25 years ago, in late August 1998, something interesting happened in Canadian atmospheric science:
A large Canadian scientific stratospheric balloon was launched from Saskatchewan on August 24, 1998. It was intended to have a flight lasting about 24 hours and stay relatively near its launch site. Instead, it went on an unexpected adventure across an ocean and into several countries’ airspaces. Fighter jets were tasked with taking it down. World news organizations covered the updates.
This is the MANTRA 1998 story.
What is a stratospheric balloon?
It’s a very large balloon, typically filled with Helium, that carries a scientific payload (instruments and support systems) weighing up to ~a tonne (1000 kg) into the stratosphere (15 to ~50 km altitude).
They can be as tall as the CN Tower observation deck!
Stratospheric balloons like MANTRA are much larger & complex than common weather balloons, which also are typically Helium filled and carry instruments into the stratosphere. But those payloads are very small and light: ~250 g. That makes MANTRA’s scientific sensor payload (~300 kg) about 1200 times larger. Some sensor payloads are even larger.
Eureka Weather Station balloon launch preparations.
MANTRA was 150 meters high or about the size of a 25-story building when at stratospheric altitudes.
Photo showing MANTRA98 being prepared for launch, overnight August 23/24, 1998.
The MANTRA balloon included a variety of instruments designed to measure ozone chemistry-related atmospheric gases. There were also systems for power and control of the balloon. Its gondola was 2 m × 2 m × 2 m in size, constructed using a light aluminum frame. The total payload weighed 630 kg.
Schematic of MANTRA gondola from Strong et al. 2005.
More specifically, MANTRA instruments sought to acquire:
Vertical profiles of: NO2, HNO3, HCl, CFC-11, CFC-12, N2O, CH4, temperature, and aerosol backscatter from balloon instruments.
Total columns of: O3, NO2, SO2, aerosol optical depth by ground-based spectrometers.
Two major aspects of seasonal change are weather and the “length of the day” — i.e., the number of sunlight hours.
The magnitude of this change depends on latitude. Near the equator, the amount of sunlight stays relatively constant. In mid-latitudes there’s quite a noticeable change in the length of daytime. In Toronto, for example, the amount of sunlight in a day stretches from 9 hours in the middle of winter to over 15 hours in the middle of summer. In the polar regions the change is even more dramatic. There are times when the sun never sets (“midnight sun”) and times when the sun never rises (“polar night”). The seasonal change in sunlight has profound impacts on the environment, animals and plants, and people.
I wrote an earlier post about sunlight changing over the seasons, motivated by my time doing fieldwork in the Canadian High Arctic. In this post, I wanted to look at the same topic more generally and create an interactive plot for people to explore.
Joseph Mendonca and I watch the sun rise late morning on Feb. 25, 2013 in Eureka, Nunavut (photo credit: Paul Loewen)
This interactive figure illustrates the number of sunlight hours there are at a various Canadian cities and locations.
You can select a location by clicking on the entries in the legend. There are tools in the top-left of the figure to let you zoom in and explore the data.
Why does this happen?
This happens because the Earth’s axis tilts the Polar Regions completely away from the Sun, and into complete darkness in winter, and tilts towards the Sun for part of the summer. During summer in the Arctic, the Sun moves in a circle across the sky once per day, never setting.
Over the course of the year in the Polar Regions, the Earth’s axial tilt creates Polar Night during winter and the Midnight Sun during summer. Credit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Circle#Midnight_sun_and_polar_night
Here’s a fun trivia question to ask friends and family: on what day of the year do all places on the planet have the same length of a day? The length of a day is equal everywhere on the planet two days a year.** These days are called the equinoxes. You can see these days by plotting multiple sites and looking where they intersect. I’ve also added an option on the plot to show them as lines on the plot.
Also noticeable on the plot is that the length of the day is maximum mid-summer and minimum in winter. These dates are the solstices, when the tilt of the Earth is either fully towards or away from the Sun.
I hope this puts the changing daylight hours you experience in a new light.
Enjoy!
Sunset over Mississauga, viewed from downtown Toronto
** atmospheric refraction can slightly impact the equality of the daytime/nighttime on the day of the equinoxes.
Acknowledgements:
Thank you to the python community, which has developed and maintained the packages I use to make nice plots, i.e. bokeh, numpy, pandas, ephem, and pytz.
Several of my photos have been featured in the Blackwood Gallery’s newly-published broadsheet, Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge (SDUK) Volume 4: Grafting. A PDF copy of the full publication is online here.
