Sea level rise is a prolific topic in climate change that I have written about a few times this semester. This week brings a new victim to be threatened by the rising tides: the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Besides leading the world in space exploration, NASA also contributes a great deal of research on climate change and its impacts, making it ironic that they should be among those expected to be most immediately effected. Furthermore, I would have expected NASA to be among the most prepared groups, as they work on some of the nation’s most sophisticated technology. However, about two thirds of NASA’s facilities lie within 16 feet of sea level and along coastlines [1], making them exceptionally vulnerable to storm surges coupled with rising sea level. Couple the billions of dollars of investment and low elevation with an expected increase in the magnitude of hurricanes going forward, and you have a recipe for disaster. The Kennedy Space Center in Florida will likely be the first to experience these effects, as their beaches are already showing signs of major erosion, but the centers in Houston and San Francisco will likely also begin to see these changes by the end of the century. While retreat from the shorelines may be a slow, expensive, and difficult process, it will likely become necessary in the future. For this reason, and as with all issues related to climate change, it is best to begin investing in that solution now before the problem becomes too large and exceeds our ability to cope.

1. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/05/science/nasa-is-facing-a-climate-change-countdown.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fearth&action=click&contentCollection=earth&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0

There is plenty of evidence that the sea flooded the interior of continents in Earth history. About 12,000 years ago, the valleys of Western Montana lay underneath a lake nearly 2,000 feet deep. It was then when the failure occurred. The water pressure caused the glacier to become resilient and the water began to escape under the ice dam. Water reached a maximum height at an elevation of 4,200 feet that debilitated the glacial block until water burst through in a devastating flood that raced across Idaho, Oregon and Washington. Huge waves and pieces of ice ripped away soils and mountainsides, deposited massive ripple marks and carved the Columbia River Gorge. At that point, Glacial Lake Missoula was as big as Lakes Erie and Ontario combined and the flood waters ran with the force equal to sixty Amazon Rivers.

Harlen Bretz and Joseph T. Pardee were the two geologists that studied this event to find the causes of the features in eastern Washington. They realized that these features must have been formed by enormous scale flooding of devastating proportion. It took several years for the geologic community to accept their interpretation but thanks to the clues to the puzzle provided by these two geologists we have been able to discover one of the most unbelievable events in history.

References:

• Robbins, J. (2014, August 24). Ice Age Floodwaters Leave a Walkable Trail Across the Northwest. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/learning/teachers/featured_articles/20040824tuesday.html
• United States. National Park Service. (n.d.). Ice Age Floods Alternatives Study: Final Report. Retrieved April 10, 2016, from https://www.nps.gov/iceagefloods
• Glacial Lake Missoula and the Ice Age Floods. (n.d.). Retrieved April 10, 2016, from http://www.glaciallakemissoula.org/

Sea level rise will obviously have a direct impact on certain coastal areas.  Do you think that the burdens of dealing with this problem should be the responsibility of all countries, or just the countries with the impacted coastal areas?

Examined from a practical standpoint do I think the world is going to aid every nation where a coast line will be affected by sea level rise? Is Saudi Arabia going to aid Israel if massive flooding happens there? Probably not in this particular universe. Is the U.N. going to show up and help in Bangladesh if they get flooded out? That’s sort of what they exist to do.

In our collective unconcious we can only really see past our massive differences through the empathy of tragedy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_unconscious Flooding is easy to relate to for most countries because most of them have rivers that flood.  It’s why the movie “Independence Day” has one of the best speeches in any movie ever about the fourth of July no longer being an american holiday, because we can all empathize with fighting aliens, even though we’ve never actually done that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9t1IK_9apWs

But if the question is will any country put the well being of people they’ve never met before over the needs of their people, even if they really don’t want to meet those same needs. You ever met a politician who ran on a platform of, “Let’s help those people over there with that thing”? I didn’t think so. This is probably gonna be a country by country solution.

The International Energy Agency released preliminary data from 2015 regarding countries’ respective GDP and CO2 emissions, noting that even in China and the US, GDP has increased as reported CO2 emissions have decreased (1). Although, the IEA must rely on voluntary emissions reporting, and many Chinese firms have allegedly intentionally understated their CO2 emissions, so that the data may not be entirely accurate (2). Likewise, the IEA’s report solely measures CO2 emissions, but methane accounts for about a quarter of current global warming. As countries continue to replace coal with natural gas, methane emissions are projected to increase even as CO2 emissions decrease (3). Politically, the IEA’s report is great news, since the seemingly unfounded fear among many politicians is that the economy must suffer in order to regulate GHG emissions, but I wish the IEA’s report measured CO2 equivalent instead of just CO2.

