Climate Change #3 – Carbon, Temperature & Geologic History

Over my last two blogs, we discussed climate variation driven by natural phenomena such as the physics of the earth and sun, as well as greenhouse gases (GHGs). While both play key roles in climate change, it has hopefully become clear that on the time scale of present day climate change, it's GHGs and not natural phenomena that are steering the ship. This is the science. Not the politics.

In this blog, let’s look at the relationship of temperature and GHGs from past to present. First, let me remind you that GHGs aren’t new to the air. It’s in fact the presence of GHGs that have enabled a habitable temperature on earth by trapping solar energy. But don’t let this throw you off. It doesn’t take much GHG to have a warming effect. Throughout human history, GHGs have in fact made up only about a meager 0.03% of the atmosphere. Compared to the 21% oxygen we breathe, that’s basically a drop in the bucket! So what we’re talking about with present day climate change is a change in this very modest 0.03%. Over the last 200 years, the burning of fossil fuels have added enough GHG into the atmosphere to increase this to 0.04%. Yes, we’ve always been talking about small fractions. But the percent change from the old small fraction to the new small fraction is enormous—an increase of 33%! Actually, I’ve been rounding numbers; the true increase is over 40%.

If you added 40% more salt to your dinner, ate 40% more calories, or exercised 40% more often, there’s little doubt the change would be noticed. Change of course wouldn’t be instantaneous, but rather over the coming weeks or months. With earth, a 40% increase in GHGs is similarly a tremendous shift from the norm—a shift that will also bring no subtle change. Except, rather than noticing change over weeks or months, we’re talking years to decades. And as the years pass, we’re indeed observing this change. How much change will occur still depends on how quickly we adopt more modern energy technologies are reduce GHG emissions. But the sky is the limit (no pun intended!). Remember, an atmosphere with 0% compared to 0.03% GHGs has been the difference between a frozen earth and the comfortable earth on which our ancestors roamed. Moving then from 0.03% to 0.04%, as we’ve done over the past couple hundred years …well you can only imagine the possibilities! And 0.04% isn’t where it stops. Given the current rate of carbon emissions, this percentage will only continue to grow.

So you know that GHGs trap sunlight and thus warm the planet, and you know GHGs have been skyrocketing since the industrial revolution. But sometimes a picture (or graph) is worth a thousand words!

Source: Institute of the Environment, University of Arizona 

In the above graph, notice two key things. First, temperature and carbon dioxide (the major GHG) are indeed highly correlated through geological history. This isn’t a shocker given what we know about the warming effects of GHGs, but it’s nonetheless powerful to see the data. Second, modern day carbon dioxide is literally off the charts (top right of graph). If we extend the graph further to the left, as shown below, you’ll notice carbon dioxide concentrations are actually higher now than at any point in the last 800,000 years.

Source: U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

In short, we’re in completely uncharted territory in terms of climate—a planetary experiment if you will. Both graphs are worth a moment of pause and thought. The million dollar question being, how will the red line in the first graph ultimately respond to the blue line? There are many scientists whose careers are dedicated to answering this question. But I’ll save discussion of long term implications and temperature projections for a later post.

If you’ve taken the time to read this, congratulations! You now understand the climate change issue better than most. Now it's your turn to educate others. Please share!   

If you like this post, join the discussion! Simply click “join this site” at the top right of this page, log into your account, and click “follow publicly.”  Thanks!

Shahir Masri

Doctor of Science

Environmental Health Science

Climate Science #2 - Natural Variation?

In my last blog, I talked about greenhouse gases (GHG) as an important driver of climatic variation. Well, what about natural variation? Earth's temperatures have gone up and down in the past, so what if the current warming trend is just part of a natural cycle? Well, let’s discuss. 

Aside from GHGs, three distinct physical cycles have historically played a key role in earth’s major climate fluctuations. Collectively, these are known as the Milankovitch cycles, and include the following:

Precession (P) – If you’ve ever spun a top, you’ll notice as it slows it wobbles. Much like a top, the earth too spins with a slight wobble. Much slower than a top, however, the earth completes one full wobble about every 26,000 years. 

