SOURCE : https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5OYZdqOzxSLdjZ6X0R4S0ZfX1E/edit
This article is interesting and points toward ocean temperature shift in the tropical pacific as being a main factor for the cooling period between 1940-1975. They point to the effects of El Nino and La Nina to explain that the cooling and warming in these regions coincide with the periods of global warming and cooling on the Earth. This source does not seem as reliable as the other one, because this one says there are also skeptics and also points to the aerosol's as another possible reason for cooling and heating. As for the hiatus after 1998 this article points towards warming in the deep ocean during this period and that we seen warmer surface temperatures during periods of extreme heating. Jeff Tollefson covers climate, energy, and the environment for Nature, which is the article described above.
Wednesday, February 26, 2014
Tuesday, February 25, 2014
Response to SkepticalScience Post on Mid 20th Century Cooling
SOURCE : http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-mid-20th-century-advanced.htm
This source seems to make a reasonable point about the direct and indirect effects of aerosol's on our atmosphere, but I cannot be a good judge of reliability unless I hear many others saying the same thing. It mentions that the release of sulfates into the atmosphere during that period is most likely the cause of the cooling effect, being the largest period in which they were released into the atmosphere. This article is only about 3 and 1/2 years old, which can have changes in a period like that. One thing that stands out to me is that we see a similar plateau after 1998 when there was an agreement to stop releasing these greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. The effect seems to be similar, but the causes are very different, one period a massive increase in sulfates and aerosols and the other an attempt to phase out and decrease all pollutants and greenhouse gases.
This source seems to make a reasonable point about the direct and indirect effects of aerosol's on our atmosphere, but I cannot be a good judge of reliability unless I hear many others saying the same thing. It mentions that the release of sulfates into the atmosphere during that period is most likely the cause of the cooling effect, being the largest period in which they were released into the atmosphere. This article is only about 3 and 1/2 years old, which can have changes in a period like that. One thing that stands out to me is that we see a similar plateau after 1998 when there was an agreement to stop releasing these greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. The effect seems to be similar, but the causes are very different, one period a massive increase in sulfates and aerosols and the other an attempt to phase out and decrease all pollutants and greenhouse gases.
Sunday, February 23, 2014
Climate Change Survey Questions and Responses
Link to the Survey questions for "Science of Climate Change"
Link to responses of questions for "Science of Climate Change"
Link to responses of questions for "Science of Climate Change"
Response to "Climate Bathtub" Carbon Dioxide cycle model
The "Climate Bathtub" is an important visual tool in understanding how the carbon dioxide in our atmosphere is transferred in as well as flowing outward. The image really puts into perspective the basic idea that there is a flow inward of carbon from natural sources, such as respiration and decay of plants and human causes like burning of fossil fuels. Then, compared to the outward natural flow in processes such as, photosynthesis and dissolving into oceans reflects the amount of Carbon dioxide floating around in the atmosphere. One of the underlying concepts is that there is an uneven flow of carbon dioxide into our atmosphere, because there is the one natural source causing a rise balances with the natural causes that release carbon dioxide. Except, when including the human causes that add to the rising levels and create an imbalance, causing more inflow than outflow. Some of the excess can be absorbed by the plants and oceans, but there is such a increase from humans that we should seriously look at our impacts. An important thing to notice throughout all of these examples is that there is always an increase of Carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as long as humans continue to add to the levels, but if we can somehow have no inclusion in adding to the carbon dioxide levels then there is a hope to avoid reaching an overflow that can drastically harm the atmosphere and humans health.
Link to the "Climate Bathtub"
Link to the "Climate Bathtub"
Wednesday, February 19, 2014
Opinion on video "What's the Worst that can happen?"
My simple opinion from watching this video is that he may have a point not the extreme ones that he puts into his chart, but the fact that we need to spread the word. I mean when has doing nothing caused something good to actually happen, the key word being good, because yes it may be the right thing and result in not doing something unnecessary although is not accomplishing anything new. For example he points out that if we do nothing and there is no Global warming that we are happy, yes we may not see our world destroying as fast as we think, but there are still definitely problems associated with us causing Ozone depletion and increasing other risks besides Global warming such as harming agriculture and increased risks of disease or skin cancer. So my take from the video is that he may scare a lot of people with his take that the world as we know it may end in decades, I think his biggest point is that we need to spread the word and get people thinking, because no action (in my opinion) is worse than a wrong action.
LINK to the video.
LINK to the video.
Top 3 Facts about Ozone Information
TOP 3
1.) One of the biggest things I learned from reading this paper about good and bad Ozone is that I should limit my strenuous activities at the times when the bad Ozone levels peak, which is around mid day (10 AM-4 PM). I knew the sun was an issue then, but i did not know the reason behind and this was informative to me.
2.) I also knew that the bad chemicals are what is causing holes in the protective Ozone layer, but the important part that I saw was that it was estimated by scientists that one chlorine molecule can destroy about 100,000 "good" Ozone molecules.
3.) My final interesting point that i did not know was that these increases in "bad" Ozone at ground level can hurt crops and plant life by reducing growth and survivability, and is said to reduce crop growth as much as $500 million in production. Which is a large number to be harming with something we as humans are contributing to as well.
All facts from this LINK.
Tuesday, February 18, 2014
Wednesday, February 12, 2014
Fixing The Communications Failure Response Post
- Cultural Cognition is the development that a person makes to one group adopting their preferences and ideas, that can be political or scientific. For example if you are a firm believer in God you will probably not accept many scientific theories of how the Earth was created even with sound evidence because you want to stick with the ideas of your own cultural group.
- Protective Cognition, which is about holding onto ones own values by finding professional evidence to reinforce their ideas, is very common in climate change, because we often hear the earths climate is changing and when we all want the same goal, some agree for drastic change and others think simpler solutions are the answer.
