NOAA and Scripps Institution of Oceanography announced today that the growth of CO₂ concentrations is increasing.

• 1980s averaged 1.6 ppm per year
• 1990s averaged 1.5 ppm per year
• Last decade averaged 2.2 ppm per year
• The most recent six consecutive years of year-over-year increases exceed 2 ppm.
• From 2016 to 2017, the year-over year increase was 2.3 ppm

NOAA and Scripps atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration upward sweeping curve.

The science informs us that 450 ppm CO₂ could launch us over a threshold of catastrophic climate disruption.  Planet Earth is like the Titanic heading straight toward an iceberg, except, in this case, we see the iceberg.  We know it is there.  Four decades ago, we could have easily turned away with limited economic demands.  Today, we must leverage greater economic assets to avoid catastrophe.  But, we can still turn away from our collision path with nature.

To address any problem, you first recognize and accept that there is a problem.  Next, you must understand the source of the problem.  Non-renewable fossil fuels—coal; oil; and natural gas—are the primary drivers of increasing atmospheric CO₂ concentrations.  Ignoring or denying the problem by sticking one’s head in the petroleum ponds beneath the sand only pushes a bigger problem on to the next generation.

The climate crisis can be solved, but the time to solve it is now.  Business decisions, policy decisions, and your personal decisions must be informed by the known science.

One of our goals in writing these blog posts is to educate and inform concerning issues surrounding climate change.  It may seem that much of what we write about is depressing and that there are no answers in the fight against climate change.   So this summer I would like to focus on ideas from the book DRAWDOWN The Most Comprehensive Plan Ever Proposed to Reverse Global Warming. DRAWDOWN is a New York Times Bestseller where over two hundred scientists and researchers worldwide have modeled and presented one hundred creative ideas to “draw down” carbon in our atmosphere.

Let’s focus on energy first since this is the most controversial topic surrounding climate change and is all about the money.  But just step back for a moment and look at the overall impacts of fossil fuels.  From start to finish, fossil fuels have a significant negative environmental impact.  Almost all of us in the US have witnessed the drilling impact from standard oil drilling practices and the use of energy and water to the more recent practice of fracking to primarily recover natural gas.  From spills to leaks to flaming water faucets and waste water ponds, the environmental impact of collecting fossil fuels is significant. Throw in the potential impacts of increased earthquake activity from fracking and the toll becomes even more deadly.  These issues are only the tip of the iceberg when comes to environmental impact, add in the production of carbon dioxide and other harmful gases from burning fossil fuels and we have created an environmental nightmare!

Now contrast this with the manufacture of wind turbines and solar cells.  Yes the manufacturing process requires energy – so let’s call that a wash with fossil fuel energy needs for production.  The next thing we could look at is the mining associated with procuring the metals necessary for production.  While the mining has a negative environmental impact, most metal mining operations attempt to minimize the impact and there are fewer negative impacts to the surrounding environment, so these renewables have an advantage in production over fossil fuels.  But the BIG savings to the environment comes with the subsequent energy production where there is NO CARBON DIOXIDE or any other harmful gases produced when wind and solar generate energy!

OK, now back to the money.  The International Monetary Fund estimates that fossil fuel subsidies were close to $5.3 trillion worldwide in 2015.  NOT A TYPO, that is $5.3 TRILLION in one year.  Since 2000, the United States has provided $12.3 billion in subsidies for wind – that is 15 years, which averages $820 million per year for the ENTIRE US.  Despite this paltry sum, wind has gained momentum and with ~314,000 turbines worldwide, wind now supplies almost 4% of global energy!

I leave you with the impact statement from DRAWDOWN concerning wind energy;

“An increase in onshore wind from 2.9 percent of world electricity use to 21.6 percent by 2050 could reduce emissions by 84.6 gigatons of carbon dioxide. For offshore wind, growing from 0.1 percent to 4 percent could avoid 14.1 gigatons of emissions. At a combined cost of $1.8 trillion, wind turbines can deliver net savings of $7.7 trillion over the three decades of operation. These are conservative estimates however. Costs are falling annually and new technological improvements are already being installed, increasing capacity to generate more electricity at the same or lower costs”

A Tea Party Republican Congressman walks into a U.S. House of Representatives Science, Space and Technology Committee meeting.  He takes his seat on the podium.

