¨Rural Water, Not City Smog, May Be China’s Pollution Nightmare¨

China´s air pollution has always been of great concern. Recently, due to industrial and urban development, water and soil pollution are becoming its major issues. China is the largest global economy and the world´s largest exporter.¹ Such economic growth and prosperity has come at a tremendous environmental cost, particularly to the aquatic environment, with 75% of surface water and 50% of underground water supplies becoming contaminated. ² 

The article ¨Rural Water, Not City Smog, May Be China´s Pollution Nightmare¨, authored by Chris Buckley and Vanessa Piao published on April 11^th 2016 in The New York Times, puts emphasis on how the water from underground wells near populated areas of China is unfit for human consumption or use. A report from the Chinese government recently revealed that 80.2% of China´s underground water is of poor quality.^3,4 This report clearly supports the statement by Prof. Dabo Guan, professor at the University of East Anglia in Britain, that ¨water is the biggest environmental issue in China¨³.  The health of the Chinese population has become increasingly affected by the different pollutants that have been found in underground water. Some statistics have shown that 70% of the population drinks water from underground sources ⁴. In the main editorial ¨Rural Water, Not City Smog, May Be China´s Pollution Nightmare¨ it is noted water pollutants, including manganese, fluoride, triazoles and heavy metals, analyzed in the government study were associated with 2,103 water wells in the Northeast, North, Northwest and central parts of China. However, a related news article⁴ published in China.org.cn also mentioned ammonia, nitrites, nitrates and some other toxic compounds as major pollutants. I found it interesting that studies of underground water in China did not only focus on water contaminants. The survey was also conducted in the classification of water resources in five categories (Class I, II, III, IV and V) IV being classifying water as unfit for human consumption and V at an even higher negative rating ³. A 32.9% of the wells located in Northern and Central China had grade IV and 47.3% grade V ³. The statistical table provided on groundwater quality evaluation results of each province of China placing Beijing on top as one of the provinces with the highest percent of water quality problems. ⁵ Ma Jun, an environmentalist and director of the Institute of Public and Environmental Affairs is greatly concerned about the water crisis in China. Some solutions may be underway as Jun also mentioned that as a second option most of the cities are digging more and more to find clean water.

In a peer-reviewed journal article (Guan et al., 2014), the authors employed data sets and adopt structural decomposition analysis from the years 1992 to 2007 to investigate the causes of the water crisis in China⁶. They worked with four water indicators, freshwater consumption, discharge of COD in effluent water, cumulative COD, and dilution water. During the study period, they conducted a series of studies to establish the connection between all of these influential factors. Water input-output models were used to quantify the water consumption and pollution in different regions in China.  Another method that the authors employed in this study was a hydro-economic inventories analysis using an interlinking of four matrices (water inflows, economic production structures and technologies, environmental emissions, and impacts of discharged COD on hydrological systems). The main purpose was to determine the chemical characteristics of the pollutants. The structural decomposition method has been applied to analyze peoples’ demand and technology improvements that contribute to environmental changes through a mathematical equation. The last method that they used was the treating import columns in water that was based in the comparison of different input-output models. The data obtained with these different methods permitted the authors to conclude that the production of products and services represents 85%-90% of China´s total water consumption and COD discharge. They also found that over 60% of China´s annual water consumption is for agriculture. Jingsu and Shanghai are the Chinese coastal regions where water is type V+ (seriously polluted water) according to 2007 data and the manufacturing sector is the biggest contributor to cumulative water pollution.

In general, it could be concluded that after reading all the references, China´s authorities are really concerned about the water crisis that the country is facing. They are already finding ways to minimize environmental impact of economic development by creating different water management programs. It is important to mention that in 2011 China made one of its biggest investments, $600 billion directed for infrastructure development.¹ However, there are still barriers to effective water quality improvements. For example, a survey of wastewater treatment plants in the Henan Province in Central China shows that they are operated at much less than full capacity to save local government´s money thereby increasing local GDP growth ^7,8.

I believe that the New York Times article just touched on a few parts of the overall study. A language barrier was also present due to most of the literature that was referenced was not in English which made the information difficult to obtain; however Guan et al.⁶ has done an extremely good job analyzing all the influential factors of China´s water crisis. In addition to the statistical information and all the studies in both literatures, the authors could have included the kind of health problems that the Chinese citizens are having as a result of the polluted water. Due to these factors, a fair assessment of the articles would place them at a 7/10 for the New York Times article and a 9/10 for the Guan et al. (2014) article.