- One way he recommends to improve communication is to present scientific evidence in a way that does not threaten ones own values, and instead put it in a way they agree with to keep them open minded. The other option is to make sure that scientific data is agreed with by a diverse group of scientists and there is not as much combating ideas which often split people who show preference toward certain evidence, because of the person.
- The issue that most scientific data is that we are given so much information about the topic and assumed that we will interpret the data in a well thought out manner, but the truth is that other factors affect our opinions and some people being less open minded may jump to the first conclusion they see even with all this information. Others who already have an opinion might see much dissenting opinions and be so resistant and lean even more toward their opinion, because they disagree with the total opinion not simply the facts.
- Protective Cognition, which is about holding onto ones own values by finding professional evidence to reinforce their ideas, is very common in climate change, because we often hear the earths climate is changing and when we all want the same goal, some agree for drastic change and others think simpler solutions are the answer.
- One way he recommends to improve communication is to present scientific evidence in a way that does not threaten ones own values, and instead put it in a way they agree with to keep them open minded. The other option is to make sure that scientific data is agreed with by a diverse group of scientists and there is not as much combating ideas which often split people who show preference toward certain evidence, because of the person.
- The issue that most scientific data is that we are given so much information about the topic and assumed that we will interpret the data in a well thought out manner, but the truth is that other factors affect our opinions and some people being less open minded may jump to the first conclusion they see even with all this information. Others who already have an opinion might see much dissenting opinions and be so resistant and lean even more toward their opinion, because they disagree with the total opinion not simply the facts.
Decision Grid (with Photo)
My Decision Grid for Nuclear Power
My thinking process was very simple, if we did build it those who wanted a plant would be saying it gives us this good alternative that does not hurt our environment. On the other hand those proposed to the idea would be quick to point out any accidents with waste or explosions or whatever it may be. Then if we did not build it we can make guesses, but will truly have never known.
Sunday, February 9, 2014
Wednesday, February 5, 2014
Monday, February 3, 2014
Article from NY Times - About Being a Scientific Advocate
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/19/opinion/sunday/if-you-see-something-say-something.html
Michael E. Mann is director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University and the author of “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines", and is the author to the above article. James Hansen is former director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and an activist who has been arrested multiple times for protesting things such as, the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada to the Texas Gulf. He also has released a paper basically saying that we need to reduce our fossil fuel emissions rapidly if we are to stop the bad pattern in climate change. Steven Schneider is a former colleague of Michael Mann and worked at Stanford University was an advocate for promoting change for scientific facts studied and not needing to be completely quite about speaking out, he passed away in 2010. This article starts off discussing that Climate Change should not be a debated issue and that it should be recognized by all as an issue to move forward and create change.It basically discussing whether, because one is a scientist should they just do their research and not be outspoken about the implications, but he doesn't believe this is a radical view simply that Scientists are citizens as well and should be able to express their discoveries.
Michael E. Mann is director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University and the author of “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines", and is the author to the above article. James Hansen is former director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and an activist who has been arrested multiple times for protesting things such as, the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada to the Texas Gulf. He also has released a paper basically saying that we need to reduce our fossil fuel emissions rapidly if we are to stop the bad pattern in climate change. Steven Schneider is a former colleague of Michael Mann and worked at Stanford University was an advocate for promoting change for scientific facts studied and not needing to be completely quite about speaking out, he passed away in 2010. This article starts off discussing that Climate Change should not be a debated issue and that it should be recognized by all as an issue to move forward and create change.It basically discussing whether, because one is a scientist should they just do their research and not be outspoken about the implications, but he doesn't believe this is a radical view simply that Scientists are citizens as well and should be able to express their discoveries.
Richard Alley Speaker at Seattle Science Festival - Opinion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aS6S-lCRSI
I think some important points that Richard Alley makes is that when we look at climate change data it cannot be from just a short period, say under 10 years, because these trends may show cooling but overall the global temperature is rising. He also points out Carbon Dioxide rising is a cause and is created by human burning fossil fuels into the atmosphere. Finally, a huge point I think he makes is that we need to learn how to use our resources wisely before we burn them all away. One question that i would want to ask to him would be, Since we are burning our resources faster than they are coming, what kind of developments are we making to change how we use and not burn those resources? Richard Alley is a Professor at the Pennsylvania State University, he is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, has studied ice cores up to two miles deep, and is a highly respected scientists. He also is a recipient of the Noble Prize, along side Al Gore for their efforts into studying and presenting issue of climate change.
I think some important points that Richard Alley makes is that when we look at climate change data it cannot be from just a short period, say under 10 years, because these trends may show cooling but overall the global temperature is rising. He also points out Carbon Dioxide rising is a cause and is created by human burning fossil fuels into the atmosphere. Finally, a huge point I think he makes is that we need to learn how to use our resources wisely before we burn them all away. One question that i would want to ask to him would be, Since we are burning our resources faster than they are coming, what kind of developments are we making to change how we use and not burn those resources? Richard Alley is a Professor at the Pennsylvania State University, he is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, has studied ice cores up to two miles deep, and is a highly respected scientists. He also is a recipient of the Noble Prize, along side Al Gore for their efforts into studying and presenting issue of climate change.
Sunday, February 2, 2014
Climate Change and NY Times Cartoon Explanation
The about cartoon is about the status quo and climate change, on left side we have those saying we need to do something about our current state of climate change and are trying to change the status quo, and then on the left hand side we have the people who do not want to change their ways and are opposing the forces that those who want to change the status quo on climate change and saying so making it harder to actually get something accomplished. I think the overall statement is talking about how we all need to work together towards a common goal about climate change or we will never accomplish nothing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)