A hapless climate scientist sits at a table facing the Committee members.

The meeting is called to order.  The purpose of the hearing is to focus on how technology can be deployed for climate change adaptation.

A discussion ensues on global sea-level rise.

Tea Party Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala) proclaims sea level rise is due to erosion.  He says that the White Cliffs of Dover tumble into the sea every year, and that contributes to sea-level rise.

“Every time you have that soil or rock or whatever it is that is deposited into the seas, that forces the sea levels to rise, because now you have less space in those oceans, because the bottom is moving up,”

Climate scientist Philip Duffy, president of the Woods Hole Research Center in Massachusetts and former senior adviser to the U.S. Global Change Research Program retorts, “I’m pretty sure that on human time scales, those are minuscule effects.”

Brooks adds his assessment that Antarctic ice is growing.

Duffy responds, “We have satellite records clearly documenting a shrinkage of the Antarctic ice sheet and an acceleration of that shrinkage.”

Brooks counters, “I’m sorry, but I don’t know where you’re getting your information, but the data I have seen suggests …”

Duffy says, “The National Snow and Ice Data Center and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.”

Brooks propounds, “Well, I’ve got a NASA base in my district, and apparently, they’re telling you one thing and me a different thing.”

Ha!  Ha!  Ha!

Are you laughing?  The person you view as the butt of the joke likely depends on your ideology and political position.

Background

Congress created the Select Committee on Astronautics and Space Exploration (now, called the Science, Space and Technology Committee) in the wake of the mid-20^th Century Soviet space program and the launch of the first satellite into space—Sputnik in 1958.  A subsequent Act created NASA (the National Aeronautics and Space Administration).

Our nation was so stunned by Sputnik followed soon after by the launch of Soviet Cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin into space that it transformed John F. Kennedy from a reluctant senator who had previously voted to kill the US space program to a shaken young president who now embraced it.  Newly elected President Kennedy challenged the nation in 1961 to “commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him back safely to the earth.”  To accomplish this goal, our nation made the largest peacetime commitment of resources ever – by any nation at any time – that resulted in a decade of unimaginable creativity and technological achievements.  In 1969, I was glued to my black and white television screen – color TV’s were not yet standard home appliances – as Neil Armstrong stepped from the landing module Eagle onto the Moon’s surface.  Faced with a formidable goal, political will allowed America to rise to the challenge.

Our space program was not thwarted by legislators proclaiming the moon was made out of cheese, thus not really a planetary body.

We will not solve the climate crisis by allowing legislators to claim that rising oceans are the result of rocks falling into the sea.

Egregious self-inflicted ignorance adversely impacts all of us.  National energy and technology policy must be informed by the known science.  Those who value ideological commitments more than empirical facts pose a grave danger to our democracy.

In the figure below I adapted from a NOAA graph, you will see that our planet Earth is breathing.

Our planet undergoes natural seasonal breathing. Figure adapted from NOAA.

Let’s begin with last year’s data.  The atmospheric CO₂ concentration hit its annual maximum in May 2017 at 409.65 ppm.  As vegetation sprang to life in late spring, plants began removing CO₂ from the atmosphere via photosynthesis.  Growing leaves, flowers, fruits, and plant fibers take CO₂ from the atmosphere and convert it into high-energy glucose, fructose, starch, and cellulous.  We rely on the annual renewal of these high-energy plant sources for life to exist on this planet.  As autumn arrives, the plants go dormant, trees drop their leaves, and CO₂ bottoms out at its minimum for the year.  Atmospheric CO₂ bottomed out at in 403.38 ppm in September 2017.  The CO₂ rose again through the winter months and early spring before it hit its current April 2018 high at 410.26 ppm.  We can expect May 2018 to max out near 411 ppm CO₂.

Why worry?  It’s clear that the concentration of carbon dioxide undergoes natural annual variation.  Nature will correct itself.  Right?