[1] CIA World Factbook - https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ch.html

[2] Wang, Y.; Sheng, L. X.; Li, K.; Sun, H. Y. Analysis of present situation of water resources and countermeasures for sustainable development in China. J. Water Resour. 2008, 19, 10−14 [in Chinese].

[3] ¨Rural Water, Not City Smog, May Be China’s Pollution Nightmare¨ The New York Times -By CHRIS BUCKLEY and VANESSA PIAO APRIL 11, 2016 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/12/world/asia/china-underground-water-pollution.html?_r=0

[4] ¨80% underground water undrinkable in China¨ - By Chen Xia China.org.cn, April 11, 2016 - http://www.china.org.cn/environment/2016-04/11/content_38218704.htm

[5] 参编单位： 北京、天津、河北、山西、内蒙古、辽宁、吉林、黑龙江、江苏、 安徽、江西、山东、河南、湖北、甘肃、青海、宁夏、新疆水文水资 源（勘测）局（总站、中心），陕西地下水管理监测局 - http://www.mwr.gov.cn/zwzc/hygb/dxsdtyb/201604/P020160405539942030096.pdf

 [6]  ¨Lifting China’s Water Spell¨ -Dabo Guan, Klaus Hubacek,∥ Martin Tillotson, Hongyan Zhao, Weidong Liu, Zhu Liu,and Sai Liang -  Sep 29th 2014 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25226569

[7] YangY.Survey of urban sewage treatment plantXinhua News2014

[8] Wang, H.; Xue, H. Problems and Countermeasures of the Work to Prevent and Control Water Pollution in China. Environmental Science and Management 2009, 34 (2), 24−27 [in Chinese].

"Fracking Can Contaminate Drinking Water"

               The demand for natural gas has been increasing in recent years due to its versatility as an energy source, its availability, and its ease of transport. Natural gas is used in heating, steam production, and thermoelectric power production all over the world, currently producing 21% of electricity in the United States. The natural gas reservoirs can hold large quantities, making it widely available -- one of the largest reserves in the U.S., the Marcellus Shale, holds recoverable gas quantities nearing 500 trillion cubic feet. Natural gas reserves are found all over the United States, so it is easily transported, Additionally, demand for natural gas has increased due to its efficient combustion, making it a "greener" alternative to other fossil fuels (1).  

               With increasing demand for natural gas comes increasing concern for the safety of drinking water near extraction sites. Shale gas is a type of natural gas that is found trapped underneath shale formations. In order to extract the gas, wells must be drilled down into the shale where fluid is injected to increase pressure and produce fissures in the formation. The gas and flowback fluid are forced up the surface where they can be collected. This process is called Hydraulic Fracturing. The concern for the safety of this process comes from the fact that shale formations and ground water sources can be linked together by fissures in the shale, allowing the fracking liquid to contaminate drinking water. Additionally, there is some concern that flowback fluid is not properly disposed of at the surface and can be released back into the environment (1).

                Fracking fluid is a mixture of water, various proppants (to hold open the fissures), antimicrobials, friction reducers, and scale inhibitors. Common constituents of fracking fluid include: sand, resins, ceramics, metals (1), salt solutions, diesel fuel, methanol, ethanol, and CO2 foam (3). Only about 10-40% of the fracking fluid returns to the surface (1), meaning that much of this fluid is left in the ground and can leech into natural fissures and potentially contaminate ground water. You can imagine the negative health effects that consuming these chemicals consistently may have on a population. For example, consumption of methanol can cause permanent nerve damage and blindness (2).

