SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Earth’s Future”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

867 records · Page 49Linked to original sources

USGS2018

Paleoclimate Records: Providing context and understanding of current Arctic change

At present, the Arctic Ocean is experiencing changes in ocean surface temperature and sea ice extent that are unprecedented in the era of satellite observations, which extend from the 1980s to the present (see sections 5c,d). To provide context for current changes, scientists turn to paleoclimate records to document and study anthropogenic influence and natural decadal and multidecadal climate variability in the Arctic system. Paleoceanographic records extend limited Arctic instrumental measurements back in time and are central to improving our understanding of climate dynamics and the predictive capability of climate models. By comparing paleoceanographic records with modern observations, scientists can place the rates and magnitudes of modern Arctic change in the context of those inferred from the geological record. Over geological time, paleoceanographic reconstructions using, for instance, marine sediment cores indicate that the Arctic has experienced huge sea ice fluctuations. These fluctuations range from nearly completely ice-free to totally ice-covered conditions. The appearance of ice-rafted debris and sea ice-dependent diatoms in Arctic marine sediments indicate that the first Arctic sea ice formed approxi-mately 47 million years ago (St. John 2008; Stickley et al. 2009; Fig. SB5.1), coincident with an interval of declining atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration, global climate cooling, and expansion of Earths cryosphere during the middle Eocene. The development of year-round (i.e., perennial) sea ice in the central Arctic Ocean, similar to conditions that exist today, is evident in sediment records as early as 1418 million years ago (Darby 2008). These records suggest that transitions in sea ice cover occur over many millennia and often vary in concert with the waxing and waning of circum-Arctic land ice sheets, ice shelves, and long-term fluctuations in ocean and atmospheric temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentrations (Stein et al. 2012; Jakobsson et al. 2014). Over shorter time scales, shallow sediment records from Arctic Ocean continental shelves allow more detailed, higher-resolution (hundreds of years resolution) reconstructions of sea ice history extending through the Holocene (11 700 years ago to present), the most recent interglacial period. A notable feature of these records is an early Holocene sea ice minimum, corresponding to a thermal maximum (warm) period from 11 000 to 5000 years ago, when the Arctic may have been warmer and had less summertime sea ice than today (Kaufman et al. 2004). However, it is not clear that the Arctic was ice-free at any point during the Holocene (Polyak et al. 2010). High-resolution paleosea ice records from the western Arctic in the Chukchi and East Siberian Seas indicate that sea ice concentrations increased through the Holocene in concert with decreasing summer solar insolation (sunlight). Sea ice extent in this region also varied in response to the volume of Pacific water delivered via the Bering Strait into the Arctic Basin (Stein et al. 2017; Polyak et al. 2016). Records from the Fram Strait (Mller et al. 2012), Laptev Sea (Hrner et al. 2016), and Canadian Arctic Archipelago (Vare et al. 2009) also indicate a similar long-term expansion of sea ice and suggest sea ice extent in these regions is modulated by the varying influx of warm Atlantic water into the Arctic Basin (e.g., Werner et al. 2013). Taken together, available records support a circum-Arctic sea ice expansion during the late Holocene. A notably high-resolution summer sea ice history (<5-year resolution) has been established for the last 1450 years using a network of terrestrial records (tree ring , lake sediment, and ice core records) located around the margins of the Arctic Ocean (Kinnard et al. 2011). Results summarized in Fig. SB5.2 indicate a pronounced decline in summer sea ice extent beginning in the 20th century, with exceptionally low ice extent recorded since the mid-1990s, consistent with the satellite record (see section 5d). While several episodes of reduced and expanded sea ice extent occur in association with climate anomalies such as the Medieval Climate Warm Period (AD 8001300) and the Little Ice Age (AD 14501850), the magnitude and pace of the modern decline in sea ice is outside of the range of natural variability and unprecedented in the 1450-year reconstruction (Kinnard et al. 2011). A radiocarbon-dated driftwood record of the Ellesmere ice shelf in the Canadian High Arctic, the oldest landfast ice in the Northern Hemisphere, also demonstrates a substantial reduction in ice extents over the 20th century (England et al. 2017). A supporting sediment record indicates that inflowing Atlantic water in Fram Strait has warmed by 2C since 1900, driving break up and melt of sea ice (Spielhagen et al. 2011). Complementary mooring and satellite observations show the Atlantification of the eastern Arctic due to enhanced inflow of warm saline water through Fram Strait (Nilsen et al. 2016) and nutrient-rich Pacific water via the Bering has increased by more than 50% (Woodgate et al. 2012), further driving sea ice melt and warming seas. Similar high-resolution proxy records from Arctic regions also indicate that the modern rate of increasing annual surface air temperatures has not been observed over at least the last 2000 years (McKay and Kaufman 2014). Scientists conclude that broad-scale sea ice variations recorded in the paleo record were dominantly driven by changes in basin-scale changes in atmospheric circulation patterns, fluctuations in air temperature, strength of incoming solar radiation, and changes in the inflow of warm water via Pacific and Atlantic inflows (Polyak et al. 2010). There is general consensus that ice-free Arctic summers are likely before the end of the 21st century (e.g., Stroeve et al. 2007; Massonnet et al. 2012), while some climate model projections suggest ice-free Arctic summers as early as 2030 (Wang and Overland 2009). Paleoclimate studies and observational time series attribute the decline in sea ice extent and thickness over the last decade to both enhanced greenhouse warming and natural climate variability. While understanding the interplay of these factors is critical for future projections of Arctic sea ice and ecosystems, most observational time series records cover only a few decades. This highlights the need for additional paleoceanographic reconstructions across multiple spatial and temporal domains to better understand the drivers and implications of present and future Arctic Ocean change.

