Obama administration announces desert "solar energy zones" - Hillary Fortin

On Thursday, the Obama Administration revealed plans for solar energy development in which “solar energy zones” are set up in California’s Mojave Desert and other areas in the West by the Bureau of Land Management. These large-scale industrial projects will be directed to 285,000 acres of desert in the Western U.S. as well as 20 million acres of the Mojave Desert.
These energy zones are meant to promote development in areas that do not have any cultural or environmental conflicts. They are also to make landscapes that are most sensitive in the desert “less desirable for solar prospecting.” They do this by identifying “sweet spots” that already comply with environmental requirements thus promising “expedited permitting,” says U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar. 17 solar energy zones in six Western states have been found to not have any major cultural or environmental conflicts.
Both industrial and environmental groups say there is a lot at stake with the release of this plan. For billions of dollars in subsides, solar developers need to site projects ahead of deadlines. Meanwhile, conservationists claim that the desert is not able to handle such large scale industrial change. There is also concern about the amount of money spent on these projects. According to an analysis by the Interior Department’s inspector general, these projects have consumed nearly 80% of the Recovery Acts funding that was put aside for the bureau’s entire renewable program. Renewable energy is a main concern of Obama’s energy policy, but there are areas of much concern in terms of money spent on the development of solar operations.
I think that desert areas such as Mojave are appropriate places for solar energy projects. I think it is a good way to make use of the land because of the amount of light it receives. Plus the “sweet spots” they identified have already met environmental requirements and many solar energy zones do not have any major cultural or environmental conflicts. I think this is an important aspect and that they should continue to focus on such areas. These areas can assist in Obama’s energy policy which, as stated in the article, “aims to reduce American dependence on foreign oil while developing domestic clean energy that creates jobs.” I can understand how money is a significant concern, but if they could continue to launch more projects in other areas where there are no major conflicts it could help in creating jobs and more renewable solar energy zones.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-solar-desert-20111028,0,7889585.story

NPP Weather and Climate Satellite Launches

At 2:48Pm local time in Vandenberg, California, NASA and NOAA launched NPP, with input from the US Department of Defense. NPP is a $1.5 billion weather and climate satellite that will test new-style Earth observing instruments while providing operational data to meteorologists for general forecasting. It has five instruments on board that will monitor a wide range of land, ocean, and atmospheric phenomena - from temperature and humidity, to the spread of algal blooms in the ocean or the state of the Arctic ice. "NPP's observation will produce long-term datasets which will help scientists make better models, which then lead to better predictions, which hopefully can be used to make better decisions", says Dr. Jim Gleason. NPP stands for National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System Preparatory Project. There is a concern, however, that NPP is being asked to do too much. Its climate role requires it to continue datasets acquired over the past 10 years, but NPP must also bridge the gap between NOAA's existing system of polar-orbiting weather satellites and the agency's future fleet. NASA is concerned about the longevity of the instruments on board. The US has geosynchronous weather satellites that sit 36,000km above the panet, but these cannot deliver some of the high-resolution atmospheric information that meteorologists need to make their forecasts. The loss of NPP before a replacement is flying would therefore be a blow to weather forecasting and climate studies on both sides of the Atlantic. Dr. Louis Uccellini, who directs NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Prediction, said NPP's importance was underscored by events in 2011, which he described as "the year of the billion-dollar weaher disasters", speaking of the ten weather events, in the US, each costing over a billion dollars in damages. NPP's advanced data feeding give new expectation to extend forecasting skills out to five to seven days in avance for extreme weather events.
This is an interesting new advancement. I like the topics that combine Earth Science with Astronomy (Astronomy part being the use of rocket ships and talk of orbiting the Earth). I believe that the launching of this new satellite will be beneficial for the US and countries across the globe. The advanced microwave and infrared data reading system gives hope to all the communities that have been affected by natural disasters in recent years, such as hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and tsunamis. We should be able to get many more people out of these areas before something devastating happens. Also, we should be able to better track the effects of Global Climate Change. One of the main things this satellite will look at is the state of the Arctic ice. This will give us a better idea of what is happening with sea levels and currents, and help plan for the future state of coastal cities.
This article relates to Earth Science in its conncetion with all spheres: the atomosphere, the hydrosphere, the geosphere, and the biosphere. Its connection wiht the atmosphere comes from NPP's direct observation of weather conditions, which occur in the troposphere (part of the atmosphere). It will tell us more detail about past, present, and future weather patterns as well as more detail for how these phenomenons work. It also connects the atmosphere to the biosphere in helping collect data of the greenhouse gas build up, which will inevitably affect life on Earth. Rising average global temperatures are starting to rapidly change naural conditions faster than humans and other life forms can adapt to. NPP also will monitor, directly, the state of the hydrosphere through ocean levels and the state of the icecaps. It will also link observations between the hydrosphere and biosphere by monitoring the spread of algal bloom in oceans and seas. Also, by monitoring the state of the Arctic ice, we can see how animals' habitats in the poles (such as polar bears) might be changing. The new satellite will give us information about the geosphere in aspects such as total land surface (which is being reduced by rising sea levels) and composition of rocks and soils being affected by temperature and humidity changes and increased acid rainfall. These topics show the connection between the geosphere with the hydrosphere and atmosphere. Lastly, we get insight into the future of life and what seems to be our main concern, human progress. The biosphere is affected by all of these things. The toxins that are building up in the air and water are affecting longevity of oraganisms living in theses heavily affected areas. Marine life is being affected by higher temperatures causing coral bleaching and deafness in some fish (such as clown fish). Land life is affected by acid rain, desertification, submerging of land surface, and increased natural disasters (as well as other factors).
Hopefully with this new data collection system, we can start to find new ways to address these issues.

