The acidification of the Earth’s oceans can be quantified in several ways, including by measuring the pH level of the water and the healthiness of reefs.  The overall trend is increased acidification of the ocean and a deterioration of reefs that can be correlated through the work of several researchers and projects.

A recent article, published in Nature, outlines the effects that ocean acidification has had on the Great Barrier Reef.  In this study, the growth rate of the Great Barrier Reef has significantly declined as CO2 levels increase. This was done by using an alkaline substance to alter the chemistry of the seawater at a small atoll in the Great Barrier Reef off Australia’s east coast. This decreased the acidity of the water to roughly match pre-industrial levels – and resulted in a 7% increase in reef growth (nature.com)

According to a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration website, the oceans absorb about a quarter of all CO2 emissions, thus the levels of CO2 in the oceans are bound to increase as total CO2 emissions increase.  In regards to marine life, an increase in CO2 and ocean acidity impedes the process of calcification, which is detrimental to the health and population of marine species (noaa.gov)

In this context, (ocean acidification as an impediment to calcification) the coral and reef-building organisms are producing 10-50% less calcium.  This decline in calcium carbonate production poses countless problems: from the structure and size of the reefs themselves, the biodiversity of the environment it creates, and the breakwater applicability when a reef is located near a populated shoreline – are a few of the ways that reef environments are detrimentally suffering from ocean acidification.  With the loss or shrinking of a reef comes the loss of marine life, of the ecosystem of the organisms that live there, and the overall healthiness of the oceans.

Sources:
http://www.nature.com/news/landmark-experiment-confirms-ocean-acidification-s-toll-on-great-barrier-reef-1.19410
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification

Click to access 22-4_kleypas.pdf

In an article titled “Wind Farm May Be Built Off Long Island,” New York Times writer Tatiana Schlossberg discusses the effects and possibilities of building a wind farm off the coast of Long Island, New York. The area under discussion is slightly larger than 125 square miles and would contain 194 wind turbines, capable of producing 3.6 megawatts each. The combined 700 megawatts of generated electricity would be enough to power nearly 300,000 homes, according to some estimates. According to the Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs of Massachusetts, this would offset approximately 1.8 million tons of carbon dioxide annually. However, the area is still under consideration. According to the article, the wind turbines likely would not be built for a number of years. The planning began in 2011, with a proposal submitted to the ocean energy bureau. A stage has been reached where they have begun to target financiers and investors to find funding for the project, but the project will likely face opposition. Homeowners feel the wind turbines ruin their views and fishermen and businesses relying on fish sales also oppose the construction of wind turbines as it may have negative impacts on business. There are 11 other locations under consideration for the construction of wind farms along the Atlantic Coast and most of them are facing similar opposition.

The article “How Global Warming is Changing the Wild Kingdom” talks about how changes that are occurring in the wild kingdom are showing scientists that innumerous shift and changes are happening in the world besides the global warming effects and temperature rise that has been debated a lot lately. Several changes in the wild kingdom has occurred lately as a response to global warming. Many fish species are moving to the north in order to find cooler waters. Polar bears are suffering from global warming and are thinner and less healthy than the ones of 20 years ago. Red Fox are migrating to the north as a response to warmer climates. Besides these changes in the life of several animals around the world, scientists have come up with four possible ways that species might respond to the rise of temperatures that have been occurring lately in our planet.

The first one is what they call “divide and destroy”. By that scientists mean that species will migrate to the north or to areas where elevations are higher in order to survive. They emphasize that with the presence of humans in some of these parts in the world, it makes it harder for some species to migrate. The second response is in the timing of natural events, such as migration, egg laying, and flowering. The change in temperature has a direct effect on the natural timing of these events in some species. The third response is that humans have nothing to do with the shifts we are seeing in the animal world and that these changes are likewise natural. Scientists also says that changing certain characteristics of the surface can impact more the animal life than increasing one or two degrees of temperature. The last response is that global warming will not only affect the animal world, but also our human community as well. It says that health risks will increase, and that poor countries will suffer even more from this change. Besides that, the article says how gas prices will change as well as the sales of hybrid cars. Generally speaking, global warming is an issue that will affect the entire ecosystem that we live in.