Bulletin American Meteorological Society↗

USGS2021

Global cropland-extent product at 30-m resolution (GCEP30) derived from Landsat satellite time-series data for the year 2015 using multiple machine-learning algorithms on Google Earth Engine cloud

Executive Summary Global food and water security analysis and management require precise and accurate global cropland-extent maps. Existing maps have limitations, in that they are (1) mapped using coarse-resolution remote-sensing data, resulting in the lack of precise mapping location of croplands and their accuracies; (2) derived by collecting and collating national statistical data that are often subjective, leading to substantial uncertainties in cropland-area estimates, as well as their locations; and (3) extracted from one or more classes of a land use–land cover product in which cropland classes are not the focus of mapping, leading to their mixing with other classes and creating significant errors of omission and commission. These limitations can be overcome by producing high-resolution cropland-extent maps using satellite-sensor data, such as Landsat 30-m resolution or higher. The most fundamental cropland product is the high-resolution cropland-extent map because all higher level cropland products, such as crop-watering method (that is, whether crops are irrigated or rainfed), crop types, cropping intensities, cropland fallows, crop productivity, and crop-water productivity, are dependent on a precise and accurate cropland-extent product. Given these realities, the overarching goal of this study was to produce a Landsat satellite-derived global cropland-extent product at 30-m resolution. The work, which involved a paradigm shift in how global cropland-extent maps are produced, involved the following five key steps: (1) petabyte-scale computing that involved multiyear, 8- to 16-day, time-series Landsat 30-m resolution data for the global land surface; (2) composition of analysis-ready data (ARD) cubes; (3) creation of a large global-reference data hub for machine learning; (4) use of multiple machine-learning algorithms (MLAs) by writing software and computing in the cloud; and (5) Google Earth Engine (GEE) cloud computing. The five key steps involved nine distinct phases. First, the world was segmented into 74 agroecological zones (AEZs). Second, Landsat 8- to 16-day data were used to time-composite 10-band (blue, green, red, near-infrared, short-wave infrared band 1, short-wave infrared band 2, thermal infrared, enhanced vegetation index, normalized difference water index, and normalized difference vegetation index) Landsat 30-m resolution data cubes for every 2- to 4-month time period during 3- to 4-year periods (stated as nominal-year 2015 or, simply, 2015), along with two additional 30-m resolution bands (Shuttle Radar Topography Mission elevation, and slope) in each of the 74 AEZs. Third, more than 100,000 reference-training data samples were collected using ground data (some of which were collected using a mobile application), as well as submeter- to 5-m-resolution, very high-resolution imagery sourced from other reliable sources. Fourth, reference-training data were used to create a knowledge base for separating cropland from noncropland. Fifth, MLAs such as the pixel-based supervised random forest and support-vector machines were written on the GEE using Python and JavaScript. Sixth, object-based recursive hierarchical segmentation algorithm was used, in addition to MLAs, to overcome uncertainties. Seventh, MLAs used the knowledge base to classify and separate cropland from noncropland. Eighth, accuracy assessment was conducted by generating error matrices for each of the 74 AEZs using 19,171 independent validation-data samples. Ninth, cropland areas were computed for all countries of the world and compared with United Nation’s (UN’s) Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) and other national statistics. The outcome was a Landsat-derived global cropland-extent product at 30-m resolution (GCEP30), which has an overall accuracy of 91.7 percent. For the cropland class, producer’s accuracy was 83.4 percent, and user’s accuracy was 78.3 percent. GCEP30 calculated (using direct pixel count) the global net-cropland area (GNCA) for the year 2015 as 1.873 billion hectares (~12.6 percent of the Earth’s terrestrial area). The continental cropland distribution as a percentage of GNCA was Asia, 33 percent; Europe, 25.5 percent; Africa, 16.7 percent; North America, 14.4 percent; South America, 8.1 percent; and Australia and Oceania, 2.4 percent. The worldwide cropland areas in GCEP30 for 2015 were higher by 236 to 299 million hectares (Mha) compared to national statistics reported elsewhere for the same year (for example, in Food and Agriculture Organization’s corporate statistical database [FAOSTAT] and in the monthly irrigated and rainfed crop areas [MIRCA] database). The global cropland area