Climate Change Curious

Following the World Health Organization’s declaration of a pandemic on March 11th, countries around the world have buckled down for a fight unlike one we have ever seen before. As the pandemic rages on, the most important thing to do is to buy ourselves time. The war against the novel coronavirus is taking place on two fronts, and we may have just gained an upper hand on one.

The social front of the fight is being led by politicians, policy makers, and epidemiologists. Physical distancing is implemented as an attempt to slow transmission of the virus. Slower spread offers to lessen the strain on our health systems and give scientists the time they need to develop a vaccine.

While the response of society seems to consume our purview, these restrictions will not completely prevent people from contracting the virus. When they do, a more intimate side of the fight comes into focus – the molecular front. Differing from the societal level, the molecular front sees no politics, emotion or human bias. Instead, everything comes back to the mechanisms our bodies have in place to fight viral infections. The work of scientists studying this front may give us an advantage moving forward.

The immune system specializes in detecting, attacking, and eliminating unwanted pathogens. When a virus enters the body, the immune system sounds an alarm and begins to prepare a response. When the immune system has built up the appropriate army of molecules and antibodies to combat the foreign particle, it generally does a good job at eliminating viruses quickly. Unfortunately, this rarely occurs instantaneously. It can take time for the internal alarm to go off in our bodies and for our immune systems to mount a response. In this time, viruses will hijack and kill more and more cells, increasing the severity of resulting symptoms.

Vaccines work well because they prime the immune system for the virus. In other words, the vaccine tells our immune system what troops of cells to prepare if a certain virus enters. A vaccine is almost like giving our immune systems intel about its opponent before the fight. It allows our bodies to understand what makes the virus unique so it can retaliate effectively. The uniqueness of the novel coronavirus, called SARS-CoV-2, is the glycoproteins on its surface. You can think of these as its weaponry used against the host. If we understand what weapons the virus plans to use before they use them, we can counter the attack by producing cells specifically aimed to disable these weapons and minimize damage. In fact, when primed correctly, the virus can be completely eliminated before we show any symptoms at all. Although many potential vaccines have been pushed into development, this is not a fast process and we are a long way out from anything being widely available.

In the meantime, a significant amount of effort is being put into anti-viral therapies. Instead of priming the immune system pre-infection like vaccines, anti-virals are given to patients shortly after symptoms appear to slow progression of the disease and reduce the chances the virus will be spread to others.

An international collaborative research effort offers a potential breakthrough to gain an upper-hand on the molecular front. Like anti-virals, this proposed treatment works to directly target a virus after it infects a human. What makes it so ground-breaking is that this treatment fights the virus by giving it more of what it wants.

When SARS-CoV-2 enters the body, it binds a protein on the surface of human cells called ACE2. After the virus successfully binds, it gains access into our cells and begins producing more viruses, strengthening its hold on the host and worsening symptoms.

SARS-CoV-2 is best known for its ability to infect cells in the respiratory tract. This is because these cells have ACE2 on their surfaces. When viruses bind ACE2, the receptor cannot perform its normal function. ACE2 functions normally to protect our lungs from damage. Therefore, infection through ACE2 not only gives the virus access to the cells, but it makes our lungs more susceptible to damage. This may explain the high mortality rate of infected individuals.

The recent study proposes to treat infection by giving the virus more ACE2 to bind to, overwhelming it and compromising its ability to attack host cells. The treatment would consist of administering soluble ACE2 to patients. Soluble means the protein is not attached to anything and will float freely throughout the fluids in our body. Therefore, when the virus binds the soluble ACE2, nothing happens, and the virus gets slowed down.

If a vaccine is information the immune system gains before battle, soluble ACE2 anti-viral treatments are like decoys that distract the virus from host cells and slow its attack. While this approach is unlikely to completely eliminate the virus, it gives the immune system the time it needs to build up its defences and mount a strong response.

Early results show tremendous promise for soluble ACE2 as an anti-viral treatment. Researchers found the treatment can reduce viral load by a factor of 1000-5000. Viral load refers to the number of viruses present during infection.

In order to get representative data as fast as possible, the researchers used human stem cells and reprogrammed them to grow into organoids. Organoids are synthetic human organs. These engineered organs are the perfect system for understanding how human tissue might respond to treatment, without testing real patients.

Climate change is doing more than just melting ice caps and killing coral reefs, it may also be driving the spread of some of the most dangerous viruses known to man. As temperatures continue to increase, the widespread impacts of global warming are becoming more clear.

