His study involved attaching radio transmitters to the shells of wood turtles. During his studies, he observed and counted dead wood turtles on a set of railroad tracks. New York’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority has a train rail running right through the area he was studying. What he discovered was that the dead wood turtles were not being killed by passing trains, but were getting stuck between the rails and were dying from the summer heat. On his own, he came up with a solution….turtle bridges. What the heck is that? Click here and take a look at the video.

So, today I learned what a turtle bridge looks like and what purpose it serves. But the thing I find really cool about this story is that a private citizen had an idea to study something in the world around him, discovered something new, and came up with a simple solution to a problem. It makes me want to run out and look more closely at the world around me. Is there something that I’ve seen before but never thought deeply enough about to allow me to see how I can lend a hand? How about you, reader? If you look more closely at the world today, will you spot something new? Let me know!

Jumbo squid are usually found in much deeper, tropical waters off the coasts of Mexico and Central America. It isn’t clear yet why they’ve come to California, but this isn’t the first time they’ve taken the trip. Similar incidents were reported in 2002 and 2005. In fact, researchers believe they may have established a population in nearby, deeper waters, possibly due to a change in the number of their prey or predators. Similarly, the squid were likely drawn into the shallower areas as they followed their food.

The swarm presents a rare opportunity for divers to see these amazing creatures up close. However, the “red devils” are known for attacking humans- San Diego divers report being grabbed and knocked around. One even captured the near-theft of his camera light on video.

Many media outlets are referring to the squid’s arrival as an “invasion.” However, as at least one astute commenter pointed out, just who is invading whose territory isn’t exactly clear.

[There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit the blog entry to see the video.]
I used to live in Minnesota, not very far from the State Capitol building.  There was a time when I could have (and would have) tried to meet with Congresswoman Bachmann to talk with her about her ideas and help her learn some real science.   Since I no longer live in Minnesota, I decided to write her the following letter:

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann
107 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC        20515

June 24, 2009

Dear Congresswoman Bachmann,
After having listened to, read, and seen you express your views on how, because carbon dioxide “is a natural byproduct of nature,” the “threat of manmade global warming doesn’t make any sense” I felt the need to write you and help you understand something about carbon dioxide.  I am sure that you have, by now, learned that you were wrong when, on April 22nd from the floor of the House of Representatives, you made the claim that CO2 made up 3% of the earth’s atmosphere.  I am also sure that by now you have been informed by your staff that you were again wrong when, during the same speech, you made the claim that “carbon dioxide is not a harmful gas, it is a harmless gas.”  I am sure that someone on your staff has pointed out to you that in 1986 a limnic eruption of Lake Nyos in Cameroon released CO2 from the lake’s surface and asphyxiated all living organisms within a fifteen mile radius.  But the real reason I am writing you is to point out why many Americans, including your constituents, intuitively understand that carbon dioxide is dangerous.
I was recently watching a movie that Ron Howard made called Apollo 13.  If you have not seen the movie, I would highly recommend renting it.  It is a fantastic movie and was critically acclaimed for its accurate depiction of the actual events that took place in April of 1970 during the Apollo 13 mission.  Jim Lovell, John “Jack” Swigert, and Fred Haise almost died on that mission because of a rise in concentrations of CO2 gas in the Lunar Module.  There is a great scene in the movie where mission control and the astronauts have to figure out how to jury-rig the Command Module’s CO2 scrubbers so that they could be used in the Lunar Module.  If they had not been able to figure out how to decrease the CO2 levels in the Lunar Module, all three astronauts would have died before they could even attempt to re-enter the earth’s orbit.  There are countless millions of people in America who have seen this movie and understand that it was based on actual events.  There are millions more who remember the actual events taking place.  When all of these millions and millions of people hear you say that “carbon dioxide is not a harmful gas, it is a harmless gas” they have to decide to either believe you or to believe the Apollo 13 astronauts.  I think that your comments on the topic of carbon dioxide being harmless help paint a picture of you being out of touch with scientific reality as well as popular culture.  I will leave it to you and your staff to decide if the people who saw Apollo 13 would agree or disagree with me.  In case you are not aware of it, Apollo 13 took in more than $350,000,000 at the box office and has been available to rent for more than a decade.  There are an awful lot of people out there whom you would have to convince that Apollo 13 was not based on real events.  You could try, but I think you could do a tremendous amount to repair your public image if you would simply admit your mistakes and stop trying to convince people of something they already know not to be true.  Carbon dioxide is not harmless; it can be a lethal gas.  If you can’t or won’t tell the truth about CO2, I must assume that you can’t or won’t tell the truth about other issues.  I encourage you to watch Apollo 13 and learn what the rest of us know to be true.