Reference: http://www.livescience.com/3864-global-warming-changing-wild-kingdom.html

This past March 18th, a new study was published by the Carnegie Institute concerning ocean acidification and how it affects marine organisms overnight.  Acidification refers to the effects from carbon dioxide emissions created by cars and power plants that is absorbed by the ocean. As a result, organisms are affected by the change of acidic balance which have the capacity to dissolve several organisms.

Researchers used measurements made in tide pools which are set off from the open ocean in low periods that are separated from larger wave action. Acidification happens during the night as plants use a photosynthesis-like method during the day that acts as a counteraction to the process.

During nights is when the process begins as organisms respire and with the excess of CO2 the risk of calcification creatures increases. One of the many pools where the research was conducted was the UCDavis Bodega Marine Laboratory located in California. Discoveries showed the results of the difference between acidification during the day versus the night. Acidification grew tremendously during the night time to the point of dissolving outer layers on organisms. As explained by Lester Kwiatkowski, the study’s lead author, “This work highlights that even in today’s temperate coastal oceans, calcifying species, such as mussels and coralline algae, can dissolve during the night due to the more-acidic conditions caused by community respiration.”

Unfortunately, the situation is likely to progress as researchers predict that by 2050 dissolution will increase by double during nighttime.

Arnold, Catherine. “Ocean Acidification Affects Marine Creatures At Night, Study Says.” Headlines Global News RSS. N.p., 19 Mar. 2016. Web. 20 Mar. 2016.

What are some of the ways that ocean acidification will likely affect humans?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/us-effort-on-ocean-acidification-needs-focus-on-human-impacts/

In order to fully drive home the negative impacts of a more acidic ocean people would need to have relatable concerns about what will happen. It’s easier to care if people who’s livelihoods depend on the ocean and fishing. Commercial fishing is a multi billion dollar industry and the most dangerous job anyone can do.

If people knew that a more acidic ocean would mean less fish, a higher price per pound of wild caught seafood and a decrease in the quality of it available maybe more people would act on the environmental factors that increase ocean acidification. It’s hard to make most people care about the depleted amounts of plankton, probably because they’re microscopic organisms.

Giant jellyfish are a serious problem, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/8373420/Giant-jellyfish-invade-Japan.html

Aside from being really scary and venomous they eat the plankton which is the same food that fish eat. And they’re biologically immortal. unfortunately the only predator that could solve this problem in the sea of Japan would be gigantic sea turtles. And I do not think those exist or else they would’ve taken care of this problem.

One of the major concerns with respect to climate change that we have discussed in class is the positive feedback system that the carbon cycle creates. For example respective to plants: as the temperature increases globally, plants will need to reduce the amount that they open their stomata so as to limit their carbon intake because it is more abundant. The effect this has is a  reduced amount of water released through the stomata, which in turn reduces the amount of water given off and therefore cools the atmosphere less. Recently, however, it was discovered that plants would be able to adapt to the increasing carbon dioxide levels better that thought previously.

According to the New York Times article, “plant respiration contributes six times as much carbon dioxide to the atmosphere as fossil fuel emissions”. While this statistic makes up a significant amount of the CO2 in the atmosphere, plants also use much of it as fuel for photosynthesis.  Another negative feedback element that was touched on in class and addressed in the Columbia article is the process of down-regulation. This outcome is the result of the plants adapting in the abundance of CO2 to operate more efficiently. The result is a larger leaf area on average which results in an increased albedo of the earth, thereby cooling it slightly. Based on these findings and more, the new found consensus is that the carbon cycle may, in fact, be a negative feedback system with regards to global warming as opposed to the positive feedback system as previously accepted.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/science/global-warming-climate-change-trees-carbon-dioxide.html?rref=collection%2Fcolumn%2Ftrilobites

http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2011/02/12/how-plants-could-impact-global-warming/