The vision of the SDUK project is:
“To productively collide with the present crisis, ideas cannot be constrained by disciplines. An ecology of knowledge based on the relationship and antagonism of “useful” ideas will be composed and circulated through THESOCIETY FOR THE DIFFUSION OF USEFUL KNOWLEDGE (SDUK). The name of this innovative platform is borrowed from a non-profit society founded in London in 1826, focused on… spreading important world knowledge to anyone seeking to self-educate…”
There are some interesting pieces in the issue. My favourite is by Skye Moret, who presents the colour pallet of Antarctica in a visually stunning and fascinating way. A version of her piece is also on her website here.
The printed publication has been distributed at libraries, bookstores and communities centres in the GTHA and across Canada.
It has been a long road, but I have at last reached a significant milestone:
I’ve finished my Ph.D.
Working towards this goal at U of T’s Physics Dept. has been a difficult but rewarding experience. I’m thankful to many people. My supervisor, Prof. Kim Strong, especially, as well as my fieldwork teammates. Graduate school is an opportunity to grow and change. I’ve tried to make the most of it. I thought I’d reflect on a few highlights.
Fieldwork at PEARL
Travelling to the frozen northern edge of Canada each winter to maintain and operate instruments at the end of Polar Night was an incredible experience. (Part one of my articles about the campaigns for U of T News; a Virtual Tour of PEARL slideshow.)
Dan looks through boxes of equipment at the start of a PEARL campaign.
Spending a month at a time in an extremely remote and cold environment isn’t for everyone. But it was a great fit for me. I have developed a great affection for Canada’s Arctic.
Volodya and Dan carry Brewer spectrophotometer to the roof of the PEARL Ridge Lab (photo credit: Pierre Fogal)
In addition to the opportunity to contribute to important research – the measurements we took during campaigns was used to study the Canadian Arctic atmosphere, but also contributed to international networks studying our changing global atmosphere and validate satellite measurements – it was also an opportunity to develop and apply my interest in photography. I am delighted that the photos I took while at PEARL have been used in national newspapers, on the covers of science journals, and more. It was great fun.
Dan Weaver taking photos on Ellesmere Island, in the Canadian Arctic (Photo Credit: Paul Loewen)
During my first trip to PEARL in 2012, funding for the lab was ended as part of systematic cuts to Canadian science. My longstanding interest in politics primed me to take action. I wrote letters to politicians, talked to the media, contributed to science advocacy organizations, and helped to organize science marches in Toronto.
Marching down major streets of Canada’s largest city was an exhilarating experience. Most of all, I met incredible people also advocating for science in Canada.
Dan kicks off the 2017 Toronto March for Science (photo credit: Paul Martin)
Sharing PEARL’s Arctic research with the public
I believe PEARL’s work is important. But until I was on Kim’s research team, I had never heard of it. Nor was I aware of Canada’s incredibly successful science satellite, the Atmospheric Chemistry Experiment (ACE). I tried to raise the profile of these research projects. I can’t claim all Canadians know about PEARL and ACE. But I’d like to think that my school visits in Ontario and Nunavut, dozen public talks, social media channels, and other efforts have broadened recognition of their importance.
Social media can be a fun way to highlight fieldwork. Even if it’s exchanging jokes about how Eureka resembles an ice planet in a galaxy far, far away…
Science is largely funded by the public. I believe scientists should actively seek to connect with the public.
Dan giving a Story Collider talk about PEARL fieldwork (photo credit: Ally Chadwick, @JustMyFreckles)
Travel to conferences
I travelled to two major international conferences during grad school: the 2014 American Geophysical Union (AGU) meeting in San Francisco and the 2018 European Geophysical Union (EGU) meeting in Vienna. It was gratifying to present my research. Connecting with researchers from around the world was eye-opening and inspiring.
A keynote at AGU by former-US astronaut and then-NOAA chief Kathryn Sullivan still occasionally surfaces in my head. She discussed how she saw NOAA as America’s ‘environmental intelligence’ organization, which I thought was an interesting way to frame its work. For some audiences, I imagine it is more effective than focusing on the inherent value of environmental protection and science – even though I find the latter persuasive.
Dan discusses PEARL water vapour measurement research during poster session
In addition to conferences, I attended meetings of an international network PEARL measurements contribute to, giving me the chance to visit Switzerland, Japan, and Korea. I spent two weeks exploring Switzerland and Japan after the meetings with a friend of mine, Nathan. We had a great time on both trips. Both times I was left with the clear realization that Canada has really poor rail system… (I write this while on a train between Toronto and Ottawa that is an hour late…)
Japanese Shinkansen train that travels at 300 km/hr. VIA Rail can’t even dream this ambitious!
