability, and the funding to make it work in
creative ways.
Mr. Hall. I will ask one other question of Dr. Anthes.
You made the statement that I agree with. You said we want
to get back to where we were. And we are in the second month of
that this year of wanting to get back to where we were prior to
the November election. So I am going to--I think you made a
good statement. You must be a Republican.
Improvement of Weather Forecasts
Seriously, let me ask you this. Explain to us, with some
kind of concrete example, how the missions recommended in the
Decadal Survey is going to improve weather forecasts. And are
we talking about more accurate predictions, longer-range
predictions, or some other type of improvement----
Dr. Anthes. Thank you very much----
Mr. Hall.--to get back where Dr. Moore says we ought to be?
Dr. Anthes.--Congressman Hall.
I was referring to the non-partisan state of Earth
observations----
Mr. Hall. Okay.
Dr. Anthes.--just for the record.
I appreciate that question.
I think this gives me an opportunity to talk about what we
need is a system of observations. It is not--we don't have a
silver bullet out there to improve weather forecasting. It is
very much like when you go to the doctor for a check-up, you
don't just ask--he doesn't just ask you--or she ask you how
much you weigh or how tall you are or what your blood pressure
is or what your cholesterol level is or how fast you can do a
treadmill or what your heart condition is or your lung
condition is. You need to know all of these things about the
body. So you need many different kinds of observations, if,
number one, you are going to understand the health of the body,
and number two, if you are going to make any kind of
projections about what your prognosis is for the future.
So weather forecasting is kind of like that. We don't need
just temperatures in the atmosphere or just ocean temperatures
or just winds or just cloud cover. We need it all, because they
all contribute independent information.
So what we are suggesting is this balanced set of
recommendations, which includes winds, temperature, water
vapor, ocean temperature. These are going to improve all
aspects of weather forecasting from the two-week forecasts--by
the way, I did a hearing at the Senate just a week ago. When I
got back to the hotel, I looked at the long-range forecast, and
I said to my colleagues here, ``Tuesday is going to be a big
storm event in the east. Watch out.'' That is a--seven days in
advance, and that is not bad. We stand to lose that capability
if the present trends toward observations--loss of observations
continue.
On the positive side, we are not anywhere near the limit in
predictability, what we could do. Look at Katrina. Katrina, a
wonderful forecast, but that was unusually good. We need to get
every hurricane forecast hitting--heading for the Gulf Coast,
the East Coast with that accuracy.
So it is not just a negative thing about forecasts getting
worse if we don't get more--if we lose observations that there
is a positive benefit here of getting a balanced set of
observations and improving our forecasts of tornadoes,
hurricanes, extending the warnings of severe events, and right
into the interseasonal variability of climates, including the
droughts that the Governor talked about.
Mr. Hall. How long would it take--excuse me. Is my time up?
Chairman Gordon. It has, but, sir, you go right ahead if
you need----
Mr. Hall. I just wanted to ask a follow-up. How long would
it take the average citizen, with all of those types of tests
that--all of us can understand any of them individually but not
all of them together. How long would it take until the
natural--the average citizen would see these improvements in
daily operational weather forecasts? And if accuracy is your
main thrust, what about the long-range, the timeliness of it?
Dr. Anthes. Well, forecast improvements have been gradual,
and they will continue to be gradual. So the--but what happens
is the humans' expectation grows as the accuracy gets better.
So what we take for granted now as a three--as a good three-day
forecast, we are now expecting that at six days or seven days.
And so the expectations rise as the accuracy rises.
However, people who really look at this and depend on it
for an economic living know. They keep track of the scores,
accuracy increases and such, because they are making decisions
based on probabilities. And so the people who really need it to
make quantitative decisions are doing this right now.
For you and me, the public, it will be so gradual, it--you
know, you will wake up 10 years from now and we will have good
two-week forecasts instead of good week forecasts.
So it is gradual for the public. It is very valuable and
well monitored for the decision-maker.
Mr. Hall. I thank all three of you.
Yield back.
Chairman Gordon. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Udall is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I wanted--I want Judge Hall to know that we always take him
seriously.
Details of Decadal Survey Recommendations
I did also, in the Decadal Survey recommendations, note
that there were over 100 proposed missions, and you all
distilled it down to 17, with the idea that they are
integrated. And I am sure there were some tough trade-offs
there, but I think it is important that the Committee
understand that and the general public that this is not just a
wish list. This is a very focused effort to identify where we
would have the maximum return on our investment.
If I could, in that spirit, I wanted to talk about the
opportunity cost to explore that if we do not maintain a robust
Earth-observing system. And as I understand it, we need
continuity in Earth-observing data over long time periods to
improve smaller-scale regional climate projection models. And
it seems to me that we are going to need better regional
information that would allow us to be better prepared for
changes in climate that are likely to occur, even if we
stabilize greenhouse gas emissions.
And then also, if we--and I shouldn't say if. I want to say
when we adopt measures to limit greenhouse gases, we will need
to verify that the measures we adopt are, in fact, resulting in
reduced emissions and lower concentrations of greenhouse gases.
So what role would the Earth-observing system you are
proposing play in fulfilling those needs? And is it going to be
more difficult to--or take longer to accomplish these two
things without an Earth-observing system?
Maybe start with Dr. Anthes, and then Dr. Moore, you could
follow on.
Dr. Anthes. Well, that is a very excellent question. And
the programs that we are proposing--first of all, it is a
really good--you noted that we went from over 100 proposed
missions to 17. And one of the criteria we had for
prioritization was that it had to be affordable.
The second point is it is a balanced program. It supports
climate as well as weather. It supports industry, agriculture,
water management, as well as science. And so the program we are
proposing is an integrated set of observations, and we think we
need them all for exactly the reasons that you iterated.
Mr. Udall. Dr. Moore.
Dr. Moore. Let me just draw attention to three points.
First of all, as you note, stabilization of greenhouse gas
emissions is going to be a very real challenge, but a challenge
we must meet. Stabilization of emissions does not lead to a
stable concentration in the atmosphere. Stabilization of
emissions is a step towards stabilizing the concentration of
the atmosphere. But stable emissions will only lead to a
constant growth of CO2, for instance, in the
atmosphere. So that means that we have to face this question of
climate change head on.
One of the missions that we recommend for the early
timeframe focuses on soil moisture. Soil moisture is, perhaps,
one of the key ingredients in climate models as well as in
terms of what is really important to the people who live based
on--in areas based upon agriculture. But it also means that if
you live in an area that is a flood plain. So I--that is a key
issue.
And the third is that the kind of missions that we
recommended, for instance, on CO2 where we looked at
sources and sinks of carbon dioxide. Any kind of management
system of greenhouse gases is going to require the knowledge of
what are the sources and sinks for carbon dioxide. It is
fundamental.
Mr. Udall. Chairman Gordon, I know the clock isn't running.
I am assuming I have got a minute or two left. Or I should say
the lights aren't working.
Addressing Emerging Regional and Global Challenges
Chapter 2 in the report lists six emerging regional global
challenges. To mention two of them, changes in natural systems
due to climate change and the role of ice sheets and the sea
level rise, and there are four other identified challenges.
Can we address those challenges if we don't maintain an
Earth-observing system? And maybe you could provide an example
or two that would illustrate our ability to respond to these
challenges would be limited by the lack of information from
Earth-observing systems if we don't have those up in place.
Dr. Anthes. Well, there is--we could all probably come up
with many examples. Let me just give one.
Sea level rise is one of the most important issues facing
society, particularly in the next generation and the generation
after that. For many years, the models of glaciers indicated a
relatively slow melt of the Greenland ice cap. But just in the
last few months and years, through measurements, very precise
measurements of the Earth's gravity field, we could tell that
the--Greenland was losing mass at a far faster rate than the
models of ice melt would indicate. And what apparently is
happening, and I am not a glaciologist, so bear with me, but
apparently, it is the--water is running down and causing
slippage of the ice off the continent, and perhaps a much
faster rate of ice melt than we were predicting a few--even a
few years ago.
So if we suddenly stop measuring the Earth's gravity or
suddenly stop measuring how fast the ice is melting, we don't
know whether that is an anomaly, you know, that happened to be
an anomaly over the last couple of years, a rapid ice melt and
is going to go back to a slow melt, or it is going to continue
to accelerate.
And so what we might be thinking is 100-year problem might
suddenly become a 25-year problem. We don't know. But these are
the kinds of questions and--that we really need to stay on top
of, because we are going to have surprises.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Doctor.
The gentleman's time is expired.
Mr. Bartlett is recognized for five minutes.
Environmental Data and Ethanol Usage
Mr. Bartlett. Thank you very much.
As you probably have noted in the papers, our zeal for
producing ethanol has driven the price of corn from $2.11 a
bushel in September to $4.08 a bushel in December. This is very
likely, I think, to encourage farmers to take lands out of
agricultural reserve, most of which lands shouldn't really be
farmed, which is why they are in there, but $4-a-bushel corn is
going to be a big incentive to take those lands out of the
agricultural reserve and put them into production.
There are other reasons for being concerned about the use
of fossil fuels. But if we limit ourselves just to the
environmental effects, clearly, we need to understand the
environmental effects of CO2, and we do, but there
are also going to be big environmental effects of taking these
lands out of agricultural reserve and putting them into
production.
My question is how much will our decision-makers lose in
quality data for making decisions to how we need to move in the
future relative to this ethanol thing if we don't have the
additional programs that you all are encouraging?
Dr. Moore. This is an area where I want to compliment NASA.
It does appear that the increase in 2008 and 2009, which is an
increase of a downward trend, is to essentially address, as I
have mentioned in my testimony, the precipitation mission and
the Landsat. The Landsat satellite system will be fundamental
in monitoring agricultural regions, absolutely fundamental. You
need the high resolution if you are to determine what type of
crop is growing. And so this whole issue of biofuels will be
very dependent upon the Landsat system. For that, I think that
NASA is doing a good job at getting it back on track.