Wildlife is very sensitive to changes in temperature. For some organisms, a warmer climate will almost certainly mean extinction. But for a select few, global warming is shaping a world for them to thrive. Unfortunately for us, the change in habitat of certain species may bring more infectious diseases to the forefront of public attention.

A group of scientists in the United States are studying how climate change may broaden the global range of mosquitoes. The researchers focused on two species of mosquitoes: the yellow fever mosquito and the tiger mosquito. As temperatures rise, the heat-limited tiger mosquito risks losing its habitat. The more heat-tolerant yellow fever mosquito, however, may rapidly expand its global distribution as more regions match its optimal temperatures for survival. Both mosquitoes are notorious for carrying human diseases caused by dengue, yellow fever, Zika and West Nile viruses. If a person is bitten by a mosquito carrying one of these viruses, they will contract the disease. Therefore, more yellow fever mosquitoes around the world potentially translates to more human infections.

The study presents models that predict how many people will be affected by the redistribution of mosquito-borne viruses. Using strongly supported global warming forecasts, the model predicts that up to one billion new people may be exposed to viruses transmitted through mosquitoes in the next century.

The land is warming, the ocean is warming, and the atmosphere is warming. In the past 50 years, the average global temperature of our planet has increased by 0.88°C. As this warming trend continues, projections estimate an increase of 2-4°C by 2100. We don’t exactly know what this will mean for everyday life, but we can be almost certain the results will not be good.

Since the basis of the global warming argument is temperature, it is important that we understand what the temperature data actually means and where it is coming from. In recent history, temperatures have been increasing and it is almost certain humans are responsible. How scientists know temperature is increasing can be described by the three pillars of global temperature: land surface temperature, sea surface temperature, and atmospheric temperature. These pillars not only hold up the global warming argument, but they play an essential role in understanding climate change as a whole. 

Let’s start with pillar #1, land surface temperature. This pillar measures the temperature very low in the Earth’s atmosphere (i.e. “ground level”). Land surface temperature is what we experience day to day when we step outside. The data composing pillar #1 varies tremendously. It changes by location, season, and even time of the day. Therefore, obtaining a single value to represent a global average is a big task.

Land surface temperature is measured in two different ways. For now, we will focus on the most well-known method - thermometers. However, these aren’t your standard thermometers you have set up on your back deck. Positioned a set distance from the ground, expensive weather station thermometers are surrounded by structures called Stevenson screens. The screens are in place to protect the accurate measuring tools from precipitation and direct radiation. The exact setup is standardized by the World Meteorological Organization to assure all measurements are taken in the same way. At each station, a daily average is calculated by taking the mean of the daily minimum and daily maximum temperatures.

There are over 30,000 unique and independent measuring sites scattered across the world. These locations span cities, jungles, deserts, mountains, tundras and just about every climate you can dream up. However, before all the daily temperature values are pooled together for a global average, adjustments are made to make sure these values are as accurate as possible.

Although data is adjusted for many reasons, one of the most common considers something called the “urban heat effect.” The premise goes as follows. Urban areas retain more heat than rural ones. Since the world is becoming more and more urbanized, weather stations in these urban areas could give data that is higher than the true values. Therefore, algorithms are used to adjust for the urban heat effect. These adjustments make sure the warming we see is not a result of weather stations being positioned in more urbanized areas.

When daily averages are calculated and the values are adjusted to account for effects that could skew the results, all of the data is pooled together to calculate a global average. The global average comes from data collected from all 30,000 stations across the world and from all different times of the year. Averaging these values gets us our first pillar, global land surface temperature.

Pillar #2 is sea surface temperature. Data for this pillar is collected classically by weather buoys. These buoys are partially submerged below the water, enabling temperatures just below the surface to be measured. Similar to land temperature, ocean temperature varies spatially and temporally. For example, the Arctic Ocean is bound to be a different temperature than the Pacific Ocean, and these temperatures change seasonally. To account for variation, buoys are positioned throughout all major oceans in the world and data is collected throughout the entire year. Taken together, this data gives us a representative value for global sea surface temperature.

The final pillar is atmospheric temperature. Like weather stations and buoys, satellites orbiting our planet can also be used to measure temperature. However, they work in a different way than traditional sensors. Thermometers don’t tend to work the best on satellites moving at 11,000 km/h. Instead of directly measuring temperature, satellites infer temperature from radiance. You can think of radiance like the musical notes coming from a guitar. Each molecule in the atmosphere is playing the guitar. Depending on how hot or cool they are, they play different songs and release different musical notes. Amazingly, satellites can “listen” to these musical molecules and infer temperature by the radiation they are emitting.

