The Keeling Curve in Danger

"Uncertain Future for Iconic 'Keeling Curve' CO2 Measurements"
by Jeff Tollefson and Nature Magazine
Scientific American

The world-famous Keeling Curve

The Keeling Curve is one of the most recognizable and important graphs of our modern age. It shows the increase in atmospheric CO2 and is a true icon of climate change activism. It is produced by the Scripps institute for Oceanography.  The famous graph is taken from samples collected on Manua Loa in Hawaii. Currently, the CO2 measurements are begin measured at 13 sites, all over the world. This project now lead by Dr. Ralph Keeling (whose father, Dr. Charles Keeling started the project 55 years ago), is facing some serious issues with funding. Budget cuts have led to massive cutbacks and is now placing the project in serious danger of shut down. Until 2010, the research institution enjoyed a budget of $700,000, which has now been slashed to $350,000, impacted severely by the National Science Foundation's withdrawal of funding. Also, the The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is also having trouble maintaining their funding for this institute, whose own research overlaps with theirs. The NOAA's directer of the Global Monitoring Division in Boulder expressed his dissatisfaction with this situation by claiming that, "All [he] can do now is provide moral support to keep it going year by year until we come up with a plan." The financial struggles of the Scrippts project has driven the team to reach out through Twitter to get citizen donations to fund their research.
Personally, I am very unhappy with the level of funding given to the Keeling Curve project. This research project is of such cultural and historical value that it must be maintained. It was essential to the growth of the climate protection movement, shaping out understanding of an important environmental phenomena. If the CO2 levels in our atmosphere are not studied rigorously, our impact on the environment may not be as apparent. The work being done on this Scrippts projects is essential for dictating future environmental policies. Unfortunately, as is true with many other important scientific institutions, like NASA and the NIH. Science must not continue to be neglected. It is an area that leads to the progression of greater understanding and more advanced technology that help improve our world. The work Dr. Keeling does to monitor atmospheric CO2 is vital to furthering out understanding of our effect on the environment. 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/11/131111-north-dakota-wells-maintenance-water/

This article is all about fracking. Fracking is the process of using water to crack open bedrock to get to oil underneath. This is very popular in North Dakota because it brings lots of money to an area that hasn't had that before. The problem with that is that the water used for the initial fracking is only just the beginning. "the oil and gas play's 40,000 to 45,000 wells may need to consume roughly double that amount—as much as 10.2 billion gallons per year (28 million gallons each day)-in maintenance water to keep the oil flowing" What this means is that despite having to use a huge amount of water to open up the wells, the fracking industry is discovering that they will need to use much more water to keep the oil flowing. When water isn’t continually used salt builds up in the drilling equipment and disrupts the flow of oil. When we look at the lack of clean water to begin with this becomes a huge problem, not only for the oil business “In North Dakota, Suggs said that the future price and availability of fresh water may well determine how long wells remain economical to operate.  "If water becomes too expensive, that might potentially decrease the life of the well," he said.” but for the environment as a whole. The most obvious way to fix the problem would be to recycle the water used for the initial fracking but that is impossible. Water used for fracking can only be used for creating another well, not to keep the well operating. It gets even worse when we see that the water that is used for fracking has to be placed in storage facilities and is too dangerous to be put back into the environment. The private water industry in North Dakota would disagree however “Mortensen said the Missouri River has the potential to provide vastly more water than oil drillers would ever need.” This is a perfect example of the many energy issues in the United States, on one hand you have an industry burning one resource to create another that will destroy our environment while those making money off the first resource prevent anything from being done to conserve it. With all that we have studied about how quickly our water supplies will run out this is a pretty scary situation in North Dakota.

Ecological Engineering Solves Unsafe Water Problems in Bolivia

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/01/130130082250.htm

January 30^th, 2013

The University of Oklahoma has recently discovered a new method of naturally cleaning pollutants from water sources. The new method has been applied to rivers and lakes in Oklahoma, as well as the excessively over-polluted rivers of Potosi, Bolivia. Potosi is a mountainous region, extensively exploited for its mining operations. The consequence of this is extreme pollution of the surrounding water-sources. It is estimated that a single mountain in the region of Potosi discharges an approximate sum of 161 tons of zinc, 157 tons of iron, 2 tons of arsenic, as well as several other toxic pollutants in only a year.