Mr. Bartlett. Our public policy people are going to be
caught on the horns of a dilemma. Clearly, greenhouse gases are
implicated in the increase to Earth's temperature. And that is
a big environmental concern. But all of life on Earth is
dependent on about the upper eight inches of topsoil. If you
can't grow food, you are not here. And as we take this land out
of reserve and put it in production, we are going to be losing
more topsoil. And so our policy-makers are going to be faced
with a tough decision. Do we save our topsoil by increasing
CO2, which is the greater of those two evils? And my
concern is that we will need more, not less, information for
making those decisions.
And I would just like to get on the record my concern, and
the concerns of a great many people, that there are two
environmental concerns here that are kind of intentioned. And,
you know, which way are we going to go? And I think that will
be largely dependent on the quality of the information we get.
And so in a very real sense, this is more than just an
academic exercise. It will affect each one of us, not only by
the quality of the air we breathe, but potentially, by the
volume of crops that we are able to grow.
Mr. Geringer. Mr. Chairman, let me--I think it was more of
a statement than a question, but let me respond anyway.
You asked what would happen.
One of the things that agriculture uses, one thing that a
governor uses is as much information as it can. Having been in
politics for a number of years, I am struck by how, in the
absence of information, we make decisions anyway. Anecdotes
serve us well, don't they? It is easier to make a judgment
based on an anecdote from a story back home, absent any other
information.
So now let me turn it around and say if we had better
information, such as what Landsat-5 and Landsat-7 started but
are not going to continue, and certainly the granularity and
the detail that we need today just to make individual decisions
in agriculture production for individuals and then to take that
beyond and say what has been the impact of increasing ethanol
or other renewable fuel production as an offset to, say, food
supply or the loss and erosion of topsoil? What are the
practices that happened? How do we know that they are
happening, other than anecdote, if we don't have a broader view
that only satellite imagery can provide, as well as ground-
based information?
So you need a combination. We are not going to be able to
even evaluate the shift of production from food to fuel if we
don't have the sensors in place.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Doctor--Governor, and thank
you, Dr. Bartlett.
Mr. Bartlett. Mr. Chairman, I know my time is up, but I
would like unanimous consent to submit a question for the
record, if I----
Chairman Gordon. Certainly.
Mr. Bartlett.--might.
Chairman Gordon. Certainly.
Mr. Bartlett. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Gordon. Dr. Wu.
Mr. Wu. Thank you very much.
And my mom always wished I had finished medical school, and
I have been upgraded. And I am going to tell her about this.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
First just a--drop-out is such a harsh word. I am on a
leave of absence from my medical school, which has now gone on
for approximately--well, we are approaching the end of the
third decade.
Chairman Gordon. Of course, that was after getting a law
degree, too, so----
Mr. Wu. And I am told--I am sure that if I just admitted my
dire mistake, they would let me back in, because the admissions
committee there never makes mistakes.
Weather Prediction
But first, just a question of curiosity, for you gentlemen.
A meteorologist friend of mine said years ago that at five
days, the forecast is random. You might as well just, you know,
just throw it against the wall, but that was a few years ago.
At what point does your forecasts or any meteorologist's
forecasts just kind of go random these days? And I am just kind
of curious.
Dr. Anthes. Well, that is an excellent question.
Years ago, there was some theory done on non-linear
systems, which said there was a predictability limit of about
two weeks. That was the theoretical limit. That is after two
weeks, things were deemed random.
We may be a little longer than that, but that is still the
order. We don't see what we call the typical weather forecasts
being accurate, ever, beyond more than a couple of weeks. Right
now, we have a pretty good scale out to seven to ten days.
Mr. Wu. Seven to ten days? Okay. Yeah. My Blackberry gives
me six days, so it is within that margin.
Dr. Anthes. Yeah.
Mr. Wu. Yeah. Okay.
Restoration of Dropped NPOESS Instruments
A more serious question. The Chairman referred earlier to
the NPOESS program. And my understanding is that because of
cost issues, cost overruns, that various instruments have been
sort of thrown off the bus. And they tend to be the climate
instruments. And Dr. Moore, you mentioned earlier that soil
moisture is a very, very important factor to track for climate
change purposes. And it also is the case that our military is
very interested in soil moisture for other reasons. So I assume
climatologists have a very strong interest in soil moisture for
one set of reasons, and the U.S. armed forces have the same
interest.
Now I think a list is coming of the various instruments,
which were tossed off the NPOESS for budgetary reasons, and I
just want--I am just asking you all, if you are familiar enough
with it, if you could identify the order in which you would
bring the cast-off instruments back. If you are not familiar
with the hardware enough, at least the data streams that you
would like to see, the cavalry coming, the data that you would
like to see from NPOESS.
Dr. Moore. Yes, Congressman Wu.
In the Decadal, we prioritize under a very limited basis.
We recognized the budgetary difficulties. And the first was the
Earth radiation budget instruments, that is to measure the
solar radiance and the reflected energy off the planet. The
second was the profile of ozone in the atmosphere, because we
are in this period of regulation the fluorocarbons, and we are
going to see, hopefully, the restoration ozone hole. Monitoring
that profile, the different concentrations in altitude is the
second priority.
Mr. Wu. Would that be aerosols?
Dr. Moore. No, that certainly is a priority, but now we
are--we, essentially, felt that, given the constraints of the
budget on NPOESS, that was about as far as we would recommend
in terms of restoration.
Is that all we need to do? Absolutely not.
Mr. Wu. I am sorry. I am just trying to look on my list
here, and I am not finding an ozone meter, per se, but which
instrument would that be in?
Dr. Moore. Yeah. It is called ozone--the OMPS instrument.
It is the limb-sounding aspect that was lost, the----
Mr. Wu. OMPS limb.
Dr. Moore. Right.
Mr. Wu. Okay.
Dr. Moore. That was lost, so that we are recommending to
put back on, and the series and the solar radiance monitor we
are recommending to put back on.
With regards to the soil moisture, that was to be measured
by an instrument called CMIS. This is a follow-on to what is on
the Defense meteorological satellites right now. Given the fact
that that was the--descoped, we called for the preservation of
sea surface temperatures and winds. And then we offset the loss
of the soil moisture by recommending a NASA mission in soil
moisture.
And I must say that there are a lot of very important
measurements. For instance, sea surface altimetry that Dr.
Anthes spoke about. The sea level height. That instrument is
gone. We are trying to compensate for that by recommending an
altimeter to NASA. It is true that most of the climate
measurements were lost on NPOESS, and I think that perhaps the
best strategy is the program we are recommending to NASA.
Mr. Wu. If you are pushing over to NASA, is that realistic,
given the budget crunch over on that side of the house, if you
will?
Dr. Moore. No, I----
Chairman Gordon. A quick answer, please, sir.
Dr. Moore. I understand this budget issue and the budget
crunch, but the fact remains is that the observational needs
exist. And the budget was reduced over six years by a third.
That seems to have been an error----
Chairman Gordon. The gentleman's time----
Dr. Moore.--therefore, we need to restore that budget so
that we can meet the observational needs of the planet.
Chairman Gordon. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Rohrabacher is--has five minutes.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, I would like to congratulate you on your report and
the hard work that went into this and the discipline necessary
to actually come up with something that does not totally depend
on what I consider to be a trendy issue of the day, which is
climate change overall. You have made your arguments that
included climate change as a reason, but you have well outlined
your--you know, your--basically, the benefits that we will
derive even if we don't have a global warming scenario. You
have outlined the need for the type of observation that you are
advocating.
And let me also note that it is unfortunate that we lost--I
guess it was a $3 billion overrun for NPOESS. I mean, that is
what we are talking about. The $3 billion, let me note, Mr.
Chairman, what could we do with $3 billion? We could implement
everything that is being said today. The request, basically,
today is let us make up for the failure of NPOESS. That is
basically what we are saying, because that is a six-year--well,
they are asking for $500 million a year. It would put us back
on schedule. And we lost $3 billion from just the overrun
costs.
Let me add, there are some questions as to the reason why
NPOESS failed. And some of the reasons--and I know people
aren't going to want to hear this, but some of the reasons are
additions to NPOESS, things that were added onto NPOESS that
were designed to prove climate change, which helped the failure
of NPOESS. So there is a cost when people go after things that
maybe trying to stampede the public into spending more money
for climate change that ends up a dramatic cost to other
aspects of what we would like to achieve.
I was especially interested in the fact that this does
measure sun and solar activities, which I believe are the basis
for a lot of the--whether the human activity and carbon being
put into the air, or hydrocarbons being put into the air and
greenhouse gases may well explain why we have certain changes
in climate and temperature on the Earth.
Let me ask this about, you know--we--again, you have given
me a lot of information. And by the way, I would just say,
again, I thank you for that, because I was listening intently,
and I think you all made your point. And Governor, I am glad
you were here to make a--to really tell us what it--how we--
this is going to be cost-effective for humankind to know this,
because it is. I mean, we are talking--you are not talking
about contributing just knowledge. You are talking about
contributing something that is going to change people's way of
life for the better. And again, I think you have made your
arguments today.
Record of Hurricane and Cyclone Intensity
The--I guess I don't--I was just taking notes while you
were going through here. I--let me ask you, Dr. Anthes, is that
how you pronounce it?
Dr. Anthes. Anthes.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Anthes. Are there more cyclones and
hurricanes today than there used to be?
Dr. Anthes. That is a very good question, and it is a hot
topic of debate, I will put it that way.
Mr. Rohrabacher. That is why I ask it.
Dr. Anthes. We don't--I, actually, started out as a
tropical cyclone research meteorologist. And I must say,
because of the observational record being particularly bad
before the advent of satellites in the 1970s, we have maybe 70
years, 80 years, 90 years of an incomplete--an imperfect
satellite data record on tropical storms. So frankly, you know,
you will read papers on both sides of this point.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay.
Dr. Anthes. Frankly, I don't know. I haven't made up my
mind yet.
Mr. Rohrabacher. All right.
Dr. Anthes. And that is one reason for having these
observations from space so that we know whether trends of
intensity is increasing or not, because I don't think the
evidence is conclusive yet.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Now I will have to say, I sat through
hurricanes when I was younger, when I lived in North Carolina,
when I was in, like, sixth or seventh grade. And I read about
the great hurricanes that came through Florida and Galveston,
Texas. We know that they were very huge tropical storms then.
