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

As the United States’ population continues to grow, the demand for cheap and efficient energy continues to rise accordingly. A very controversial issue that has come up is the mining of fossil fuels in the the rich wildlife areas in Wyoming. According to the article published by The New York Times, “Wyoming Adopts Wildlife Migration Conservation Guidelines,” Wyoming passed guidelines to stop fossil fuel mining in migration areas for elk, antelope, and mule deer. Biologists have been able to get the exact routes traveled by attaching tracking devices to the animals. This is a non-violent way to figure out where the guidelines should restrict energy companies from exploiting. The article states that the main goal was not to totally shut down fossil fuel mining in Wyoming, but more to allow for wildlife and energy consumption to go hand and hand. Some of the ideas that were presented were to use specially designed fences that would allow wildlife to crawl under instead of barb-wired fences that are commonly used.

Wyoming is the least populated state in the U.S. and I did more research to determine why this is an issue for the state. According to the University of Wyoming, Wyoming is a center for U.S. energy production and remains towards the top of states to produce the most fossil fuels. Being that the state is scarcely populated, Wyoming is also a leader in wildlife habitats so this is what caused the problem to come about. The guidelines that are proposed by the state have allowed for the wildlife commission and energy companies to remain happy with the position and provide a positive future for energy development. States like Alaska have also had issues with this topic and Wyoming has done a good job of working out this controversial issue. It will be interesting to see how different states deal with the ongoing problems of energy development and wildlife management.

References:

“Wyoming Adopts Wildlife Migration Conservation Guidelines.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 2016. Web. 31 Jan. 2016.

“Fossil Fuels Concentration | School of Energy Resources | University of Wyoming.” Fossil Fuels Concentration | School of Energy Resources | University of Wyoming. Web. 31 Jan. 2016.

As we all know, there was a big snowstorm that hit the east coast last week. Some areas received around 30 inches of snow.  This article by the NPR discussing El Nino states that this massive snowstorm can possibly be attributed to recent climate change. With one of the biggest El Nino’s on record occurring this year, the northeast should be experiencing a relatively dry and mild winter. This has been true so far this year, but not when cooler arctic air dropped down from the north and hit the warm wet air flowing through the southern US. El Nino is caused by unusually warm oceans in the southern pacific and with global warming, this could happen much more frequently. While winters would be more mild in the northeast, massive storms could happen more frequently when arctic air drops into the area. This is all just a theory as of now, but we may be able to determine this as the ocean warms and El Nino’s become more frequent. Strong El Nino’s could also mean strong La Nina’s as the water cools. Strong La Nina’s would mean much cooler and wetter winters. It seems the northeast will not catch a break when it comes to climate change.

Resources:

http://www.npr.org/2016/01/27/464505488/a-big-el-nino-likely-set-last-weeks-blizzard-in-motion

California’s Public Utilities Commission has finally solidified a semi long-term plan for how it handles rooftop solar panels sending electricity back to the utilities, which means that investors, businesses, and the public can finally start acting with much less risk that their respective investments in solar, change in profit structure, and decision to install panels won’t get pulled out from under them via political or bureaucratic capriciousness. And because this decision is happening in California, with its gigantic market, the greater degree of certainty in a more solar-sourced energy sector will reverberate through the country.

The idea is that solar panel-equipped ratepayers will receive credits for their flow of electricity back into the grid, but that most will have to pay a one-time fee to their utilities upon installation and hookup. This money won’t be kept by the utilities, though, but will benefit low-income residents through subsidization of home energy-efficiency measures, such as solar panels! This means that, yes, some ratepayers who don’t have rooftop panels will have to pick up part of the cost, but that will only incentivize them to switch to solar as well. With greater certainty that demand for panels will increase with this decision, the green light is given for increasing investment in panel production, R&D, and installation and maintenance services, and so the cost of purchasing or renting panels is likely to continue to decrease.

All of this being said, I’m not sure what it means for maintenance of the grid. If investor-owned utilities are faced with the decision of reducing profit margins, or cutting corners to maintain their infrastructure (not sure how stringent the regulations are that govern this), I have to imagine they’ll lean towards the latter.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/29/business/energy-environment/california-narrowly-votes-to-retain-system-that-pays-solar-users-for-excess-power.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=3&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0

Global Warming  is often viewed as a major negative, but there could be a few positive impacts. One positive may be the increase of productivity in the colder parts of the world as the temperature rises meaning growing seasons in places such as the Northeast United States could increase.  Another possible positive is the decrease in energy use towards heating since there would be warmer winters.