The method, known as the passive water treatment system, was developed over 15 years. The revolutionary method, unlike others of its kind, is extremely low in terms of cost and requires minimal labor. The system works by channeling the water into a chain of several man-made ponds. Each pond introduces a natural chemical or biological process which removes certain pollutants from the water. Once the water has passed the each pond, or “cell”, it is then directed back into its natural waterway.

Robert Nairn, the associate director of the University for Oklahoma’s Water Technologies branch said that the water from the polluted water-sources went from looking like orange sludge to clear water once it had passed through the filtration process. In addition, he added that the system doesn’t require any fossil fuels and uses energy from the sun, wind, and gravity. This cuts the cost significantly and only requires maintenance every three months, reducing the cost even further.

Nairn goes on to say that the region of Potosi receives minimal rainfall, and the water that is available is used mainly to irrigate crops and for human consumption. This results in contaminated crops and bio-magnification in the ecosystems as well as the human population, posing urgent health risks.

Nairn makes an important point by stating that "massive water pollution is an issue that affects us all. If left untreated, the results are the same: unsafe living conditions and potential health risks. We learn from research in both developed and undeveloped countries to counteract this man-made threat with ecologically friendly solutions."

I believe that this is one of the most influential breakthroughs in terms of water treatment. The process has very little environmental impact, and uses purely natural means to filter water. In addition, most methods of water treatment are extremely high in cost, yet this method succeeds at cutting the costs dramatically. This discovery should be a stepping-stone in developing more environmentally safe, cheap, and efficient technology to tackle many of the environmental problems we are faced with today. 

The problem of Overfishing

Antonia Bornemann

ESS

Mrs. Medenica

26/11/2013

Current Event

Ending overfishing

http://videos.real.com/v/9ivs65

The video by OCEAN 2012, which is a coalition trying to stop overfishing, talks about the impact of overfishing on the environment and how it reflects back on us humans. Currently, there are 7 billion people living on the planet earth, populating about 30% of its surface, the remaining 70% is water, which all humans are dependent on. The ocean presents the biggest food supply for humans on earth. Fish, from the ocean, is the source where 1.2 billion people get their proteins from every single day. However, nowadays fishers are having trouble catching as many fish as they used to. Scientists state, that in the past 60 years, we humans, have declined the fish population by 90 percent and are suggesting that around the time of 2060 we will be left with no fish at all, due to our own actions: overfishing. The video says that 1.4 billion hooks are thrown into the ocean per year, trying to catch as many fish as possible. But not only that, we have invented other ways to catch fish “more efficiently”. Nets of a size of 23.000m2, which is the size of a net that could hold 13 jumbo jets, are thrown into the ocean thinking this is more efficient than only fishing with hooks, catching 500 tons of fish. But by using this method of fishing, other species are also affected. A lot of so called “by-catch” swims into the net. By- catch describes other species from the ocean, which are accidently caught, usually being around 80 or even 90% of the whole amount of species caught. These by catches are simply thrown back into the ocean, because there is no use for them. Giving an example, for 1 kilo of shrimps, 9 kilograms of by catch has to be caught and wasted. There are already some methods trying to reduce the amount of fish we catch, therefore 47 % of our sea food is farmed fish. However, there are problems created by using this method as well: Many of the fish that are bred eat other smaller fish, so 5 kg of small fish is needed to produce 1 kg of fish. So the idea of breeding fish just transforms a lot of small fish into fewer big fish, this artificial way of breeding fish does not create more fish. The terrifying and alarming statement here is, that this whole problem is our own fault.