Kind regards,
Dr. Owen Priest
Department of Chemistry

In my letter, I explained to Congresswoman Bachmann that she is wrong when she claims that “carbon dioxide is not a harmful gas, it is a harmless gas.”  One of the examples I cited was the 1986 limnic eruption of Lake Nyos in Cameroon.  During that event, carbon dioxide was released from the lake’s surface and asphyxiated all living organisms within a fifteen mile radius.  That hardly makes carbon dioxide a harmless gas.  And what about the Apollo 13 mission?

A few weeks ago I watched Apollo 13.  It was actually my third viewing of the movie.  I think it is a fantastic movie!  When I sat down to write the letter to Congresswoman Bachmann there was a scene in Apollo 13 that I could not get out of my head.  In the scene, Jim Lovell, John “Jack” Swigert, and Fred Haise realize that the concentration of CO2 gas in the Lunar Module is increasing.  Mission control determines that the three astronauts will die from CO2 poisoning before they ever get a chance to attempt re-entering the earth’s orbit.

[There is a video that cannot be displayed in this feed. Visit the blog entry to see the video.]

Mission control and the astronauts figure out how to jury-rig the Command Module’s CO2 scrubbers so that they could be used in the Lunar Module.  There are countless millions of people in America who have seen this movie and understand that it was based on actual events.  There are millions more who remember the actual events taking place.  I am, therefore, astounded that there are people in America who take Congresswoman Bachmann seriously when she attempts to speak knowledgeably on scientific matters.  Whether or not you have a background in science, if you’ve seen Apollo 13 you know that CO2 is NOT a harmless gas.  What levels would be dangerous in our environment?  Are increasing levels do to human activity?  Are the increasing levels part of a natural cycle?  These are all questions that can be debated and studied.  But to simply say that carbon dioxide “is a natural byproduct of nature,” and “is not a harmful gas, it is a harmless gas” smacks of partisan politics and demonstrates an astounding lack of scientific literacy.

Michelle Bachmann should watch Apollo 13 and brush up on some basic science before attempting to speak about it authoritatively.  If you haven’t seen Apollo 13, or if it has been awhile, I would encourage you to watch it.  And if Congresswoman Bachmann responds to my letter, I’ll let you know what she says.

We took a family visit to Chicago’s Shedd Aquarium last weekend. What a great trip. With more than 30,000 critters representing 1500 unique species of water-living or loving animals to see and learn about, the Shedd really does have something for everyone.

The line of people waiting to get into the aquarium was well over 300. With a gusty northeast wind blowing off the lake, it was a very cold wait to say the least.  Amazingly, people were sticking it out. While the optimist in me says that this is prima facie evidence of the public’s interest in biology and the natural world more broadly, the reality is that the kids in line probably wouldn’t let their parents leave.

Once inside, I was really gratified to see so many kids with eyes wide and fingers excitedly pointing at the fish that looks like seaweed, or the many sharks patrolling the large reef exhibit. In fact, I can’t remember the last time I saw so many cameras at a museum.  It was like Hannah Montana was swimming in the tank.

Shedd staff did a nice job of bringing exhibits out from “behind the glass” for a closer look. Not only does this spark immediate visitor interest and engagement, but it presents staff with the opportunities to talk about the importance of conservation, research, and preserving biodiversity. My kids were asking lots of questions and getting lots of answers.  In contrast to the static signs or placards next to each exhibit, the face-to-face time was 100X more effective as means of engaging visitors. The Shedd should really try and do more of this.