1. http://www.iea.org/newsroomandevents/pressreleases/2016/march/decoupling-of-global-emissions-and-economic-growth-confirmed.html?referrer=justicewire
2. https://www.edf.org/energy/rhodium-group-report-global-oil-gas-methane-emissions?_ga=1.124289551.444806405.1460316108
3. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-power-emissions-idUSKCN0UV0XS

Sea level rise will of course change the appearance of landscapes that have been known and treasured by many, but the effects of sea level rise far surpass the nostalgic emotions of a changing place.  I took this opportunity to do some research into a place that I have loved since I was a child, and a landscape that I treasure.  Cape Cod, in Massachusetts, has been the inspiration of novelists and poets, including Mary Oliver.  It is home to a national park: the Cape Cod National Seashore, which was set aside by President Kennedy as a place that he also treasured.  Like many places, it is drastically changing.

A report by the U.S. Geological Survey warns that sea level will rise about 8 inches.  I have watched the water wash away the land and convert grassland to marshland.  Alongside this rise in sea level comes a correspondingly larger rise in storm surges and the potential for flooding.  If water were to rise 10 feet above its normal levels during a storm, it would cover route 6 and cut off Provincetown from the rest of the Cape.  If a 4 foot rise occurs as the result of a storm, nearly 5,000 homes would be destroyed.

A digital tool, created by the Cape Cod Commission, further shows the effects of hurricanes on the coast of Cape Cod.  A category 4 Hurricane would eliminate much of Wellfleet Harbor (where my house is) and would flood the town of Provincetown on the tip of the cape. The inner cape would also be affected by hurricanes and large storms, as flooding would reach the towns of Dennis and Harwichport.

As I stated, however, it is not just the change in landscape and flooding of homes and businesses that are at risk with a rising ocean.  Cape Cod home prices are being affected by climate change and rising ocean levels now.

The Boston Globe reported on housing prices in Truro, the town between Wellfleet and Provincetown on the outer edges of the Cape.  Sotheby’s International Realty, one of the largest realtor’s on the cape, employs an individual to produce SLOSH flood maps for clients and educate them on the quickly eroding sand on the ocean side of the Cape.  Houses have to routinely be moved further from the shore – a fascinating process of lifting a structure and moving it 10 feet backward that I have observed countless times.

Ultimately, rising oceans will change landscapes all over the world, but looking at each of these places as unique and special may help to convey the gravity of the situation to individuals who do not see it.

Sources:

Click to access 10_Thieler-Future-SLR-and-Coastal-Change-on-Cape-Cod.pdf

http://www.capecodtimes.com/article/20140425/NEWS/404250341
http://www.capecodcommission.org/sealevelrise/
https://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/real-estate/2014/09/13/climate-change-concerns-weigh-cape-home-buying-decisions/SnTafe2lwWiOsLt5AtezHK/story.html

In class we have discussed many different effects and cycles of pollution of the world and atmosphere by gases such as carbon dioxide. The atmosphere is the initial receiver, but it passes the negative effects onto the life forms of earths surface and waters. Similarly, light pollution has recently changed the way things work dramatically in the ecosystem. Like CO2, it is only very recent in the relative history of the earth that humans have been producing artificial light and the production was increased exponentially, in the same way that CO2 byproducts were and still are. The effects of light pollution are certainly less extreme, but they do disrupt the natural cycle of life in many respects. The article mentions the timing of coral spawning in the The Great Barrier Reef being out of sync since the process is dependent on the full moon. Artificial light in some places is easily confused with that of the moon, and therefore the spawning is mistimed and less effective. With reproduction on the decline, the coral that contributes so much to the life of the ecosystem could dramatically affect every other life form above it in the food chain. Another major effect of light pollution is found in the diminishing population of sea turtles. When sea turtles hatch on land, they know to travel to the farthest glow on the horizon (i.e. the moon), but again, the confusion with a nearby developed area in addition to the added light for predators to see by, results in many more baby sea turtles are not making it to the safety of the ocean. There are multiple other consequences of light pollution in our ecosystem including that which affects humans’ circadian rhythm by decreasing the production of melatonin.  Although these side effects are not as impending as those from CO2 pollution, they should receive attention especially since they are already affecting humans directly.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/04/07/science/light-pollution-effects-environment.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=5&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0