In 2008, scientists suggested an amount of blue fish tuna that can be caught, so that the species is able to recover naturally and is not exploited. Scientists suggested that 10.000 tons should be allowed to be caught so that the species can rebuild. However, the EU decided on a fishing limit of 29.000 tons, which is more than double the amount that professionals suggested. However, in the end, 69.000 tons of tuna were caught, which is more than 6 times the amount that scientists have stated. The problem here is that the species is not able to recover properly and will die out soon, only because millions of dollars are spent on this action of fishing.

The only way to end overfishing is to make people more aware of what is happening on earth. If we continue using the resource of fish at this rate, we will end up having no fish left at all in about 60 years. Any sort of resource should be used at a rate that it will be able to recover naturally. However with our actions these days, we do not give certain species the chance to do so. We as citizens have the responsibility of encouraging other people and making the politicians aware of our situation because politicians are the only solution for this. They have to create a law which will end overfishing.

I was shocked when I saw this video because I was not aware of the fact that fish will die out so soon. I believe that people should be more aware of this topic in order to change some of our actions. Any sort of resource should not be exploited, but used at a rate so that it can naturally recover. Fish are a very important species in food webs or food chains so the extinction of fish would not only affect us in the way that we would be unable to have fish for dinner, but it would create a much bigger problem with food webs in the ocean. Other species would be affected by this since their main food supply would just extinguish.

This video connects to our topics in class in the sense of renewable or replenishable resources and resource use in general. Human actions are creating this problem to ecosystems and we are mainly also hurting ourselves. It could also connect to the problem with overpopulation. Too many humans are living at a certain spot in the world demanding more resources, therefore even more fish have to be caught in order to satisfy the demand. A lot of factors work together creating this problem here and the consequences are a lot bigger than some people expect them to be.

WHAT BIRTH CONTROL CAN DO FOR INDIA

Typed speech. Source: Edith How Martyn Papers, Eileen Palmer Collections, Wellcome Institute ,MSMC16:384 .
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/webedition/app/documents/show.php?sangerDoc=300361.xml

Is birth control killing a life or preventing one?

Is birth control killing a life or preventing one is a theoretical question which is also a knife with two blades. Killing or preventing, is there some difference? Yes if we would look from dictionary definition point of view, but if we would look at this question from a real life point of view what would be the answer then? India is a country that has over 1.2 billion people and every year their population grows for another 1.8 percent. In 1951 Indian government passed legislation for a “national family planning” program. With the help of that program fertility rate is reduced to 2.6 percent but it is still high enough. The main problem of so high fertility rate is lack of knowledge about birth control. Just 31 percent of population use condom. Birth control is bad for woman and babies.  

Birth control pills are preventing ovulations by thickening the cervical mucus, if there is a baby inside the woman it can kill the baby because birth control pills prevent implantation and baby cannot connect to her mother by novel cord and on that way baby cannot take necessary products for its growth. Twelve types of birth control pills exist on a market. The most common way of contraception is so called “combination pills” which needs to be taken every day at same time, “progestin-only” pill which was the same effect as “combination pill” but it is safer for those who are smokers, diabetics or have heart or blood problems because it does not contain estrogen. “Extended-cycle pill” are preventing woman’s to have a period in less than three months’ time from the previous one, there is still not any research showing how is this effecting woman. There are also few birth controls which are not taken as pills such as: “vaginal ring”, “diaphragm” is like circles which woman putts inside her vagina and those rings function is to release hormones same as the pills contain but directly into vagina which has less side effects to a woman. “IUD” or “ParaGard” is a device which is inside a vagina surgically installed and it blokes a way for a seed to go further into uterus. Hormonal patch is a new born method of contraception and for some woman it is easier for use. Still male and female condoms are the safest ways of preventing pregnancy; they don’t have any side effects if a person who uses it doesn’t have allergy on latex. There is also so called “plan b” pills and they are used if the sex was without any safety and there is a possibility of unwanted pregnancy but they are much more unsafe because those kinds of pills contain more hormones than regular ones. The safest thing for a woman who wants to never have kids is putting implant which needs to be changed every three years or sterilization.