This method of indirect temperature measurement is applied to our atmosphere. Based on the radiance of gases like CO2 and O2 at different altitudes, we can get an idea of the temperature in each layer of our atmosphere. This gives us our final pillar, global atmospheric temperature. But this technique can be applied to more than just the atmosphere. Scientists use the same satellite technology to measure the radiance of the land and the ocean. From this, they can calculate global land surface temperature and global sea surface temperature to confirm the data from the traditional measuring methods. Weather stations and buoys collect data representing nearly 99% of the Earth’s surface. In regions these tools do not collect data, the satellite radiance technique can determine temperature.

To bring it full circle, let’s return to the 0.88°C increase in average global temperature we have experienced in the last 50 years. When we hear “global temperature”, it is almost always referring to an average between the first two pillars: land surface and sea surface temperature. Global temperature can more accurately be described as global surface temperature. Like the first two pillars, atmospheric temperature, at least in the lower layers, is increasing and will continue to increase.

Why our “pool of shared meaning” is so shallow

Before I dive into the nitty-gritty of climate science, I think it’s important to take a step back and assess the landscape of societal beliefs on climate change. It doesn’t take a social scientist to see the distinct divide across the Western world on the topic. It feels as if you are either full on “climate change does not exist” or “climate change is going to kill us all.” The ideological separation is so extreme it seems like we are living on entirely different planets. There is no middle ground.

Now, how can public opinions be so strong when the scientific literature is so one-sided? Hayhoe addresses just this question. She declares the countless scientific reports on the topic clearly show the impact of human activity on climate change. Therefore, if it wasn’t for political influences, she argues everyone should believe climate change is real. To overcome the politics of it all, she says we need to talk more about the impact climate change will have on humans and outline potential action plans.

I, on the other hand, can’t believe the solution is that simple. Bringing these planets together across the light years of separation will take a lot more. I think we need a complete shift in how we approach communication on climate change.

While debate generates temporary winners and losers, conversation, when done right, can result in permanent progress. Currently, climate change is being framed as a debate. Consequently, we have failed to make any headway in the public discussion. As the authors of Crucial Conversations elegantly put it, synergy and progress arise from increasing the “pool of shared meaning” between two parties through conversation, not debate.

Hello everyone!

My name is Jackson Weir and I am a second-year student at the University of New Brunswick with an unequivocal passion for science and discovery. Studying an Honours in Biology with a concentration in Cell and Molecular Biology, I am determined to contribute to humanity’s scientific body of knowledge and communicate that science to the public.

My drive to ignite the power of curiosity in others culminates in my roles with TEDxUNB, the Atlantic Student Research Journal, the Canada Wide Science Fair, and as an Educational Proctor. There is no greater feeling than watching someone’s eyes light up when they learn something, they didn’t know they didn’t know.

When I am not on studying on the 4th floor of the library, listening attentively in the classroom, or fighting the Western blot gods in the lab, I never miss an opportunity to go salmon fishing, experience new cultures, or play sports.

In the realm of science, there is no question molecular biology is where my interest and expertise lie. BUT I am also never one to turn down a challenge. So, for this blog, I chose to step outside of my comfort zone and go face-to-face with one of the biggest scientific matters of my generation – CLIMATE CHANGE.

After deciding on this topic, I began to ask myself why I believe what I believe. Like most undergraduate biology students living where we do, I never doubted the fact that climate change was real. I simply thought anyone who claimed otherwise was misinformed, and frankly, crazy.

However, I am starting to realize my appreciation for the consensus from scientists that climate change is real and most likely a result of human behaviour is hardly a product of my own research, critical thinking, or lack of “craziness.” Instead, it is more a consequence of my upbringing, experiences and sources of information.

Two weeks ago I could have told you global temperatures are on the rise, extreme weather events are becoming more frequent, and we are approaching a point of no return for our planet as we know it. The problem was, I could barely explain WHY these things are true and HOW we know what we know. My understanding was shallow. In some ways, I felt less informed than those who claim climate change is fake. At least they can say it confidently.

For these reasons, I am committing to be three things in this blog:

Curious about the science, sources and reasoning supporting all I read.

Skeptical of ideas presented by BOTH sides of the argument.

Scientifically accurate in all climate change claims that I make.

If you feel lost in our age of disinformation, heightened emotions, and fake news, join me on my journey over the next several months to question everything and bring order to at least some of this climate change chaos.