All through the 20th century, America was fueled by burning of coal and oil to move planes, trains, and automobiles emitting more CO2 and contributing to global warming.  This wasn’t the only thing getting higher, so was the economic growth.  A study by the International Energy Agency last year found that as global G.D.P. grew, global carbon emissions leveled off.  This was exciting to economists but it could be false.  A new study released more recently found that the trend continued.  21 countries have doubled their economic growth from carbon emissions.  In these countries, G.D.P. went up over the last 15 years, carbon pollution went down.  That may seem like a lot but 170 countries still have not reached this achievement.

Among the 170 countries are some of the worlds biggest polluters.  21 countries is not enough to save the world.  Everyone needs to help.  These countries lowered emissions by over a billion tons but overall emissions grew about 10 billion tons.  The article studies the different types of emissions and how each plays a part in overall emissions to the world.  Coal has shown to produce much more emissions than natural gas.  In general, people need to be more efficient with how they go about their day, not just everyday people but factories and manufactures as well. The only way to truly lower emissions will be to bite the bullet and accept a hit to the economy.  A big question remains, not to change with wishful thinking and changing to sustainable ways but can we manage without growth?  We’ll see how everything plays out over the next decade.  The choices we make will affect us later on.

References:

Davenport, Coral. “Can Economies Rise as Emissions Fall? The Evidence Says Yes.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 06 Apr. 2016. Web. 07 Apr. 2016.

Following statements from his campaign that Sanders would not run attack ads, Sanders has begun to attack Clinton. A lot of these attacks have to do with Clinton’s taking of money from the fossil fuel industry. The implications behind taking money from the fossil fuel industry are long reaching and are a major issue in this election. In fact, in only half of the first six democratic debates has climate change even been brought up for debate, despite 11% of would-be democratic voters ranking it the most important issue, third only behind the economy and healthcare. It ranked higher than terrorism, gun policy, and immigration combined, according to this MotherJones article. The lack of debate about climate change might stem from the common belief that Clinton and Sanders agree on climate change policy. While they agree that climate change exists, their plans are extremely dissimilar. Clinton’s plan increases renewable energy by increasing solar installations by 700% and offers tax breaks to companies using renewable energy but does little more than that. On the other hand, Sanders’ plan combats serious issues such as offshore drilling and the Keystone XL pipeline, a pipeline running through the heart of the country known for its serious opposition due to leaks and running through protected grounds. There are also serious differences in their stances on fracking and the impact of climate change on national security. Sanders’, for instance, believes that climate change is the single biggest threat to U.S. National Security, while Clinton’s views are far more reserved.

The entire debate boils down to Clinton’s softer stance on climate change and large acceptance of money from the fossil fuel industry. If elected, will that money impact her decisions when it comes time to crack down on climate change?

As reported by the New York Times, China’s Carbon Emission May Have Peaked, but It’s Hazy. It’s been a year since the U.S. negotiated a commitment with the Chinese government to comprise themselves to a deadline for reversing the rapid growth of greenhouse gas emission from the country,

China is known to be most contaminating country to global warming, a quarter of the total, and the negotiation set a deadline for 2030. Although it may seem far away, most environmentalists say the agreement will have a big impact in the environment. Surprinsingly, researchers have found that due to the slowing Chinese economy and energy data, it is likely that the emissions of carbon dioxide have fallen. These results will contribute to the worldwide effort to limit global warming to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit. It also pressures other countries to meet their goals.

Nevertheless, the results are not certain and researchers admit that calculations that are definitive are only in hindsight. There are many problems regarding the accuracy of the results therefore making the situation more complicated. A paper published by the journal Nature Climate Change explains that the predictions through the energy statistics are unreliable.

Other scientists believe that carbon emission may be falling, after climbing rapidly since 2001. Another paper published by researchers, Fergus Green and Nicholas Stern, believe this is the case. The paper explains that 2014 may have been the peak of the country’s emissions and it may be declining today.

