An Answer To The Question

You may have heard that global temperatures have flat-lined over the last decade. While these past few years have been overwhelmingly hot when you look at global mean temperature, there actually has been no increase in the temperature since roughly 1999. Climate deniers and global warming skeptics love to bandy this little fact about, saying it proves global warming and climate change are hoaxes. They just love to think that the scientific community doesn't know what it's talking about or that there is some huge leftist conspiracy driving scientists to come up with what they view as bunk.

However, as usual, scientific study has been able to determine this plateauing of global average temperature for the last 15 years. On ScienceDaily.com is an article detailing that researchers have found that water cycles in the Atlantic Ocean have been drawing down the heat down to the depths. Scientists participating in the research say this cycling occurs on roughly 30-year cycles, so this phenomenon will not occur forever. In addition, just because temperature has flat-lined does not mean global warming is no longer a threat. The carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are still trapping the heat within the confines of our atmosphere. Temperatures are still warmer today than they were 40 years ago. On top of this, all that heat being drawn down into the ocean could assist in the warming of our oceans which could have devastating effects on polar ice and the ability of certain species to thrive within their oceanic habitats.

Yes, science keeps giving us new things to be concerned about and they raise more questions, but they also find answers to these questions. This is the relentless pursuit of science - to discover the truth no matter how long it takes or how deep the research must go. That is why I love science.

Maybe This Isn't A Fool's Errand

Here is a link to The Guardian newspaper and an article that discusses that sometimes facts do convince the skeptics of climate change/global warming. That is good to know, but the real conundrum is how to convince those who seemingly refuse to be convinced. Is it possible? I don't know what the answer is, but I know I will still try and provide some insight into our environmental challenges and triumphs. Even if we can't get others to accept the evidence, we can learn more about our world and the global environment in which we live.

Sometimes Moving Pictures Are Better Than Words

I just found an amazing YouTube account. It's called CrashCourse and they do things ranging from history to science. I looked through their ecology videos and found this great little video that explains some of the impacts humans are having on the environment. Take a few minutes to watch this engaging video and then show it to your family and friends who believe that our actions cannot greatly affect the environment. Education beats ignorance any time.

Uncharacteristically Pleasant

Summers in New York City are usually hot, humid, and oppressive. It's position on the northeastern coast of North America make it open to a subtropic-like climate during the summer months. The past few days, however, have been very pleasant. Ever since a powerful set of storms came through on Tuesday, temperatures and humidity have dropped giving us a feeling for those non-rainy British summers. I have loved every minute of it.

Of course, this weather, as well as the much cooler temperatures felt across much of the Midwest - as well as the crazy weather in the West - have come as a result of the jet stream bringing down cooler air from the Arctic Circle (some in the media hailed this as the return of the polar vortex, but it is not that). The weather is great right now, and as wonderful as it is, this isn't normal. Temperatures and air in the Arctic Circle usually remains in the polar region during the summer months. Back in winter, the chilly blasts from the Arctic were also quite unusual. Scientific research is helping us understand why this is unusual, though not completely abnormal.

It turns out that the amount of sea ice in the Arctic is a huge driver of our weather patterns. Less ice in the region reduces the strength of winds, causing the jet stream to become wavier - thus allowing cooler air from the north to make its way down here. This concept is the same during both the cooler months and the warmer months. In fact, the British were warned that their winters could become much colder and more like the European continent if sea ice continued to diminish on a larger scale during the polar summer. Again, the jet stream that currently prevents colder air from pervading the British Isles most of the time, is weakening to the point that is becoming vulnerable to Arctic blasts.

We know that climate change is affecting the polar regions of more quickly and more intensely than other regions of the planet. We like to think that the what goes on in the unpopulated hinterlands of our poles is far removed from us. However, our chaotic weather is closely linked to how unstable these areas are becoming. This is where climate change really begins to make itself manifest. We may be having great weather now, but it is a silent reminder that things are no longer the same up at the North Pole.

Sharing

Here is an article that was written by the girlfriend of a very good colleague of mine. She works for Rolling Stone magazine and is helping to spread the word about what our impacts on the environment are, as well as what we can do to fix them. I have covered the topics she discusses in this article before, but it is good to see that the message is getting into popular forms of news and cultural reading. Every little bit helps.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/plastic-stones-melting-snails-3-new-ways-to-maim-a-planet-20140624

Are We The Next Meteor?