Unfortunately for us, the larger marine mammal exhibit (dolphins, beluga whales, etc.) was closed for renovation, to reopen this June.  From what I saw of the renovation, though, it looks spectacular.

A colleague at Science Chicago pointed out that the Chicago City Pass is a great way to take in great deal for those who want to take in the Adler Planetarium, the Museum of Science and Industry, the Field Museum, and a trip up the Hancock Tower or Sears Tower.  It’s almost half off the list price.

Of course, I explain that natural variation predicts that cold winters will happen in the midst of an overall warming trend.

Andrew Revkin of the New York Times has a nice blog piece on the topic of cold spells in the midst of a warming planet. A couple of very simple graphs make the point. They’re the kind you can easily sketch out on a cocktail napkin when the need arises…

The truth is most of us will go on with our lives without experiencing noticeable differences due to climate change. This is especially true in the Midwest, where we generally live an extreme-free weather experience, sheltered from the effects of coastal sea-level changes, hurricanes, and water shortages seen in arid climates. It is hard to acknowledge and appreciate the large-scale effects global warming will have on the climates of different environments because “a few degrees warmer” when placed in the context of our personal lives does not hold much sway.

Historical minimum polar ice cap coverage.

The most noticeable changes in climate due to global warming are occurring on and around the polar ice cap. While far from our sight and minds, the polar ice cap serves as a beacon for melting of landmass ice that could be detrimental to coastal cities in the coming decades. The ice cap is changing rapidly because sea ice is particularly sensitive  to sun exposure and temperature changes. Ice normally reflects sunlight, but as the temperature warms and thin layers of water start to form, more sunlight is absorbed instead of reflected, and the warming cycle is accelerated. Under the same mechanism, as the polar ice cap shrinks and is replaced by open ocean, more sunlight is absorbed and the shrinkage rate is accelerated – so much so that, as can be seen in the diagram below, the minimum ice coverage has been cut in half over just a matter of a few decades.

John Huston moves through the ice rubble during day 13 on the polar ice cap.

Currently my friend and fellow Northwestern alum John Huston (Class of 1999) is attempting to be the first ever American team (with Minnesotan Tyler Fish) to ski unassisted to the North Pole. This means that they will not be re-supplied at any point during their trip as they navigate across the polar ice cap. They are skiing from the northerly most point of Canada, Ellesmere Island, to the North Pole, dragging behind them hundreds of pounds of food and gear on two sleds per person. They are currently two weeks into their journey that will total 55 days and over 400 miles. Their progress and daily updates can be tracked at www.forwardexpeditions.com/blog.html.

Expedition progress as of day 16.

One of the goals of their expedition is to promote climate change education, and there isn’t a better place for them to gain firsthand experience to share about this growing problem. Increased stretches of thin ice and open water must be crossed by swimming, wearing specialized dry suits. In addition, they must navigate through large boulders of ice, which form as a result of shifting currents that have caused ice plates to collide (much like the formation of mountains from tectonic plate collisions). As the ice cap shrinks, a larger proportion of it is made up of new sea ice. While new ice provides a much smoother surface for skiing, the continual shrinking of the polar ice cap could eventually make summer expeditions impossible. So, while they attempt to be the first American team to achieve this feat, the biggest effect of climate change on this expedition may be that it could also be the last time such a journey is even within the realm of possibility. Let’s just hope that they make it home safely.

West? West didn’t help me at all. I am terrible with directions like this (please- give me a right or left). I realize that, especially in a city like Chicago, one should easily be able to orient themselves and follow cardinal directions. In my defense, it was dark, and raining, so I wasn’t in the mood for a learning experience. But, to be completely honest, I have a hard time finding my way west (or in any other direction) even on a bright, sunny day, unless the lake is in plain sight (east!) or I happen to be holding a compass.