Need of Satellite System for Agricultural Production
One question for the Governor, and then I guess I--my time
may be up.
Why is it--why do you see it being necessary to have a
satellite system that gives an overall view of, for example,
agricultural production? Don't we have enough computerization
and records being kept throughout the states and by the Federal
Government based on just the number of farmers and the type of
bureaucratic efforts that we make? Don't we--isn't that
accurate enough to see how many acres of corn we are growing?
Mr. Geringer. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Rohrabacher, the--
we do accumulate a lot of information, and one of the points I
made is that we don't know how to discover and serve that
information in a useful way. So that is part of the answer.
The other part of it is we don't know the extent. And I
will give you a different example. It is not even in our
country. There is a consortium of countries that have put
together a satellite constellation called the Disaster
Monitoring Constellation. That is the United Kingdom, Algeria,
China, Nigeria--Algeria and Nigeria and Turkey. Now they
launched these--constellation of low-cost satellites to monitor
for disaster prediction and mitigation. But what they have done
is they have started monitoring opium production in
Afghanistan. Now they don't have quite the statistical
reporting system that we have in the United States on opium
production, but they have shown that in the 1 year from 2005 to
2006 that the opium cultivation grew by about 60 percent in
Afghanistan. That affects us. It doesn't affect agriculture. It
affects everybody.
Now how do we truth what is reported on the ground through
statistical reporting services the soil condition, the erosion,
you know, the loss of forests and things like that? How do we
truth that up with what is reported on the ground of what the
satellites look at? The MODIS satellite is one of the key
satellites that we use for that kind of information, in
addition to Landsat. So there is--it is the ability to know
what you have, the quality of the data, how to use the data,
and then how do you integrate it to where you can make an
overall decision, a systematic decision, not just a knee-jerk
type of one.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, thank you very much. And again, I
think you have made your case, and I appreciate good
suggestions, by the way, as well, not just making the case for
the expenditure but suggestions on how we can manage the system
and do a better job for--and be more effective for what we do
spend.
So thank you very much.
Chairman Gordon. The gentleman's time has expired.
And I will say that, Mr. Rohrabacher, your line of
questioning always makes for a better hearing, and we thank you
for it. But I will point out one thing, that the knobs on the
global warming instruments go both ways. So it is not just to
prove it. It could be also to disprove it.
The gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Johnson.
Consequences of Gaps in Data Records
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much.
And thanks to the witnesses for being here. It has been
interesting. I guess I have a question that might be considered
kind of dumb.
But when we have interruptions of observation where--no
matter what causes it, is it thought that we miss something in
the meantime, or does it interfere with how we work to certain
points?
Dr. Anthes. Well, that is--it is not a dumb question.
Explaining why gaps in the data record are important is not
that easy, but let me try.
If you are looking at a--say, a 20-year cycle, and you miss
seven years of that cycle, you are not going to be able to tell
what that cycle really is if you are missing seven years out of
20. So that is one reason.
Another reason is a gap at the end of the record, in other
words stopping a measurement, is the worst gap of all, because
you don't know whether the last little up tick or the last
little downturn is continuing for the--you know, into the
future or not. If you look at any record, you will see this
kind of thing. If you stop at this point, when you are going
down and the gap starts, you don't know whether that turns
around and starts coming up again or if it continues to go
down.
So gaps are a very important problem in terms of
understanding cycles and trends of whatever it is, sea level,
temperature, water vapor, precipitation, drought frequency,
whatever.
Ms. Johnson. So when you have great reductions in the
budget and perhaps gaps, is it worth the investment to start
and stop, start and stop, or--and do we get any real useful
information, or are we wasting money if we don't do it any
better?
Dr. Moore. I think one of the challenges, and I believe the
Governor noted this also, is the question of sustainability of
the observation system. And that actually carries with it some
real requirements.
Instruments don't last forever, and that is why we have
gaps. One of the problems is that if you are measuring
something like temperature, and it is increasing slowly, and
that instrument fails and then we put another temperature
instrument on orbit, if we don't overlap those two instruments,
how are we then to interpret what the new instrument says? For
instance, maybe the new instrument shows temperature increasing
even more rapidly. Is that because it is a new instrument, or
is that because of what the temperature is doing?
So the issue of sustainability is the--is right at the core
of what we are addressing.
Ms. Johnson. Um-hum. Thank you.
Physical Improvements vs. Environmental Improvements
There is no question in my mind about climate change. If
you live and breathe every day, you can observe it.
What--where my questions still are is if we don't find much
of the reason and start to correct that, where do we go from
here? I went over and looked at the results of the tsunami. And
as we returned, the latest rumor was that it might happen in
California, and so that was an urgency to see if they couldn't
get the observation network in place.
What comes next? I mean, we can observe, and we can
predict, and I know that we have lost--we have saved a lot of
lives by predicting, but we haven't done very well with
property. I am fully aware that if we had worked on levies when
we were supposed to back in New Orleans, it probably would not
have been as bad. But predictably, would it have come? And--
because, according to the simulations that we had observed, it
was coming. And I don't know whether we concentrate on making
sure that levies are strong or that we concentrate on changing
something in the environment where we can avoid some of the
destruction if we had an idea of what we needed to do.
Mr. Geringer. Maybe I can answer it in a little different
way.
I was visiting with the executive of King County,
Washington about a week ago, and he is taking an approach that
if something does happen, based on climate change and causes
the sea level to rise, what could be causing that, it could be
the greenhouse gases. So they are taking an approach from two
different angles. One is to reduce the amount of carbon that
they use in King County, which includes a significant part of
Seattle, Renton you know, those--where some of those companies
are that we hear about, reduce the amount of carbon and at the
same time, based on the prediction of sea level rise by 2050,
raise their levies to where there will be no flooding. And then
with the carbon that they have offset, that becomes a revenue-
raiser for King County. They can sell and trade carbon credits.
So they are doing two things. One is they are decreasing
the total amount of greenhouse gas, anticipating that there is
still going to be a rise in sea level, and over time, of
course--and the idea is that it flattens out or at least
declines. So they are taking an approach like that where they,
from a practical point of view, raise a little revenue but
improve the situation as well.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, sir.
The gentlelady's time----
Ms. Johnson. Thank you.
Chairman Gordon.--has expired.
Mr. Bilbray is recognized for five minutes.
Global Dimming
Mr. Bilbray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, I come from an air-regulatory background, the
Air Resources Board in California. And because of sensing and
monitoring, we totally changed our strategy on air emissions.
We had grossly underestimated the evaporative emissions, and we
couldn't figure out what--where all it was coming from until we
figured out it wasn't coming out of the tailpipe.
I am--my interest here is what you are proposing is giving
us the tools to be able to develop and execute good policy.
And Governor, I think you are pointing out that remote
sensing gives us the ability to monitor where we may not have
records. And a good example is that the third world. So many
people say the third world is not a major factor here. It is
because we don't have any air indexing in the third world. And
remote sensing may be the only way for us to detect what is
going on there.
The question I have, Dr. Moore, would be one of the new
factors that have been thrown out is the concept of global
dimming. And some people may agree with it or totally ignore
it, but I think that we have got to remember that when Roger
Revelle talked about global warming 20 years ago, some people
wanted to ignore him, too. Does our--does the remote sensing
that we are proposing here give us the ability to at least
monitor, maybe, the effects of global dimming and how
particulate--suspended particulates may be affecting or
moderating the climate change at this time?
Dr. Moore. Yes, it does, Congressman. It directly addresses
the question.
And you are absolutely correct in noting that the question
of global dimming is fundamental to climate change. It is also
fundamental to public health.
The issue of particulates and aerosols work the climate
system both ways, both as a warming and as a cooling.
One of the missions that we recommend, which is called ACE,
directly focuses on this question of aerosols and their
influence on the climate system.
Second, we are also recommending a geostationary air
quality mission, which I think would address some of the
question that major urban cities are going to have as to how
much of the pollution is local and how much of it is
transcontinental.
Mr. Bilbray. Okay. And that is essential data. I appreciate
you bringing that--you know, pointing that out, because one of
the problems I have had with federal policies on a lot of these
issues was like the--mandate. They thought it was good. Within
24 months, California knew that the federal mandate was an
environmental negative, not a positive. And hopefully, I think
it is essential, Mr. Chairman, that this issue will affect the
total strategy. I think a lot of people are saying, ``Just do
something about global warming.'' Well, we could be doing
exactly the wrong thing at the wrong time if we don't get the
right facts.
And in fact, right now, in California, we are moving
strategies ahead that assumes that the dirtiest technologies
should be the first eliminated. But that may be the worst thing
we do.
So hopefully, you will be able to give us the information
so that we not only are well-intentioned, but we are smart in
the way we apply this. And that is what scares me to death is
this rush to do anything could end up creating more problems
than an informed and appropriate approach to it. And that is
essential on this. And I--and hopefully the data on global
dimming can be settled before we settle on a strategy.
Dr. Anthes.
Dr. Anthes. Anthes.
Mr. Bilbray. Anthes. Dr. Anthes, let me just say, I
appreciate you talking about the tropical storm issue, because,
like my scientists at Scripp say, it is interesting that last
year, global warming caused all of the big hurricanes, but this
year, nobody talked about it. Well, it must be global cooling,
because we didn't have any. And I appreciate the fact that you
keep things on a balanced keel here, because it hurts the
credibility of scientists when politicians start throwing
around your data without having the facts.
But I have a question for you.
Remote Sensing and Earthquake Activity
I come from the State of California. Hurricanes and
tropical storms haven't historically been a problem for us
because of the cold water. That may change in the future. But
you brought up the issue of being able to detect tsunamis,
earthquakes, and other related seismatic activity that normally
isn't an--remote sensing isn't a big deal out--except maybe
observation. How long do you propose to use remote sensing to
predict earthquakes, which then result in tsunamis and all of
the other activity you were talking about?
Dr. Anthes. Okay. Well, that is a really good question, and
I am not a geologist, so I will just have to--but the--one of
our missions, which measures, very precisely, very small
displacements in the surface of the Earth. If you do a time
lapse of these--I have seen these. If you do a time lapse of
these, you can see the Earth breathing. In fact, I can show you
valleys in California, which are just----
Mr. Bilbray. Much like the same way we measure El Nino by
looking at the rise and fall of the ocean.