Birth control pills have many side effects; some of them are not serious like headache, dizziness, nausea and mood changes and many more. The most painful side effect is bleeding and it is also the most common effect of birth control pills, it can cause infections which could be very serious problem. In India the most common method of contraception is “IUD” or “ParaGard” which is a small device which goes into woman’s vagina and its prevents male seed to adopt and conceived baby, after removing the device woman returns to normal and she can get pregnant, that is why it is common in India. Just 31 percent of Indian population is using condoms as a kind of protection, third most common method of contraception in India is woman’s sterilization with 19 percent of female Indian population doing it, and birth control pills are using just 9 percent of woman in India. Sterilization is one of most popular birth controls in India because many regions in India started giving free cars and appliances to those who got sterilized but still just 2 percent of male get sterilized and 19 percent of woman, which also means that India is not so democratic country.

Birth control as a way of preventing unwanted pregnancy is the greatest control. But many researches made are showing that if woman is taking birth control while she is pregnant it will kill a baby, also birth control as a pill or a patch could have possible permanent effects on a woman, hormone levels could be change which can cause permanent sterilization or even kill a woman. That is why it is the best to use condoms for a safe sex or if a person doesn’t want to have children than sterilization, because these are the only two possibilities that are not changing our organism, yes sterilization changes because that person cannot have children any more but that will not change anything in his organism, no hormone level change.  “IUD” is the safest thing for a woman, it is safer than a condom and it does not make any permanent changes to uterus. And when it is removed woman can get pregnant like before she had installed “IUD” inside her uterus. India only possibility is to make sexual education as a class in school and also to try to explain to woman and man what is birth control and to give free condoms and “IUDs”. Also woman and man who want to get sterilized that governments pays for that, because many of Indian people don’t have money for general needs and not for birth control items which could be very expensive.

Birth control is killer of a life and also it is preventing one temporally if we are taking about pills and patches but if we are taking about sterilization as a way of a birth control than it is killing any possibility of a new life so than it is a killer and also it is preventing one permanently. India wants to stabiles the growth of the population but still too have a healthy nation, so birth control pills and patches are also not for them, they need to use condoms, ”IUDs” and sterilization, that the percent of people using these birth controls to be tripled. Also genetics is passing from a generation to a generation and if somebody was a criminal or murderer that stays in his genes and there is higher possibility that that person child will also be like that, so government could sterilize those people and on that way they will get less population and less violent one. What will India do?  

Singaporean Bailout to Preserve Taxonomy

"Nomenclature chaos averted with financial bailout"
by Daniel Cressey  November 18, 2013
Nature: international weekly journal of science

The Raffles Museum of Biodiversity Research's Breakdown of Specimens
Click to Enlarge

Singapore is home to a diverse array of biology and consequently, a strong taxonomic system is essential for keeping it all organized. Every year, new species are being discovered. Recent financial trouble posed a threat to the Supreme Court of Animal Names," also known as a branch of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN). The organization responsible for classifying organisms in accordance with the binomial nomenclature system. They also deal with solving classification disputes to ensure that new species are in fact new.Fortunately, the University of Singapore stepped in and bailed out the institute. They will pay an equivalent of $80,000 per year to fund this organization. Peter Ng, the directer of the Raffles Museum of Biodiversity Research and member of the ICZN, praises this decision, saying that the scientists, "are doing something important for zoology [and without it] there would be anarchy." Because of this bailout, zoological progress can still be made and disputes and debates regarding Singaporean biodiversity will still have a forum and official medium to showcase and prove discoveries.

I think the bailout of this important organization is essential for the maintenance of efficient biological research in Singapore. Classification is a controversial fields, where disputes arise over the existence or nonresistance of new species; since this nation is rich in biodiversity, it is especially important to ensure that there is an international moderation of discoveries to fully validate claims and discoveries. The maintenance of the ICZN in Singapore is essential for ensuring effective and accurate monitoring of biodiversity in the nation. Aside from leading to academic gains, the organization will help monitor the changes in biodiversity and climate health in the area. Its very interesting to hear about the financial trouble that this organization faced. When I think of science budget cuts, I usually think about space exploration and medical research, rather than ecological developments. I believe it is very important to maintain this branch of science as well, since it is extremely important to understand the environment and species diversity information can help monitor environmental quality and biodiversity. In conclusion, the bailout of the ICZN branch in Singapore will ensure that the classification of new organisms will be more efficient and biological research in the area will be maintained. 