Reference:
Amos, Jonathan. NPP weather and climate satellite launches. BBC News. Oct. 28, 2011. Accessed from BBC.com on October 28, 2011.

Global Warming 'Confirmed' by Independent Study : Response by Katie Marino

The article that I have chosen to analyze is entitled, “Global Warming ‘Confirmed’ by Independent Study”. It was written by Richard Black, the Environmental correspondent for BBC News and published on October 20, 2011. In the article, the issue of global warming and the validity of claims that climate scientists have made were raised. When the original research to support the theory of global warming was conducted, the United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the UEA’s Climatic Research Unit all drew similar conclusions, namely that global warming exists and is affecting the earth. Unfortunately, groups of skeptics widely criticized the accuracy of their claims and worked hard to degrade the research of “the world’s most important and established groups” (Black 2). In a fruitful attempt to restore the legitimacy of these groups and provide the world with another concrete analysis of global warming, the Berkeley Group conducted the Berkeley Earth Project to challenge the “Climategate” campaign that asserted that global warming had been exaggerated.

Founder of the group, Richard Muller Berkeley, gathered a team of 10 scientists including the year’s Nobel Physics Prize winner, Saul Perlmutter. Together, the group was able to prove that the existing data was accurate and show that their “record of global land temperature mirrors existing ones closely” (Black 3). As this was a huge triumph for the scientific community, the real issue at stake here is the idea that no matter how credible a source is, people will still try to challenge difficult results. The study concluded that the “average temperature over land has increased by 1C” since the 1950’s (Black 3). This is a stunning result that many Americans have trouble coming to terms with. What is unfortunate is that their solution is not to work to reduce the human contribution to global warming but instead, to criticize and discredit accomplished and hardworking scientists. Now that this independent study has yet again confirmed the theory of global warming I hope that former skeptics apologize for their previous allegations and care enough about the issue to ask, now what? Now that global warming is a generally accepted truth of our world, what are scientists going to do to combat this issue and what should we, as citizens of the world, do to reduce our involvement in global warming?

Before reading this article, I was unaware of the fact that the notion of global warming had been so widely challenged. I understand that there are always proponents and opponents to grand claims, but I was surprised to learn that people found ground to criticize groups like the NOAA and NASA. I support the idea of independent study and not taking things for face value, but I do believe that in some cases, when considering the source, and their intentions, claims against them are most likely unreasonable. In summation, I was pleased to learn that the reputations of the discredited scientists were restored by the work of the Berkeley Group. Unfortunately however, that means that global warming is indeed a fact of today’s society. My hope for the future is that scientists can spend less time trying to validate previous conclusions and more time combating the negative effects of global warming.

Researchers shed light on source of Earth’s water

Jenn Peone

No one has ever been able to determine conclusively how the water on earth got here.Scientists know that the early Earth was far too hot to hold water or water vapor, but then, in relatively short geological time, the oceans appeared. Now, researchers are saying that a new discovery has shed some light on the age old question. A european team reprted finding a very colld reservoir of water vapor in space that could explain earth’s water.