Starting an environmental organization on campus
I greatly enjoyed the interdisciplinary conversations I had with people at the U of T School of the Environment, where I took a collaborative program. I created an organization to foster a sense of community amongst the grad students there, the Graduate Environmental Students’ Association. One highlight for me was inviting Jennifer Baichwal to do a Q&A at a U of T screening of Watermark, a documentary she produced that explored society’s connections with water in collaboration renown Canadian photographer Edward Burtynsky. We held a screening of Watermark and had a Q&A with her. The execution of that event happened after I left GESA; it was nice to be able to sit back and enjoy it once the day arrived.
Dan moderating a panel discussion about neonicotinoids for a GESA event at U of T
Teaching
Before grad school and my research internship at the Toronto Atmospheric Observatory (I have an interest in rooftop views), I took a degree in education and became an Ontario-certified physics and civics teacher. When I started grad school, I was keen to dive into duties as a Teaching Assistant. The department recognized my interest and qualifications and gave me opportunities to apply those skills as a Senior TA. I trained new graduate students in teaching and managed a large team of TAs for a first-year physics course.
Dan discussing science engagement at U of T’s Rawtalk Live event
Even more interesting, I co-created a pilot course connecting science students with entrepreneurship on campus. I worked with a Rotman School Prof. to give top U of T science undergrads a chance at applying their analytical skills on the real-world challenges faced by U of T startup companies. It was an good experience for everyone involved and it was a reminder to me that most students don’t go into academia after they graduate. I continue to believe we should do more to connect university undergraduate students with experiences and information related to non-academic career paths.
What’s next?
The journey was fulfilling, frustrating, and fun. I’d love to travel to PEARL one last time, but that’s unlikely. It’s time for something new.
I’m aiming to keep to keep engaged with the themes that defined my life over the last decade: physics and education, science and society, and interdisciplinary environmental issues. I’d like to fit in some music and outdoors time, too.
But where exactly I’m headed will be my next post. Onwards to 2019!
Yesterday, the government announced it will support science and operations at PEARL, Canada’s high Arctic atmospheric research facility, until fall 2019. That is great news.
Canadians and scientists spoke out. Politicians responded. Science advocacy works.
What’s next? Is this ‘mission accomplished’?
No. Not at all. This is only a first step.
The announced support is “bridge funding,” meaning that it is temporary and short-term. It solves an immediate problem: PEARL was preparing to shut down due to a rapidly approaching end-of-funding horizon in a few months. Many long-term datasets and projects studying how the atmosphere works and how it is changing were at risk. This new funding ensures those measurements will continue. For a while.
What’s on the other end of the bridge?
At the moment, nothing. We’re poised for another funding crisis in 2019. Just like 2017. And 2012. And 2002*. Will I find myself leading another march for science, asking the government to fund PEARL again in a couple years? (I discussed this in a recent Story Collider event: script here.)
This temporary funding for PEARL is necessary because the Trudeau government decided not to continue or replace the existing formal funding mechanism, the Canadian Climate and Atmospheric Research (CCAR) program. CCAR supported several major research projects, one of which was PEARL. CCAR was evaluated by NSERC a year ago (online report & infographic), which recommended continued funding because it provided unique and much-needed support for Canadian scientists. It even noted PEARL wouldn’t exist without CCAR – it “saved PEARL” in 2013. But no money was allocated to continue CCAR in the spring budget, creating a crisis in Canadian climate science funding. Other affected projects are still without a clear path forward.
“Climate change research and the Arctic are far too important and they deserve more than one-off efforts. They deserve a comprehensive, thoughtful, approach.”
She is absolutely right. But what we have at the moment is another one-off effort. What we need next is the comprehensive, thoughtful approach.
CCAR wasn’t perfect. It only had one scale of project funding and was designed to accept proposals only once every five years. The funds had limitations, e.g. PEARL couldn’t pay for electricity using CCAR grant money. And clearly the CCAR structure wasn’t immune from political winds. It existed briefly, to pick up the pieces after an earlier, larger funding program was left to crumble by the Harper government, only to be ended by the Trudeau government. This hardly seems to have been a stable, long-term platform for supporting climate science.
Canada can do better.
We could create a foundation to administer climate and atmospheric research funding. It could be set up at arms-length from the government with an eye on the long-term nature of the issues. It should offer support for research at multiple scales, and have regular calls for new proposals. This was done before, in the early 2000s. It was called the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences (CFCAS), and was ended in 2011 by the Harper government. This precipitated PEARL’s 2012 funding crisis.