Axial Tilt (T) – Earth is currently titled at about 23.5 degrees from vertical. This  in fact gives rise to our seasons! As it turns out, this angle is not fixed, but rather fluctuates back and forth by a few degrees over time. One full fluctuation takes approximately 41,000 years. 

Eccentricity (E) – You all know that earth orbits the sun. What you may not know is that the shape of this orbit changes from oval to more circular at predictable cycles. One cycle takes about 100,000 years to complete. 

Figure 1. The three Milankovitch cycles depicted. 

Notice the above cycles occur at frequencies of tens of thousands of years. In other words, while the earth has warmed over the last two centuries, these three natural cycles have essentially remained constant. In fact, the current orientation of the Milankovitch cycles actually favors cooling, not warming. But again, these cycles are slow, and essentially play no role in recent temperature changes. 

Are there any other natural drivers of climate change? Sure, solar cycles. In contrast to the Milankovitch cycles, solar cycles actually occur at a much higher frequency—about every 11 years. In this case though, they occur too frequently to explain the gradual warming of the past couple hundred years. What then is the ex factor driving current climate change? Turning again to my last blog, we discussed GHGs. These gases are also known to be major drivers of climate variation. And, in fact, their concentrations in the atmosphere correlate perfectly well with the temperature changes we've observed. 

In a perfectly unbiased and politically neutral society, we would accept this with little resistance. It is quite clear and makes perfect sense. In a world influenced heavily by major industrial players who have high stakes in the game, however, this sense has been passionately battled. 

Let's recap! When we look at natural drivers of climate variation, they don’t explain the rapid increase in temperatures we’ve experienced in recent times. Those committed to refuting climate change, however, often cite such cycles as evidence against the major causes. And unfortunately, most people aren’t familiar enough with the issue to correct this fallacy. Hence, this blog! I hope I’ve informed you such that you can now inform others and refute the fallacy. 

In my next blog, I’ll present the temperature trends of the earth both in recent and ancient times as well as provide historical carbon dioxide concentrations. We will also discuss the implications of present day GHG emissions.

If you enjoyed this blog post, please support my writing by joining this blog site! Simply click “join this site” at the top right of this page, log into your account, and click “follow publicly.”  Thanks!

                                                                            Shahir Masri

                                                                            Doctor of Science

                                                                            Environmental Health Science

Climate Science #1 - How Carbon Warms the Planet

In my last post I mentioned the launching of an educational blog series on climate change. Through this, I hope to inform the public on the science of the issue, its importance, and the ways in which we can each take action to help mitigate its severity. Absent of nuclear war, climate change represents the most threatening issue of our time. It affects national security, the economy, human rights, health and disease, wildlife, and more. Sadly, the solution to the problem is one that threatens the very rich and powerful fossil fuel industry; namely, a shift to alternative energy. To prevent this shift, the industry has launched a massive mis-informational campaign designed to ensure inaction on the issue. Their goal has never been to win a scientific debate on climate change. After all, 97% of scientists agree on the facts. Rather, their goal has been to divide the public on the issue. To generate doubt. To prevent public mobilization and political pressure. And very successful they’ve been. Here we are, decades after scientists caught on to climate change, still languishing politically to address the matter.

As an air pollution scientist with zero industrial ties, I ask you to please take this blog series as an opportunity to learn about and understand the facts surrounding climate change. Do not let industry turn this into a "debate." In this series I'll explain why the climate is warming, the extent to which humans are a cause, the importance of a 2 degree temperature increase, and much more. We have a potentially catastrophic situation on our hands, and it is time to dispel the industry propaganda and truly become educated on the matter. The next step will be to seriously pressure the government for change. Our kids and grand kids will thanks us! 

The Not So Vast Atmosphere

So let's begin with the basics of greenhouse gases. What are they, how do they trap heat, and are we really releasing enough to alter the atmosphere? While the atmosphere seems infinite, consider this. On a planet that spans 25,000 miles around, the bulk of our atmosphere (99%) is only 18 miles high. If you’re from Orange County, that’s the distance between Newport Beach and Dana Point! Alternatively, that’s 30 football fields side by side. The point is, though we can view the nighttime stars, our own atmosphere is nothing more than a thin veneer around the planet. 