This article talks about the possible construction of a wind farm off of the Long Island.  It will be several years before any New Yorker’s see anything being developed.  A project like this will takes years of environmental assessments as well as construction plan development.  The site would be about 11 miles of the cost of long beach and would be 127 square miles.  According to the United States Energy Bureau, five private companies have expressed interest in developing the site.  They are: Fisherman’s Energy, Energy Management, Deepwater Wind, EDF Renewable Energy, and Sea Breeze Energy.  The federal government has issued 11 leases for wind farms on the East Coast.  New York’s coast holds a lot of potential and with the site holding 194 wind turbines each generating 3.6 megawatts, this would produce up to 700 megawatts of power.  The Power Authority stated that this could be enough energy to provide power for around 300,000 homes!  This is not the first offshore project that has been proposed for New York but certainly seems the most promising.  President Obama has helped this issue by not allowing off shore drilling on the Atlantic Coast.  This would be a great asset for New York if they were able to channel the wind off the coast into energy.  I am all for this idea.  This article also relates to module 8.  Module 8 discusses the effects of human impact on the oceans.  This could be a very promising new plan for our future and could lead to a new wave of resources.

References:

Schlossberg, Tatiana. “Wind Farm May Be Built Off Long Island.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 16 Mar. 2016. Web. 18 Mar. 2016.

Regardless the Unesco spared Great Barrier Reef ‘in danger listing’, the Australian government presented a 35-year program to manage risks to the reef. A report in 2012 from the cited government showed that the reef had lost over half of its coral in less than thirty years!; and it is under growing threats. This is why this program includes monitoring population and breeding, refining water quality and establishing goals for reducing chemicals that end up in the reef coming from a close Marine park.

However, these are not the only threats the reef is experiencing. Human threats are the most hazardous and powerful dangers and include shipping accidents, oil spills, over-fishing (as studied in module 7) and tourist visits among many others. Also, natural threats like coral bleaching and the Crown of Thorns Starfish have huge destructive force on. The increase in water temperature impacts on coral bleaching and affects catastrophically the reef, which can become practically extinct by 2030. This temperature raising is associated with El Nino, which is considered the most powerful control on weather across the planet.

References:

• Robertson, J. (2015, July 01). Unesco spares Great Barrier Reef ‘in-danger’ listing but issues warning. Retrieved March 15, 2016, from http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/01/great-barrier-reef-spared-unesco-in-danger-listing-un
• Threats to the Great Barrier Reef. (n.d.). Retrieved March 15, 2016, from http://www.greatbarrierreef.com.au/information/great-barrier-reef-threats/

In a regularly updated NASA post, top climatologists and NASA scientists write about the effects of global warming on the planet. They mention that the effects of global warming have already begun showing, including negative effects such as more intense and more frequent heat waves, the loss of glacial ice which results in an increase in the rate at which sea levels rise and a shift in when plants and trees are flowering and crops are growing. The article discusses IPCC findings stating that global temperatures will increase by between 2.5 and 10 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century. Some regions will experience more significant warming than others, and some regions could even see benefits from the warming. The article states that an increase in mean global temperature of 1.8 to 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit above the 1990 levels will produce “beneficial impacts in some regions and harmful ones in others” and that net annual costs will increase over time as the rate of increase of the mean global temperature increases.

At the end of the article, they link to numerous other articles and give summaries or excerpts of the article. The articles focus on the numerous effects of global warming including stronger hurricanes, more droughts and heat waves, drastic changes in precipitation patterns, and a longer frost free season which means a longer growing season. They also talk briefly about the effects in different regions of the U.S. Effects that we will see will include heavy downpours, flooding and the breakdown of infrastructure in coastal regions.

The article “Climate Change Will Not Be Dangerous for a Long Time” by Scientific American talks about the decrease of global warming compared to predictions made by scientists. The article also states that due to this slower warming that is happening right now, the world will have enough time to prepare itself and develop new sources of technology that will assist humanity in fighting against the consequences of global warming. If climate change remains at the same rate as it is nowadays and sensitivity continues low, the world will only start to suffer more severe effects from global warming in about one century from now. According to the article, there is no reason to rush and try to develop subsidizing and inefficient technologies to fight global warming.