             A paper published in Environmental Science & Technology (2016) by Dominic DiGiulio was research on possible fracking fluid contamination in Pavillion, Wyoming. The introduction of this paper describes the means by which groundwater is protected from contamination by oil and gas extraction: anything that provides water to the public for drinking is labeled as an Underground Source for Drinking Water (USDW) and is not to be contaminated. However, the Energy Policy Act of 2015 exempted hydraulic fracturing from this, under the logic that "dilution, adsorption, and biodegradation" returns these chemicals to safe levels before reaching domestic wells. The Pavillion, Wyoming natural gas field sits on top of a USDW called the Wind River Formation. The EPA conducted an investigation of the area when residents complained about a foul taste and odor coming from their water. They installed two monitoring wells and sampled two domestic wells and analyzed them for major ions, organic compounds, and methanol. They also examined the integrity of the production wells and casings. The EPA concluded that the water contained “inorganic and organic anomalies" and had "anomalous potassium, chloride, and sulfide concentrations" in production wells. DiGiulio attributes the contamination to leakage of fracking fluid into the Wind River Formation via fractures, casing failure, and leakage from unlined pits designed to hold diesel fuel, mud, and flowback from hydraulic fracturing. In addition to the inadvertent contamination of the aquifer, they found that fracking fluid had been injected directly into the Wind River Formation (3).  
            DiGiulio's research was covered in a Scientific American (2016) article titled “Fracking Can Contaminate Drinking Water”  by Gayathri Vaidyanathan. Vaidyanathan's interview of DiGiulio reveals that the EPA's draft report did indeed suggest that the groundwater in Pavillion contained diesel, benzene, and other chemicals, but the final report from this investigation was never actually published. Pushback from the gas and oil industry about their methods caused them to retest the wells and develop a gas chromatography-flame-ionization-based method to detect methanol, which would be more indicative of fracking fluid contamination. They then handed the investigation over to the state and never published the results of the methanol testing. After retiring from the EPA, DiGiulio took it upon himself to publish the final report after submitting a Freedom of Information Act request and obtaining public data. Even though DiGiulio's results strongly suggest fracking is contaminating the water supply, the report from Wyoming state regulators concluded that the contamination of Pavillion was not related to fracking and that the water is safe for consumption. Vaidyanathan claims that this reluctance to admit concern about the safety of the process of hydraulic fracturing is due to the promotion of natural gas by the Obama administration (2)

Overall, I would rate Vaidyanathan's article 9/10. The Scientific American article accurately represented DiGiulio's research conclusions, and went deeper into the issue than just regurgitating the paper. Vaidyanathan provided the important political context of hydraulic fracturing through interviews with DiGiulio and spokespeople from the EPA, the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, and the oil and gas industry. Including this additional perspective helps the reader understand how the contamination was allowed to occur and why more has not been done about it. Because Scientific American is a "science" magazine geared toward readers who may have a scientific background or a science interest, I think their authors do a better job of relaying information from a scientific journal. Their readers would probably be more critical of inaccuracies. The article was also not overly dramatic: other news sources, like the Huffington Post or Yahoo,  might have used more fear tactics or dramatics to gain readership. However, I do think the science aspect of the issue was a little lacking as there were no figures from DiGiulio's research represented nor was there a lot of detail about the experimental set up, I think this is in part due to the complexity of the politics surrounding hydraulic fracturing. I think the amount of politics used in this article was appropriate.

1.  Gregory, K. B., Vidic, R. D., & Dzombak, D. A. (2011, June). Water Management Challenges Associated with the Production of Shale Gas by Hydraulic Fracturing. GeoScienceWorld, 7(3). Retrieved from http://elements.geoscienceworld.org/content/7/3/181.full

2. Vaidyanathan, G. (2016, April 4). Fracking Can Contaminate Drinking Water. Scientific American. Retrieved from https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fracking-can-contaminate-drinking-water/

3. DiGiulio, D. C., & Jackson, R. B. (2016, March 29). Impact to Underground Sources of Drinking Water and Domestic Wells from Production Well Stimulation and Completion Practices in the Pavillion, Wyoming, Field. Environmental Science & Technology, 50(8). Retrieved from http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/acs.est.5b04970

Potential Link between Water Hardness and Eczema in Infancy

               Water hardness is an inherent characteristic of water that refers to the amount of minerals, particularly calcium, dissolved within it.³ The mineral content of water is highly dependent on the geology of a location.¹ Areas with a more limestone-rich landscape will often have a harder water supply as a result.^1,5 As water is undoubtedly used for bathing purposes, it is evident why water quality has been linked to skin conditions. Atopic dermatitis (AD), more commonly known as childhood eczema, is one of the most common skin afflictions found in infants.¹ Symptoms include red & cracking rashes accompanied with itchy, dried out skin.⁴ The article that I have chosen seeks to reveal a potential association between these two occurrences.

