So I had an entirely different plan for a blog post this week. But after everything that has happened with the US elections, I really can’t offer much useful advice right now on stuff related to academia. So, sorry for that. I feel bad, especially after missing last week…If it’s any consolation, I will say that I have quite a few drafts right now on topics ranging from burn out to lit reviews to how to take tests, so look forward to that? Also, if you have anything you want me to talk about, let me know and I’ll do my best!
Anyway, one of the many things that this election means is the possibility of cuts on science funding—especially to the important agencies that support, fund and research topics in climate science. If you’ve happened to ventured onto my research tab or professional website, you’d find that my graduate research is in the field of atmospheric chemistry which happens to indirectly deal with the current and future effects of climate change. So, among all the other ways that this election has/will affect me (as a minority woman born from a family of immigrants), it’s just the cherry on top to find out that our president-to-be is already working on “restructuring” climate policies (read: getting rid of them completely… *sigh* Can we…just have a moment of silence…).
Typically, when the atmosphere is mentioned, it’s usually in the context of air quality and/or climate change. The former tends to focus on the emissions and subsequent transformations of air pollution that may be hazardous to human health. The latter, on the other hand, focuses on how greenhouse gases and atmospheric aerosols affect the radiative forcing of our planet. However, regardless of which one is being referring to, both are influenced by a complex interplay of an assortment of reactive compounds found within our atmosphere. 
Caffeinated Confidence 