Dr. Anthes. Of the sea surface height. Right. Well, the
Earth is actually changing its elevation by centimeters over
time. And if you see--well, first of all, by measuring these--
where the Earth is changing its elevation and pulsating, these
are active geological areas. These can help you, as I
understand it, increase the probability of saying, ``Well, an
earthquake is going to occur here,'' or ``A volcano is going to
occur there,'' and of course, also then monitor tsunamis when
they actually occur because of the change of ocean levels.
Chairman Gordon. Doctor, we are going to have a vote pretty
soon, so if you don't mind, we are going to--I think we should
move on here.
Mr. Bilbray. No, no. I just don't know how you are going to
measure pulsating in Los Angeles. It always pulsates. So that
is just a given.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Gordon. Dr. McNerney is recognized for five
minutes.
Potential for Private or International Partnerships in Remote
Sensing
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank the distinguished panel for their work in
this area. I think it is a very important area.
I was intrigued by Dr. Anthes' comments that some of the
work--some of the missions will be to identify the small
difference between radiation to the Earth from the sun and then
radiation from the Earth as a consequence of that. And I think
that is a very important thing.
I noticed last week my distinguished colleague from
southern--from Orange County asked some very pointed questions
about wanting to know how--exactly how much of the carbon
dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere was created by human
activity. And I know that is a very complicated question, and
the balance--or the issue between science and politics is a
tricky issue. And it is our responsibility to have sort of a
responsible pathway between those. And I think this is exactly
one way that we can move forward to answering those kinds of
very difficult and detailed questions.
So one of the things I want to know is is there any
opportunity in private and international partnerships to help
us move forward in this--in these kinds of missions.
Dr. Moore.
Dr. Moore. I think that there is, and in our Chapter 3
where we talk about implementing the missions, the very first
thing we explore is leveraging foreign partnerships. And if you
are, for instance, looking at something like the measurement of
carbon dioxide that you mentioned and where is it coming from
and where is it going to, that is an ideal example of what we
could do internationally. The--using a synthetic-aperture radar
to get the slight differences in the elevation of the planet
and how those might lead to earthquakes, that is another great
example of where we could collaborate internationally. Our
European colleagues have made great advances with synthetic-
aperture radar. And so this would be another, because these are
global issues. They are not just issues to one area of the
planet. Earthquakes occur globally. CO2 occurs
globally.
Mr. McNerney. How about the private partnership
opportunities?
Dr. Moore. I think the private partnership opportunities
are extraordinary, particularly when you look at issues of land
remote sensing, hyperspectral imaging. That looks at the
reflected sunlight in many different wavelengths. This is a
marvelous item for forecasting crop diseases. This is right on
the border of what could be done commercially, and I think the
Governor has really spoken out on this. This is a great
opportunity.
Mr. Geringer. One other comment I would make is if we don't
keep up and we lose our edge in competitiveness, we lose two
things. With international cooperation, such as through the
Global Earth Observation System of Systems, we develop
relationships so that we can understand and trust what we are
getting back. Otherwise, we could be excluded, and the
competition, then, leads the way. Who would we rely on to
obtain the information we have no capacity to produce? So we
need that kind of participatory opportunity as well as the
leadership to make it happen.
Mr. McNerney. Okay. I yield the balance of my time.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you.
And the gentleman from Michigan, Dr. Ehlers, is recognized
for five minutes.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, Dr. Anthes, I am very pleased to hear your
comment about the Earth rising and falling several centimeters
a day, and now I know why I feel taller on some days than
others.
I also presume that my weight varies, because I am further
from the center of the Earth.
At any rate, more seriously, I can believe that a physicist
just made this comment. I am very concerned about NPOESS, and
we--you have talked about that in response to some other
questions. I am very worried about the removal of some of the
climate sensors. And clearly, we are not going to be--not going
to have an optimized system. They are being removed simply
because the cost of the project got too great, and we had to
get somewhere.
You have talked a bit--Dr. Moore, in fact, just mentioned
in the last question international work. What efforts are being
made or what do--efforts do you think should be made to try to
get more international cooperation in some of these satellites?
I know other nations are putting up their own satellites, but
in a case like this where the entire international community
would benefit from the additional climate observations that
NPOESS could make, do you believe our nation should
aggressively pursue the possibility of getting assistance,
cooperation, and money from other nations? And would we be
likely to succeed in that effort?
I would appreciate any comments you have.
Dr. Anthes. Well, I will take--a quick answer.
Absolutely, we should. We should try all of these avenues
and approaches.
The United States, historically, has been the world leader
in observations from space. In fact, the Europeans probably, I
could argue, are making better use of the observations that we
take than we are making--them ourselves, and this gets to the
Governor's comments about it is more than just observations. It
is how you use the observations.
International cooperation is a two-edged sword. It can save
money and distribute resources more equitably and cooperation
and sharing and all of that. But there are other issues that
make these international programs hard to manage. If one
partner has--runs into funding problems, it jeopardizes the
mission. If a country, which is friendly now, turns unfriendly
10 years from now, you may not be able to get their data. There
are ITAR issues about transferring technology to foreign
countries.
So yes, I agree we should pursue it aggressively. Probably
it is not a substitute for having our own, robust program. But
we should try to leverage the international partners wherever
we can.
Mr. Ehlers. Other comments?
Dr. Moore. Just to note that that appears to be part of the
plan to mitigate the NPOESS difficulties is to rely on the mid-
morning orbit from the Europeans. But I also second what Rick
Anthes just said, that it is a two-edged sword.
Mr. Ehlers. Now to what extent did your group, in doing the
Decadal Survey, consider these issues? Did you come up with any
particular recommendations on international cooperation and how
we should proceed with it?
Dr. Anthes. Well, we said, basically, what you just said.
We should try every single opportunity that we can and try to
reduce this overall cost by seeking international partners. And
we didn't go any further than that. We didn't say mission
number 13 should be an international one----
Mr. Ehlers. Right.
Dr. Anthes.--but all of them should be considered. And if
the international community comes up with one mission that
reduces the need for us to do the same thing, we should
consider lowering that in priority.
Mr. Ehlers. Do all nations freely share data with each
other----
Dr. Anthes. No.
Mr. Ehlers.--in these climate missions, or is it----
Dr. Anthes. No.
Mr. Ehlers. Is it held very closely? Yes.
Mr. Geringer. One comment I would make there, Congressman
Ehlers, is if we don't have standardized protocols, data
formats, and how we store and access information like that, it
is not a matter of who is willing to share. It is a matter of
whether you physically can or the technology isn't there to
extract or transform to where you can use the data.
So the minimum we could do is establish standards and
protocols, and that is where the Integrated Earth Observation
System was intended to head with the international
cooperations. Just having the data in the format where you can
use it is a simple step.
Mr. Ehlers. And the other problem is getting all of the
data down and analyzed quickly and properly. That is something
I am also concerned about with NPOESS.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Gordon. Thank you, Dr. Ehlers.
I think our final questioner will be our Vice Chair, Mr.
Lipinski.
Impact on American Competitiveness
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know we are
running short on time. I am going to make a quick question. I
am not sure it is going to be a quick answer.
But, Dr. Anthes and Dr. Moore, in the report, it says, ``At
a time of unprecedented need, the Nation's Earth observation
satellite programs, once the envy of the world, are in
disarray.''
I have a more general question. What impact does this
have--do you see this having an impact on American
competitiveness? Do you think it has a broader impact on our
nation in that manner?
Dr. Anthes. Well, that is a really good question.
The--one of the points we try to make in the Decadal Survey
is that these observations are useful to society and useful in
management of resources, whether it is energy resources, water
resources, supporting agriculture. So it--there is an
efficiency issue here that we can become, as a nation, more
efficient if we have these better weather forecasts, seasonal
outlooks, we know how to buy energy and store it for the cold
spells coming up. And so I think you can make a very good case
that these observations of the environment do affect, in a
positive way, the U.S. economy, making us more efficient and so
thereby improving our competitiveness.
My colleagues may want to add to that.
Dr. Moore. I think there is another issue, also, that the
declining budgets for Earth science at NASA send a signal to
our graduate students and to our undergraduates as to what
fields should they go into. And it is very tough to convince a
young student that this is the direction that you want to take
your life, because they say, ``Well, there is no future in
that.''
So I think that there is a fundamental issue as to why
students may not be going into Earth science or mathematics or
physics, because they look at the trend. They are quantifying.
Mr. Lipinski. Having spent a few years in graduate school
on my way to a Ph.D., finally, after many years, I understand
the--you know, what impact that does have on what people are--
what students are pursuing.
Thank you.
Chairman Gordon. Well, let me just say, this really was an
excellent panel. And I thank you very much for this very
informative meeting today. I want to particularly thank the Co-
Chairs of the Decadal Survey for not just today but for two and
a half years of hard, but important, work. This is a--really, a
product that we need to have to try to move this decision-
making process forward.
And Governor, you were a great breath of fresh air with the
real-world approach, and let me please encourage you to
continue to be active in these issues.
I understand that everyone who has wanted to have questions
has done so.
Mr. Hall, once again, another good hearing. And if you have
no more questions, then we will adjourn this hearing.
[Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
Appendix:
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Richard A. Anthes, President, University Corporation for
Atmospheric Research (UCAR); Co-Chair, Committee on Earth
Science and Applications from Space, National Research Council,
The National Academies
Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall
Q1. NASA's experience with mission cost estimates is to be kind, not
good. Many missions have seen their costs exceed even the most generous
estimates. What level of confidence would you associate with the
``rough'' cost estimates ascribed to each of the recommended missions?
A1. The Committee stands by its estimates. The level of confidence
associated with the cost estimates was given in Box 2-2 of the Decadal
Survey report. The cost estimates are believed to vary from 50
percent for the smallest missions to 30 percent for the larger
mission category. The survey report notes that, in general, cost
estimates depend directly on the exact measurement requirements for the
eventual missions. It also notes that the cost uncertainty rises for
missions scheduled later in the next decade and for missions with the
greatest technology development needs.
