Ashanti Thomas

April 11, 2016

I personally think that should be a responsibility for ALL countries because such a large epidemic like that could begin to effect other surrounding countries if we do not step in and help stop the problem in one place. If other countries just sit back and watch sea level rise and destroy a country it will only get worse for those other countries because as other places are destroyed, they sit back and do nothing about it and contribute to the problem, making it worse for everyone all over the world and causing these problems to occur faster.

In the article “Drowning History: Sea Level Rise Threatens US Historic Sites” it talks about many different historic sites across America that are low-laying by the water, as well as speaking about historic sites all over the country. The article tells you about how all of these historic sites can be ruined or even completely submerged because of sea level rise, if sea level rises only 3 feet it can cause 1.5 billion dollars’ worth of damage to the Statue of Liberty. In Boston the annual amount of floods in the 1070s was only two, in between 2009 and 2013 the amount rose to 11 and could rise to 72 floods a year if sea level would rise to 11 inches. The article also speaks about Newport, Annapolis, and Jamestown, Hawaii, and sites in other countries like South Africa on Robben Island where Nelson Mandela was imprisoned for 27 years.

So when sea level rise affects one place or one country it is really effecting all of us, and what really we need to do is rise about these levels and help each other.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/drowning-history-sea-level-rise-threatens-us-historic-38300090

Ashanti Thomas

April 3, 2016

Earth 103

Blog 9

Blog 9

In the article “Study: Climate Change-Caused Food Scarcity Could Have Dire Consequences” a model predicts climate changes will impact our food system causing malnutrition. Calories of food per person will increase in 2050 but with climate change it will not be at its ideal peak that we would want it to be because there is a predicted 3 percent decrease in calories each year, this could cause 500,00 extra deaths per year up to 2050. These deaths from the drop in calories would be considered extra deaths considering the mortality rate we already have.

I think this model and article is telling us that the more the climate changes it will continue to effect crop growth and as food supply of fruits and veggies etc lowers, our calorie intake does which will begin to destroy the population (malnutrition, etc.)

https://weather.com/health/news/climate-change-food-scarcit

The current rate of acidification is a concern to scientists because there are a lot of organisms of marine life that are very vulnerable to this acidification due to their shells. Also coral reefs are extremely vulnerable to ocean acidification, and since reefs are a vital part to the marine life’s food chain this could cause marine life to begin to die off. It is said that the Australian coral reef has been cut in half since 1985.

Acidification inhibits shell growth in marine animals and is thought to be a cause of reproductive disorders in some fish.

“The oceans currently absorb about a third of human-created CO2 emissions, roughly 22 million tons a day. Projections based on these numbers show that by the end of this century, continued emissions could reduce ocean pH by another 0.5 units. Shell-forming animals including corals, oysters, shrimp, lobster, many planktonic organisms, and even some fish species could be gravely affected.” 

The global carbon cycle is a very important component of the global climate system, with several feedback mechanisms that make its behavior complex. What are some of the main negative feedbacks and positive feedbacks in the carbon cycle?

Some of the main positive and negative feedbacks in the carbon cycle are:

Positive- if ice and snow melts this will cause the earths surface to absorb more energy because soil and ocean water is more exposed, this then can cause frozen soil to release large amounts of CO2, the warming of the earth can cause water vapor which is a powerful green house gas, all in all this is a continuous cycle adding up to global warming.

Negatives are that too much evaporation can cause more cloudiness which will block the sun reflect solar energy away from earth which can then cause reduced global warming and there is no cycle.

Click to access FeedbackLoops.pdf

What are some of the broader implications of the predicted dramatic warming in the Arctic? Think of shipping, ecosystems, permafrost, the fate of Greenland, and sea level.

The good thing about an ice-free Artic would be faster shipping from continent to continent, as well as mineral exploration. There could also become a large boost in productivity in the economy pertaining to better fishing opportunities, etc. The bad part is the albedo of the Arctic Ocean would decrease and this would cause warming in the ecosystem, sea level would basically the same though. This are just things that scientists predicted would happen as well as predicting it would happen in 1979 all the way up to 2015 and now to 2020, 2030, 2050 and so on and so forth.

http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/predictions-of-an-ice-free-arctic-ocean.html

Learning from feedback mechanisms it makes sense that the polar regions of Earth have warmed much more than the tropics because, in the tropics there is more water and heat which can in turn cause weathering because the rocks are exposed to the water causing chemical and physical changes. Which is a negative feedback that causes the atmosphere to cool because when the rocks undergo these changes their minerals are dissolved which is what gives the atmosphere carbon dioxide, if this is taken away it will weaken the greenhouse gas effect which will in turn cause the earth to cool, the hotter it is, the faster this reaction will happen causing warmer and wetter areas (tropics) to cool faster than polar areas.

Global warming can have many negatives affects on the world one of the main things would be a rise in the sea levels because of ice rapidly melting, this could cause many places to flood, this is destroying known habitats for many animals like polar bears, etc. This could cause droughts in many places the more that temperatures rise, and this will result in huge losses of locally grown crops, it could causes villages to have to relocate because lakes have dried up, there may be less food for certain locations because the fish will die, bird could begin to die off, etc. Though there are many positives stated below about Greenland it comes with many negatives, Global warming can cause the ice to become so thin that the people of Greenland cannot use their sled dogs to hunt or even take regular routes to hunt sea lions, and seals. They also would not be able to feed their dogs or families if they cannot hunt. As well as affecting the lives and breeding processes of any animals that depend on sea ice for birth or their way of living.

Global warming can also have lots of positives like the article i read on the National Geographic about Greenland. The grass is growing much fast in Greenland which is helping the sheep farms and its productivity, they have also been able to locally grow potatoes, broccoli, and other vegetables. Fish are moving into the Greenland waters making it better for the local fisherman because the ice has melted, it is opening up opportunities for mining gold, and other metals from mineral-rich rocks as well as oiling companies being able to do work in some areas.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/10/071017-greenland-warming.html