The world has been trying in the past few years to make plans and promises that it will be in fact capable of tackling climate change. But these plans and promises have not yet been really efficient. About ten years ago the world derived something close to 87% of its primary energy from fossil fuels. As of today, the world is still in that same range and no improvements have been made in order to make that statistic better. There has been in fact a significant decline in nuclear power, but this has been matched by the rise in renewable resources. One aspect that has room for improvement is the use of wind and solar in renewables, since it is still only 1% of that proportion. The main job our scientists have nowadays is to spend the next decades trying to come up with new researches and technologies that are more efficient in order to tackle global warming.

Reference: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-will-not-be-dangerous-for-a-long-time/

In learning about the global conveyor belt, it is natural to consider the impacts of climate change in the context of this course. While the global conveyor belt takes about 1,500 years to complete, any alteration of this process could prove to be significant. It is difficult to prove, at this point in time, that changes to the global conveyor belt are caused by humans, but it is a safe assumption that humans are significantly contributing to any change in the climate, and is a relevant consideration in this case.

One study, recently published in Science, has been monitoring the global conveyor belt since 2004. It is early to be able to notice trends, but one that was quite noticeable to the researchers is a slowdown of the belt. If this trend continues, it could be extremely significant for the transport of warm water.

Even with only a moderate slowdown, the global conveyor belt would not be able to transport warm water to the northern Atlantic, and could begin an ice age as the oceans become significantly more cold.

It is difficult to pinpoint trends and results, as well as causes, in such a short study. It is, however, important to understand that with systems such as the global conveyor belt, even small changes can be massively detrimental to the environment.

Source: http://www.carbonbrief.org/the-atlantic-conveyor-belt-and-climate-10-years-of-the-rapid-project

An article from the NY Times explains El Nino and how this year they have observed one of the strongest in a generation. Having the job of flying through the event seems like a pretty interesting one. Every ten minutes during the flight, technicians released an instrument package out through the floor called dropsondes. This device measured the wind speed, direction, humidity, and other atmospheric data back to the plane during the entire trip. The data that is gathered from these devices is used to feed weather models to help scientists forecast El Ninos effect on weather. In our module, we learned that El Nino intervals correspond to increased precipitation in California and eastern South America because warm water holds more moisture than cold water. This year has been interesting because most models have been less certain about forecasting El Nino’s effect on weather. Uncertainty in the models this year for California and its prolonged drought has been important for scientists to try and understand. To study the jet stream which is a major reason California tends to be wetter in an El Nino, the data collected from plane rides like this are crucial. The jets fly around an area of convection, or a cell, near the Equator dropping nearly 30 dropsondes. The data from this is used in models that help meteorologists predict weather patterns.

Reference:

Fountain, Henry. “Studying the Heart of El Nino, Where Its Weather Begins.” New York Times. 1 February 2016. Web. Retrieved: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/02/science/where-el-nino-weather-begins-pacific-ocean-noaa.html?_r=0

As reported by Robert Moore, according to an international research team, the global sea level rise has accelerated in the 20th century compared to the past 2,800 years; Along with earth & planetary professor Bob Koop, many scientist attribute the rise to global warming.

The results used to the researched were collected from two dozen location over the world. They showed that sea level rose an average of 1.5 inches per century until the 1880s, but soon after the rise of industrialization, global sea level rose 5.5 inches. In the year 1993, the level sea reached it’s highest, around one foot per century.

Researchers predict that by the year 2100, sea levels could potentially rise between 11 to 52 inches depending on the trapping or removing of greenhouse gas emissions. In the data collected, researchers looked for salt marshes, single cell organism, mangroves, sediments, corals, lead levels, and other factors that could affect the rise of sea levels.

Contrary to today’s trends, before the 1880s, the sea level rise followed a downward trend. Soon, if the trends continue as predicted, the sea level rise will follow an upward curve due to greenhouse gas emissions addition to the earth. As a result, many coastal communities will face a real threat as sea levels may rise 22 inches. Others study predict a 52 inches sea level rise by 2100. However, many scientists hope sea level rise between 11 and 22 inches by the end of the century with the 2015 Paris climate agreement.

Moore, Robert. “The Global Sea Level Rise Accelerated in the 20th Century • The Monitor Daily.” The Monitor Daily. N.p., 28 Feb. 2016. Web. 28 Feb. 2016.

