Dave Massaroni
According to an article written by Justin Gillis
on October 1, 2011, trees along western
Montana glow an earthy red but these trees are not supposed to turn red.
They are evergreens, falling victim to beetles that used to be controlled in
part by bitterly cold winters. As the climate warms, scientists say, that
control is no longer happening. Wildfires race across the southwest parched
landscapes this summer, burning millions of acres. In Colorado, at least 15
percent of that state’s spectacular aspen forests have gone into decline
because of a lack of water. The devastation extends worldwide. Eucalyptus trees
are succumbing on a large scale to a heat blast in Australia, and the Amazon recently
suffered two “once a century” droughts just five years apart, killing many
large trees.
Scientists
have figured out that forests have been absorbing more than a quarter of the
carbon dioxide that people are putting into the air from burning fossil fuels
and other activities. It is an amount so large that trees are effectively
absorbing the emissions from all the world’s cars and trucks. Without that
disposal service, the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would be rising
faster. If forests were to die on a sufficient scale, they would not only stop
absorbing carbon dioxide, they might also start to burn up or decay at such a
rate that they would spew huge amounts of the gas back into the air. That, in
turn, could speed the warming of the planet, unlocking yet more carbon stored
in once-cold places like the Arctic.
It
is clear that the point of no return has not been reached yet. “I think we have
a situation where both the ‘forces of growth’ and the ‘forces of death’ are
strengthening, and have been for some time,” said Oliver L. Phillips, a tropical
forest researcher with the University of Leeds in England. Many scientists say
that ensuring the health of the world’s forests requires slowing human emissions
of greenhouse gases. I do agree with Phillips in that we have not reached a
point of no return but we as humans need to protect our plant and continue regulating
the amount on carbon dioxide in put into the atmosphere. If we continue on the
path that we are on right now, this could cause major issues down the road as
to where these affects will become dramatically worse and could become a major concern
to humanity.
The increase in temperature touches on
some of the topics discussed in class. The increase in temperature due to the
lack of trees absorbing carbon dioxide affects three of the four Earth’s
spheres which are the; hydrosphere, which contains all of the planet's
solid, liquid, and gaseous water. The biosphere, which contains all of
the planet's living organisms, and atmosphere, which contains all of the
planet's air. This increase in temperature is a sign of global warming which
can cause polar ice caps to melt and increase the ocean levels drastically
enough that current coastal zones would eventually submerge, causing humans and
animals on land to retreat to land that they are not adapted to.

Article from: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/01/science/earth/01forest.html?_r=2&ref=temperaturerising

Environmentalists Alarmed by the Flaring of Natural Gas

Vincent Ricotta

According to an article written by Clifford Krauss, many oil companies are flaring, or burning, natural gas across western North Dakota. With the price of crude oil on the rise, oil companies are rapidly extracting oil to make more money, but they are treating the natural gas, which bubbles up alongside the oil, as a waste. Many oil companies find it to be more profitable to just extract the oil and flare the natural gas because it is expensive to build and maintain pipelines and processing plants to capture and sell the gas. It was stated that more than 100 million ft³ of natural gas is flared every day, which releases about 2 million tons of CO₂ gas into the atmosphere every year. Since there are no federal regulations on flaring natural gas, it becomes very easy for oil companies to proceed doing so. This may be seen as a very controversial topic, which alarms many environmentalists. Even though capturing the gas is the most environmentally safe option, scientists agree that burning the gas is better for the environment than venting the gas into the environment. For instance, pure natural gas is mostly composed of methane, which is capable of trapping heat more effectively than CO₂ gas. Environmentalists are worried that this technique may spread to other states. Fortunately, the EPA has begun to ask oil companies to record data on the amount of emissions from drilling, but they have yet to prohibit the oil companies from flaring the gas.