Let’s look back in time in order to understand the gravity of the situation we face.  The global average CO₂ concentration was approximately 280 ppm prior to the onset of the 19^th Century Industrial Revolution.  If we look back 800,000 years, we will see natural variation in atmospheric carbon dioxide fluctuating between about 180 ppm during the ice ages and rising to approximately 280 ppm during interglacial warm periods.  Note that the CO₂ peaks and valleys track the comings and goings of the ice ages.  Yes, planet Earth breathes on both paleoclimate and annual cycles.

Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations for the past 800,000 years based on ice core data.  Credit NOAA Climate.gov

Notice that going back 800,000 years, the CO₂ concentration in our atmosphere never exceeded 300 ppm.  It took another 300,000+ years before once again breaking through the 300 ppm barrier in the mid-20^th Century.

We passed the 400 ppm threshold in April 2014.

We passed 410 ppm in April 2018 and will exceed 420 ppm in another 4 years.

Nature will not correct itself.  It is up to us!

The first step is to stop our head-in-the-sand denial.  Next is to face the global crisis we face.  We can solve this problem, but the time for action is now.  Today!

My parents kicked the can down the road to my generation and my generation kicked the can further down the road to our children.  Why?  We thought the economic costs of addressing the situation were too high.  Coal and oil were cheap, because we did not factor in the costs of rising sea levels, desertification, extreme weather events, and more.

My children can no longer kick the can down to their children.  I have nine grandchildren.  It is my responsibility, the responsibility of my children, and the responsibility of all of us to leave a habitable world for those born today and those yet-to-be unborn.

Nature will not correct itself!  Humans are responsible for the unprecidented rise in atmospheric CO₂ concentrations.  It is up to us.

What can you do?  Contact you legislators—local and national.  Demand climate legislation based on the known science.  Use your purchasing power by supporting only those businesses that include sustainability goals in their mission.  Assess your own carbon footprint.

I have hope.  But, the time to act is now!

James Hansen, a climate scientist that used to work for NASA used computer simulations to predict what would happen if large amounts of fresh water glaciers melted into a saltwater ocean. His study included both the Southern Ocean (surrounding Antarctica) and the North Atlantic (the Artic). His simulations indicated that this tremendous amount of fresh water would upend ocean circulations leading to fast-rising seas and superstorms.

(fredtamashiro/https://www.sciencealert.com/images/2018-04/processed/getty_iceberg_crashing_1024.jpgiStock)

Now we have new research published in Science Advances that indicates glacial melt is indeed affecting ocean currents in the Southern Ocean.  Let’s start with some basics concerning the ocean.  The normal process is that areas of the ocean called polynya (areas where cold water is formed) help to create Dense Shelf Water (DSW; also referred to as High-Salinity Shelf Water). The DSW drops to the bottom of the ocean creating the normal arctic circulation.

What these researchers have found is that several of these polynya areas are not producing DSW and causing a type of inversion which increases the sea ice melt (a bad positive feedback loop).  Warmer water spreads across the continental shelf and leads to melting ice shelves, shelves that are in regions that buttress ice that if melted would result in 4m of global sea level rise (since we live in the land of English measurement, that is over 12 feet).

The major conclusion drawn from this research is that glacial melt is causing the change in arctic sea water circulation.

For those who wish to dig deeper, I would encourage you to read the articles linked in this post, if you want just a little more, below is a descriptive figure and caption from the authors.

Fig. 4. Impact of glacial meltwater on dense water formation and shelf stratification.
On warm continental shelves, as those on the Sabrina Coast and in the
Amundsen Sea (A), MCDW drives rapid ice shelf basal melt. The large volume of glacial
meltwater prevents DSW formation in polynyas downstream of themeltwater outflow.
MCDW remains in the bottom layer throughout the year in the polynya and further
downstream, where it can access the ice shelf cavities. On cold continental shelves, the
ice shelf cavities are filled by cold shelf waters, and basal melt rates are low. Glacial
meltwater input is not sufficient to suppress winter convection in polynyas
downstream of the meltwater outflow, as seen at Cape Darnley Polynya (B), allowing
formation of DSW, the precursor to Antarctic Bottom Water.