Although the rest of the world, in general, is growing in population at a rate concerning to some, Japan has recorded its first decline in population. According to the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, the country’s population is down by 947,000 people. This makes up 0.7% of the populous and it is trending toward further decline as 25% of the population is above 65 years old. This is drastically higher than the 8% of the world who are above 65 in the global statistics according to worldbank.org. For this reason, the population decline seems to be decreasing further in the future and is predicted to do so by many experts for the reason of the population distribution imbalance as well as other reasons. One of these other reasons is the pressure on Japanese women to progress farther in their career before limiting their professional time by raising children. On the opposite side of the spectrum, there are more predominant influences of men becoming less masculine in pop culture. The effect this brings is the decreased desire to become fathers. Similarly, the increased societal acceptability of homosexuality could be argued to be leading to the population decline. Given all of these influencing factors, it is apparent how the domestic population is on the decline. One of the policy solutions that has not yet been employed is the option of loosening the immigration policy in order to help both the Japanese population as well as the rest of the world, from which many people wish to emigrate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/27/world/asia/japan-confirms-a-decline-in-population.html?ref=world

http://wdi.worldbank.org/table/2.1

http://www.academia.edu/2368322/Explanations_for_Japanese_Population_Decline

To understand one of the most powerful control on weather across the planet, we have to comprehend how and where one of the strongest El Nino in a generation generates and grows. A thousand miles south of Hawaii, very strong trade winds from northern and southern meet creating thick storm clouds and icy cirrus haze together with overheated waters that generates energy into the atmosphere and as a consequence roiling weather worldwide. That is the dominant power of El Nino.

All the information collected in this area, at the heart of El Nino, and together with weather models (studied in Module 4), will improve forecasting of the storm’s effect on weather and to better understand how all this process develops. The effects of El Nino can lead to more winter rain to the United States but more dry conditions to southern Africa, an area that has already being affected by droughts. So like with any model, data is a key factor. This is why we have been developing better satellites and networks to develop better representations and measure sea-surface temperatures and other ocean characteristics. To understand El Nino better, data must be also obtained from the atmosphere, since it occurs when the trade winds stop moving.

So scientists keep developing techniques to understand and predict El Nino better since the rain that the storm delivers in some areas is essential to the ecology but also to better predict typhoons, rainstorms and droughts.

References:

• Fountain, H. (2016, February 01). Studying the Heart of El Niño, Where Its Weather Begins. Retrieved February 23, 2016, from http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/02/science/where-el-nino-weather-begins-pacific-ocean-noaa.html

• Bromwich, J. (2015, December 16). Understanding El Niño. Retrieved February 23, 2016, from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/17/science/understanding-el-nino.html?_r=0

This past week, Fiji was struck by the most powerful storm ever recorded in the Southern Hemisphere. Now that the storm, Tropical Cyclone Winston, has passed the island, authorities are beginning to assess the damage done to the island. CNN affiliate TVNZ reported that homes have been destroyed and low lying areas on the island are flooded more often than not. The Prime Minister indicates that much of the issues the island now faces has to do with the widespread confusion by its citizens. Many citizens left their homes for shelters and there are reports of power outages in much of the country. The country announced a nationwide curfew to keep the streets clear for cleaning. The airport has reopened, however, schools will remain closed for up to a week. As of now, 17 people have died.

The cyclone had wind speeds that would categorize it as a Category 5 hurricane, breaking the previous record of 178 mph by 6 mph (184 mph). Fiji attributes storms of this strength to the recent climate change according to this article from Vice. The island has taken steps to solve these issues, ratifying the UN’s climate change agreement unanimously and vowing to move entirely to renewable energy in the next 15 years. Fiji already has a program in place to relocate citizens who lose their homes to rising sea levels and had to move residents two years due to this issue.

The article “Five Facts that Reveal a Warming Planet” from Live Science talks about how some politicians still deny the fact that the climate is changing in the past few years, and that the mean global temperature is in fact increasing as time goes by. The article presents as a response 5 facts that prove that the climate is changing.

The first fact is that climate change never took break. Since 1880, the average global temperature increased 1.8 ^oF. 2015 was in fact the hottest year in history, and the predictions for this year is even worse.