This topic correlates to many issues that were covered in class. First off, the oil companies are flaring the natural gas due to financial prosperity and lack or government control. As a result, this flaring of gas affects each of the four Earth spheres mentioned in class. As the natural gas is burned, it emits a massive amount of CO₂ gas into the atmosphere, which is a greenhouse gas that leads to global warming. This increase in temperature then affects the geosphere, where temperature of Earth’s crust increases causing the hydrosphere to melt or evaporate and harsh living conditions for the biosphere. As mentioned in class, global warming can melt the polar ice caps and increase the ocean levels drastically enough that current coastal zones would eventually submerge, causing humans and animals on land to retreat to land that they are not adapted to. However, I do agree with the scientists noted in the article that flaring the gas is better than venting the gas into the atmosphere because the methane composed in natural gas has greater global warming potential than does CO₂. Personally, I believe that there should be federal restrictions on the emission of CO₂ with oil companies and that there should also be restrictions prohibiting oil companies from drilling oil if they cannot capture and maintain the natural gas in their oil wells (zero emissions). I mean, as much as I love my gas guzzling 10 mpg Jeep, I believe that the government should put more money towards fuel alternatives, such as, biodiesel, solar power, and especially fuel cells. All in all, if we burn less fuels rich in carbon, we can prevent the greenhouse effect and global climate change.

NOTE: Article cited from

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/27/business/energy-environment/in-north-dakota-wasted-natural-gas-flickers-against-the-sky.html?_r=3&hp

Is Global Warming Shrinking Species? Jeff Amorello

Within in the past decade, environmental issues, more specifically global warming, have been at the forefront of our world's political, social, and economical realm. Arguments for cleaner energy, fewer emissions, and more recyclable goods have bombarded society in a way that is unavoidable, and global climate change has become a serious problem around the world. Unlike climate change in the past, it is evident that the more rapid than normal increase in global temperature has been caused by modern human activity.

Global warming is often headlined in the news with concern for political, social, and economical driven initiatives, and it is rare that one is informed on the effects it is having on the earth and its organisms. Unfortunately, this problem is too often ignored, and scientists around the globe are fighting to raise awareness. In an article titled, "Climate Change is Shrinking Species, Research Suggests," the reader is given qualitative data supporting how global warming is affected the size and number of certain species of animals.

The article lays out an argument not saying that one can walk outside and specifically notice species of animals shrinking in size, but that global warming creates a vicious cycle that will lead to smaller organisms throughout the environment. In summary, the cycle is explained as such; Many areas are becoming warmer and drier, and many plants are struggling to thrive. This plant growth is reliant on water, which is becoming more scare in subtropic areas. Droughts are increasing, resulting in more forest fires which reduces critical levels of nitrogen in soil critical for plant growth. These smaller plants means less food for the species that depend on them, meaning species have to look elsewhere for food. In turn, this will result in smaller species breeding smaller offspring, and finally, evolution will favor those smaller animals that can adapt to less food, and the globe will see an increase in smaller species.

After reading this article, I was skeptical as to how accurate the information provided truly was. Backed by only limited research, I find it hard to believe that this event is currently taking place.

Although I understand that human activity has most definitely impacted the environment in negative ways, I don't think it is possible for the few decades of pollution and mistreatment of the earth to have had that significant of an impact on the earth. Throughout earth's history, natural cooling and heating of the planet has occurred numerous times, transforming earth's surface and the species which inhabit it. Despite the fact that this climate change seems to be more rapid, I doubt that species size has taken a significant hit due to human activity. Conversely, the arguments proposed by the scientists writing this article do indeed make scientific sense. The lack of nutrients in soil that affect plant growth do have lasting impacts on the food chain, unfortunately there is not substantial enough evidence to bring this theory home.

Although we haven't debated climate change in depth in class, it is extremely relevant in earth science today. Global climate change, whether influenced by humans or not, is a real world issue our generation is faced with. Increasing knowledge about our planet will only help society adapt to the ever changing planet, and it is important for people to stay informed so humans are able to adapt to whatever nature throws our way.