Which is why I was intrigued when I found this article on NPR. Last year, researchers in Europe determined that cows have an internal magnetic compass (like bats) by observing that grazing and resting cows tended to face north or south. Now, they’ve determined that high-voltage power lines can disturb this compass, as cows in surrounding areas graze in random directions. Interestingly, if the power lines run east/west, then cows tend to align themselves east/west as well, further indicating that these magnetic fields affect cow behavior.

So, at least the cows that get lost heading to Southport have an excuse. Me? Not so much.

The lesson, I believe, is that science’s role in public policy isn’t limited writing the laws.  Science, in addition to providing data to form a good policy, also has an important role in communicating it to the public effectively.  The cigarette labels provide just one example that intelligently designed communication can significantly increase the effectiveness of a policy.

Another example of how more effective communication can affect policy arises with the way the fuel efficiency of our cars is displayed.  Right now the government mandates that the fuel efficiency of every car sold within the United States be displayed as estimations of both highway and city-driving miles-per-gallon (MPG), in an effort to promote purchasing more fuel efficient cars.  An article by Duke University professor Richard Larrick in the June 2008 issue of Science suggests that MPG might, in fact, be a little misleading.  Larrick argues that MPG misrepresents true fuel efficiency and that it might be causing consumers to make the wrong decisions when upgrading their automobiles.

He suggests that an alternative metric, gallons-per-mile or GPM, is, in fact, a better way to display the information.  Why is this so?  Perhaps its best to use an example.  If a family has two cars and is looking to replace one with a more fuel-efficient model, which is the better decision:  replacing a 34-MPG sedan with a 50-MPG hybrid or replacing an 18-MPG sport-utility vehicle with a 28-MPG model?  Intuitively it may appear that the increase in 16-MPG between the two sedans offers more savings The math, though, doesn’t back this up.

If each automobile was driven a distance of 10,000 miles, the 50MPG hybrid would use 94.1 gallons less fuel than the 34-MPG sedan.  Replacing the 18-MPG SUV with the model just 10MPG more efficient, though, would result in a fuel savings of 198.4 gallons over the same distance.  That’s more than twice as much in savings.  Larrick suggests that the surprise of this conclusion is the fault of the metrics we use to describe fuel efficiency.  He suggests that a conversion to gallons-per-mile would more accurately communicate the fuel savings between vehicles, and that improved communication would mean a more effective policy.

The cigarette pack example provides us with proof that, in some situations, a more effective strategy of communication can actually result in increased awareness and even altered behavior. It seems very reasonable then to suggest that more accurately and effectively communicating the fuel efficiency of cars could pay similar dividends.  In a world where greenhouse emissions and global warming are becoming increasingly salient issues, it seems very worthwhile to consider this option.

To remedy the obesity epidemic, pharmaceuticals are attempting to develop weight loss drugs that work by a variety of mechanisms. A recent Popular Science article chronicles the efforts of a number of scientists to produce the “magic pill.” Drugs like Acomplia (which interestingly was discovered by trying to reverse the effect of “the munchies” induced by marijuana use) try to curb appetite by interfering with the central nervous system, but end up interfering with a whole slew of other essential processes, causing side effects like, say, suicide. Suicide is probably the worst side effect out there, so no more Acomplia. Tesofensine, a drug developed by Danish scientists, shows more potential, but still might interfere with other systems, as well as producing less-than-earth-shattering results. The most promising drug, Amylin, regulates the appetite by delivering hormonal signals like the ones produced by the endocrine system when you’re feeling “full.” The only problem is that Amylin can only be administered via an injection, twice a day.

The article attributes the difficulty of finding a fat-busting drug to evolution. Think about it. Until recently (in evolutionary terms), we had to worry about having enough energy stored, not too much. In prior eras, a large belly was associated with a degree of success  — think of all the political cartoons involving hefty bankers and businessmen. Even now, the obesity problem seems to only exist in fairly well-off countries. We still hear of a hunger crisis in places like Africa while America’s problem is having collectively ingested too many calories.