The second fact is that the climate is changing faster than any time period in history of human civilization. Today, humans unload an average of 30 gigatons of carbon dioxide into atmosphere. Besides that, temperatures are increasing faster than they have in the last 10,000 years. These statistics shows that the climate change rate is significantly higher now than it was before in the past.

The third fact the article talks about is the cause of climate change: humans. Some people believe that natural variations in Earth are the main cause for climate change. But the truth is that humans are the main cause. Carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases emitted by humans from trucks, power plants, and factories, have a much bigger effect on climate change than natural variations.

The fourth factor is the fact that 97% of climate scientists agree with it. When comparing an opinion about climate change of a politician with a climate scientist, it is obvious that climate scientists have a much bigger understanding and knowledge about the topic than politicians. And when we see the statistic that 97% of them agree that there is climate change occurring in our planet, we definitely need to take that in consideration.

The fifth and last factor the article talks about is that climate change poses a serious risk. With this change occurring in our planet, sea level will rise and as a consequence we would have less freshwater. Besides that, cities that are located on the coast would be in danger of flooding.

Reference: http://www.livescience.com/53554-five-facts-that-show-earth-is-getting-warmer.html

It is often thought that if carbon emissions were halted at current levels, the temperature would stabilize and the majority of the problems of climate change would be mitigated.  Many Americans believe that this is the case, as is exemplified in a study done by researchers at MIT.

Unfortunately, this is far from the truth.  Beyond the irreparable damage that has already been done to the Earth’s temperature by carbon emissions, there are other human activities that cause climate change than by simply burning fossil fuels.  Perhaps at the forefront of these “other” human sources of climate change is agriculture.

Agriculture emits large amounts of carbon into the atmosphere, which also significantly contributes to global warming, and would not be solved by reduced fossil fuel consumption.  An article by Scientific American, in which a sociologist surveyed farmers’ opinions on Climate Change, found that most accept that Climate Change is occurring.  While most accept the facts of Climate Change, a majority of farmers disagree that action needs to be taken to prevent it.

While a majority of the Climate Change discourse is in regards to the burning of fossil fuels, there are several other aspects of the Carbon Cycle that is impacted by humans, and must be addressed in order to properly combat climate change.

Source: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-do-farmers-think-about-climate-change/

Yesterday, the South Pacific island nation of Fiji was battered by the most intense tropical storm ever recorded, according to a VICE News article (1). Citizens of the low lying country battled Category 5 winds reaching 177 mph, and the damage has yet to be calculated. Doing so will require not just an accounting of the financial damage caused to buildings and infrastructure, loss of property, and costs of repair. The assessment will also need to account for things such as businesses being shutdown and increased need of medical assistance, let alone the incalculable emotional toll this storm may have for the people of Fiji.

This incredible storm fits perfectly into the projections made by climatologists that are consequences of global warming. There is a positive feedback between the water vapor content of the atmosphere and the temperature of the Earth, and and increase in both lead to more powerful storms. Fiji was the first country to unanimously ratify the UN climate change agreement, making it that much more unfortunate that they should be taking the brunt of the effects from climate change. Sadly the same gross irony plays out in this way all over the world as a result of climate change, and only a global effort will be able to mitigate its impacts.

Source:

https://news.vice.com/article/fiji-just-got-hammered-by-one-of-the-most-powerful-tropical-storms-ever-recorded

The temperature would rise enough to melt the the entire Antarctica ice sheets if all the oil, natural gas and coil were burned. The sea level would rise by more than 160 feet, leading to catastrophic consequences like putting the entire East Coast and large parts of Europe and Asia under water, having to rapid retreat from coastal big cities like New York, Miami, London, Tokyo and Sydney.

As we studied, if the Antarctica keeps melting at this pace, half of the ice sheets would disappear leading to a rise of a foot per decade (10 times faster than it is now). World top leaders have assumed the dangers of remaining burning all fossil fuels. This is why the most powerful nations will meet in Paris in another attempt for reducing emissions, yet they have been dealing with this problem for the last 30 years and so far the limit has not been effectively set.