Flooding in Thailand

Jeff Yattaw

Thailand has seen some of it’s worst flooding in fifty years during this year’s monsoon season. Although this year’s monsoon season has been usually heavy, water experts are blaming human activity for the disasters and flooding Thailand has seen so far his season. Experts are blaming the flooding on deforestation, overbuilding in tourist areas, the damming and diversion of natural waterways, increasing urbanization, and the filling-in of canals. All of these causes are human processes in one way or another and these causes, combined with poor planning, are what have triggered the worst flooding in Thailand in over a half a century. The flooding throughout Thailand has not only affected the human population but rice terraces, which are an important piece of agriculture in the region, have been destroyed by mudslides caused by the flooding and quick flowing water. Also, certain groups of elephants in the area are being threatened by the flooding as well and food for the animals is almost impossible to find and rescue teams are too busy dealing with people at this current stage to help feed and rescue elephants in the region. Experts in meteorology have blamed the flooding on bad water management as they must have miscalculated water levels and did not discharge water from the dams early enough and as they fill up now, they discharge water at the same time as it all flows down into low lying areas which is the root for the flooding. The flooding is creeping in on the city of Bangkok, which is in trouble as the canals are clogged with garbage and other debris, as the city has been experiencing overcrowding of late.

The problem that Thailand is facing now is another example of the struggle of coexistence between humans and nature. As the human population develops and prospers, integral pieces of nature are being destroyed which at the time doesn’t appear problematic, but nature is a very unique process as everything in nature is interrelated and reliant on each other. The deforestation of wooded areas for the building of cities is certainly going to have a trickle-down affect on the nature around the area as it has been destroyed or disturbed by human processes. The floods in Thailand are a perfect example of this affect and it will continue to happen as long as human advancement is a priority over nature and the natural habitat in which we operate and interact with the natural world.

All info came from:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/14/world/asia/a-natural-disaster-in-thailand-guided-by-human-hand.html?ref=science

Japanese Disaster

TYLER DERRICK

Japan has been faced with a major earthquake and devastating tsunami in the past year. These disasters have left much of the small island nation in shambles. As a direct result, the principal nuclear power plant in Fukushima has experienced multiple core reactor meltdowns releasing toxic radioactive into the environment. Gasses are spewed into the atmosphere; elements with long half-lives infiltrate the lithosphere; and noxious liquids permeate the ground and contaminate the hydrosphere. These all affect the biosphere in the surrounding areas. The Japanese government is conducting a research study testing for thyroid cancer (a disease directly related to radiation exposure) on 360,000 children under the age of eighteen throughout the surrounding areas.

The Prefecture of Fukushima has declared all space within a twelve mile radius of the power plant polluted and has evacuated this zone. They have been actively trying to clean up the contagions by hosing down roads and buildings and replacing topsoil. They have declared the land in direct vicinity of the nuclear reactor condemned for at least a few decades. Many residents are planning on moving away from the area permanently.

Nuclear fission reactors have been a promising source of energy for a century now. Nuclear reactors have such an enticing appeal due to the immense amount of energy produced from a divided nucleus. However, there has been proven downfalls with this method. Many researchers who worked diligently to develop practical applications for this process were plagued with radiation poisoning. A byproduct of nuclear fission is spent radioactive waste. Disposing of this waste is tricky and methods have been implemented such as sending it into outer space or burying it deep underground. The long-term effects of these practices are unknown and speculated to be unsafe. There have also been major reactor failures such as the one in Japan or The Chernobyl Power Plant accident in the USSR. These release poisonous matter that combines with the air, water, and soil and in turn infect plants, animals, and humans. Different exposure levels could be lethal or lead to genetic mutations.

This is a prime example why renewable energy sources are crucial for our environmental future. Earth systems produce natural energy that can be harnessed and stored for use by humans. An example of this would be wind that is produced by changes in air pressure. We can create windmills that use its kinetic power to spin wind turbines and in turn create electricity. Another clean energy option is hydroelectric power. Natural flowing bodies of water can be controlled by man-made dams and spin turbines similar to wind.

This should be taken as yet another warning that we need to change our conduct as a species so that we do not compromise the health of our future generations. We need to utilize improved energy techniques to maintain a sterile environment in which we and other species call home.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/11/world/asia/japan-studies-radiation-effects-on-children.html?_r=2&ref=earth

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission#Energetics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy

US food supply threatened: Foreign insects, diseases got into US post 9/11

As we have all seen, food prices are going up. Apparently, one of the main reasons, that the average American is not aware of, is skyrocketing foreign insect infestation. After the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the Department of Homeland Security took over all incoming traffic, including people, merchandise, etc., but also food. Of course the department was created for our protection against future attacks, but what it has failed to do since its creation is to inspect incoming food cargo. Everyone was afraid of what could happen to our country next, but what was not predicted was this different kind of terrorism; food terrorism.
It does not take a genius to realize that food is important. For the past few years we have seen that crops have been failing across the country. I went to the grocery store a couple weeks ago to buy a can of pumpkin to make pumpkin bread and the woman working there told me there is a pumpkin shortage this year. Is it because of the insects? I don't know. But what I do know is that the addition of failing crops and insect infestation doesn't equal anything good. What makes matters worse is that insects are not the only pests being carried into the United States from overseas, but also plant diseases and contagions. Florida's citrus groves were destroyed by plant disease which resulted in the area being quarantined.
Environmentally and politically speaking, the cost of these infestations is enormous. Pesticides are the most common agents used to attack insects on crops. In 2008, California's Monterey Bay was covered in 1,600 pounds of pesticides designed to kill off the light brown apple moth from New Zealand. Unfortunately, 100 million dollars later, all these pesticides succeeded in doing was kill birds and cause respiratory problems to humans.
There is not one answer to this problem. Yes, inspections will start again and less insects and contagions will make it across the border, solving that problem, but what will be done to rid the crops of the already present foreigners? Perhaps more pesticides? And when those pesticides are released what will the affect be on the wildlife in that area? How will the pesticides affect the human population eating the crops that are treated? It's a domino effect, making the problem much more terrorizing then it may seem.
Jessica Burke


Cone, Tracie. "US food supply threatened: Foreign insects, diseases got into US post 9/11." msnbc. Associated Press. 10/10/2011. Web. 11 Oct 2011. < http://www.msncb.msn.com/id/44841097/ns/us_news-security/ >.

Scientists report ozone hole over the Arctic for the first time

Each year, during the winter months, ozone is lost above the Arctic and the formation of the Antarctic ozone hole subsists. This phenomenon is attributed to cold temperatures and ozone depleting pollutants that fester in the atmosphere. The polar vortex or “atmospheric circulation pattern created by the rotation of the Earth and by cold temperatures” generates chemical reactions that change non-reactive/less reactive chemicals into those that destroy ozone (O₃) molecules. Although ozone is considered a pollutant near the Earth’s surface, within the stratosphere, however, ozone shields the planet from harmful UV rays that can cause health problems to humans, such as skin cancer.

Nearly 80 percent of the ozone that was present in January was destroyed by late March around altitudes of 18-20 kilometers. This destruction of ozone was due to the longest lasting polar vortex ever recorded over the Arctic; it resided in the stratosphere from December till the end of March. Global warming, as a result, becomes the primary culprit for the loss of Arctic ozone. When greenhouse gasses, carbon dioxide, become trapped in the lower atmosphere, it heats up the atmosphere near the ground while cooling the stratosphere above. These conditions alone induce reactive chemicals in the atmosphere to break down ozone. The lack of O₃ has become a primary concern worldwide. Companies have ended production of substances that generate destruction of ozone through the Montreal Protocol. This agreement aims to assist in O₃ protection, while looking to alleviate the Green House Effect.

The implications of increased amounts of green house gasses on Earth can have pronounced effects on each of its spheres. Molecules within the atmosphere allow carbon dioxide to be absorbed and spun in such a way that heats the surface of the Earth (geosphere). A warmer geosphere influences the hydrosphere of the Arctic in such a way that the polar ice caps begin to melt. As we have previously talked about in class, polar ice caps that melt lead to higher water levels. If the volume of the ocean begins to increase, land masses that boarder the ocean now could potentially be under water. Humans and animals alike, biosphere, would have to relocate. Some species of animals may not be capable of relocating and would, in the most extreme case, face extinction. Humans themselves run the risk of many social issues. Those who used to live in the city may be forced to seek a new home in the country. A new lifestyle would inevitably need to be adapted.

Personally, I feel the largest impact of ozone depletion is the health issues previously mentioned. Cancer, DNA denaturation, etc…means that all walks of life would cease to exist. Without the biosphere, the other three spheres would suffer the consequences. As green house gasses begin to invade the planet and the ozone is destroyed, the hydrosphere will begin to evaporate away due to increased mantle temperatures. In such a case, Earth may eventually become a twin planet to Venus.

Stay Green, Josh Baillargeon