One historically large source of cost uncertainty is associated
with technology development. When a mission's implementation depends on
a technological advance, there's a risk that the mission will need to
be delayed and that costs will increase if the advance doesn't proceed
as expected. Effective mitigation of this cost risk involves early
technology investment--and this is something that was strongly endorsed
in our report. The committee suggests that NASA begin technology
investments early to ensure the needed technologies are available
before the mission implementation proceeds to the point where schedule
delays incur large costs due to the large number of individuals
entrained by the project (the so-called ``standing army'' problem).
Q1a. Do your cost estimates represent a full mission cost, to include
the cost of building the satellite, launch services, operations, data
analysis and research, and reserves?
A1a. The estimates include pre-launch costs associated with the
instrument(s), the spacecraft and the launch vehicle, system
engineering and spacecraft integration, science algorithm and ground
data system development, and education and outreach. Post-launch costs
included mission operations, data downlink, processing and archiving,
science data development and validation. Post-launch activity duration
was assumed to be three years for the NASA-recommended missions and
five years for the NOAA-recommended missions.
These cost estimates do not represent a `full' mission cost because
they do not include the cost of the scientific analysis of the mission
data. These costs were assigned to the mission-supporting part of the
NASA and NOAA budgets.
Q2. You recommend that NASA increase its support for Research and
Analysis to a level commensurate with ongoing and planned missions.
What metric should NASA use to gauge R&A spending? Number of missions
flying? Percentage of total program funding? How would you characterize
the level of R&A funding currently provided in the Earth Sciences
program?
A2. Historically NASA has invested approximately 50 percent of its
funds for mission-supporting research. In the event that the NASA
budget was restored to its year 2000 funding levels, the committee is
recommending that the R&A and mission budgets be increased equally
(i.e., maintain an approximate 50/50 split). This is our suggestion for
the zero'th order metric for gauging R&A spending. If you want to
consider metrics of the impact of R&A funding, some metrics for gauging
this impact are the amount of satellite data available being used for
analysis, the number of researchers supported, the number of peer-
reviewed publications resulting from the missions, and the amount of
satellite data being used effectively in weather forecast models and
other applications.
Q3. In your testimony you state that the U.S. needs to continue to
improve its climate models because those models are used in predicting
El Nino and other seasonal weather patterns important to energy, water
and agriculture management. Specifically which recommendations in the
Decadal Survey relate to improving seasonal weather predictions?
A3. The following missions are identified as improving seasonal weather
predictions, having direct impacts on energy, water, and/or agriculture
management: GPSRO (temperature and water vapor profiles), GRACE-II
(changes in aquifers), HyspIRI (nutrients and water status of
vegetation, soil health), PATH (temperature and water vapor profiles,
sea surface temperature), LIST (global shifts in vegetation patterns,
effects of land management), SCLP (water storage in snowpacks), SMAP
(soil moisture effect on vegetation and freeze/thaw state), SWOT (lake,
wetland, and reservoir storage), 3D-Winds (three dimensional
tropospheric winds, improves El Nino forecasts), and XOVWM (surface
winds over oceans).
Q4. In your testimony you say that due to declining budgets for Earth-
observing satellites, air quality forecasts will become less accurate
in the near future. Please elaborate on which satellites currently
provide information important for air quality forecasts and why you
believe this capability will be compromised in the near future.
A4. Air quality is determined by how much particulate matter (aerosols)
and trace gases (ozone, NO2 and volatile organics) are in
the air. Air quality forecasting is a relatively new field that
combines chemistry and aerosol models with weather models, which are
used to move pollutants around. Aerosol measurements are being made by
MODIS on Aqua and Terra, MISR on Terra, and OMI on Aura. Trace gas
measurements are being made by Aura. The Aura measurements include
ozone, NO2 and hydrocarbons (formaldehyde). These
measurements are being used in air quality forecast models on an
experimental basis.
In the future, NPOESS will be making column ozone measurements with
the OMPS instrument, however without the OMPS-limb sounding capability,
we cannot estimate vertical profiles of tropospheric ozone. The OMPS
limb instrument was deleted from the NPOESS payload in response to
Nunn-McCurdy. OMPS will also not produce NO2, hydrocarbons,
or aerosols as Aura OMI does--the instrument is not capable of making
those measurements. We will still get some aerosol information from
VIIRS on NPOESS, but no information over clouds or bright surfaces
(like deserts) because VIIRS lacks the near UV channels used by OMI for
those kinds of aerosol measurements.
Q5. Acquiring, storing, and managing data comes at a significant cost.
As we fly more sensors and gather more and precise measurements, how
likely is it that the research community will argue that these
capabilities must evolve into long-term data continuity missions? Of
the seventeen recommended missions, how many of these would be one-time
only missions that would not generate demand from the community for
follow-on missions to maintain data continuity? Are NASA and NOAA at
risk of being tasked with flying a greater number operational missions
and gathering an increasing number of data sets?
A5. This is a great question, and one I cannot easily answer because
the answer depends upon how useful the research observations are. Every
research observation should be considered as a candidate for ultimately
becoming part of an operational or sustained measurement system. The
NRC has recommended in a previous report (Satellite Observations of the
Earth's Environment-Accelerating the Transition of Research to
Operations, NRC 2003) that an interagency transition office be set up
that carefully evaluates the potential for every research observation
to become operational. Cost-benefit considerations obviously will
determine which observations are most valuable and should become
operational. Not all research observations should be expected to become
operational or sustained.
Questions submitted by Representative Ken Calvert
Decadal Survey Recommendations
Q1. How should NASA and NOAA interpret the recommended mission list?
Your report suggests this list as a minimum set and notes the
imperative that each mission be flown. But based on the experience of
other decadal surveys, NASA has been able to fund only a fraction of
recommended missions. Should NASA and NOAA prioritize the missions in
the order listed? If so, which mission do you believe should be a
priority?
A1. The Committee is acutely aware that evolving constraints have
historically altered well-laid plans. To respond, we established a
series of decision strategies and rules to be used for guiding any
programmatic restructure. The study of Earth is a system science--the
knowledge we seek derives from the mission set as a whole, not any
single mission. The current list thus includes no prioritization other
than a recommended ordering for launch, which itself is a
prioritization. Changing the program is not as simple as dropping one
mission from the bottom of a list and retaining the others; any single
change implies the need to readjust the overall program. For this
reason, our guidelines clearly state that such programmatic changes
should be subject to advice from the broad community of Earth
scientists and users.
At small budget deficiencies (e.g., 10 percent), the proposed
schedule can be stretched out. At larger deficiencies, the guidelines
for adjustments to the missions come into play.
We emphasize again that the Committee believes the proposed mission
set is indeed one the Nation both needs and can afford. It is a minimum
mission set in the sense that its scope and budget meet an expectation
of ``reasonableness.'' Anything less than the proposed program falls
short of what we believe this nation should reasonably pursue; it would
place us at risk for maintaining scientific progress and achieving
expected societal benefits. Additional budget enhancements should not
be ruled out, and would support an even stronger program, with missions
of great scientific merit and substantial societal benefit readily
identified as new resources come available.
Q2. The Decadal Survey recommends restoring some climate sensors to
NOAA's NPOESS program. This committee held three hearings on NPOESS in
the 109th Congress and we learned that it's a troubled program, nearly
$3 billion over-budget, and it faces tremendous technical challenges
just to be able to meet the Nation's weather forecasting needs. Why
should we add even more risk and potential cost to this program by
restoring the climate sensors? What is the value to our citizens that
would make the risk worth it?
A2. Important as weather sensors are, climate sensors are also
important and cannot be neglected. Climate variability and change are
among the most important environmental and societal factors affecting
our future. So we have to meet the challenges of risk and cost of
restoring key climate sensors. This may be accomplished in part by
restoring a few climate sensors to NPOESS, AND launching some new
missions as described in our report.
Climate monitoring requires a continuous series of high quality
calibrated data. The solar irradiance sensor and the Earth radiation
budget sensor are key to understanding climate change and are part of
an unbroken series of measurements starting in the early 1980s. The
Committee recommended restoring these climate sensors to NPOESS because
under the current Nunn-McCurdy only the cost of the sensor was
required--the IPO promised to pay for integration--this is the lowest
cost approach. But if further deterioration of the NPOESS program
occurs, it makes more sense to place these sensors on small spacecraft
as has been done in the past (e.g., ACRIMSAT).
Venture Class Missions
Q3. Your report recommends creation of a new competed mission line
(Venture class) to replace the Earth System Science Pathfinder program,
arguing that the latter has become a ``competitive means for
implementing NASA's strategic missions.'' Could you elaborate on this
criticism?
A3. The recommendation for a Venture class of missions is to encourage
proposals for exploratory missions that are ``out of the box''--ideas
that the experts in NASA, on our committee, or in the broader community
have not yet thought of. These should be creative, revolutionary ideas
that could have transformative effects on science and applications.
Venture class missions are NOT intended as a way to implement any of
the 17 recommended missions.
Weather Prediction
Q4. NOAA was a co-sponsor of the Decadal Survey, yet your report has
only three missions for NOAA compared to 15 for NASA. NOAA provides
weather forecasts and warnings for the Nation--given its vital role,
why did you have so few recommendations for NOAA?
A4. There were a number of factors that led to this result. Missions
that were assigned to NOAA were those that were relatively low cost,
ready to go operational, AND met a large number of the Panel's
prioritization criteria. The fact that the NPOESS and GOES programs
were (and still are) in a state of flux, with very uncertain budgets,
was also a factor. Finally, the emphasis of the present plans for
NPOESS and GOES is on weather forecasts and warnings, and so many of
our recommendations addressed other important Earth science issues.
Q5. In your testimony you state that due to declining budgets for
Earth-observing satellites, weather forecasts may start becoming less
accurate. However, last year this committee heard from the federal
agencies responsible for weather forecasting (NOAA and the Air Force)
that maintaining operational weather forecasting capabilities is their
top priority and that future plans for weather satellites such as
NPOESS and GOES-R will be just as good as, if not much better than,
current weather satellites. Your claim contradicts these officials, so
please elaborate on why you believe weather forecasts may start
becoming less accurate.