reported for 2015 increased by 344 Mha (22.5 percent), compared to the year 2000. During the same period (2000–2015), the world’s population increased by 20 percent. Whereas some of these areal increases are real increases in cropland areas, others are due to the types of data, methods, and approaches used. Using the highest known resolution (compared to previous coarse-resolution global products) enabled this study to capture fragmented croplands. Coarse-resolution data compute areas on the basis of subpixels, which, for a large proportion of certain land use–land cover classes, will show only a certain percentage of the total pixel area as actual area. Subpixel areas can lead to substantial uncertainties in area computation, as determining the exact fraction of cropland areas within a coarse-resolution pixel is resource intensive and subject to errors. Other innovations in GCEP30 include reference-data hubs, machine learning, and cloud computing. Cropland areas in 214 countries, territories, departments, and regions were calculated for the year 2015 using GCEP30, on the basis of UN’s global administrative unit layers (GAUL) boundaries. The 10 leading countries in terms of cropland area (as a percentage of the GNCA) were India (9.6 percent), United States (8.95 percent), China (8.82 percent), Russia (8.32 percent), Brazil (3.42 percent), Ukraine (2.32 percent), Canada (2.29 percent), Argentina (2.05 percent), Indonesia (2 percent), and Nigeria (1.91 percent). Together, these 10 countries occupy 50 percent of the global cropland, and they have 52 percent of the global population. Their combined cropland area increased by 2 percent between 2000 and 2015, compared to the substantial increase in population of 517 million (15.5 percent). Together, India, United States, China, and Russia encompass 36 percent of the total area. In the United States and Canada, from 2000 to 2015, cropland decreased by about 2 percent, whereas their populations increased by 14 and 13 percent, respectively. The additional food requirements in these 10 countries, which are caused by increased populations, as well as increasing nutritional demands, are met by production increases in existing cropland or through virtual food trade, or both. More than 18 countries, territories, departments, or regions had 60 percent or more of their geographic area as cropland: Republic of Moldova, San Marino, and Hungary had more than 80 percent of the country’s area as cropland; Denmark, Ukraine, Ireland, and Bangladesh, 70 to 80 percent; and Uruguay, Netherlands, United Kingdom, Spain, Lithuania, Poland, Gaza Strip, Czechia, Italy, India, and Azerbaijan, 60 to 70 percent. Europe and South Asia can be considered agricultural capitals of the world, on the basis of their percentages of geographic area as cropland. United States, China, and Russia, which all have high cropland areas, are ranked second, third, and fourth in the world; India is ranked first. However, the amount of cropland as a percentage of the country’s geographic area is relatively very low for United States (18.3 percent), China (17.7 percent), and Russia (9.5 percent), whereas it is 60.5 percent for India. Most African and South American countries, territories, departments, or regions have less than 15 percent of their geographic area as cropland. China and India together house 36 percent of the world’s population; however, between 2000 and 2015, the amount of China’s cropland area fell by 18.9 percent, owing to urban expansion and the abandonment of farmlands caused by demographic changes (that is, the movement of population from villages to cities). In contrast, China’s population grew by 10 percent. The amount of India’s cropland increased by 8.5 percent, whereas its population grew by 20 percent. This study showed that, out of the 10 leading cropland countries, Ukraine, Nigeria, Russia, and Indonesia showed an 18 to 31 percent increase in cropland areas, on the basis of GCEP30 by the year 2015, compared to 2000. Nigeria’s cropland area increased by 25 percent, and its population increased by 31 percent in the same period. In these countries, food security is maintained by cropland expansion, productivity increases, and virtual food trade. Nevertheless, this trend of increasing net-cropland area and productivity will likely become difficult to maintain, owing to diminishing arable lands and plateauing of 50 years of continual yield increases, requiring policymakers to explore novel and data-supported approaches to solving future food security issues. The GCEP30 product, which can be browsed at full resolution at www.croplands.org , has been released for public download and use through U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)–National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Land Processes Distributed Active Archive Center (see https://lpdaac.usgs.gov/news/release-of-gfsad-30-meter-cropland-extent-products/ ).