The article “How is Climate Change Affecting the Philippines?” talks about the effects of recent climate change in Philippines. The article first starts by showing data on an increase of typhoons in the country. Five of the ten worst typhoons in Philippines’ history happened after 2006. The worst one, Typhoon Yolanda, occurred in 2013 and killed more than 6,000, causing severe damages to the country. So the question that should be asked is: Why are the numbers of typhoons in Philippines increasing so much in the past few years? The answer to that question is climate change. One of the effects of climate change that is happening in our planet is an increase of tropical storms. Scientists also say that two other factors, geography and development in Philippines, are other reasons for such devastating consequences in the country.

The increase of ocean’s surface temperature leads to more heat released in the atmosphere. Due to this, more frequent and stronger storms are expected to happen. This is even more intense in the western Pacific Ocean, where Philippines is located at. This is why its geography is considered one of the factors for the occurrence of this natural disaster. Regarding development, Philippines is still lacking preparation to deal with these types of situation. Factors such as evacuation plan, early warning systems, and shelters would be critical in assisting the population when a typhoon is approaching.

Due to these factors, Philippines was ranked in 2013 as the number one country most affected by climate change by the “Global Climate Risk Index”. The expectations for the upcoming years are even worst, so the country needs to prepare itself by creating assisting action plans to the population in order to try to decrease the devastating effects these typhoons have on the country.

Reference: http://ecowatch.com/2016/01/22/climate-change-affecting-the-philippines/

Sea level rise is perhaps the most tangible and ubiquitous consequence of global warming, with major cities all over the world being threatened by its encroachment. A new model, co-designed by Penn State’s Dr. David Pollard and informed by Dr. Richard Alley, suggests that the IPCC’s most recent end-of-century sea level-rise projections may underestimate what is possible under the loss of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet by several feet. [1] Dr. Alley suggested the mechanism for faster disintegration which entails the loss of the buffering sea ice that borders the ice sheet due to warming waters around the continent. This could then destabilize the ice sheet to such a degree that it’s loss could become rapid, and the ice sheet holds enough water to raise sea level by 12 feet. When this method was incorporated into the model, Dr. Pollard and his colleagues were for the first time replicate a rise in sea level of 20-30 feet which is known to have occurred in a warming event 125,000 years ago. The test of a good climate model is its ability to recreate climate history, so this success lead further credibility to the model as it was used to predict the effects of human-induced warming on the ice sheets and sea level rise. Under the new model conditions, researches found it would be possible to achieve 5-6 feet of total sea level rise by the end of the century, which could be catastrophic to major low-lying cities and countries. This result is in no way definitive, but it does have the effect of making our future outlook even more bleak if we do not take serious steps to abate our carbon emissions and global warming at large.

Source:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/31/science/global-warming-antarctica-ice-sheet-sea-level-rise.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fearth&action=click&contentCollection=earth&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0

In what ways will climate change impact the amount of food we produce, the types of food we produce, and the places where we produce our food?

Had to get a new computer because my old one died. But in terms of how we’re going to eat in the future. Again I’m reminded of my ethics professor Ron Johnson and his conversations on sustainability. http://www.sustainabletable.org/246/sustainable-agriculture-the-basics

And then I remind myself that my friend Jesse told me we’d probably start eating bugs for protein at some point in the future. I’ve read too many dystopian novels and watched too many movies where that’s the shorthand for everything being awful to adapt to that future. So hopefully we don’t wind up in a Mad Max or The Road Scenario.

One of the most common misconceptions about climate change is that it does not exist because there are still substantial snow storms, cold fronts, blizzards, and extreme winters in general. The problem with this type of rationalization to disprove global warming is that it is terribly short sighted. The advocates of these types of ideas are guilty of confusing weather with climate. As we learned in class, weather is the short term and more variable description, while climate is an overall trend that encompasses a much more comprehensive amount of time. Therefore climate change will be much more gradual than weather change. Many times our climate threats have been compared to the threat associated with smoking as there are variations that both carry inherently. Some smokers live short, unhealthy lives and some live inexplicably longer than they should given their lifestyle. “We’re kind of like the smoker who hasn’t smoked too many cigarettes a day for too many years yet,” Dr. Sobel says in the article. I think the biggest emphasis in this quote should be on the final word: yet. That’s the most critical word because it implies (correctly) that if we continue on the same path, that, like the smoker, we will certainly die from the effects at some point. The odds increase directly as time goes on without cleaning up our emissions. The main takeaway from this article is that just because there are cold days (even if they are colder than normal) there are much more implicit threats when one analyzes the climate changes over a longer period of time as opposed to day by day comparison; long term thinking and consideration of future generations is the only approach that will solve the entire problem.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/03/science/even-in-a-warming-world-it-will-still-snow-somewhere.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=sectionfront