CFCAS was a good model that could be used as inspiration for this government’s own solution. Its annual reports are still available online, and outline the enormous impact it had in ensuring that Canada was a leader in atmospheric and climate science – exactly the outcome yesterday’s press release identifies as the big picture goal.
Emergency last-minute funding squeezed out of somewhere is not the way Canada should support important science. We need stable, long-term funding for climate and atmospheric research, guided by a vision for Canadian science and environmental stewardship.
Our next step, as scientists, citizens, and science advocates, should be to push Canada to create a plan to secure Canadian climate and atmospheric science expertise and leadership for the long-term.
* The PEARL Ridge Lab was originally constructed in 1992 by Environment Canada to monitor stratospheric ozone depletion under the name Arctic Stratospheric Observatory, or AStrO. Due to cuts to research funding, AStrO closed in 2002. See, for example, EC’s old webpage on AStrO. It took a few years for Canadian academics to re-open the facility as PEARL. It was significantly expanded under the leadership of Prof. Jim Drummond.
Dan Weaver at the 80 degree north sign between Eureka, NU and the PEARL Ridge Lab.
Recently my photography has been featured in two Canadian science journals.
In between taking measurements of the Canadian high Arctic atmosphere, troubleshooting instruments, and running communications for the research team at PEARL, I took plenty of photos. They’ve been useful for public talks, science communications, and general enjoyment. So far, my photos have found their way into a calendar, major news outlets, a variety of websites, and now the two cover photos.
First up was the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS) Bulletin. Their December 2016 issue featured a photo of the PEARL research team installing instruments on the roof. These instruments were for satellite validation. I also contributed an article about the fieldwork and a small collection of photos. And, of course, the cover! You can find the excerpt I contributed here:
Next was the Physics in Canada Issue 01 of 2017. While it was the first issue of the year, it wasn’t published until June. In any case, my photo is on the cover! The photo is also taken on the PEARL roof. It features the protective enclosure of a sun tracking instrument that sends a beam of sunlight down into the infrared (IR) spectroscopy lab below. I spent plenty of time during campaigns both on the roof and within the IR lab.
Research from colleagues of mine filled the issue. However, there isn’t a way to provide direct links to specific issues on the PiC site.
I’m an ardent supporter of Evidence for Democracy (E4D), and am a member of their Board of Directors. E4D is a non-partisan non-profit organization aiming to “support strong public policies built on the best available evidence for the health and prosperity of all Canadians.” I encourage you to check us out.
Follow E4D on Facebook and Twitter to stay up-to-date on issues concerning Canadian science policy. Or get email updates.
There are many aspects of Canada’s science policy motivating me to be involved with E4D. I’ve highlighted some of them here. I’m frustrated by the current Canadian government’s direct cuts to research grants, and to government-conducted science in the public interest. I’m concerned the ongoing muzzling of Canadian federal government scientists undermines our democracy and national policies. Lastly, the Harper government does not seem to value science, and research (despite its lofty claims).
Graduate studies in physics become wrapped up in politics
Two years ago (2012), I experienced a political shock to my scientific life. I was excitedly conducting fieldwork at the Polar Environment Atmospheric Research Laboratory (PEARL). I was a relatively new graduate student at the time, and I was impressed by the work being conducted at the lab (topics include Arctic, climate, ozone, pollution, and atmospheric dynamics). PEARL is part of many national and international research networks which benefit immensely from its valuable location and sophisticated instrumentation. It was thrilling to be part of a great science team, and a privilege to experience a part of the country very few people visit. In fact, its salience was underscored during the previous year’s research campaign: the team had measured the formation of the first-ever (observed) Arctic ozone hole. This had happened regularly in Antarctica, but not in the Arctic. This development is not good news, and PEARL is the only Canadian ground facility situated far enough North and equipped to study such phenomena.
Adjusting a sun tracker on the roof of PEARL
Half-way through our research campaign PEARL’s funding was cut. Once you lose a permanent installation like PEARL, situated in a dramatically isolated, challenging environment, it’s very difficult to get back. I couldn’t understand why. We didn’t cost much money, contributed to the public good, had an international reputation for excellent science, and the support and backing of multiple government agencies. I started the Save PEARL Facebook and Twitter accounts. 10 months later, we would get a reprieve – though with substantially scaled back operations. I’ve gone to international science meetings where people quietly wonder… what’s going on in Canada?