The point is, storing energy — i.e., fat — has historically been absolutely necessary for survival, so it has become hardwired in many different ways into the human physiology via evolution. Popular Science quotes Barry Levin, a neurologist researching obesity at New Jersey’s VA Medical Center: “How would you build a machine that would ensure you would eat when your energy stores are low? . . . You would build in a huge amount of redundancy to make sure that the machine eats. Every time you interfere with one of those systems, another one kicks in.” Successfully bypassing the survival mechanism would require either a large supply of compound administered in such a way as to slip by the body’s defenses (e.g. shots) or would interfere with a tangle of other processes (such as mood).

While recognizing the body’s evolutionary predisposition toward hoarding, I think the article takes on a much more fatalistic slant than it should, trying to take the blame off of the overweight people in question. The first paragraph on the final page is especially egregious, citing lifestyle change as an outmoded solution to the problem. It also states that the concept of obesity as a failure of will was created by those who had never been fat.

As one who is carrying more than he should be, I can refute that last part right now by admitting fault for my condition. I recognize that with increased motivation toward diet and exercise, I could be much healthier. As to lifestyle change, I have witnessed multiple instances in which various acquaintances have dropped astonishing amounts of weight by simply becoming more disciplined about their habits. I could never pop a pill to solve a problem knowing that simple perseverence would have the same result. Our evolutionary tendencies, while a challenge, will never be an excuse.

And that is exactly what S. Fred Singer is doing by delivering his speech “Nature — Not Human Activity — Rules the Climate.” Singer, and his supporters (among them Barney Groten, who published a treatise on the holes in the arguments behind global warming) are publicly opposing a scientific consensus on grounds that are both unreasonable and desperate.  Singer, according to this article, asserts that “carbon dioxide is not a pollutant” and aims to destabilize the argument for global warming. He focuses on the idea that human influence on the global climate is undetectable and insignificant, and that any expenditure on attempting to reduce the amount of CO2 emissions is a waste of money.

I take issue more with the credibility his argument is being given, and the damage that might cause, than the work itself. There are many people today who take sides in scientific arguments based on religious and emotional grounds. This is most easily seen in the argument of evolution versus intelligent design – sides are taken here not based on scientific fact, and the people arguing about it are not scientists – rather, they pick one side or the other because it either suits their personal purposes, or they feel strongly about the implications of admitting the other side. With global warming, the debates have largely spilled over into the general community. No matter the almost unanimous consensus in the scientific community that our actions are contributing to global climate change, some people can still argue about it simply through ignorance of all the facts.

In an academic sense, it is good to foster opposing ideas, and encourage the digestion and discussion of these ideas. To debate opposing views leads to further development of an idea or ideas. However, in this case, the argument for imperceptible human impact is only credible at a stretch, at best.

While it is true that global climate change is most heavily seen, historically, as an effect of global cycles and subtle changes over time (such as solar cycles, the earth’s tilt, etc), what is being seen here is an acceleration of the process. Global warming, or more politically correct, climate change, isn’t about the fact that because we do what we do, the earth will become hotter and hotter. It is given that, in cycles of warming and cooling, we are in a cycle of warming at the present time. This is clearly evidenced in prior research.

What is also known is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas – it works to trap solar radiation inside the earth’s atmosphere. By looking at levels of CO2 in ice cores dating back thousands and millions of years, there is a definite correlation between CO2 levels and periods of warming. What the theory of global warming focuses on is the massive increases in CO2 that are working to speed up the process. The climate changes we see may be effects we wouldn’t otherwise notice for hundreds of years to come.

The academic speech Singer has given only provides new fuel for a battle that has died down dramatically. The opposing view has been rejected – work is now being carried forward, policy-wise, to work towards reducing our CO2 emissions. His arguments can only revitalize a dead lobby and delay time-sensitive policy decisions. As it is, the slow moving political machines of the world are already too late to stop what is coming – all we can hope for now is to slow it down, and keep it from escalating further.