The world is less 40 years away from a food shortage that will have severe consequences for people and governments. That could become as politically threatening by 2050 as energy problems are today. According to Dr. Davies, population will increase to 9 billion people in thirty years, having to increase the food supply a 70% to meet demand. Despite he thinks that biotechnology and genetics will play a key factor to determine our ability to produce that amount of food, more efficient technologies and crops will need to be developed to address this challenge. Increase food demand comes at a time when the world is investing less in agricultural research, increasing the risk of social and political disorder that could lead to civil wars and terrorism.

Climate change could cause a two percent drop each decade of this century. Big countries like Australia, Russia, Canada, China and the United States have suffered big floods and droughts that lead to huge losses. The environment could also get damaged since reducing water levels will become scarcer from overpopulation and its augmented use in agriculture. The only region in the world that will be able to feed itself and others in South America, while countries like India will only meet the 59 percent of its demand by 2030.

More effective agricultural production, better ways to store food and biologically diverse can lead to less vulnerable global changes. Strategies for the future must be discussed and new systems of land, water, energy and biological resources must be applied.

References:

• (2014, April 17). Retrieved April 02, 2016, from https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/04/140417124704.htm
• Koba, M. (2014, October 15). World may not have enough food by 2050: Report. Retrieved April 02, 2016, from http://www.cnbc.com/2014/10/15/world-may-not-have-enough-food-to-eat-by-2050-report.html
• Pimentel, D. (2015, February 9). IMPACT OF POPULATION GROWTH ON FOOD SUPPLIES AND ENVIRONMENTby David Pimentel, Xuewen Huang, Ana Cordova, and Marcia Pimentel. Retrieved April 02, 2016, from http://www.dieoff.com/page57.htm

Leaders of nations met in Paris and reached a landmark agreement to lower gas emissions.  Scientists reported that 2015 was by far the hottest year on record, this is scary.  In February, a Princeton-based research organization said the tidal flooding that has already made life miserable for people in coastal cities like Miami and Charleston is getting steadily worse.  Also not a good thing to think about.  A group of experts including the one guy who initially brought the results of climate change to congress back in 1988 warned that climate shifts could become sudden and abrupt.  This in turn wouldn’t give humanity enough time to prepare for flooding, severe droughts and disasters.

Another startling finding is that if carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels continue unabated, the vast West Antarctica ice sheet could begin to disintegrate.  This could cause sea leveling rising by five to six feet by the end of the century.   With sea levels rising this much, it would destroy coastal cities and low-lying island nations and create environmental devastation within the lifetimes of children born today.  Robert DeConto of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and David Pollard of Pennsylvania State University were the two to publish this new article.

The report also contains what we would consider good news today.  “The collapse of Antarctica is not inevitable,” it says, and could be prevented with an aggressive global effort to keep greenhouse gases at or below the levels called for in Paris, where leaders embraced a goal of holding warming “well below” an increase of two degrees Celsius compared with pre-industrial levels.”  This issue requires every county to do their part and put in effort.  We all need to work together to try to minimize these emissions quickly.  President Obama is moving aggressively to increase automobile efficiency and develop cleaner sources of energy.  The United States will have to continue to exercise leadership throughout era and we all need to do our best to be more clean and conservative with energy, only then, will we see a difference.

References:

“The Danger of a Runaway Antarctica.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 31 Mar. 2016. Web. 01 Apr. 2016.

Water shortages have become a primary vehicle of climate change, and an extremely visible effect of human influence on the environment.  Pollution has rendered some supplies useless, while other sources have simply been depleted.  Not only are water shortages detrimental to human health, they also pose a threat to energy production.

In China, the northern region is very dry, and experiences frequent droughts despite the construction of man-mad canals.  Coal-fired power plants in the north have exacerbated the issue of water supply, and further polluted available supplies.  Chinese coal-fired power plants consume 7.4 billion cubic meters of water each year, enough to meet the needs of 406 million people (nytimes.com).

The United Nations predicts a 40 percent global shortfall of water availability by 2030. Not only is will this cause people to go without water, but it will damage food production and energy production, as 98% of energy sources today require water (scientificamerican.com).  The clearest way to confront water shortages is to decrease consumption, and the best way to accomplish this is to decrease the amount of water that is used in energy production and more efficiently use water in agricultural production.