               The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology published a paper entitled "Association between domestic water hardness, chlorine, and atopic dermatitis risk in early life: A population-based cross-sectional study" in April 2016. This study sought to determine how water hardness, measured in calcium carbonate concentration, along with chlorine concentrations could affect the risk of development of atopic dermatitis in infancy. Researchers enrolled roughly 1,300 babies - all three months of age - from across the United Kingdom. Over the course of about two and a half years, data was gathered on severity of AD, transepidermal water loss (TEWL), and presence of filaggrin (FLG) mutations. TEWL is a measure of "skin barrier function" and a mutation in FLG can lead to "skin barrier impairments."¹ This information was then compared to water hardness data as well as a multitude of potentially confounding factors. Among these factors were home location, sex, FLG mutation presence, ethnicity, socioeconomic status and water softener ownership.¹ A "hybrid variable" was created to make statistical analysis simpler; a group that encompassed households with low [CaCO₃] & low total chlorine (CaL/ClL) was used as a baseline for comparison against the CaH/ClL, CaL/ClH and CaH/ClH groups. It was found that each group had a higher incidence of AD when compared to the baseline.¹ After adjusting for some of the confounding variables mentioned above, it was evident that water hardness' effect on risk of AD was enhanced for both the CaH/ClL and the CaL/ClH groups. Not only that, but also, the possession of an FLG mutation showed strong correlation with AD symptoms.¹ Overall, the study concluded that water hardness plays an important role in determining the risk associated with developing AD and may be of more concern to parents whose infants carry a filaggrin mutation.      

               A Huffington Post article authored by Sarah Bell provides an overview of the results of the research described above. Bell begins by describing the study's set-up: the researchers looked at [CaCO₃] and chlorine level. She also mentions how they considered the frequency of bathing along with the use of bath products.² The author goes on to say that the babies were inspected to determine AD symptoms & natural skin barrier integrity as well as "screened for the FLG gene."² Ultimately, Bell makes the statement that "hard water is linked to an 87 percent increased risk of eczema for babies of three months of age."² Beyond this, she provides a quote from one of the authors stating that they are still unsure as to whether or not water hardness leads to skin conditions directly or if these effects are a result of other water characteristics, like pH, which is largely affected by the ion content of water. She concludes with the idea that, hopefully, solutions are on their way due to a study that is to follow this one wherein a device meant to lower water hardness is installed into households with infants.

               One important issue that I found within Bell's overview of the study was how she chose to present the findings. The way her statement reads, it sounds as if our interpretation of the study should be that if one has hard water, regardless of other factors, a baby's risk of developing childhood eczema is 87% higher. However, as I mentioned before, the researchers created a "hybrid variable" for use in their analysis. These three groups were compared to a baseline group whose odds ratio was 1. Odds ratios were then calculated for each of the three groups. After adjustment for the confounding factors I previously stated, an adjusted odds ratio was calculated. Bell chose only to present the percentage that is represented by the CaH/ClL group's adjusted odds ratio of 1.87. Not only that, but she failed to mention the majority of the confounding factors for which this result was adjusted. On a different note, there were a few places I thought could use some elaboration. One place in particular is after her quote from one of the authors. It may have been beneficial to include how pH and water hardness coincide because otherwise it almost feels as if including that portion of the comment is irrelevant. Finally, there is one technicality that the author overlooked. Bell stated that "infants were screened for the FLG gene." In actuality, the babies were screened for mutations in the FLG gene; a minor flaw but still a critical detail.

               While the author was not entirely factually inaccurate, she failed to provide an appropriate amount of detail. If Bell had clarified some of the intricacies associated with the result she presented, it could have made this result more meaningful to readers - some of whom may be concerned parents. Combing through results to find the most significant value in order shock readers is doing a disservice to those who may not delve into the realm of academic reports. The target audience of popular media should still be able to discover representative facts from these outlets as opposed to sneaky extrapolations by authors that are meant to trigger astonishment.  While it is true that the general conclusion of the journal article stated that hard water increases the risk of developing atopic dermatitis, there are a multitude of factors that can alter the amount of risk. Failure to mention these confounders does not bode well for Bell's article. Not only that, but also, by toning down the amount of scientific language in her article, some points are not explained; there are statements without elaboration. Including even the slightest expansion on certain points would have boosted the significance behind the facts that she chose so selectively.  It is for these reasons that I would give Bell's article a 5 out of 10 in terms of how well her article represents the findings published by the peer-reviewed journal.