As we see with most environmental issues, it is the developing nations that run the highest risk, and air quality is no different.  As you can see from the cart below, poorer nations are at the highest risk for bad air with levels well above the World Health Organizations interim air quality target of 35 µg/m³, their least stringent mark.  This accounts for almost 60% of the world’s population. The WHO recommends a level less than 10 µg/m³ ambient (outdoor) fine particulate matter concentrations (small dust or soot particles in the air).

A map comparing particulate matter concentrations to WHO guidelines and interim targetsHEI

According to the this report, long term exposure to outdoor and indoor air pollution contributed to 6.1 million premature deaths from stroke, heart attack, lung cancer, and chronic lung disease.  This places bad air up there among the leading causes of death at 4^th highest. China and India are the world leaders with air pollution these countries making up over half of the estimated 6.1 million premature deaths.

So, what makes up the measured air pollution in this study?

Here is how the State of Global Air 2018 website explains it;

“Air pollution has many sources. On a global basis, major sources include residential, commercial, and industrial combustion of coal and other fossil fuels for heating and power generation, agricultural practices, residential burning of biomass (wood, dung, and peat) for heating and cooking, and traffic, among others.“

So in other words, human activity is the primary contributor to air pollution, and particularly the activity that surrounds burning fossil fuels.

The number of deaths per country due to air pollution in 2016.HEI

So on this earth day, take a deep breath and think about the air that you are breathing.  You may be risking your life by your activity today.

We need to stop burning fossil fuels because it will save millions of lives.

Past their peak, cherry blossoms lose petals but still provide a colorful palette along the Tidal Basin.

The previous week, I visited the Tidal Basin with my soon-to-be two-years-old youngest granddaughter for the sheer pleasure of an outing with her to enjoy the full-bloom blossoms.  This past Saturday, my journey had a dual mission—to assess the blossoms in their diminishing state and to participate in the March for Science.  My oldest granddaughter, who is 11 years old, joined me on this trek.

My takeaway from the March for Science is that we—as scientists—simply do not know how to engage broader society.

The March for Science Mission to “[publically communicate] science as a pillar of human freedom and prosperity” is laudable.  In DC and around the world, we unite “as a diverse, nonpartisan group to call for science that upholds the common good, and for political leaders and policy makers to enact evidence-based policies in the public interest.”

The March for Science Board and Staff put in a great deal of effort and developed a reasonable Plan for activities in DC, or at least on paper, it looked like a good plan.

• 9:00 am, Teach-in and Expo tents open on the Capital Mall near the Washington Monument.
• 12:30-3:00 pm, Rally speakers and musical performances
• 3:30 pm, March to the White House

The outcome was a bust!

As I wandered past the tents, I saw few participants.  I walked through the zone hosting large screens and a stage.  A modest number of science supporters lazed on the grass and listened to speakers pronounce meaningful messages about the role of science to a like-minded tribe.  Few needed to be convinced.  The message was not reaching those who most need to hear it.

March for Science participants listen to speakers and performers.

Where were all the people?  Well…it was a beautiful day.  Many who may have gathered on the Mall were elbow-to-elbow with me meandering around the water, enjoying the remnants of the cherry blossoms and other spring blooms, and visiting the monuments and multiple festivities.  After all, this was the closing weekend of the Cherry Blossom Festival.  And, the National Cherry Blossom Parade from 10 am to noon with marching bands, floats, and performers attracted throngs.

Walking around the Tidal Basin, I saw a number of tee shirts supporting science and some carrying posters.

March for Science participants strolling along the Tidal Basin hold up their signs.

Like me, few had interest in laying in the hot sun listening to speakers who would be feeding me a message I already fully accept.  It would be a bit like a York County farmer sitting at the county fair listening to speaker-after-speaker pronouncing the need to plant corn seeds in the spring after the frozen ground has thawed.  “Your seeds will rot if you plant them too early!”  “You won’t get an effective yield if you wait until July to plant!”  “Corn is needed to feed your livestock!”  You get the idea.

Last year, we were a highly energized group of scientists and supporters who came to DC on Earth Day to “MARCH”!  Our goal was to send a message, “support science and evidenced based research.”  Last year, it was cold and rainy.  There was a strong comradery among those gathered.  We were not competing with a festival and parades.