There are numerous ways to achieve this multi-faceted reduction of water consumption.  For the individual, one can take shorter showers, be conscious of a running tap, and eat less meat.  According to the National Geographic Society, a vegan, a person who doesn’t eat meat or dairy, indirectly consumes nearly 600 gallons of water per day less than a person who eats the average American diet. Intelligent travel plans can also help lessen the impact people have on the world’s water supply.  A single gallon of gasoline tanks about 13 gallons of water to produce, Even a short 700 mile flight costs over 6,000 gallons of water (environment.nationalgeographic.com).

Finally, in addition to reduction of consumption, individuals and industries can focus upon recycling.  Recycling a pound of paper, less than the weight of your average newspaper, saves about 3.5 gallons of water (environment.nationalgeographic.com).

Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/23/world/asia/china-coal-power-water-shortage-greenpeace.html?_r=0
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/water-shortage-may-cripple-global-power-supply/
http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/freshwater/water-conservation-tips/

The article from Climate Central, “ With Climate Change, Brazil Faces Drop in Crops”, talks about one of the main effects that climate change will have in Brazil. This effect is on the growing of crops, such as soya beans and corn, that will automatically make farmers take an attitude in order to adapt to climate change. There are several consequences to Brazil regarding climate change, such as drastic changes in rainfall, higher temperatures, lower productivity, and more disease. It is expected that by the end of 2100, the temperature in Brazil would be 3-6 degrees Celsius higher than nowadays. The change in rainfall is one of the main reasons for which crops would be affected by climate change. It is said that the north and northeast areas of Brazil would suffer a decrease of 40% of rainfall, while the southern part would increase something around 30%. These changes will consequently have a dramatic effect on harvests in one of the world’s major food producing countries, since Brazil is the world biggest exporter of coffee and meat, for example.

A possible way to fix this scenario for the future is to invest intensively in mixed agricultural systems, and avoid any type of monoculture practice that might have been done before. Farmers should try to increase the fixation of nitrogen as well as reduce continuous use of pesticides. Another action that farmers will need to eventually take is to increase the rotation of crops in order to balance the situation. It is already possible to see a little decrease in the production of crops in Brazil taking in consideration the past years. Since 2000, some regions have suffered a small decrease in productivity. But now that scientists have found some solutions that farmers can take in consideration for the future, Brazil will have a way of coming back to its old days of intense production.

Reference: http://www.climatecentral.org/news/with-climate-change-brazil-faces-drop-in-crops-16439

Recently published findings in the European journal, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, have proven quite controversial in the scientific community. While the generally accepted timeline for global warming is over centuries and millennium, James Hansen warns that the timeline could be leaning more towards decades and centuries, reports the New York Times. Hansen warns of increasingly strong storms, such as the ones occurring towards the end of the last warm period the earth experienced, approximately 120,000 years ago. The authors cite the rates at which we burn fossil fuels as a major reason for this, as well as mentioning the fact that the warm fresh water melting into the oceans from the ice caps will lead to a feedback loop that will only increase the rate at which the ice caps melt. A Penn State climate scientist, Michael Mann, notes that the claims are rather contradictory to mainstream climate predictions and that because of this, the standard of proof for these claims must be significantly higher than the standard of proof for claims that are more in line with mainstream climatology.

While most of the paper is refuted or questioned by mainstream scientists, the one part that almost everyone in the scientific community agrees upon is that the rate of global warming is still entirely too quick. If the rate of global warming is not decreased, the next generation will be handed a situation they will not be able to handle.

It has been years since our population has been studying global warming and how it affects and deteriorates the earth. Nations have agreed upon limiting global warming to a tolerable level but new studies show the efforts may not be enough. As reported by the New York Times, the article “Scientists Warn of Perilous Climate Shift Within Decades, Not Centuries,” explains the effects the world would suffer as a result of global warming. From big storms to the disintegration of polar ice sheets, the effects would be very dangerous.

An article was published this past week by a European science journal explaining the effects of burning fossil fuels and how it has provoked a climate shift over the years.As James Hansen, the leader of the research and retired NASA climate scientist, has explained if we do not make a change now, the effects may not be reversible.

The paper has been controversial amongst the environmental community as some say the findings explain past puzzling episodes in the earth while others disagree and are unconvinced by the findings. As Michael Mann, a climate scientist at Penn State University, explains “They conflict with the mainstream understanding of climate change to the point where the standard of proof is quite high.”