A5. Please let me be blunt here. Unfortunately, the recent track record
of projections of the federal agencies responsible for space observing
programs has not been reassuring, and even now the future of NPOESS and
GOES, the observational foundations of our weather prediction
capabilities from space, are uncertain. The steady increase of forecast
and warning accuracies over the past 30 years has not been an
accident--it has been the result of more and better observations and
models. If the number of observations, which peaked in about 2006,
continues to decline, at some point the trend of increasing forecast
accuracy will reverse and the forecasts and warning accuracies will
begin to decline. We do not know when or if this unfortunate point will
be reached, but it is a risk as I stated unless we take action.
Q6. Please describe some examples of NASA research missions from the
1970's or 1980's that demonstrated capabilities now used for
operational purposes.
A6. All of the current major operational satellite programs in NOAA can
be traced to NASA missions. The current Polar orbiting operational
satellites (POES) were derived from NASA's TIROS-N satellite launched
in 1978. The NOAA GOES program can be traced back to the NASA
Synchronous Meteorological Satellite launched in 1974. Finally, the
Landsat series of environmental sensors can be traced back to the NASA
Earth Resources Technology Satellite launched in 1972.
Q7. One key factor in the program design and cost of new missions is
the availability of expendable launch vehicles. NASA acquires launch
vehicles for science missions from commercial providers. How well is
your recommended mission set matched to existing and planned commercial
launch vehicle capabilities?
A7. Launch vehicle availability and cost have become moving targets.
Launch vehicle costs, in particular, are very hard to pin down. The
committee used the best available launch vehicle cost information
(based on recently launched and known costs for currently planned
missions). Specifically, the Decadal survey missions assumed the use of
Pegasus, Taurus, or Delta II/IV launch vehicles. However, forward-
looking launch vehicle cost estimates are subject to a large degree of
uncertainty. Spiraling launch costs threaten the accuracy of any cost
estimate until a contract is signed, and represent a large uncertainty
in any cost estimate.
The futures of the launch vehicles assumed by the panel are
uncertain, and this is a troublesome situation. If moderate capability
launch vehicles are not available at a reasonable cost, an important
element of programmatic robustness--our decision to recommend more,
smaller missions rather than fewer many-instrument missions--becomes
compromised. Should Delta-II class launch vehicles become unavailable,
for example, the likely mitigation would be to pursue ``co-manifested''
launches, where multiple satellites share a larger launch vehicle. This
is not as easy or straight forward as it might sound, as larger launch
vehicles generally have larger vibrational loads during launch (meaning
that the satellite structural design would have to be adapted), and
would require ride-sharing missions to utilize similar orbits.
The committee is aware of private sector efforts to build low cost
launch vehicles, which, if successful, will substantially mitigate
these concerns. However, at present such launch vehicles have not been
demonstrated successfully. The availability and cost of launch vehicles
for scientific missions remains a serious concern of the committee.
Interagency Cooperation
Q8. What unique skills and expertise do you think NASA has in Earth-
observing systems, and are the necessary processes for interagency
cooperation in place to allow the country to benefit from those NASA
capabilities? Can you please do the same for NOAA?
A8. In answering this question, I must necessarily generalize my
response. NASA and NOAA, while having great records overall, do not
have spotless records. Nevertheless, both agencies have many
capabilities, skills, and expertise to be leveraged for Earth
observation systems.
NASA has a long history of pioneering Earth research observation
from space and in laying the groundwork for operational systems (see #
11, above). NASA expertise is primarily in technology, science, and
engineering. NASA has demonstrated capability to manage technology
infusions into missions, manage externally-developed technology
contracts, and manage commercial suppliers and partner contracts with
strong oversight. The more extensive competitive and peer-reviewed
mission selection process at NASA has allowed for a more complete
vetting of mission requirements, risks, and costs. NOAA has a strong
history of operating ground systems for its operational programs,
distributing data to a wide range of users, and producing decision-
support tools and capabilities to directly serve well-specified needs.
NOAA mission implementation typically is provided by a commercial
contractor, with varying degrees of oversight.
In terms of knowing and understanding their user communities, NASA
is tightly connected with the science and research community, while
NOAA is more tightly connected with its operational end-users
(meteorologists, the public, and decision-makers).
In order to use the strengths of both NASA and NOAA in a manner
which maximizes benefit to society, interagency cooperation is
essential. Currently, the necessary processes are not completely in
place to optimize interagency cooperation. That is why the Decadal
Survey recommends that the Office of Science and Technology Policy, in
collaboration with the relevant agencies, and in consultation with the
scientific community, should develop and implement a plan for achieving
and sustaining global Earth observations. This plan should recognize
the complexity of differing agency roles, responsibilities, and
capabilities as well as the lessons from implementation of the Landsat,
EOS, and NPOESS programs.
Among the key challenges confronting the two agencies are (1) the
need for long-term, continuous, stable research focused observations of
the Earth system that are distinct from the observations needed for
operational weather prediction and (2) the need to systematically
develop future operational systems in addition to the one for weather
prediction. In order to address these challenges NASA and NOAA must
improve their interaction early in the design process and overcome the
natural disconnect that occurs because the two agencies have
independent budget formulation processes and accounting systems.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Berrien Moore III, University Distinguished Professor,
Director, Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans, and Space,
University of New Hampshire; Co-Chair, Committee on Earth
Science and Applications from Space, National Research Council,
The National Academies
Question submitted by Chairman Bart Gordon
Q1. Please elaborate on the consequences of not executing the program
recommended by the Decadal Survey, especially with respect to the
societal applications of the observations and the importance of
preserving particular time series, such as total solar irradiance.
A1. The consequence is simply that without the information, and then
the scientific community will not have the basis for providing
information to the country. It is hard to point to a specific
consequence since there will continue to be some information on the
planet from other sources. It is a bit like the question, what are the
consequences if we did not conduct a census or monitor economic
indicators. However, the question is certainly reasonable, and I shall
address it by focusing on selected missions.
After CERES ceases on TRIMM and Total Solar Irradiance sensor on
Glory, then we would cease to have the most basic climate forcing
information, Given the fact that we ``know'' that the concentration of
greenhouses gases will continue to increase in the atmosphere for at
least the next 50 years, and that this change will force a change in
the Earth energy balance, then we must monitor that energy balance and
the solar output, if we are going to be able to make credible climate
statements including forecasts. This is the reason, we recommend the
CLARREO Mission.
Another example, the ASCENDS mission: We know without any question
that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has risen by
almost 40 percent since the middle of the last century, and that the
cause of this rise is primarily fossil fuel combustion and secondarily
land-use change. We also know that about 50 percent of the released
CO2 from fossil fuel combustion and land-use change is no
longer in the atmosphere because it has been sequestered by the land
biosphere and the oceans in approximately equal proportions. However,
the proportional balance between land and oceans varies in time and
space. The current state of the science cannot account for the growth
rate and inter-annual variations of atmospheric CO2 with
confidence. The variability of the rate of increase in the
concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere cannot be explained
by the variability in fossil fuel use; rather it appears to primarily
reflect changes in terrestrial ecosystems that are connected with
large-scale weather and climate modes. Finally and most importantly, we
do not know the geographic distribution of the land and ocean sources
and sinks of CO2. This uncertainty is important. As nations
seek to develop strategies to manage their carbon emissions and
sequestration, the capacity to quantify the present-day regional carbon
sources/sinks and to understand the underlying mechanisms are central
to prediction of future levels of CO2, and thereby, informed
policy decisions, sequestration monitoring and carbon trading.
The current set of direct in situ atmospheric observations is far
too sparse for this determination; moreover, the upcoming Orbiting
Carbon Observatory, which will be a ``Pathfinder'' for ASCENDS, cannot
make these measurements (because of limitations of sunlight) over many
of the primary fossil fuel burning areas (Moscow, London, etc.) in the
winter time nor is it able to make any nighttime measurements and hence
OCO will not be able to determine regional sources and sinks of
CO2. ASCENDS will provide the measurements necessary to make
this regional determination.
Similar statements can be made for every mission--specific
information is needed (like sources and sinks for carbon dioxide) and
specific missions are recommended to obtain this information. We
believe and the Survey documents that each mission addresses important
questions by society. Without the information, then we will be less
equipped to address a specific societal issue. We also framed the
entire program at a budget level for Earth observation that is
comparable to the levels of the 1990s.
Questions submitted by Representative Ralph M. Hall
Q1. NASA's experience with mission cost estimates is, to be kind, not
good. Many missions have seen their costs exceed even the most generous
estimates. What level of confidence would you associate with the
``rough'' cost estimates ascribed to each of the recommended missions?
Do your cost estimates represent a full mission cost, to include
the cost of building the satellite, launch services, operations, data
analysis and research, and reserves?
A1. We asked experts at Goddard, JPL, and Langley to provide informal
cost analysis, not by particular mission advocates, but by seasoned
mission planners who evaluated the costs of all proposed missions in a
consistent objective way. These cost estimates were then reviewed by
members of the survey team, some of who have extensive industrial
experience in spacecraft design. There were also external reviewers of
the survey with mission management experience, and they did not find
the cost estimates to be unreasonable. The mission's costs provided in
Part II of the Report, do not include ground costs such as data
analysis and longer-term mission management; however, these costs are
included in the growth wedge that we recommend in the ``Mission
Supporting'' portion of the budget in Chapter Two.
Most important, the Decadal Survey is informing NASA, NOAA, USGS;
Congress, and the American public what measurements need to be made and
what missions flown so that we can understand our planet and apply this
understanding to societal benefits--benefits that will repay the Nation
many times over. This answer does not change even if our cost estimates
have small or modest systematic errors. Moreover, we recommend in
Chapter Three of the Decadal Survey steps to take if costs grow beyond
our estimates.
Q2. You recommend that NASA increase its support for Research and
Analysis to a level commensurate with ongoing and planned missions.
What metric should NASA use to gauge R&A spending? Number of missions
flying? Percentage of total program funding? How would you characterize
the level of R&A funding currently provided in the Earth Sciences
program?
A2. I would recommend that we rest R and A, in real terms, to the level
in 2000 budget. The accomplishments of the 1990s were extraordinary
and, in fact, this is what we are exploiting today.