                                                                                                                                          

1) Perkin, Michael R., Joanna Craven, Kirsty Logan, David Strachan, Tom Marrs, Suzana Radulovic, Linda E. Campbell, Stephanie F. Maccallum, W.h. Irwin Mclean, Gideon Lack, and Carsten Flohr. "Association between Domestic Water Hardness, Chlorine, and Atopic Dermatitis Risk in Early Life: A population-based Cross-sectional Study." Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 138.2 (2016): 509-16. Web.

2) Bell, Sarah Caroline. "Water Quality Linked to Infant Skin Health." The Huffington Post. 26 May 2016. Web. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sarah-bell-2/water-quality-linked-to-infant-skin-health_b_10137450.html>

3) Perlman, Howard. "Water Hardness." Hardness in Water, USGS Water Science School. Web. <http://water.usgs.gov/edu/hardness.html>

4) "Fast Facts About Atopic Dermatitis." U.S National Library of Medicine. U.S. National Library of Medicine. Web. <http://www.niams.nih.gov/health_info/atopic_dermatitis/atopic_dermatitis_ff.asp>

5) Sengupta, Pallav. “Potential Health Impacts of Hard Water.” International Journal of Preventive Medicine 4.8 (2013): 866–875. Web. <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3775162/>

"Global Warming Is Real - But 13 Degrees? Not So Fast."

            The article I chose was published online (September 26, 2016) on the National Geographic magazine and is titled "Global Warming Is Real - But 13 Degrees?  Not So Fast."  (1) This article highlights a Nature report (2) that was published on the same day, in which the author predicts an alarming 13 degrees Fahrenheit (7 degrees Celsius) rise in global temperatures over the next few millennia.  That is, if current atmospheric levels of CO₂ were to remain constant.  

            In her Nature paper, the author Carolyn Snyder employed data from ocean sediment cores and various climate models to estimate the evolution of global surface temperatures over the past two million years.  In order to study past climates (paleoclimates), scientists typically use climate proxies (ex: ice cores, tree rings, and ocean sediment cores) as indirect pieces of evidence to determine ancient climatic patterns (3). These proxy indicators can provide useful paleoclimatic information, as their character of deposition or rate of growth is strongly influenced by the climatic conditions of the time in which they were deposited or grew (4).  As such, chemical traces (ex: isotopic ratios) induced by climatic changes can frequently be recovered from proxies. 

            In her study, Snyder utilized an extensive database of proxies derived from 59 ocean sediment cores to estimate sea surface temperatures.  These methods included measuring the Mg/Ca ratios in planktonic formation, using alkenone unsaturation indices, and comparing microfossil abundances.   Most notably, these studies have allowed Snyder to construct the longest comprehensive historic temperature record to date.  Specifically, Snyder demonstrated the first use of a multi-proxy database in providing a spatially weighted proxy reconstruction of global average surface temperatures over the past two million years.  While previous temperature reconstructions have extended further back (up to 3 million years), they were either significantly less comprehensive or focused primarily on certain time periods.  In fact, the longest comprehensive temperature record published before this study went back to only 22,000 years.     

            Snyder's study provides key insights into several important paleoclimate topics, including the magnitude and stabilization of polar amplification, the role of global temperature in the mid-Pleistocene transition, and the dependence of Earth system sensitivity (the Earth's long-term temperature response to a doubling of CO₂ levels) on radiative forcing (the difference between sunlight absorbed by the earth and energy radiated back to space).  Upon comparing her new temperature record with radiative forcing from greenhouse gases (Figure 1), Snyder estimates a 7-13 degrees Celsius change in global average surface temperature per doubling of atomspheric carbon dioxide, in millennia timescales.  This result suggests that, even if current CO₂ levels were to remain constant, the Earth could potentially experience a total warming of 3-7 degrees Celsius over the next few millennia. 

            In his National Geographic article, the author Craig Welch introduced the broader implications of Snyder's research through a critical lens, citing the perspectives of several prominent climate scientists who have expressed skepticism towards Snyder's controversial conclusion.  In particular, Welch highlights the critiques made by Gavin Schmidt, chief of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.  Schmidt pointed out that Snyder's study had failed to account for changes in Earth's orbit that affected global temperatures and drove the expansion and retreat of glaciers throughout the time period covered in her analysis.  Schmidt's own research into Earth's long-term sensitivity to CO₂ has suggested that a 4.5 degrees Celsius increase in global temperatures would be expected (on a millennia scale) from a doubling of pre-industrial CO₂ levels.  To allow readers to learn more about Schmidt's views, the National Geographic article also provided a link to a blog post (5) written by Schimdt ("Why correlations of CO₂ and temperature over ice age cycles don't define climate sensitivity").  