The region they discovered surrounds a star 175 light years away. The star is in the early stages of forming a planet or planets. Similar to how earth was formed 4.5 billion years ago. Scientists concude that the water on earth was almost certainly brought to erth by comets and asteroids known to originate in these cold but water filled zones. It is assumed that these were present when earth was forming. The observations scientists have made indicates that enough water exists in the disk of cold vapor to fill earhs oceans.

It has long been suspected that these “reservoirs” of cold water vapor existed but until now we have not found any signs of them in hotter regions closer to the sun. The theory seemed unlikely because cold asteroids and comets are formed in the outer reaches. But now we have evidence to make the theory stronger.

Also, it is likely that water has been delivered to some of the billion other planets to exist beyond our solar system, meaning there might be many other “ocean worlds” throught the galaxies.

The 10 million year old star is the closest planet forming star yet identified. Efforts to find the cold water vapor in the past all failed because the instruments were not powerful enough.around 4.1 billion years ago began a period of “heavy bombardment,” when Earth was pummeled by comets and cold meteorites — both of which carry water — from the outer reaches of its disk. some researchers hold that the water came primarily from other sources. For instance, water is believed to have been released from early volcanos that belched up molten material from deep within the planet, including H2O. Water could also leak out of certain minerals in rocks as the planet cooled.

This discovery can relate to many of the things we talk about in class. First, it can be related to the missoula flood and water on mars in terms of finding sources of water and proving an outrageous hypothesis. This story has to do with the entire earth and the way it work. How it was formed and how it can be affected in the future. Without the oceans and water on earth, there would be no life; we would not be here.

It is important to understand the way the earth was formed to understand the way it works and how it is affected by the rest of the universe. The story is definitely intriguing and I am not surprised that it has many people questioning the hypothesis. However, good points are made and no other legitimate explanations have been made to challenge the idea.

What is also another interesting topic mentioned is the discovery of the forming planet, or possible planet. Never before have we seen one so close. These observations will help us to understand our own planet due to the similarities of the formation that has taken place so far.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/clue-to-how-our-oceans-were-filled/2011/10/20/gIQAmBRs0L_story.html?wprss=

Warming Revives Dream of Sea Route in Russian Arctic

Jess Brennan

Every year the polar ice caps seem to be getting smaller. This past summer several ships sailed across the Arctic Ocean from one side of Russia to the other, a feat that was previously was extremely rare and dangerous because of the ice. This path can be particularly useful for shipping goods from the north of Europe and Asia because it is much shorter than going through the Suez Canal, which connects the Mediterranean Sea and the Red Sea through Egypt. Many people seem to be for this new shipping path including Russian Prime Minister, Vladimir Putin, who said, “The Arctic is the shortcut between the largest markets of Europe and the Asia-Pacific region. It is an excellent opportunity to optimize costs”. Iceland’s president, Olafur Ragnar Grimsson, also is in support for the path but understands that what is causing the depletion of the ice is not good. In a recent Arctic Ocean shipping conference in Russia President Grimsson said, “It is paradoxical that new opportunities are opening for our nations at the same time we understand that the threat of carbon emissions have become imminent.” Not only does this path take less time, but it also can save countries and companies millions of dollars because they are taking fewer days to complete trips, there are more places for oil companies to check for oil, and new fishing grounds. Although this pathway is great tool to use for shipping people still have to worry about avoiding huge chunks of ice in the water so they do not end up like the Titanic. Authorities in the Russia, Norway, and the United States are trying to see if transferring the goods from a regular freighter to vessels that can navigate through the ice chunks.

Not only is this topic prevalent to Earth Science but also to businesses and the economy. It touches on global warming affecting the hydrosphere, not only the atmosphere. Because of this route more people are going to have jobs because there will be more ships going to and from the different ports around the Arctic Circle. There will also be more people able to send out fishing boats to go fishing. I totally agree that this is a smart choice when thinking about shipping goods from Europe to Asia or the United States to European Russia. This pathway will lead to better connections between the countries that utilize it because it will be easier and faster to get goods to the countries that need them. I think that it is unfortunate that the reason this pathway is now opened is due to things that us humans are doing to hurt the Earth.

Article link: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/18/business/global/warming-revives-old-dream-of-sea-route-in-russian-arctic.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2&ref=science

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