The Greenhouse Effect

You’re all familiar with a botanical greenhouse. It stays warm even on the coolest of days, so long as the sun is shining. So how does it work? First, let me say that the sun emits short wave radiation. As objects absorb this radiation they become warm. This is of no surprise so far. What’s important, though, is that when objects warm they too emit radiation. They release long wave radiation. Now back to the greenhouse. It turns out that short wave radiation (sunlight) can pass uninterrupted through glass, while long wave radiation (from warm objects) cannot. The result is sunlight passing into the greenhouse, warming the internal environment, which then releases long wave radiation. That long wave radiation, unable to escape back out of the glass, becomes trapped. Heat then accumulates. In the case of the earth, our atmosphere is the glass. Well, not the whole atmosphere. Certain gases in the atmosphere behave as the glass of the house—gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane. Not surprisingly, we call these "greenhouse gases," or GHGs for short. With the earth, our glass ceiling is not a perfect heat trapper. It is more like glass with windows. As we emit more and more GHGs, however, those windows begin to close and temperatures rise. This is what’s been happening over the past 200 years. The graph below shows average CO2 concenrtions in the atmosphere, and the progressive closing of these windows. 

Figure 2. Carbon dioxide concentrations over the past 1,000 years. 

Notice in the above graph, also featured on the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration website, that CO2 concentrations rise abruptly around the year 1800. This reflects the enormous spike in emissions following the industrial revolution, as mentioned earlier. This rise is no coincidence and is very substantial. From this, we might expect an increased trapping of heat and a rise in global average temperatures. Well, that's what we observe. And I'll present such temperature figures in the coming weeks. 

So what about natural climate variability? In my next blog I will cover this in detail. 

If you enjoyed this post, please join my Google blog site! Simply click “join this site” at the top right of this page, log into your account, and click “follow publicly.”  Thanks!

                                                                 Shahir Masri

                                                                 Doctor of Science

                                                                 Environmental Health Science

Toxic Talk of the Month – Field Notes from a Catastrophe

In light of the recent U.S. presidential elections and the preceding debates, I was all too reminded of the lack of attention paid to the most pressing issue of our time; namely, climate change. While nations around the world rally to legislate international policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the U.S. has simply languished due to repeated blocks by a republican senate (yes, climate change has unfortunately become a partisan issue). With Donald Trump now bound for the White House, we can expect a Supreme Court that will likely block the only regulatory hope we had (the Clean Power Plan) at seriously curbing domestic greenhouse gas emissions. With that being said, it is time for Americans to break away from the politicization and partisan spin on climate change. We simply can't rely on political figures to deliver a message when their funding depends on their silence. We must rely on our scientists to deliver this message. To this end, I am initiating a blog series aimed at educating the public on the science of climate change. As a first step, I present to you Field Notes from a Catastrophe: Man, Nature, and Climate Change.

Field Notes from a Catastrophe is the first book on climate change I ever read. It is an excellent read that I would consider non-technical and enjoyable for the greater public, yet replete with essential information. It weaves the science of climate change into an interesting investigatory narrative, told by a journalist with a burning desire to understand and report on the issue. Throughout her book, author Elizabeth Kolbert travels around the world, interviewing climate scientists and visiting places afflicted by climate change. Her observations are very real, and her discussions with scientists very telling.  

Ms. Kolbert has been a staff writer for The New Yorker for nearly 20 years. Her book originally stemmed from a groundbreaking, National Magazine Award-winning three-part series in the Newspaper. She expanded on this story to put together this captivating book. Although originally published in 2006, her book was updated in 2015 to include several new chapters. Yes, climate change has only gotten worse, and the impacts more widespread! So I call on Americans and people around the world, please learn about climate change. Get to know the issue and what you can do to reduce your carbon footprint and, importantly, to pressure your local politicians to act on the matter. Expand your knowledge using unbiased, science-based websites. No corporate or political sites! This book is a good place to start. For other credible info sites, and how to avoid garbage info, read my previous blog. And importantly, stay tuned for my climate change blog series!