            Overall, I would give the National Geographic article a rating of 9/10.  It was interesting to see that the National Geographic article explained the key findings of Snyder's Nature report in the context of an ensuing debate that arose in the scientific community, regarding the accuracy and validity of Snyder's conclusions.  In addition to including strong quotes that highlight both the merit and potential flaws of Snyder's study, the author employed an engaging and informative narrative (along with an educational video) to help readers gain a greater appreciation for each scientist's arguments through better understanding the science behind global warming/natural fluctuations in atomspheric CO₂.  Ultimately, the author finished the article on a diplomatic note - Snyder's efforts deserve applause, yet her method may not be the best way to measure Earth's long-term sensitivity to CO₂ emissions.   All in all, I appreciated how the National Geographic article not only informed the general public about a major research finding, but also opened the doors for general readers to gain insight into the scientific community's diverging responses and active discussion towards a study of significant impact.  

References:  

(1) Welch, Craig. "Global Warming Is Real - But 13 Degrees?  Not So Fast."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/09/global-warming-study-13-degrees-is-wrong-climate-change/

(2) Snyder, C. Nature, 2016, 538, 226.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v538/n7624/full/nature19798.html

(3) "Past Climates on Earth - Paleoclimatology"

http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/kling/paleoclimate/

(4) "Paleoclimatology: Climate Proxies"

http://serc.carleton.edu/microbelife/topics/proxies/paleoclimate.html

(5) Schmidt, Gavin. "Why correlations of CO₂ and temperature over ice age cycles don't define climate sensitivity."

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/09/why-correlations-of-co2-and-temperature-over-ice-age-cycles-dont-define-climate-sensitivity

Changing climate: The effects on energy demand and human comfort

    Climate change, caused by factors such as biotic processes, variations in solar radiation received by Earth, plate tectonics, and volcanic eruptions, is a change in the statistical distribution of weather patterns when that change lasts for an extended period of time. Recently, certain human activities have also been identified as significant causes of recent climate changes, often referred to as global warming. (1) US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has made climate connections with energy and the environment on their website. Renewable heating and cooling (RHC) is the generation of energy from renewable technologies and resources to serve and use applications such as heating water for pools or other uses and space heating and cooling in buildings etc. (2)

    It turns out to be such a broad picture to make a perfect combination between global climate change and energy. So I choose a specific point, trying to figure out some relationships. Building energy demand will change in response to future climate change, with cooling and heating demand generally going in opposite directions. (3) An article entitled “Changing climate: The effects on energy demand and human comfort”, written by Kelly Kalvelage was published on the Journal of Energy and Buildings. The article compared some of the others’ previous work as well. Doctor. Crawley and Jentsch’s team’s work have been quoted in this article. Crawley found that climate change would reduce energy use in cold climates by approximately 10% while energy use in tropical climates would increase by more than 20% using Global Climate Models with statistical downscaling. And Jentsch’s team has done a similar research that they used the UK model to generate global results and then downscale these to a specific location by statistical methods. However, these methods may lead to uncertainty results that cannot be quantified, and they failed to account for other climate variables which can cause occupant discomfort except temperature.

    On the other hand, Kelly Kalvelage’s team intended to analyze the rising climatic temperature’s effect on the building’s energy demand. They utilized Department of Energy’s commercial reference buildings for five US cities of Atlanta, Baltimore, Los Angeles, Phoenix and Seattle, using dynamical downscaling to study the impact of changing impact of changing climate on building energy consumption, building design and thermal comfort conditions.