Q3. Acquiring, storing, and managing data comes at a significant cost.
As we fly more sensors and gather more and precise measurements, how
likely is it that the research community will argue that these
capabilities must evolve into long-term data continuity missions?
A3. Most of them since the data needs are on-going. This is the simple
fact of our situation on the planet. I do believe that costs can be
driven down by better management and through technological
advancements. We must avoid the NPOESS approach and the mismanagement.
Q3a. Of the seventeen recommended missions, how many of these would be
one-time only missions that would not generate demand from the
community for follow-on missions to maintain data continuity?Are NASA
and NOAA at risk of being tasked with flying a greater number of
operational missions and gathering an increasing number of data sets?
A3a. I believe that almost all will need to become ``operational.'' We
believe that the country needs to recognize this need and to consider
new organizational structures for meeting this need in a reliable,
cost-effective manner.
Q3b. Are NASA and NOAA at risk of being tasked with flying a greater
number of operational missions and gathering an increasing number of
data sets?
A3b. Yes, but we also believe that we can do a much than the
performance of the recent past. We simply must recognize the challenge
before us.
In sum, we are in need of knowledge of the Earth. We know that
there is that the planet's environment is changing on all spatial
scales including global, and change is rapid, likely more rapid than at
any time in human history. Many of these changes are occurring because
of human activity. These human-induced changes are over and above the
stresses imposed by the natural variability of a dynamic planet.
The changes cascade through the Earth's environment in ways that
are difficult to understand and often impossible to predict. At the
least, these human-driven changes in the global environment will
require that societies develop a multitude of creative responses
including strategies for mitigation and adaptation. The linked
challenges of confronting and coping with global environmental changes
and addressing and securing a sustainable future is daunting and
immediate, but they are not insurmountable. The challenges can be met,
but only with a new and even more vigorous approach to observe and
understanding our changing planet.
Questions submitted by Representative Ken Calvert
Decadal Survey Recommendations
Q1. How should NASA and NOAA interpret the recommended mission list?
Your report suggests this list as a minimum set and notes the
imperative that each mission be flown. But based on the experience of
other decadal surveys, NASA has been able to fund only a fraction of
recommended missions. Should NASA and NOAA prioritize the missions in
the order listed? If so, which mission do believe should be a priority?
A1. We believe that the list represents the appropriate balance of
missions in roughly the appropriate order (considering costs,
technology issues, and science balance). We recognize that there could
be a ``number of missions'' shock, and we could have ``packaged'' the
missions on three larger platforms and reducing our recommended
missions to three, which could have avoided this ``number of missions''
shock. This, however, would not have been wise since it would not
produce a robust program. We also note that the missions listed in the
last time-frame (2016-2020) would likely be revisited by the next
``Decadal Survey,'' which is consistent with other Decadal Surveys. We
believe that we have the right order, but again, as we note in our
recommendations, the order could be varied slightly because of emerging
science or policy priorities or because of technological readiness. We
again stress the importance of embracing the Survey and beginning work
on approximately half (seven to eight missions) of the missions at
roughly $10M per mission per year to address key technological issues
or costs concerns. Start these now with extended Phase A efforts--not
simply ``study'' contract. Finally, we would like to again warn against
growing any of the missions by increasing the requirements--this
warning is made in the Survey, and we already hear reports that it is
happening. We must not let the perfect become the enemy of the good.
Q2. The Decadal Survey recommends restoring some climate sensors to
NOAA's NPOESS program. This committee held three hearings on NPOESS in
the 109th Congress and we learned that it's a troubled program, nearly
$3 billion over-budget, and it faces tremendous technical challenges
just to be able to meet the Nation's weather forecasting needs. Why
should we add even more risk and potential cost to this program by
restoring the climate sensors? What is the value to our citizens that
would make the risk worth it?
A2. We understand that the NPOESS program is a great disappointment.
The possible causes for the programmatic difficulties are discussed in
Chapter Three of our Report. We also recognize that the cost-benefit
ratio of NPOESS compared with POES and DMSP is very troubling. NPOESS
was sold as both a climate and weather program, and it seems
appropriate to retain some climate capability. Moreover, we believe
that our recommendations are not expensive and are, in fact, probably
in the noise of the planned program and would not increase the program
risk. This said, we share the Congress's disappointment and concern
(see Response to Question #4 below) in the NPOESS program. Finally, the
failure of the NPOESS program to meet the originally observational
schedule and plan increases the importance of the recommended NASA
missions.
Venture Class Missions
Q3. Your report recommends creation of a new competed mission line
(Venture class) to replace the Earth System Science Pathfinder program,
arguing that the latter has become a ``competitive means for
implementing NASA's strategic missions.'' Could you elaborate on this
criticism?
A3. The criticism is four-fold. First, beyond the Glory, Landsat
Continuity Mission, and the GPM, there is no planned program except for
the Earth System Science Program. This makes no sense--a program must
have planned priorities missions that address recognized needs. This we
have tried to set forth in the Decadal Survey. The second problem is
that it is very difficult to address the technology needs for a program
that is primarily composed of unnamed missions, such as the Earth
Science Pathfinders: How can one know in what technologies to invest?
Thirdly, there are missions, which are needed that are more expensive
than the ESSP missions, and yet nothing is provided for these medium to
larger class missions. Finally, the promised timeliness (one or two
missions every three years) for the ESSP program is a broken promise.
Weather Prediction
Q4. NOAA was a co-sponsor of the Decadal Survey, yet your report has
only three missions for NOAA compared to 15 for NASA. NOAA provides
weather forecasts and warnings for the Nation--given its vital role,
why did you have so few recommendations for NOAA?
A4. We restricted greatly our recommendations to NOAA because of the
damaging cost-growth of the NPOESS and GOES programs. We simply could
not see the logic in asking NOAA to do much beyond the modest but high
priority recommendations that were made to NOAA in the Decadal Survey
(see again my Response to Question #2). We would also point out that
Chapter Three contains additional NOAA-focused recommendations (e.g.,
production of Climate Data Records from NPOESS). The programmatic
failure of NPOESS is very damaging.
Q5. Please describe some examples of NASA research missions from the
1970's or 1980's that demonstrated capabilities now used for
operational purposes.
A5. For this early period, one would site primarily the Landsat plus
the early NASA missions in both polar orbit and geostationary (e.g.,
cloud imaging) that set the stage for POES (and DMSP) and GOES. More
recently, the ocean topography mission (TOPEX), the AIRS instrument
(measuring humidity and temperature profiles) on EOS/Aqua, the TRIMM
mission, and the sea surface winds from QucikScat are all being used
operationally.
Launch Vehicles
Q6. One key factor in the program design and cost of new missions is
the availability of expendable launch vehicles. NASA acquires launch
vehicles for science missions from commercial providers. How well is
your recommended mission set matched to existing and planned commercial
launch vehicle capabilities?
A6. This is a very important question. There are many reasons
(robustness, reduction in risk, smooth(er) budget ramps, flexibility)
that support our recommendation to fly smaller, less complex payloads
rather than the larger platforms such as NPOESS. The one drawback is
the reduce launch capabilities (e.g., no more Delta-IIs) that may face
the USA in the future coupled with the ``skyrocketing'' (pardon the
pun) launch costs. This is a national problem that goes beyond the
Decadal Survey, but it certainly has a negative impact on the mission
recommendations of the Survey. This issue should be addressed.
Interagency Cooperation
Q7. What unique skills and expertise do you think NASA has in Earth-
observing systems, and are the necessary processes for interagency
cooperation in place to allow the country to benefit from those NASA
capabilities? Can you please do the same for NOAA?
A7. Focusing on the word ``unique'' somewhat restricts my response.
NASA has a unique technological capability in both breadth and depth,
in both the development of technologies and the management of
technologies. Part of the NPOESS problem is that this capability was
not adequately exploited. There are indications that the NASA-NOAA
interaction is moving back to a position whereby NASA can better assist
NOAA in developing and applying advance space-based technologies, but
for NPOESS it may be too little too late. NASA also has a solid
scientific staff, but it is not unique. In fact, the university
community collectively is far stronger.
For NOAA, the ``unique'' capability is the ``operational''
infrastructure to exploit space-based date for weather forecasting.
This is of very high quality and a unique national asset. I think that
the NASA-NOAA (and with the Air Force and Navy) interaction through the
Joint Center for Satellite Data Assimilation forms a firm foundation
that assist NOAA's capability (and the DOD's) to forecast the weather,
but this could be improved and expanded upon-particularly in the area
of climate research.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by James Geringer, Director of Policy and Public Sector
Strategy, Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI)
Questions submitted by Representative Mark Udall
Q1. The Decadal Survey report discusses issues beyond the climate
change issue, such as population increases near earthquake faults,
shortages of clean and accessible fresh water, degradation of
terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, increased in soil erosion and
declines in fisheries. Do the Recommended space missions help address
such non-climate challenges and societal benefits? What other societal
issues should be addressed?
A1. The Decadal Survey report highlights many other Earth science areas
of practical, economic and societal benefit. The recommended space
missions help address such non-climate challenges. However, NASA's
budget priorities focus on just a few larger missions such as the
Global Precipitation Mission (GPM) and Landsat Data Continuity Mission
(LDCM) which seems to preclude other important environmental
observations such as crustal stress and soil characterization.
The Decadal Survey does recommend missions that would monitor
crustal movements and determine changes in strain and stress through
the earthquake cycle. We should also enable better assessments of
potential and actual damage from natural disasters and help target
mitigation, recovery and relief activities.
Earth observation can dramatically benefit the competitiveness of
our U.S. economy. Ocean observations are vital to transportation and
trade. Improved weather forecasting enables more efficient energy use.
Success of the emergence of carbon trading market will significantly
depend upon our ability to monitor for compliance and improvements.
Change detection that is possible only with remote sensing allows
better and more timely policy decisions.