Global Warming has many major negative impacts.  One impact would be the 1 to 4 foot sea level rise by 2100, which would increase flooding around the world, specifically the South Pacific.  Although the amount of storms would not necessarily increase the severity of storms likely would.  Another negative would be the increase of rain in some areas which would increase flooding.  This goes along with drought would show up in more areas as well. All in all, the side effects of global warming are vastly more negative than the few positives.

http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=23746

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/11/28/science/what-is-climate-change.html?_r=0

The article I chose for the second blog was ” Updated NASA Data: Global Warming Not Causing Any Polar Ice Retreat”. In 1979 NASA put up a satellite that would be used to measure the ice caps. In 2012, they reviewed the data from the satellites and learned that the total polar ice extent has remained above the 1979 average. These findings can conclude that global warming in not causing the ice caps to melt. There was a period of time in 2005 that the ice caps were melting and receding at approximately 10 % of the 1979 measurements. The last update to the data was in may 2015, and that data showed that the ice caps were 5 % greater than the 1979 average.

What does this all mean? It means that originally we thought that global warming was melting the ice caps and raising sea temperatures. In reality, the ice caps melt and then grow at their own rate. There was a large amount of ice in 1979, and then in 2005 they drastically started to melt but it leveled out again by 2012. Now in 2015 we have more ice caps then ever before.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2015/05/19/updated-nasa-data-polar-ice-not-receding-after-all/#5c251c9132da

Throughout Module 2 we have continued to learn that climate change is happening, and it is happening rather quickly. The problems that climate change produce include rising sea levels, more intense storms, drought and many other environmental catastrophes. I found an article in the New York Times called El Nino Storms Put Pacifica Cliff Apartments at Risk. These apartments have been built on cliffs right on the coast of the Pacific Ocean, but due to erosion from intense storms, the cliffs have snuck up right under these homeowners back porches.

Although California has seen a long and unforgiving drought, this is not the kind of rain that they were hoping for. The storms have become so severe that they are chiseling away at the side of the cliffs. The apartments have become uninhabitable due to the threat and the reality of them falling into the crashing waves below. The article states that, “Scientists have warned for years that long-term soil erosion and rising sea levels are contributing to increased flooding, cliff failures, severe storms and large scale changes down the Pacific Coast.”

After reading through Module 2 I finally, truly understand the connection between climate change and intensity of storms. When more moisture is in the air (like what is happening now due to the increase in air temperature) it means that there is more energy, and therefore creates more powerful storms than what the human world has ever seen before. This makes me wonder whether or not the El Nino is more strong and destructive than previous ones, or if last weekend’s snow storm, that essentially came “out of the blue”, was linked to this increase in energy in our atmosphere. The storm that swept through the East Coast left countless towns with new records of snowfall.

This article shows how climate change is already affecting and relocating Americans due to the intensity of the storms that come with it.

Reference

Southall, Ashley. “El Nino Storms Put Pacifica Cliff Apartments At Risk.” New York Times 26 Jan. 2016: n. pag. Print.

As we have learned through module 1 and 2 of this course, carbon emissions are a major cause of global warming.  Countries around the world, such as China and the United States, have recognized this problem and signed an agreement earlier this year to reduce carbon emissions.  However, this agreement is facing its first problem as oil prices are reaching a dramatic low of under $30 a barrel.  The problem with the cheap prices is that one of the driving factors for Americans and people around the world to turn to electric cars is the pain of paying these high prices to fill up their vehicles.  As prices decline people may not feel as strongly towards the change from their current vehicles.

Even though the prices are low, the article I have chosen to blog about titled “Climate Deal’s First Big Hurdle: Draw of Cheap Oil” from the New York Times, has a few very interesting points that I felt were very inspiring for the upcoming change of the country.  One of the valuable points is that many countries are un-phased about the drop in oil prices and are maintaining their goal of reducing emissions of their countries.  China in particular had a very interesting way of solving this problem.  They have decided to implement a new rule that no matter how low world crude oil prices may fall, the price of gasoline and diesel will continue to be set at $40 a barrel.  They will then use the extra profit from the oil consumption and place it in a special fun for energy conservation and pollution control.  I think this is a very good way of going about this problem and keeping citizens from consuming oil indiscriminately.  All in all, I think the world is on the same page and carbon emissions will continue to decline as long as countries stay true to this agreement.  It is very uplifting to see how world leaders are recognizing the implications that carbon has on climate change and are making conscious decisions for our future.

Krauss, Clifford, and Diane Cardwell. “Climate Deal’s First Big Hurdle: The Draw of Cheap Oil.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 25 Jan. 2016. Web. <http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/26/business/energy-environment/climate-deals-first-big-hurdle-the-draw-of-cheap-oil.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=7&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0>.