Two weeks ago I highlighted a few species of plants and animals that are considered to be recovering from near extinction. In that post, I briefly alluded to the fact that many scientists in the biological realm believe the Earth has entered its sixth mass extinction event.  Today I want to explore this matter with you in more detail.

Earth has gone through five previous mass extinction events before. The last, and possibly most well-known, was the extinction event that took out the dinosaurs. While extinctions have occurred regularly throughout history - made evident by the fossil records - what distinguishes a mass extinction event is the fact that large groups of species are lost in a relatively short time frame and that loss outpaces the formation of new species. Plants and animals face a great deal of stress coming at them from multiple sources on a daily basis. When those stresses drastically inhibit the species' ability to reproduce over a long enough period of time, eventually that species will become extinct. Mother Nature can be quite tough, and success really is measured in the ability to survive long enough to reproduce. In the case of many animals that do not reproduce the next generation on a massive scale (think frogs or insects laying their eggs), the parents also must be able to ensure that enough of their offspring survive to maturity so that reproduction by the new generation is more likely.

Today, biologists are seeing the rate of species able to successfully reproduce over successive generations in steep decline. This is due to a variety of reasons, but unfortunately they are either directly or indirectly linked to our activities. In the past, mass extinction events occurred after extreme and sustained shifts in biological parameters were achieved through natural means. The first and greatest extinction, the Permian, where 96% of all species went extinct came about because of a prolonged and intense series of volcanic eruptions that altered the atmosphere. The dinosaurs and other plants and animals from that same era are believed to have gone extinct after a meteor hit the planet, altering both ground and atmospheric conditions.

So how is it that humans are causing the sixth mass extinction? Our activities, whether directly or indirectly, are putting such stresses on biological life that they are unable to survive. Some examples of direct causation is the hunting of animals for food or other purposes. Steller's Sea Cow and the Passenger Pigeon are two instances of this cause. Other direct causations can be the competition for resources. We have all heard on some nature program at some point that a plant or animal is threatened because of habitat encroachment. This is because humans are much more successful at competing for resources. So much so that we don't leave a lot for other species to survive off of.

Humans are also indirectly causing the next mass extinction. Climate change and invasive species, among other factors, are drastically changing habitat structure, resource availability, and ecosystem dominance. We are not purposefully trying to cause a species harm, but our activities have introduced stress factors that burden these species even more. Coral reefs are an example of this, as rising sea-levels, warmer sea temperatures, and higher carbonic acid concentrations (all related to carbon emissions from human activities and subsequent climate change) are making it more difficult for the actual corals to survive. Not only would we lose the hard corals if they succumbed, we would lose an entire ecosystem and much of the marine life that depends on the reefs for their own survival.

This is another one those environmental topics that can be quite depressing. However, we needn't take a defeatist or there's-nothing-I-can-do position. As I previously posted, we have come to our senses before and saved a species from collapsing into extinction. We have prevented several species from dying out. There are those who work hard every day to raise awareness and funds to protect as many plants and animals as possible. By supporting measures such as the Endangered Species Act and consuming items that are clearly marked with an "eco-friendly" stamp (such as the Rainforest Alliance stamp), as well as continuing to push our leaders to enact meaningful emissions legislation, we can reduce the stresses that are being heaped up on the rest of our biological "family". These issues are raised - with clear warnings sent out - not to depress us, but to spurn us into action. We are the only species that has such a wide impact on the natural world and we are the only species with the ability to recognize it and alter our behavior. It requires all of us, but we can stop this mass extinction before it gets worse.

Sometimes Pictures Really Are Better Than Words

I read an article on the online version of The New York Times this morning about increased melt from glaciers and the Antarctic ice sheets. The first image they had reminded me of all the other pictures I have seen of glaciers retreating. For me, these pictures give powerful voice to the evidence that scientists have acquired that the world is warming. It's not just one glacier, it is all of them. Here are some pictures that really do speak louder than words that global warming/climate change is real.

Upsala Glacier

Portage Glacier

Pederson Glacier

Rhone Glacier

McCarty Glacier

West Rongbuk Glacier

Lunacy and Money

My last post briefly mentioned that there may be a reason why people are not responding to the facts that climate change is indeed happening. We may be evolutionarily ill-equipped to deal with long-term, long-range threats because of our brain habits. There is that, but then there is the fact that plenty of leaders, both business and politicians pour money and rhetoric into discrediting climate change along with meaningful action to mitigate it. Today's post looks at the latter.