Please support my writing by joining this blog site! Simply click “join this site” at the top right of this page, log into your account, and click “follow publicly.”  Thanks!

                                                                                        Shahir Masri

                                                                                        Doctor of Science

                                                                                        Environmental Health Science

Election Day is Here - Go Vote!!!

It's VOTING DAY!! To the "no voters," third party voters, and swing state voters, please consider your decision very carefully. We have a candidate on the table who believes climate change is a hoax and has little to say about curbing greenhouse gas emissions. If you have children, your vote will affect them. If you plan to have children, their futures are at stake. Vote responsibly on their behalf. They will thank you in 20 years. While I don't claim Hillary is our savior, she at least recognizes what 97% of climatologists recognize, and she has tangible policies to address the matter. The most important piece of climate legislation our country has seen, The Clean Power Plan, will soon be decided in the Supreme Court. A Trump judicial appointee would likely kill this policy, furthering the world down a path of business as usual. A no vote essentially approves this reality. A third party vote essentially approves this reality. And a Trump vote essentially welcomes this reality. Be on the right side of history!!

                                                                              Shahir Masri, S.D. 
                                                                              Environmental Health Scientist 

Clinton vs. Trump on the Environment

Hey everyone!

We’re now days away from an important presidential election. You’ve watched them debate. You’ve seen them rally. What you probably haven’t witnessed is either candidate speak to issues of the environment, except for a brief question by beloved Ken Bone of course! Fortunately, both candidates were recently interviewed on these issues by www.ScienceDebate.org, so we can still gauge and compare their stances and knowledge. In this blog I do just that! Using this Presidential Science Debate 2016 interview, I have selected 8 questions that relate specifically to the environment and public health.  To assess the quality of each candidate’s response in the least biased manner, I generated a ranking system through which I scored each response by Trump and Clinton according to 6 separate criteria. Such criteria are described below, and the results are plotted in a bar graph for simple interpretation.

Scoring Criteria

Scoring was dichotomous. That is, candidates received either a “1” or a “0” in each of 6 categories, depending on their response.

Understanding of Topic
1 = candidate conveyed a good understanding of the topic, 0 = if not

Response Length
1 = only if response was twice the length of opponent’s response, 0 = if not

Concrete Goals 
1 = candidate described specific/quantifiable goals, 0 = if not

Provided Solution
1 = candidate provided some sort of solution to the issue at hand, 0 = if not      

Scientific Accuracy
1 = candidate’s response was scientifically accurate, 0 = if not

Avoided Vague Language           
1 = candidate used strong language such as “will” or “shall” in describing goals, 0 = candidate used soft or vague language such as “should” or “can”

The Results

As shown above, Clinton out scored Trump in all issues relating to public health and the environment. However, no issue separated the candidates’ scores more than climate change. While Clinton conveyed a sound understanding of the issue and the measures needed and proposed by experts to mitigate climatic impacts, Trump conveyed an overall lack of understanding of climate change and perception of its importance. To see where each candidate was penalized according to my scoring criteria, please see the table below (zeros are left blank).

As you can see, three common criteria penalized Trump, including 1) understanding of topic, 2) response length, and 3) concrete goals. Put into a single sentence, Trump’s responses were mostly very short, vague, and failed to convey an understanding of the topics. On average Clinton’s responses were a whopping 4.5 times longer than Trumps. By contrast, Clinton appears to understand these issues quite well and has taken the steps to formulate concreted goals relating to their solutions. In reviewing this Presidential Science Debate 2016 interview, it is therefore difficult to conclude anything but Clinton as the stronger candidate on issues of public health and the environment. 

Given the differences between the candidates on these issues, I shall conclude with a bit of my own opinion. The issue of climate change is particularly alarming as it relates to Trump’s demonstration of knowledge, understanding, and lack of proposed mitigation policies. Refuting climate change is refuting what 97% of climatologists are telling us. If you visited 100 doctors and 97 of them said you had the flu, would you still question whether you had the flu?? It is time to take this issue seriously. It is imperative to have a U.S. president who takes climate change seriously. The issue is not one of the environment exclusively, but one of human health as well. Trump appears to overlook this.