    In their study, they use the typical meteorological year (TMY3) data which consists of hourly values of solar radiation and meteorological elements for a one-year period to represent site-specific typical climatic conditions. They also simulated 16 DOE reference buildings for each of the five cities to conduct energy modeling. For each city, the high, moderate, and low change scenario energy data for heating, cooling and total energy demand were found by calculating the actual energy change from the TMY3 data. As for the results, they are shown in the following graphs. Figure 1 displays the averaged summary energy change results for heating, cooling, and total energy change for each of the five cities included in this study. And figure 2 displays the combined total energy demand for the five cities in this study and are displayed for each building typology as the change in energy demand (kW h) per building square meter. Consistent with what previous research has indicated, all building typologies in each city show a reasonably large decrease in winter heating that is counteracted by an increase in cooling load for the summer months. If this trend continues, it is apparent that a changing climate will significantly impact energy consumption if no design alternatives are considered or the understanding of human thermal comfort is not challenged to adapt. (4)

   

    As far as I am concerned, I would give the article an 8 out of 10. The article did a nice job in summarizing and demonstrating the main object of the study on energy demand with the changing climate. It provided us with an elaborate background of the study, quoted wisely the other researchers’ work and pointed out the advantages of their research methodology: they use dynamic downscaling of future climate scenarios which is applicable to all locations in the database. Additionally, the article gave us the reasons why they chose these building stocks and the five cities as their targets. And their method can be used for any location across the US to better understand the impact of a changing climate on the most prevailing commercial building typologies, as they are represented by the U.S. Department of Energy reference building files for 16 different US climate zones. These future results could then be used by utility companies, building owners and policy makers to better prepare for future retrofits and investments.     However, the author paid more attention on the annual energy consumption, maybe some critical elements in the long-term energy consumption such as the peak demand will bring in some new insights. Last but not the least, what impressed me most was their initial goal in getting down to do this study. They hope they can identify building characteristics that will have the most impact on energy demand so that building owners can make more informed investment decisions for future retrofits. They carry out scientific researches not only for finding the relationship between climate change and energy demand in buildings, but for occupants’ health, safety and welfare. If more scientific researchers can be done in this way and be more practical and hold the same initial aim, our environment can be a more friendly one.

[1] Climate Change, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change

[2] Energy and the Environment, https://www.epa.gov/energy/renewable-heating-and-cooling

[3] James A. Dirks, Impacts of climate change on energy consumption and peak demand in buildings: A detailed regional approach, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544214010469

[4] Kelly kalvelage, Ulrike Passe, Shannon Rabideau, Eugene S. Takle, Changing climate: The effects on energy demand and human comfort,    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037877881400228X

Methane Anomaly in the Four Corners Region

Methane is one of the major greenhouse gasses, considered to be behind only CO2 and water in terms of warming effect (1). While significantly more effective in increasing air temperature per molecule than CO2, methane is estimated to have caused one third the global warming that CO2 has due to its lower atmospheric concentration and shorter lifespan(1). Total global methane emissions are ~550 TgCH4/year(2), and come from many sources, including energy production/distribution, enteric fermentation (in livestock), coalbed mining, rice production, and landfills(3),(1). Methane emissions are difficult to accurately quantify due partly to numerous natural and antropogenic sources spread through time and space, but being able to accurately quantify emissions is very important for predicting and mitigating effects on climate and air quality as emissions estimates vary widely and are probably largely underestimated(4). The “Four Corners” region of the US (a roughly 2,500 square mile area where Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and Utah meet) is a major producer of coalbed methane (a method of methane extraction where water is pumped out of a coal deposit and methane trapped in coal seeps out due to the changed pressure gradient and is collected(1)). The San Juan Basin area which is located in the four corners region is the largest source of coalbed methane in the US(4).

A recent article published in Geophysical Research Letters was the product of a partnership between University of Michigan and NASA and seeks to advance space based observations in identifying and quantifying emissions and further and verify observed methane anomalies via high resolution simulations and ground based observations. The researchers (Kort et al) used data collected via a satellite belonging to the European Space Agency which carried Scanning Imaging Absorption SpectroMeter for Atmospheric CHartographY (SCIAMACHY) equipment (this data collection mission began in 2002 and ran until loss of contact with the satellite in 2012)(5). SCIAMACHY data from 2003-2009 showed a “strong source has persisted at Four Corners from 2003 through 2009 in all seasons”(4). Researchers performed high resolution regional simulations with Weather Research and Forecasting Chemical transport model (WRF-Chem) to find what emission rate would be consistent with SCHIMACHY space based observation of the large methane signal over four corners. The emissions rate they found was significantly higher than expected, and showed that Four Corners region emitted 0.59Tg CH4/year in 2003-2009 (almost 10% of total US methane emissions)(4). They note that this new finding is 1.8 times higher than the EPA’s inventory of 0.33Tg/year and 3.5 times previous inventory of 0.168Tg/year by EDGAR (European Commission, Joint Research Centre/Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency). Kort et al were able to compare their WRF-Chem simulations and spaced based data with data collected from ground based Total Carbon Column Observing Network (TCCON), and so could verify that their modeling of emissions and the signal observed by SCHIMACHY agreed, and that there was indeed a large and previously unquantified methane signal over Four Corners region(4).