Unfortunately, the 2018 March for Science fell far short of its goal.

We—the scientific community—need your help.  We can do the science.  We can draft nonpartisan information that should inform public policy.  However, we are not effective communicators.

We encourage you to engage in ‘citizen science’.  Citizen science is people power—a growing collaboration between the general public and professional scientists.  Let us work together to communicate science for the benefit of Earth and its peoples.

Cherry blossoms in bloom around the Tidal Basin.

As we wandered the pathway surrounding the Tidal Basin, I was struck not only by the ephemeral blooms, but also, by the monuments to great leaders in our nation’s history—Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Thomas Jefferson, and Martin Luther King, Jr.  Looking back across the Tidal Basin, the Washington Monument towered in the distance.

Washington Monument.

Thomas Jefferson espoused ideas in the drafting of our constitution that all men are created equal.  His basic concept of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” instructs our government to protect these basic human rights.

Thomas Jefferson Memorial.

I found two quotes inscribed on the Franklin D. Roosevelt Memorial to be especially poignant:

• “In these days of difficulty, we Americans everywhere must and shall choose the path of social justice…the path of faith, the path of hope, and the path of love toward our fellow man.”
• “Men and nature must work hand in hand. The throwing out of balance of the resources of nature throws out of balance also the lives of men.”

On the 50^th Anniversary of Martin Luther King’s assassination, citizens and leaders across the country reflected on his influence and profound statements.  A deeply insightful quote from his 1967 Christmas sermon in Atlanta inscribed on the south wall behind his statue counsels, “If we are to have peace on earth, our loyalties must become ecumenical rather than sectional.  Our loyalties must transcend our race, our tribe, our class, and our nation; and this means we must develop a world perspective.”

Martin Luther King, Jr Memorial.

I later passed by the White House on my way back to the metro.  I felt disheartened by the current divisive nature of our citizenry.  Our President has appointed as his advisory tribe the most racially exclusive cadre since Herbert Hoover.  The rhetoric being tweeted contrasts sharply with inspirational quotes of earlier leaders.

I am especially concerned with the adverse impacts by federal agencies—Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Energy, and Department of Interior—directly attempting to undo policies that address our most challenging global economic, social, environmental, and energy issues.  Even FOX News has challenged, “Is draining the swamp, renting an apartment from the wife of a Washington lobbyist?”

Reflecting on Trump’s ‘draining the swamp’ metaphor, I suggest that we had a relatively balanced estuary in the Tidal Basin and surrounding environ prior to January 2017.  Draining an estuary does not create a healthy ecosystem.  It creates an inviting environment for invasive species—the opportunists.

I love the beautiful cherry blossoms on display in our nation’s Capital.  I love our country.  I have nine grandchildren who will inherit the world my generation leaves behind.  I am a fiscal conservative tasked with preserving material and energy resources for the young and as-yet unborn.

What can you do?  Take inspiration from past leaders who were more interested in the welfare of our nation than their personal fame and bank accounts.  Please join the March for Science in Washington, DC and communities across the country next Saturday (April 14).  The March “champions robustly funded and publicly communicated science as a pillar of human freedom and prosperity.”  It is a call for us “to unite as a diverse, nonpartisan group to call for science that upholds the common good, and for political leaders and policymakers to enact evidence-based policies in the public interest.”

Special Note:  The National Cherry Blossom Festival Parade is to be held on April 14 in DC and blossoms may still be in bloom.

The 1960’s saw fire-breathing behemoths devour metal ores and discourage steel and aluminum by the mega tons.  It was a decade for the American worker.  American workers filled jobs mining metal ores and coal.  In the mill, American workers filled assembly line positions from the open hearth to the final sheet metal.  Summer jobs were plentiful for college students.  I was one of the beneficiaries.

I landed plum jobs for three summers at the Bethlehem Steel plant in Steelton and one summer job at Capitol Products, an aluminum products manufacturer in Mechanicsburg.  The Steelton plant extracted liquid iron at the open hearth, shipped it down the line where it was rolled into flat sheets, and finally shaped into 40 foot long pipes destined for oil fields at home and abroad.  The pipes ranged in diameter from 24 inches to 42 inches.  I spent my summers at the end of the line in the pipe mill where I commanded a powerful hand grinder to scrub scabs (imperfections) off the pipes.  Sometimes this meant crawling inside the pipe to do my work where hot metal shavings would sail around the interior of the pipe and down the back of my shirt.  It was hot, dirty work, but a fat paycheck was my reward.