I was scrolling through Huffington Post today when I came across this article stating that a House Republican added an amendment to a Military Budget bill that forbade any usage of the ascribed funds to research the threats associated with climate change. The bill and amendment passed thanks to all Republicans and four Democrats voting in favor of the measure. The actual amendment is peppered with Tea Party and climate denial catch phrases such as Agenda 21 and the IPCC Fifth Report. No funding provided by the US government may be used in any research that may actually validate and assess the threats posed by climate change. This comes despite the fact that the Defense Department has repeatedly acknowledged the threat that climate change poses to national/global security and its military operations around the world.

So who is the House Republican that was behind this short-sighted amendment? It is none other than West Virginia Representative David McKinley. Rep. McKinley has a long history of climate denial. Last fall, he got himself embroiled with scientists over whether increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases global temperatures or not, passing himself off as an expert on the issue. You may have had the same thought I did when you saw that Congressman McKinley hails from West Virginia: "Of course! He comes from a state whose entire economy revolves coal." It is not hard to connect the dots between a once powerful industry afraid of disappearing and McKinley's climate denialism.

Some people may not alter their habits or reduce their carbon footprint because they do not comprehend the severity of this long-term, long-range threat and the part they play in that threat. For others - including businesses, it is simply about money. Their virulent, relentless attacks on sound science - science that has been settled for a considerable length of time - is because they don't want to lose money. Individuals like Representative McKinley are in the pocket of these fossil fuel industries, pushing their pseudo-science and denialist drivel to get the money the industry showers over them for campaign or other pet projects they want funded.

McKinley's disregard for the environment is clear. Every time a destructive coal-mining/fossil fuel practice or byproduct is being legislated against, Mr. McKinley always sides with the fossil fuel industry. Congressman McKinley is of the opinion that there is still a debate going on about climate change. His latest action, in regard to the amendment he proposed adding to the Military Budget, shows a man who is reacting to the mainstream acceptance of climate change as fact. He has the industry's back, but not the actual humans who make up his constituency. This is the problem with irrational people who wield power. Fact and reason may surround them, but they can still whip up enough frenzied support to control the direction we take on the environment through the purse strings. We can rejoice that many more are actually convinced of the science both professionally and on an individual level, but we must remain vigilant against those who continue to put forth fiction and flawed policy based on that fiction.

Our Brains vs. Environmental Challenges

This morning I was listening to the Climate One podcast that I regularly follow and found the topic very interesting. It looks at why we as humans are slow to respond the mounting evidence that our planet is undergoing chaotic climate change because of our activities. The discussion between three different authors on what was termed "Ecological Intelligence" explored ways we can change our brain habits and moral thinking in to understanding and acting on the facts we have on the threats posed to us from chaotic climate change.
  
The topics I have written about so far on this blog show how varied and complex the threats are from our impacts on the climate and the environment. It can be hard to process, with the mind only wanting to focus on a single issue. Despite our brain habits, climate change and ecological change are still complex, interconnected issues. Our decisions now will have significant ramifications down the line for future generations of humanity. It is therefore vital that we start seeing the challenges for what they are. Our intellect and innovation may be strong, but we still have to train our brain to deal with the facts so we can use our intellect and innovation in the correct way.

I have provided the link  above so that you may listen to the discussion on ecological intelligence as well. I encourage readers to follow the Climate One podcasts because they cover a range of environmental issues and host some great experts on these issues.

Water! Water! Someone please get me some water!

I remember sitting in class at the University of Liverpool last year and being completely dumbfounded. One of my professors, who happened to be a hydrologist, just told the entire room of students that Libya had 20 years of freshwater supply left. Furthermore, he said that the government was doing nothing to address the future crisis and citizens continued to get their water for free. 'How is that possible?' I thought. Surely leaders knew people cannot survive without water. Surely they would know the kind of civil unrest a water crisis would cause. How could it have gotten to that point?

Most of us know that Libya is on North African nation that sits on the Mediterranean Sea. A good portion of that country is part of the Sahara Desert, so water is already in short supply. After looking into my professor's statement, I found a deepening natural crisis happening in a part of the world where human conflict boils just below the surface, regularly erupting into violence. Most of the Middle East faces desertification and a looming water shortage of severe proportions. Seametrics and The Guardian have both highlighted the imminent water crisis in this part of the world and the nations most at risk of not finding a solution due to poverty and civil instability.