Cuts to Canadian research funding
PEARL was not an isolated case. Labs across the country, in a variety of fields, are being shut. Grants have been re-organized, cut, and restructured (for example, the NSERC Major Resources Support program was cut and not replaced. It provided operational funding for dozens of significant research facilities). Extensive lists of closures can be found elsewhere (e.g. CBC cuts summary, John Dupuis’s blog). What’s often striking is not only the significance of the work that is being cut. It’s the wasteful treatment of taxpayer investment. To take one example, the Kluane research facility was granted $2 million to renovate in 2012, based on five decades of excellent research and the government’s desire to bolster Canada’s northern infrastructure. A year later (2012), the government cut all funding from it. It’s not just a loss for Canadian science, it’s a waste of taxpayer investments in research infrastructure and expertise.
Cuts to government (public interest) science
It’s not just grants to University-based research that has undergone dramatic changes and cuts. Government science has suffered immensely. The DFO (now “Fisheries and Oceans Canada”) has had a great deal of cuts. $100 million at least. It no longer does marine mammal toxicology. Most people working in ocean pollution have lost their jobs. Famously, the world-renowned Experimental Lakes Area was determined to be no longer within its mandate (Save ELA!). Environment Canada is suffering the same dramatic level of staff and research cuts. The Canadian Space Agency doesn’t have research scientists anymore! It seems the Canadian government is actively shedding its use of science in policy making. The world’s foremost scientific journal, Nature, expressed concern about Canada’s support for science.
Evidence for Democracy is working hard at the moment to develop an authoritative, interactive portal to information about this Canada-wide culling of scientific research capacity. Help us by volunteering or donating.
Libraries
Nature recently returned to the question of Canadian science policy when dramatic cuts to government science libraries splashed into the media. Indeed, government libraries have been cut substantially, affecting Health Canada, Natural Resources Canada, Environment Canada, and Fisheries and Oceans Canada particularly. Access to materials important to the work of Canadian researchers has been undermined. The government has not been transparent about the criteria used to decide what materials it discarded and what materials it kept. Scientists have spoke out, arguing important records have not been systematically kept, and not all material appears available digitally. Some materials have even been thrown in the dumpster.
Federal scientists are rumoured to have even started to create informal libraries in their own homes, in order to preserve access to resources needed to do their jobs. This led to a hilarious (but sad) Rick Mercer sketch. It’s two minutes of fun, and hits an important point. Scientists in the federal government are being fired by the thousands. Those that remain are having their ability to work undermined.
New strict controls limiting the ability for government scientists to speak to the public and media is another significant issue. 86% of Canadian federal scientists would face censure or retaliation for speaking about decisions that would harm the health and safety of Canadians, a recent survey revealed. Evidence and democracy are connected. If Canadian scientists *know* policies are damaging to the country, they should be required, not prevented, from expressing that point of view. Canadians should demand the right to be informed. Regrettably, the Harper government has changed the Code of Conduct for federal employees – demanding loyalty to the political government instead of to taxpaying Canadians. This is a fundamental shift away from government transparency, a dramatic twist of accountability, and a direct effort to undermine an informed and engaged public.
Nature published a column about the muzzling issue here.
Evidence for Democracy has a website and petition about the censorship of Canadian scientists. Check out Science: Uncensored.
While attending the Canadian Science Policy Conference this past November, I had the opportunity to chat with Deputy Minister of Industry Canada, John Knubley. I asked him about the survey and the issue of muzzling. He said much of the issue was a misunderstanding, but that part of it was a difference in values between the political government and the rest. He was guarded in talking about it. But the difference in “values” rings true.
Canadian science policy
The values driving this government’s policies are not in line with Canadian values as I see them. I value a well-informed public. I value evidence-informed public policy. I want a long-term vision for Canadian prosperity supported by investment in basic research and balanced with environmental protection.
The government is currently re-examining its science and technology policy. However, there is no indication substantial changes will occur. Among the most important missteps in its draft paper is the continued lack of support for any research that doesn’t have a direct and immediate potential to be commercialized. Supporting industry and innovation is important. But creating new technology products isn’t the exclusive purpose of science. And innovation ultimately relies on fundamental, basic science – which is being cut in the name of supporting business innovation. Transforming Canada’s research capacity into a literal “concierge” to industry limits the ability for research to benefit Canadians. Canada needs research to generate more than tech products.
See Evidence for Democracy’s full submission to the Government of Canada regarding the new science and technology policy.
How we value science and knowledge in our society shapes our future. I’m concerned the current government is making important mistakes. I feel compelled to take action. E4D has many great ideas in development that can make an impact on Canadian science policy and benefit Canadians. We could use your help. Join and support the Canadian science advocates at Evidence for Democracy!
Walking down University Ave. during the Canada-wide E4D led “Stand Up for Science” rally in Toronto.