An article called “Satellite data shows surprising methane hotspot in US southwest” was published in the Guardian the same week as the Kort paper and seeks to explain the paper’s findings. It begins with an image from the Kort paper showing the methane signal in question. The Guardian’s caption of the image is of note, stating “The Four Corners area (red) is the major us hotspot for methane emissions in the map showing how much emissions varied from average background concentrations from 2003-2009 (dark colours are lower than average; lighter colours are higher)” which might leave some readers, myself included, wishing for a legend to see what units the measurements are in and what concentrations the colors might correspond to (the image is not linked to a source). The article gives a small amount of background on methane, and states that the “hotspot” is not an immediate threat to local residents but does not comment on how that conclusion was reached.  Some of the main quantitative findings of the Kort paper are stated, including a comparison to findings from “Other ground-based studies” which are not referenced or linked, so it is unclear which studies are being referred to. The Guardian article attempts to put findings into perspective for readers by comparing the heat trapping ability of the four corners Methane to that of all yearly CO2 emitted by Sweden, which seemed like a bit of a stretch to me and did not bring much clarity. Also problematic was the communication of the major finding in pounds (“£1.3m a year”) not teragrams, which is a little perplexing as a conversion from pounds to Tg is off by orders of magnitude from the original finding of 0.59Tg CH4/year. 

One positive was a quote from the lead author explaining that their findings are probably due to leaks associated with extraction and transport of methane from coalbeds and not due to fracking, which was not much used in the region during the period of the study- an important point. In one of the stranger sentences, the Guardian states scientists were so surprised by their initial findings “that they waited several years and then used ground monitors to verify what they saw from space”(6) which it turns out is accurate, according to an email to me from the lead author stating team felt they could not publish without ground-level corroboration and were able to use data from a colleague with TCCON to do so. The article ends abruptly with a three-word quote (“That is immense”)(6) from Terry Engelder, “a scientist” who, upon a little googling, seems quite important in the field, but might not be known by the average reader.

I think the Guardian article did a pretty fair job (7/10) of presenting the main findings of the study. The title was a bit too flashy, as the term “hotspot” does not seem to be in regular usage in the literature, and the fact that the methane signal itself was not as surprising as the magnitude and the deviation from previous estimates were. The article does address the large scale of the signal, and attempted (with moderate success) to communicate that to readers. It addressed two of the other key points well- the emissions were probably not from fracking, and the importance of validation of findings with ground-level data, but did not give the reader helpful/necessary information- for example the total amount of methane emitted in the US or world for comparison or any quantification of what’s shown in the image (the article called the methane signal a “red blip”). This probably made it harder for readers to understand findings in a meaningful way.

1.         Baird C, Cann M. Environmental Chemistry. W.H. Freeman and Company. 2012. 736 p.

2.        Cole S and. a9934fd24c11d6dbd8c75fa3ddf04d918435bbd0 @ www.nasa.gov [Internet]. Available from: http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/october/satellite-data-shows-us-methane-hot-spot-bigger-than-expected/#.WATVHZMrJ0v

3.        Nations U, Convention F, Change C, States U, Protocol M, States TU, et al. Executive Summary. 2014;4(1):1–27.

4.        Kort EA, Frankenberg C, Costigan KR, Lindenmaier R, Dubey MK, Wunch D. Four corners: The largest US methane anomaly viewed from space. Geophys Res Lett [Internet]. 2014 Oct 16 [cited 2016 Oct 16];41(19):6898–903. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/2014GL061503

5.        SCIAMACHY @ en.wikipedia.org [Internet]. Available from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCIAMACHY

6.        satellite-data-shows-surprising-methane-hotspot-in-us-southwest @ www.theguardian.com [Internet]. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/10/satellite-data-shows-surprising-methane-hotspot-in-us-southwest