The NASA budget request does not appear to contain sufficient funds
in the 2008-2012 timeframe to seriously begin any of these important
missions. Instead, nearly all of the funds available for mission
development are directed at just the two missions, the Global
Precipitation Mission and the Landsat Data Continuity Mission, both
follow-ons of previous missions. The LDCM is not widely supported as
the type of satellite that would recognize trends in today's global
setting. For instance, trends in world population growth would point to
two very pressing needs: adequacy of food and water. Space missions
should be tied to real world problems, not just arcane research goals.
Access to NASA data has been an issue. We need a more streamlined
process to enable public access to remotely sensed data for the public,
educational communities, agricultural producers and industries.
Compliance with industry standard file formats along with well-
documented interpretation of these remotely sensed data products would
enable utilization of data to support weather forecasting, disaster
management, and commercialization.
Based upon anecdotal information, a number of people are not happy
with the configuration and approach being taken for the LDCM. I have
received letters from academics, scientists and policy-makers,
including the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Western Governors Association
who want specific water monitoring capability enabled with a thermal
sensor which is not now included in LDCM planning. With what appears to
be a growing disagreement on LDCM capabilities and cost, I recommend
that a roundtable be convened by a neutral third party to examine the
Landsat Data Continuity Mission approach. An organization such as the
Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES) could bring
together the interested scientists and other parties to arrive at a
community consensus.
Q2. What kind of Earth- and ocean-based systems are needed to
complement the space missions?
A2. We need a system such as the Integrated Earth Observation System
(IEOS), consisting of space, ground, airborne and ocean-based sensors,
both public and private, that can gather information and integrate it
for researchers and decision-makers alike with a maximum of efficiency
and a minimum of duplication.
The President's FY 2008 budget recommends partial funding for the
proposed Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS) to develop regional
networks of remote ocean sensors, including biological sensors, that
would monitor the general health of the ocean. Much more is needed so
that we can better manage our coasts, improve hurricane and tsunami
predictions, and improve marine operations. IOOS would include space,
land, ocean and airborne sensors and application programs.
An excellent example of what IEOS and IOOS should be is the
National Weather Service (NWS) within the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The NWS provides the world benchmark
for collecting and integrating weather observations from various
sources across the globe to produce critical information that protects
U.S. citizens and property. The forecasts that result from combining
observations from space-based satellites, ocean buoys, ground-based
systems and aircraft impact U.S. citizens daily in a wide variety of
ways. The integrated information approach of the NWS should be scaled
up to include other programs within and across several federal
agencies.
Meaningful data gathering systems are possible at much less cost
than space based platforms. Constellations of lower cost satellites
have the potential to deliver more data more often at less cost than
single, complicated, one-of-a-kind expensive satellites.
Ocean based systems of observation such as Royal Caribbean's
``Explorer of the Seas'' with its ocean and atmospheric sciences labs
are an excellent example of low cost but very effective private
partnership that should be encouraged and extended to other cruise
ships and ocean going platforms. They provide an excellent means to
verify on-the-water observations and collect long-term data sets at a
fraction of the cost of other methods. One person who has been the
visiting scientist three times aboard ship and has experienced it all
first hand, describes it as a ``very neat and a great way to improve
ocean literacy!''
Q3. In your testimony, you identified leadership issues as impediments
to effectiveness of the U.S. Earth Observations Program and to
executing the vision and recommendations of the Decadal Survey. How
should these issues be addressed?
A3. We must answer the simple question ``Who's in charge?''
Current Earth observation systems are highly fragmented with
different systems that were set at different times by different
organizations and overseen by different Congresses for a variety of
different reasons. Few are cross-correlated to complement each other's
efforts. We do not have a coherent, integrated system to gather data,
disseminate it through public portals for research and analysis,
analytical tools to determine proper choices that can enable public
policy-makers and private business leaders make better decisions. We
risk becoming dependent upon other world countries to be the primary
source of our data.
For example, the USDA is no longer using Landsat imagery for
operational monitoring applications because of the data gap. Our
current capability provides no global coverage for crop estimates and
food production, no adequate revisit cycle for verification and trend
analysis and it is not the best value for USDA. The solution for USDA/
Foreign Agricultural Service is to contract with India to obtain
imagery supplemented by information from commercial sources such as
GeoEye.
We have recommended the convening of a high level commission that
would have specific timelines and tasks to recommend action,
legislation and funding that would be carried out by a cabinet level
agency. Creation of an IEOS program office would enable us to forecast
events in our oceans and on land even before we see changes in the
atmosphere. Connecting disparate observations into national systems
would enable us to anticipate and even prevent key environmental
problems or at least detect them earlier to mitigate the effects. We
should leverage the time and resources already invested in systems
development, data collection and analysis, and modeling to create a
comprehensive and actionable vision of our world.
I support the Decadal Survey recommendation for establishment of an
office of coordination within OSTP. But we need more than coordination.
We need leadership enabled with authority and motivated by passion, not
just another block on the organizational chart. As part of a national
strategy, we should address how to more effectively move from research
to operations. Our global competitiveness depends on how quickly and
effectively we act.
Questions submitted by Representative Ken Calvert
Q1. In the agricultural industry, to what degree is remote sensing
data conveniently available to individual farmers to help them plan and
manage their crops?
A1. A moderate amount of remote sensing data are conveniently
available, however, the raw data are of limited use unless they are
incorporated into a decision support tool that merges the data with
other information in the context of a farmer's needs. Also, the remote
sensing data must be timely and of a sufficient scale to make them
useful in an agricultural setting.
A wide range of remote sensing data from government sources is
available to farmers. This includes information on weather and climate,
imagery of fields and roads (base data layers), elevation, and
hydrology. The private sector is another important source of data.
Private companies tend to specialize in custom data that are more
current and of higher resolution. For example, a farmer may request
that high resolution aerial imagery be taken of farmland at a specific
time in the growing season. Meteorological data from the National
Weather Service and private sector sources is accessed by farmers on a
regular basis.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture sponsors the National
Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP), which acquires imagery during the
growing seasons in the continental United States. Other federal
agencies and a number of private sector companies develop a range of
remote sensing data that is used for agricultural purposes.
Q2. Can they get the data off the Internet?
A2. Yes, but with a very significant caveat; namely, Internet access
and speed.
Remote sensing data are available by way of the Internet from
public and private sources both within and outside the United States.
Remote sensing data from government sources are typically available at
no or low cost. Private sector data are normally available for a fee.
The primary sources of information from the Federal Government are
the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS). The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is
often a partner contributing to the development of these data through
the development, launch, and operation of satellite systems. Some state
agencies also make remote sensing data available.
Examples of government data used for agricultural purposes are:
USDA
Digital quadrangles and mosaics via the National
Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP).
NOAA
Weather and forecast information from the National
Weather Service
USGS
LandSat Imagery (base maps)
Orthoimagery (Digital Ortho Photos, base maps)
Elevation (Digital Elevation Models)
Hydrography
Land Cover (MODIS)
Examples of Internet-based information resources from the private
sector or foreign governments are:
High resolution aircraft-based imagery from numerous
private sector sources
High resolution satellite-based imagery from
DigitalGlobe (U.S.)
High resolution satellite-based land imagery from
SPOT (France)
Information is of little value if agricultural producers don't have
access or sufficient bandwidth. The National Agricultural Statistics
Service most recent survey shows that 51 percent of U.S. farms have
Internet access. The percentage increases to 72 percent at the highest
level ($250,000+ income) but the number of producers at that level is
small. Most producers who have Internet access use a dial-up modem
which limits information and usage. The Pew Internet and American Life
Project found that agricultural producers and rural communities do not
have the broadband access that has become a basic necessity for
economic development, small business growth, and education.
People in urban areas are twice as likely to have broadband access
as their rural counterparts.
Actions by Congress should promote open access, meaningful
competition, and innovation at the federal and State level for high-
capacity rural broadband Internet access through public and private
investment partnerships.
Q3. Is it routinely provided by the government through a private
sector source?
A3. At present, the process of accessing data is cumbersome and time
consuming. If farmers are to make more routine use of government data,
the process for identifying and accessing it must be streamlined. There
are great benefits to farmers in making use of remote sensing data for
farm management and precision agriculture. A direct benefit would be
more efficient use of fertilizers and pesticides. It is important for
federal agencies to make use of state-of-the-art data storage and
delivery mechanisms to make data readily available to farmers and to
private sector firms who provide information services to the
agricultural sector.
Few farmers have the capacity to directly download and analyze
remote sensing data. To be useful, a decision support tool is required
to format the data, integrate it with other information, and display it
in a useful format. A private sector company that specializes in
providing this service for the agricultural industry is ZedX Inc.
(www.zedxinc.com). Their decision support system called ``AgFleet'' is
used to manage more than 15 million acres of agricultural land in North
America. The tool makes use of remote sensing and other data from
government and private sector sources to guide decisions about
planting, harvesting, and application of fertilizers, pesticides and
other chemicals. Crop consultants and dealers of seed, fertilizer,
pesticides, and other agricultural chemicals typically provide this
analytical service to farmers. The service allows them to determine
what products should be applied when, where, and at what
concentrations, and to track the financial costs and benefits of their
farm management practices.
Q4. Can you offer an estimate of the percentage of farmers that access
this type of data on a periodic basis?
A4. At present, a relatively small percentage of farmers nationally
make use of advanced precision agricultural techniques which require
access to remote sensing data on a periodic basis. This applies
primarily to grain crops. A larger percentage of farmers make some use
of remote sensing imagery as base data layers for farm management
purposes. Again, few farmers make direct use of remote sensing data on
a regular basis. Most often, crop consultants, major suppliers of seed
and chemicals, and agricultural extension services develop information
products for farmers that often incorporate remote sensing data.
Timeliness, availability, and cost of information are the major
determining factors in the use of remote sensing data in agriculture.
If timely, high quality data were available to farmers at low or no
cost from either government or private sources, the number of farmers
making use of precision agriculture practices would increase greatly.
This would increase the profitability of farm operations by increasing
crop yields and reducing expenses associated with agricultural
chemicals. It would also decrease residues on agricultural products,
and would minimize the runoff of chemicals into waterways.
As Congress considers the new farm bill, it should consider ways to
encourage federal agencies to make high quality remote sensing data
more readily available to farmers, and it should provide incentives for
farmers to make use of precision agriculture techniques and decision
support tools.