No Amount of “Easing” Will Fix China’s Brutal Population Control Policy

Mihajlo Drajer

IB DP ESS SL

Mrs. Medenica

18/11/13

Current Event #1

                The article ‘No Amount of “Easing” Will Fix China’s Brutal Population Control Policy’ was only recently (17^th of November) released on the website ‘www.lifenews.com’. The article, and its author Christ Smith, are discussing and criticizing China’s newborn control. Basically, what China is doing is considered to be cruel from the majority as well as the author. Women are not allowed to give birth to more than one kid, unless they remarry and produce a new child with a new husband. A permit is required for all women to have, prior to the actual day of birth of their child. If women are not to have a permit severe penalties are placed on the mother and her new born child. The author is dissatisfied with the fact that the Chinese government is still enforcing its one-child policy, which was in use for more than 3 decades. He critiques the fact that the government has done little to no-change with its inhumane and cruel policy. Chris Smith then proceeds to elaborate on how women are treated, who are pregnant with their second child. Government enforces ‘drag’ the pregnant women to ‘abortion clinics’ where the babies are brutally murdered. China’s one-child policy is very controversial, and as time passes it is considered to be less and less practical and humane. “Who are they to decide who is allowed to have kids, when and in what amounts?” wonders the author of the article. It is obvious that his rhetorical questions raise great points and even negative emotions towards the Chinese government, from the articles readers.  It is written how the ‘new’ policy now allows the second child to live only if it’s from a 2^nd marriage, meaning if the mother remarried to another man and had a child. The articles then proceeds to shut-down the Chinese government for not addressing other issues with their population control policy but are instead adding new rules in order to deviate the public from the true horrors the policy holds.

                In our Environmental Systems and Societies class we’ve recently dealt with population growth and population growth issues over time. The article chosen for the Current Event ties in perfectly to the past topic studied in class. Chinas population in 2000 was estimated to be around 1.25 billion, while in 2005 it was estimated to be 1.33 billion. The rise is by 0.07 billion (70 million) which is, when compared to other countries, extremely high (refer to graph at the end of the Current event). It is more than obvious that China is and will in the near future be exposed to overpopulation. The amount of resources and living space they have will not be sufficient for the amount of citizens they have – therefore they implemented strict regulating controls over the ‘bursting’ population. It is in my understanding that China is exposed to too many people within its borders, and after reading this article I became aware of how strict and cruel the laws they have actually are towards mothers who are trying to start families with their husbands. This topic is very controversial, so I would like to take this sentence to give out my disclaimer; my opinion on this topic isn’t meant to offend anyone or to discourage human right activists or to represent myself as an ‘inhumane’ figure. I fully understand that mothers and children are not given chances to start families   in China due to its large population. However, China faces a massive problem with overpopulation, and it is only a matter of time before the national resources are drained. I disagree with forced abortions and with the fact that only a single child is allowed per couple – I see it as a crime against the human rice. On the other hand, it’ll be impossible for China to come up with a resolution where they can maintain their population while still being humane about it. It seems to be a concept similar to communism, in theory perfect but in practice full of flawless and holes. It is impossible to control a population while allowing families to have as many kids as they desire – since every family will have different amounts of kids making the control hard to grasp on.  In conclusion, I empathize for Chinese families who are deprived from realizing their family but I understand that Chinas task cannot be executed in a humane way.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to the article: http://www.lifenews.com/2013/11/17/no-amount-of-easing-will-fix-chinas-brutal-population-control-policy/

MLA citations: "LifeNews.com." LifeNews.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Nov. 2013.

Heavy Air Pollution in Canadian Area With Cancer Spikes

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131022132147.htm

October 22, 2013

A World Health Organization report previously demonstrated that air pollution is a leading cause of cancer. Recently, a group of researchers from the University of Michigan and UC Irvine, confirmed this after finding that some of the world’s most polluted cities are located nearby Canada’s largest oil, gas, and tar production area.