Nevertheless, most scientists agree that society is not making enough changes to prevent a disaster for future generations. Even with the agreement sign last year at the Paris convention, it is not enough to limit global warming to the degree most scientists see necessary. As the evidence shows, even though nations agreed in 2009 to limit planetary warming to 2 degrees Celsius, the earth has already warmed almost 1 degree Celsius. Overall, the research explains that many of the predictions previously made are not accurate as the effects may be worse and occur much more rapidly than predicted.

Gillis, Justin. “Scientists Warn of Perilous Climate Shift Within Decades, Not Centuries.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 22 Mar. 2016. Web. 27 Mar. 2016.

On Tuesday this week, the same day as the Brussels terrorist attacks, retired NASA scientist James Hansen and his team of researches released a co-authored paper that suggested even the restricted warming agreed upon in the Paris Climate Talks will be too great to avoid some serious impacts of global warming. The foundation for the argument stems from the last time the Earth warmed comparably to the observed modern trend. During this time there is evidence that large portions of land-ice were lost and sea level rose as much as 20-30 feet. [1] The author’s also suggest these effects, as well as far more powerful storms, could begin to be felt within the next 50 years, an idea that is contended by many leading climate scientists including Penn State’s own Dr. Michael Mann.

I also have several reservations as to the proposed mechanisms for these impacts, one of which suggests that the influx of freshwater from melting glaciers can shut down the Atlantic Conveyor Belt (which has happened in recent history) and that this will exacerbate the melting of the ice sheets and lead to an amplification of global warming. However, when this happened previously it plunged Europe into the “Little Ice Age,” as warm water was prevented from reaching the North Atlantic and delivering heat to the continent. Another mechanism described in the paper, the idea that an increase in the equator-to-pole temperature gradient will cause more severe weather is contrary to all my research on the topic. Firstly, scientists have found that this temperature gradient is decreasing with global warming as the Arctic regions warm more rapidly than the rest of the planet. Furthermore, it is this decrease in temperature gradient that allows the Polar Jet Stream to wander more North to South, and set up in troughs or ridges that favor higher or lower than average precipitation in a given area, respectively. So it is actually the decrease in this gradient that is likely to cause more severe weather.

Those points of contention aside, Dr. Hansen has been one of the world’s leading scientists and activists against global warming and the fossil fuel industry, so his commitment to abating the problem cannot be denied. His colleagues simply worry whether his political leanings have begun to influence his science. Whether this is the case or not, I think Dr. Mann is correct in saying, “‘We ignore James Hansen at our own peril.'”

Source:

1. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/23/science/global-warming-sea-level-carbon-dioxide-emissions.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fearth&action=click&contentCollection=earth&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=sectionfront&_r=0

1. You have seen that in many areas of the world, water is already one of the most important constraints on the quality of life, and by the middle of this century, almost everyone agrees that there will be 2 billion more people on the planet. At the same time, climate change will reduce the amount of precipitation in some areas, while others will receive more precipitation.  Given these facts, how will we meet the water needs of  9 billion people by the middle of the century?

If in the year 2050 we have 9 billion people on this planet and we still rely on fossil fuels as our primary form of energy, we will be on a unsustainable trajectory. I have no scientific means of guessing what the world will be like. More likely than not we’ll be fighting over the scarce resource of water and employing very drastic measures to ensure sustainability. Thankfully some very smart people are already working on this. http://www.shell.com/media/speeches-and-articles/2012/meeting-the-needs-of-9-billion-people.html

Ronald Johnson is a professor here at Penn State. He teaches business ethics. He really has a passion for sustainability. In his class was actually the first time I heard that term. He had lots of videos in his class covering sustainability,like solar panels in grassy fields where the grass was cut by goats. If we switch every fossil fuel to a renewable one, we can probably increase how long our planet can last.

Of course I have sincere doubts about our planet ever supporting 9 billion people. Likely a major plague or war will deplete a significant portion of the planet’s population. If that happens, our resources would probably last longer.

Water and sanitation are essential to human health, and since 2010 it is a human right approved by the United Nations to have access to safe and clean drinking water. However, in 2016 there a 750 million people that lack access to an improved source of drinking water, 2.5 billion (more than a third of the world’s population) do not have basic sanitation facilities and hundreds of millions do not have soap and water to wash their hands. In many countries, this lack of facilities and access to clean water is helping spread out diseases in communities, households, schools and health centers.