If you think that my analysis could be flawed by bias, I urge you to read on. I have provided a summary of each candidates response to all 8 interview questions. I think you'll conclude that my analysis was quite fair. You will notice my summaries of each candidate’s response are not equal in length. That is, I often summarize Clinton’s response using more text. This is because I’ve taken great care to write summaries that reflect the actual lengths of each candidate’s response. Yes, I did a Microsoft “word count” on each answer! So, if one candidate’s answer was twice as long as the other’s, then my summary of their response was twice as long. This was to give you the most unbiased and accurate reflection of their true answers.  If you don’t want a summary and wish to read the full interview, click the Presidential Science Debate 2016. Note that I didn’t provide the actual questions below, but rather the topic headers, which is sufficient to understand their responses.

Response Summaries

1. Climate Change

Clinton

• The science of climate change is clear
• Climate change is an urgent threat
• Will work to slash greenhouse gas pollution
• Set 3 specific energy goals to be achieved within 10 years of taking office
• Generate half of electricity from clean sources, with half a billion solar panels installed by the end of first term.
• Cut energy waste in American homes, schools, hospitals and offices by a third and improve American manufacturing efficiency and pollution.
• Reduce American oil consumption by a third through cleaner fuels and more efficient cars, boilers, ships, and trucks.

Trump

• There is still much that needs to be investigated in the field of “climate change.” 
• Perhaps our limited financial resources should be focused on issues of water, infectious disease, and food, along with developing alternative energy sources.

2. Biodiversity

Clinton

• Conserving biodiversity is essential to maintaining our quality of life.
• Climate change, pollution, habitat destruction, unsustainable management practices, introduction of invasive species and other forces pose serious threats to biodiversity.
• Will work to double the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants program to help states, tribal nations, and local communities act earlier to conserve wildlife before they become threatened or endangered.
• Will establish an American Parks Trust Fund to scale up and modernize how we protect and enhance our natural treasures, and to better protect wildlife habitat across the country.
• Will work collaboratively with other nations to end trafficking in wildlife and illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing that threatens our oceans

Trump

• There will be shared governance of our public lands and we will empower state and local governments to protect our wildlife and fisheries. 
• Laws that tilt the scales toward special interests must be modified to balance the needs of society with the preservation of our valuable living resources.  Will bring all stakeholders to the table to determine the best approach to setting that balance.

3. Energy

Clinton  

• Make America a 21st century clean energy superpower.
• Rejects notion that the economy, environment, and national security can’t go hand in hand.
• Defend, implement, and extend smart pollution and efficiency standards, including the Clean Power Plan and standards for cars, trucks, and appliances that are already helping clean our air, save families money, and fight climate change.
• Invest in clean energy infrastructure, innovation, manufacturing and workforce development to make the U.S. economy more competitive and create good-paying jobs and careers.
• Ensure the fossil fuel production taking place today is safe and responsible and that areas too sensitive for energy production are taken off the table.
• Expand clean energy production on public lands and waters tenfold within a decade.
• Cutting billions of wasteful tax subsidies to oil and gas companies.
• Cut methane emissions across the economy and create strong standards for reducing leaks.

Trump

• It should be the goal of the American people and their government to achieve energy independence as soon as possible.
• Obtaining energy independence should include exploring wind, solar, nuclear and bio-fuels.

4. Public Health

Clinton

• Despite recent major events like contaminated drinking water in Flint, Michigan, the spread of Zika virus, and the continuing need to address HIV, we are not currently investing in public health preparedness and emergency response the way we should.
• Will create a Public Health Rapid Response Fund, with consistent, year-to-year budgets, to better enable the Centers for Disease Control, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, state and local public health departments, hospital systems, and other federal agencies to quickly and aggressively respond to major public health crises and pandemics. 
• Will ensure that our government has strong leadership and is organized to better support and work with people on the ground facing public health challenges.
• Must focus on boosting our preparedness for biological threats and bioweapons, supporting research for new diagnostic tests and vaccines for emerging diseases, building capacity in public health departments, etc.