Assembly line slots couldn’t sit empty, so workers had to be commandeered to work double shifts when another worker failed to show up for his assigned shift—which happened often.  My supervisor—who was responsible for filling all slots—quickly discovered that I was always willing to work a ‘double’, so I clocked a lot of time-and-a-half pay hours.  Holidays were double-time pay and there was bonus pay when we pushed pipes in excess of our quota out the door.

These pipes were shipped around the world—from Alaska to Sadia Arabia—where they were welded into long, slithering pipe lines used for transporting petroleum from well to harbor.  It is a bit unsettling for me now, as I understand how I contributed to the construction of the oil field arteries that transfer subterranean petroleum reserves to ships and refineries, knowing that the outcome produces gigatons of carbon dioxide dumped into our atmosphere.

I worked in the mills when iron and aluminum flowed pure and the workers were many.  Heavy industry faced little completion in the immediate decades following WWII with little incentive to improve productivity.  However, even back then, I puzzled at why there seemed to be little investment in the aging plant.  Money was flush—attested by my growing bank account.  It was unfathomable then that in just two decades, economic decline in Steelton, Mechanicsburg, Pittsburg, and other steel cities would dub once dominant industrial states “The Rust Belt”.  Now, when I drive over the PA Turnpike Bridge crossing the Susquehanna at Steelton, I find it quite disconcerting to look upriver and see but a withered carcass of what was a vibrant plant where I once worked.

At the November 2017 UN climate conference (COP23) in Bonn, Germany, I took a trip down memory lane to a steel manufacturing plant on an excursion organized by the German government.  Like in days past, I donned a hard hat and goggles for my trek into the mill.  What I observed in this German steel mill contrasts sharply with the current US tariff model for fostering a robust steel industry.

thyssenkrupp coporate headquarters in Essen, Germany—the 2017 European Green Capital.

The steel plant—thyssenkrupp—sits in the heart of North Rhine-Westphalia, a once strong coal mining and steel industry state.  Stepping into the open hearth area of the plant, I was struck by the absence of workers.  Molten iron flowed from the open hearth with a single worker managing the stream.  Modern looking machines controlled the area. Gone were the clanging noises, dirt, and grim associated with my steel working experience.

View of the thyssenkrup plant from a catwalk atop one of its manufacturing buildings.]

I served as a Fulbright Scholar at a university in this region thirty years ago.  Back then, it was a gritty industrial state.  Laundry was likely to be dirtier after it was put out to dry than before washing.  Today, the region has gone from gray to green.  Its steel city Essen was awarded the title 2017 European Green Capital last year.

The German government has invested more than $70 billion dollars in a Carbon2Chem project at thyssenkrupp aimed at converting its greenhouse gas emissions into base chemicals to be re-used as raw materials in other industries.  The smoke once belching from stacks is now captured, saving 10 million tons/year of carbon dioxide from escaping into the atmosphere.

At thyssenkrupp, sustainability is part of their business model.  Climate protection is one of the company’s strategic goals.  They are committed to the targets of the Paris Agreement and “believe that net zero greenhouse gas emissions in the second half of the century is an achievable goal.”  The Carbon Disclosure Project rated thyssenkrupp as one of the best companies worldwide in climate protection.

Rather than seek protection from competition through tariffs, the German steel industry has invested heavily in modernization, innovation, and decarbonization.  It continues to work on efficiency and improvements.  Embracing transformation, thyssenkrupp is recognized as global leader for its actions and strategies in response to climate change.

As a former steel worker and son of a coal worker, I’m deeply concerned with disingenuous promises about bringing back traditional jobs on the assembly line and in the mines.  Jobs of the future will be in companies that compete globally through innovation and sustainable economic, environmental, and social actions.

thyssenkrupp car body project—cars of the future need to be lighter, greener, and more economical.