Professional Paper↗

USGS2012

USGS Environmental health science strategy: providing environmental health science for a changing world: Public review release

America has an abundance of natural resources. We have bountiful clean water, fertile soil, and unrivaled national parks, wildlife refuges, and public lands. These resources enrich our lives and preserve our health and wellbeing. These resources have been maintained because of our history of respect for their value and an enduring commitment to their vigilant protection. Awareness of the social, economic, and personal value of the health of our environment is increasing. The emergence of environmentally driven diseases caused by environmental exposure to contaminants and pathogens is a growing concern worldwide. New health threats and patterns of established threats are affected by both natural and anthropogenic changes to the environment. Human activities are key drivers of emerging (new and re-emerging) health threats. Societal demands for land and natural resources, a better quality of life, improved economic prosperity, and the environmental impacts associated with these demands will continue to increase. Natural earth processes, climate trends, and related climatic events will add to the environmental impact of human activities. These environmental drivers will influence exposure to disease agents, including viral, bacterial, prion, and fungal pathogens, parasites, natural earth materials, toxins and other biogenic compounds, and synthetic chemicals and substances. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) defines environmental health science broadly as the interdisciplinary study of relations among the quality of the physical environment, the health of the living environment, and human health. The interactions among these three spheres are driven by human activities, ecological processes, and natural earth processes; the interactions affect exposure to contaminants and pathogens and the severity of environmentally driven diseases in animals and people. This definition provides USGS with a framework for synthesizing natural science information from across the Bureau and providing it to environmental, natural resource, agricultural, and public-health managers. The USGS is a Federal science agency with a broad range of natural science expertise relevant to environmental health. USGS provides scientific information and tools as a scientific basis for management and policy decision making. USGS specializes in science at the environment-health interface, by characterizing the processes that affect the interaction among the physical environment, the living environment, and people, and the resulting factors that affect ecological and human exposure to disease agents. This report describes a 10-year strategy that encompasses the portfolio of USGS environmental health science. It summarizes national environmental health priorities that USGS is best suited to address, and will serve as a strategic framework for USGS environmental health science goals, actions, and outcomes for the next decade. Implementation of this strategy is intended to aid coordination of USGS environmental health activities and to provide a focal point for disseminating information to stakeholders. The "One Health" paradigm advocated by the World Health Organization (WHO, 2011), and the American Veterinary Medicine Association (AVMA, 2008), among others, is based on a general recognition that the health of humans, animals, and the environment are inextricably linked. Thus, successful efforts to protect that health will require increased interdisciplinary research and increased communication and collaboration among the broader scientific and health community. This strategy is built upon that paradigm. The vision, mission, and five cornerstone goals of the USGS Environmental Health Science Strategy were developed with significant input from a wide range of stakeholders. Vision - The USGS is a premier source of the environmental health science needed to safeguard the health of the environment, fish, wildlife, and people. Mission - The mission of USGS in environmental health science is to contribute scientific information to environmental, natural resource, agricultural, and public-health managers, who use that science to support sound decision making. USGS provides the science to: - Goal 1: Identify, prioritize, and detect contaminants and pathogens of emerging environmental concern. - Goal 2: Reduce the impact of contaminants on the environment, fish, wildlife, and people. - Goal 3: Reduce the impact of pathogens on the environment, fish, wildlife, and people. - Goal 4: Discover the complex interactions and combined effects