Digging into the issue highlights some of the causes of this problem. In the case of Libya, continued use of its coastal aquifers (which were very slow to renew themselves) allowed saltwater to contaminate that source of freshwater. In addition to this problem, the nation was highly dependent on importing food crops because of the dry landscape. Libya's longtime dictator, Muammar Gaddafi, wanted to help the country become more self-sufficient and he knew water was the key. The discovery of a large freshwater aquifer under the Saharan sands led Gaddafi to embark on a highly ambitious project known as the Great Man-Made River (GMMR).

This incredibly expensive project brought unthinkable amounts of freshwater to the far reaches of Libya and encouraged the expansion of agriculture in the desert nation. This new found source of water in an arid land led to a glut on the resource and a high degree of mismanagement which is rapidly depleting the aquifer. While some liberal estimates give the nation from 100 - 500 years before the water runs out, many other experts are predicting - such as my professor - a much sooner expiration date. What my professor said about the Libyan government not doing anything about the problem became understandable when I discovered it was using a time-frame it thought more appropriate: 4600 years. It doesn't make it excusable, because clearly that number is made up when compared with actual scientific analysis, but it clarifies why the government isn't addressing the problem.

Dry places are becoming drier due to climate change, yet water consumption is rapidly increasing. A huge part of the problem is the inefficient use of water during irrigation. The fact that water is free or consumers are only charged a nominal fee means water use is non-sustainable in this country. Solutions to this impending crisis do exist. Just making irrigation more water efficient and imposing restrictions on water use will lengthen the lifetime of the aquifer. New technologies exist and should be introduced to the Libyan people that would also make it possible to use water more efficiently. If they or any other poor nation find it too expensive, developed nations should assist them. Further conflict in that region over such an essential resource is not needed, and it should be viewed as a moral shortfall if the rest of the human race decides to not help if called upon.

Doing even a little bit of research unveils a very disturbing trend in the future availability of water. Over time, I want to draw attention to some of these critical issues. Most of us don't think about it because water has become very available, however we must think about the threat to our water. It is one of the three essential resources we cannot live without. If we think about it, and we know the facts, we can begin to use our innovation and adaptability to address the problem. This is one thing we can't afford to place out of sight.

Tick tick tick . . .

This week the the IPCC report on the impacts of climate change was released. It detailed quite a gloomy scenario the effects climate change will have on civilization if we fail to curb global emissions of greenhouse gases within the next few years. I listened to several discussions about the new report via BBC, The New York Times, and The Guardian which disturbed me. While these media outlets were documenting what the report actually said, they then spent a great deal of time debating about whether the reports were actually too gloomy for the public and world leaders to pay attention to it.

I understand that scientists need to do a good job of communicating the science of global warming in a way that is identifiable to the public. I also realize that the public and government leaders are probably tired of hearing the dire forecasts that scientists have put forth. However, as a student of the environmental sciences, I have been privy to the research being done on this subject and there is indeed a great need to sound a loud and jolting alarm. More and more research is indicating that the climate and different ecosystems are experiencing worst-case scenario predictions that were made years ago. If we put that next to the fact that world leaders have yet to agree to a binding international agreement that calls for even modest reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, we are faced with the prospect of very disruptive, if not completely chaotic climate change.

The world is changing; the evidence is mounting that it is already underway. How much it changes is up to us. I do not doubt human ingenuity or adaptability in tackling the changing climate and the effects it will have on ecosystems, species, and civilization. In the meantime, we must not only press our leaders to come to an effective, enforceable agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we must show them we want change by altering our consumption habits and our awareness of environmental matters.Whether we vote at the polling booth or with our dollars at the store, we must send a clear message that we don't want even more drastic climate change than we are already experiencing.

I hope to contribute to this growing awareness by highlighting environmental issues through this blog. There are many different issues that exist, and many are interconnected. Even if everyone on this planet engaged with one specific environmental cause that was dear to them, we would already be on a better path. If you see a topic on this blog you would like expounded or if I have missed a topic that you would like to see covered, please let me know and I will do my best to highlight that issue. We are part of the natural world, so it's in our interest to be concerned about the "health" of the planet.