Some critical issues we are facing are related to the challenging way to identify gaps in access and inform policy. Most of the policies proposed by the UN are not effectively applied in many countries, leading to weak country capacity to implement plans. That related to the third main challenge, insufficient funding. National funding needs continue to compensate available resources. However, these funds are unfortunately lacking.

Another huge problem we face is that 1 out of 7 of world population practices open defecation (946 million people). This practice leads to the contamination of drinking water sources and the spread of diseases such as cholera, diarrhea, dysentery, Hepatitis A and typhoid. Eritrea is top of the list (almost 80% of its population does not have access to sanitation facilities. This situation is especially critical in rural areas, in which 90% people practice open defecation. Experts predict that this practice will not be eliminated among the poorest rural areas before 2030.

However, we have made some improvements. Between 1990 and 2012, 2.3 billion people gained access to an improved drinking-water source. Also, children deaths associated with poor water sanitation and hygiene fell from 1.5 million to around 600,000. So our efforts should be focused on those people and contribute to making progress in those areas.

References:

• Purvis, K. (2015, July 01). Access to clean water and sanitation around the world – mapped. Retrieved March 26, 2016, from http://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2015/jul/01/global-access-clean-water-sanitation-mapped
• Hill, T. (2014, November 20). Nearly Half the World Lacks Access to Clean Water and Sanitation-and That’s the Good News. Retrieved March 26, 2016, from http://www.takepart.com/article/2014/11/20/nearly-half-worlds-population-lacks-access-clean-water-and-sanitation
• (2014). INVESTING IN WATER AND SANITATION: INCREASING ACCESS, REDUCING INEQUALITIES. Retrieved from http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/139735/1/9789241508087_eng.pdf?ua=1

In the news recently, an enormous scandal regarding the lead toxicity levels in the drinking water of the city of Flint, Michigan. There were major reactions and criticisms coming from all over the United States. What was unknown to me, and I assume many other Americans, is that this is an issue that has plagued the country for years, although went largely unnoticed. It is also one that has been underplayed in many locations until the situation in Flint was brought to light. Aqua Pro-Tech Laboratories chief executive said in the article: “no one was testing. Now all of a sudden, they’re all going crazy.”. The fact that these issues were swept under the rug until a nationally covered news story revealed the case is morally upside down. The primary motivator to not do the testing and furthermore, not perform necessary corrections is the monetary cost involved. The prices to replace the lead pipes that are corroding are high (several million dollars for an average school district), but what is the value of prevention of stunting cognitive growth? The effects of the lead poisoning are the reason there are EPA regulations on how much lead, the drinking water can contain. In many schools mentioned in the article, there are cases of the lead concentrations reading 60 times the federal threshold. This is quite obviously alarming, but what is even more alarming is the potential amount of time that the lead level was present and left untreated in schools, where the primary purpose is to further a child’s cognitive development. Thankfully, now there are pushes being made to improve the situation, but there is still much progress to be made.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/27/us/schools-nationwide-still-grapple-with-lead-in-water.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

This article deals with alternative energy, mostly wind and how we need to utilize it more.  All down the center of the country, winds rip through which could fulfill the power demands for millions of customers.  The problems lies where the demand is needed as to where the wind turbines can be constructed.  Companies are working to build high voltage transmission lines across the country to the coasts where the bulk of the demand is.  This job is in need of government approval.  More than 3,100 miles of line are yet to be built.  Some companies have spent years to get approval by each state to get the go ahead.  One company only won the approval of 3 states over the course of 6 years.  They have since hit a dead end in Missouri due to some land owners, landowners that own a good bit of land and have farms.  These land owners argue that it alters their way of life as well as that this project violates their property rights.  I can see where these people are coming from.  I wouldn’t want a heavy voltage power line in my back yard either.  The land owners also argue that they shouldn’t have to derive wind from the middle of the U.S. when there is plenty of wind in the East.  Essentially, the entire project is on hold at the moment and the we are all entering an emerging battle over how the nation should shift to alternative energy resources as well as how we can meet targets in carbon reduction.  This outcome will determine where and how green energy will develop over the coming decades.

References:

Cardwell, Diane. “Fight to Keep Alternative Energy Local Stymies an Industry.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 23 Mar. 2016. Web. 24 Mar. 2016.