However, the ice sheets act slowly enough to changes in the climate that takes more than a hundred years for large-scale melting to begin. So though the climate is still in the earlier stages of this shift, the Western part of the Antarctica are displaying severe signs of instability. By 22^nd century, a complete destruction of the world’s land ice would be melted.

References:

• Gillis, J. (2015, September 11). Study Predicts Antarctica Ice Melt if All Fossil Fuels Are Burned. Retrieved February 21, 2016, from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/12/science/climate-study-predicts-huge-sea-level-rise-if-all-fossil-fuels-are-burned.html

• Antarctic ice is melting so fast the whole continent may be at risk by 2100. (2015, October 12). Retrieved February 21, 2016, from http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/12/antarctic-ice-melting-so-fast-whole-continent-may-be-at-risk-by-2100

As we all know, carbon is a main contributor to global warming.  Efforts to reduce carbon emissions have been minimal around the globe as of now, but scientists are trying to implement geoengineering techniques to reduce carbon in the atmosphere. One of these geoengineering techniques is iron fertilization in the oceans to increase phytoplankton growth. The iron would promote phytoplankton growth while also taking more carbon from the atmosphere.

The hypothesis is that if we fertilize the oceans with iron, carbon would decrease.  This study suggests that ocean fertilization may only work in the Antarctic area of the ocean.  It was first believed ocean fertilization would work in all iron deficient areas of the ocean, but this may not be the case.  When the scientists looked through ice cores records, they believed an increase in dust (that contains iron) over oceans would also increase phytoplankton blooms. This was not always the case, however. They believe this is due to the ocean lacking other important nutrients. The majority of the ocean is already using up most of these essential nutrients except the Antarctic which means ocean fertilization would likely have to take place there. Antarctic Ocean fertilization experiments have so far provided great progress with a large bloom occurring only two weeks after the ocean was fertilized.

Resource: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/geoengineering-would-not-work-in-all-oceans/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/02/18/scientists-are-floored-by-whats-happening-in-the-arctic-right-now/

According to the article in The Washington Post, the arctic is getting hotter. The ice is starting to melt, the water is drying up , generally now would be the time to be alarmed. Except we’ve been alarmed for a long time now. We can’t really be shocked into action about this. The increasing levels of CO2 are normal at this point. We’ve been seeing them rise for years.

From this point it seems like no amount of trees planted or hybrid cars bought can reverse the trend. I guess it makes some sense in a larger poetic way. we burn the things that used to be the dominant life forms on this planet for fuel, and they help to further secure our own inevitable demise.

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/study-finds-plant-growth-surges-as-co2-levels-rise-16094

Interesting enough plants will grow better in areas of increased CO2 concentration. But those places also need to actually plant the plants for that to have any impact. ANd hopefully it won’t get so ridiculous that the increased plant growth over saturates the earth in oxygen, making it more flammable and then burning the entire planet down.

Clip related.

Nuclear armament has long since been a friction point for international relations for good reason; a nuclear war would undoubtedly ruin much of the planet and change our trajectory dramatically as a human race. In a recent development, North Korea has disregarded all demands from the United States and continued to test nuclear arms in addition to its recent “satellite” test, demonstrating its improved capability of a farther reaching means to attack the west from the point of view of the US. These actions all come without any reigning in by North Korea’s stronger ally, China. While China sits idle, South Korea, who remains free of nuclear arms, grows increasingly nervous as a population. This is a rational concern  as it resides in a tumultuous region with little self-reliance in terms of military capabilities. It relies on the US to protect it from the unpredictable north, but a majority in the south would prefer having some sort of nuclear program to even the playing field strictly for the sake of defense, but do not want to risk a hit to its heavy export reliant economy if embargoes are placed. On the opposite side, some South Koreans argue the trend to deescalate nuclear arms dependence should start in their country. I would argue the opposite, because in order to make substantial changes to the world as a whole, starting with the leaders decreases the desire for smaller powers like South Korea to acquire self reliance militarily. In order for the US to abandon its nuclear program, however, the demand would have to be decreased (i.e. North Korea would have to comply with the demands to dissolve its nuclear program) which does not look promising.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/20/world/asia/south-korea-nuclear-program-north.html