Trump

• We cannot simply throw money at public health institutions and assume that the nation will be well served. 
• Must focus on assessing where we need to be as a nation and then applying resources to those areas where we need the most work. 
• Our efforts to support research and public health initiatives will have to be balanced with other demands for scarce resources.

5. Water

Clinton

• Invest in infrastructure and work with states, municipalities, and the private sector to modernize water systems and provide all Americans access to clean, safe drinking water.
• The federal government must become a better partner in supporting state and locally-led efforts to improve water security.
• Create a coordinated, multi-agency Western Water Partnership to help fund water efficiency, consideration, and infrastructure modernization projects across the region, including significant new investments in water reuse and reclamation.
• Establish a new Water Innovation Lab for better water efficiency and treatment solutions.

Trump

• Invest in our fresh water infrastructure to ensure access to affordable fresh water solutions.
• Explore all options to include making desalinization more affordable and work to build the distribution infrastructure.

6. Nuclear

Clinton

• Nuclear power accounts for over 60% of our zero carbon power generation and is an important tool for meeting climate change goals.
• Will increase research, development and deployment of advanced nuclear power. 
• Must also invest in the security of our nuclear materials at home, and improve coordination between federal, state, and local authorities.
• Must seek to reduce the amount of nuclear material worldwide – working with other countries to minimize the use of weapons-grade material for civil nuclear programs.

Trump

• Nuclear power can be made safer and is a valuable source of energy that should be part of an all-the-above program for providing power for America long into the future. 

7. Vaccines

Clinton

• Will protect child health in American and the globe through use of vaccinations and vaccine science.
• The recent measles outbreaks in California’s Marin and Orange counties remind us that we cannot be complacent with our own nation’s vaccine policies.
• Will work closely with talented physicians, nurses, and scientists in U.S. Public Health Service to speak out and educate parents about vaccines.
• We need to engage stakeholders across industry, non-profits, foundations, and government to spur the development of a new generation of vaccines.

Trump

• Should educate public on the values of a comprehensive vaccination program.

8. Ocean Health

Clinton

• Our coastal and ocean resources play a critical role in providing nutritious food, good livelihoods, and critical storm protection for our nation.
• With about 40 percent of our nation’s population living in coastal counties, 1.8 million Americans making their livelihood from fisheries, and 3 billion people globally dependent on the oceans for a major portion of their protein, we cannot afford to ignore the health of our oceans.
• Will continue to recover and rebuild U.S. fish stocks by making sound management decisions based on the best available science.
• Will work with our industry, and other countries, to implement strong traceability standards for our seafood from bait to plate.
• Will work collaboratively across government, academia, and industry to build solutions that keep our waters clean, our coastal and ocean resources healthy, and our communities thriving.

Trump

• Work with Congress to establish priorities on how to allocate fiscal resources.  

If you enjoyed this article, please show your support by following my blog! Simply click "join this site" at the top right of this page, log into your account, and click "follow publicly." Thanks!! =)

                                                                         Shahir Masri
                                                                         Doctor of Science
                                                                         Environmental Health Science

Aerial Pesticide Spraying for Mosquito Control - News Publication!

Hey blog world,

Recently I discussed the Zika outbreak. One strategy being applied in the U.S. to combat Zika is aerial spraying of organophosphate pesticides (OPs) for mosquito control. Kill the mosquitoes and you'll reduce Zika. However, OPs come with their own set of health consequences. As recent flooding by Hurricane Matthew may bring a boom in mosquito numbers, it's quite possible we'll see OP spraying yet again commence. In an opinion piece published just yesterday in The Hill, I discuss this issue in detail. Check out the article below!

In the wake of Hurricane Matthew — to spray or not to spray?

"Confronted by devastating Hurricane Matthew, Florida residents and city officials have even more to deal with than the obvious destruction and loss at hand.  When floods and rain subside, stagnant puddles and newly formed ponds persist — a perfect breeding ground for mosquitoes. What this has meant previously is aerial spraying of highly toxic..." 

Get the full article at The Hill. 

Join my blog site by clicking “join this site” at the top right of this page, logging into your account, and clicking “follow publicly.”  Thanks!

                                                          Dr. Shahir Masri

                                                          Environmental Health Scientist