The researchers found high levels of carcinogens, butadiene and benzene as well as many other pollutants. These chemicals however are know the cause cancer and the study has confirmed it. The study examined the health records dating back to ten year ago and found that settlements closer to the pollutants suffered significantly more cases of leukemia and lymphoma. The researchers seem to be 100% sure that these pollutants are causing cancer, and urge that the industrial emissions be lowered.

"Our study was designed to test what kinds of concentrations could be encountered on the ground during a random visit downwind of various facilities. We're seeing elevated levels of carcinogens and other gases in the same area where we're seeing excess cancers known to be caused by these chemicals” said chemist Isobel Simpson. She adds to say that once the science has proven it, actions need to be taken to protect the workers and residents.

The researchers had also collected random air samples nearby major refineries in Alberta and found that the number of volatile organic compounds in the air was 6,000 times higher than it should be. Simpson adds that often times, these emissions are not documented or reported by the companies. For example the high levels of butadiene could only have come from one company, yet the company had not reported it.

"For decades, we've known that exposure to outdoor air pollutants can cause respiratory and cardiovascular disease," said Stuart Batterman, a professor of environmental health at the University of Michigan. "The World Health Organization has now also formally recognized that outdoor air pollution is a leading environmental cause of cancer deaths."

I chose this article because I believe humans often forget that not only are we polluting ecosystems and other species, but we are also putting ourselves at risk. It seems that humans don’t mind if other species are lost at our cost, but perhaps when we are the ones at risk we might consider decreasing levels of pollution. If we go on like this, it might come to the point where we cause the extinction of our own species. 

Developments in the De-extinction Debate

"Please Reanimate"
by Dr. George Church
Scientific American magazine

The revival of extinct species is a highly controversial topic, with compelling arguments for and against.Some recent revival efforts include the virus HERV-K and the Spanish Influenza virus.But de-extinction does not just pertain to entire organisms, it also relates to individual genes, like ancient ones for hemoglobin, which have been reproduced and studied in a lab.  In this opinion piece, Dr. George Church, professor of genetics at the Harvard Medical School, argues for the great benefits this project could bring, especially in a climate-change context. He claims that the revival of long-gone species could lead to increased environmental quality. When environments are very reliant on keystone species, its extinction could wreak havoc, destroying and changing other ecological niches.  By reanimating these animals, it could lead to a retreat to the old equilibrium. For instance, were the mammoths, or a mammoth-like species to be reintroduced to the Canadian and Russian tundra, it could help lessen the effects of modern climate change. This is because their grazing habits would help decreased erosion, their knocking down of trees would increase reflected light, and their disruption of snowy surfaces would expose the soil to more air. In this article, Dr. Church also discusses the potential of genetic revival in the context of endangered species. It could help expand the genetic diversity of species with few individuals, like Australia's Tasmanian Devil and Cheetahs. He concludes by saying that, "just as a new vaccine could free up medical resources that would otherwise be spent on sick patients, reanimation may be able to help conservationists by giving them powerful new tools... a possibility [that] is reason enough to explore it seriously."

Personally, I found this article incredibly fascinating! I have never read such a compelling argument for the reintroduction of extinct species into modern ecosystems. The climate-saving potential of mammoth revival could do wonders for helping the tundra, an ecosystem greatly threatened by the Earth's rising temperatures. Dr. Church also brings up a good point about how reanimation could bring about greater ecosystem stability, since keystone species vital to its function would be brought back. I also agree with the points about the potential of de-extinction for genetic diversity reasons. Many endangered species struggle with a lack of diversity within their genetic pool and the synthesis of long-gone individuals could give the species the help it needs to survive and prosper. This tactic also has potential for popularizing modern conservation. Creating an organism from ancient DNA would no doubt become a massive news story, which would increase the public's awareness for conservation, as well as affirm the values it would bring to the world. In conclusion, the benefits of reviving long-gone organisms expands beyond intellectual gain to environmental and genetic prosperity.