of exposure to contaminants and pathogens. - Goal 5: Prepare for and respond to environmental impacts and related health threats of natural and anthropogenic disasters. Goals 1 through 4 are intended to provide science to address environmental health threats in a logical order, from informing prevention and preparedness, to supporting systematic management response to environmental health issues. Goal 4 addresses the interaction among contaminants and pathogens, an issue of emerging concern in environmental health science. Goal 5 acknowledges the fact that natural and anthropogenic disasters can cause immediate and prolonged adverse environmental health threats. This strategy proposes that USGS take the following strategic science actions to achieve each of the five goals of this strategy: Goal 1: Identify, prioritize, and detect contaminants and pathogens of emerging environmental concern. - Strategic Science Action 1. - Prioritize contaminants and pathogens of emerging concern to guide research, detection, and management activities. - Strategic Science Action 2. - Conduct surveillance and monitoring to provide early warning of emerging health threats. - Strategic Science Action 3. - Develop approaches and tools that identify vulnerable environmental settings, ecosystems, and species. Goal 2: Reduce the impact of contaminants on the environment, fish, wildlife, and people. - Strategic Science Action 1. - Systematically characterize the sources, occurrence, transport and fate of environmental contaminants to guide efforts to manage and mitigate contamination. - Strategic Science Action 2. - Evaluate the threats of contamination on the health of the environment, fish, wildlife, and people, and inform the associated management and protection efforts. - Strategic Science Action 3. - Characterize potential human exposure to support establishment of health-based standards or guidelines and contamination-reduction efforts. Goal 3: Reduce the impact of pathogens on the environment, fish, wildlife, and people. - Strategic Science Action 1. - Determine the biotic and abiotic factors that control the ecology of infectious diseases affecting natural populations of aquatic and terrestrial species and potential transmission to other animals and humans. - Strategic Science Action 2. - Establish how natural and anthropogenic environmental changes affect the distribution and severity of infectious diseases in natural populations of aquatic and terrestrial species and potential transmission to other animals and humans. - Strategic Science Action 3. - Develop surveillance systems to identify changing patterns of disease activity in priority geographic areas. Goal 4: Discover the complex interactions and combined effects of exposure to contaminants and pathogens. - Strategic Science Action 1. - Identify how exposure to one class of disease agents (contaminants or pathogens) can make an organism more susceptible to effects from exposure to the other class of disease agents. - Strategic Science Action 2. - Implement interdisciplinary studies that characterize the effects of combined exposure to pathogens and contaminants. Goal 5: Prepare for and respond to the environmental impacts and related health threats of natural and anthropogenic disasters. - Strategic Science Action 1. - Establish a formal interdisciplinary science capability to rapidly assess the environmental health risks associated with disasters. - Strategic Science Action 2. - Enhance methods to anticipate, prepare for, and identify environmental, ecological, and related health impacts of future disasters. This strategy is one of seven USGS science strategies developed concurrently: - Climate and Land Use Change - Core Science Systems - Ecosystems - Energy and Mineral Resources - Environmental Health - Natural Hazards - Water. This strategy describes how USGS will address the highest priority environmental health issues facing the Nation. The ultimate intended outcome of this science strategy is prevention and reduction of adverse impacts to the quality of the environment, the health of our living resources, and human health. Communication with, and receiving input from, partners and stakeholders regarding their science needs is essential for successful implementation of this strategy. It is incumbent on USGS to reach out to all stakeholders to ensure that USGS efforts are focused on the highest priority environmental health issues and that products are provided in the most timely and usable form to all those who can use them. USGS must reach out to the scientific community, internally and externally, to ensure that our efforts are integrated with and take full advantage of the activities of others.

Open-File Report↗