Expect More Floods as Global Water Cycle Speeds Up

One of the largest signs of global warming, along with the glaciers melting and temperature rising, is that there is 20 percent more freshwater flowing into the world’s oceans than there was 10 years ago.

NASA and university researchers have found, by using satellite observations, that rivers and melting ice sheets delivered 18 percent more water to the oceans in 2006 than 1994. To put that into perspective that is like adding a whole Mississippi river to the oceans every year.

Even though more water in rivers means more water for agriculture and daily uses, this increase has a lot more negatives than positives, considering a good deal of water is going to the arctics, tropics, and is collected into huge storms which destroy many countries’ buildings and architectures. And it’s only the beginning, because events like the deadly floods of Pakistan are expected to come more and more according to scientists.

Why is the water cycle speeding up? Sandra Postel, the director of the Independent Global Water Policy Project, says “As the atmosphere warms from the addition of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, it can hold more moisture. As a result, more water evaporates from the oceans, leading to thicker clouds that then dump more rainfall over the land. That heavier-than-normal rain can then produce massive flooding as it runs back toward the sea, where the cycle begins all over again.”

Scientists have expected this rapid cycle increases for some time, but for the first time they can use satellites to monitor this trend and are able to measure it.

Opinion: Like all of our other blogs, this topic is also very important and could potentially affect everyone’s life in some way. This fact specifically did not surprise me at all considering that you hear all the time about how the glaciers are melting and are adding a dangerous amount of water to the Earth. Unfortunately, this is one of those topics that is hard to blame one source for and is even harder to combat. But it also shows that since modern scientific research tells us that major floods and droughts are on the horizon, adapting to these changes is becoming just important as slowing them down.

1. Research one major contributor (other than millions of cars on the road) to global warming that is drastically increasing it.

2. How does this excess amount of water compare to the other topics about water shortage/scarcity?

3. What are two specific positives to this superfluous amount of water?

http://blogs.nationalgeographic.com/blogs/news/chiefeditor/2010/10/more-water-flooding-postel.html

The Water Crisis

Title: Water, Water Everywhere but not a Clean Drop to Drink

Author, date, and publication not provided.

http://purewaterfortheworld.org/the-problem/

We have been studying this in class since we got that huge packet on the hydrosphere. Water is scarce. The problem is that we need it to survive and without it we will die. Water purification really isn't a big issue where we are living now, but in other parts of the water it is. Over 1.2 billion people are without clean drinking water. In fact as stated in the article, as you read the article by the time you're an estimated twenty human beings will have died due to unclean water. It is almost like a domino effect. If children get sick from bad drinking water then they cannot go to school. If they do not go to school they will not receive a proper education and if they cannot go to school then there parents usually have to miss work to stay with them while they are sick. From this parents are not getting their work done and my loose jobs or income. If clean drinking water is achieved then the poverty levels would decrease greatly because of the domino effect. When a young boy was asked from the person interviewing, "What do you want to be when you grow up?" His answer was simply, "Alive." (It was not stated who the interviewer was or who the young boy was) This crisis is going on all over our world and we must act on it as supporting humans. The problem is clean drinking water, but many problems happen because of this.

Opinion: This is a terrible crisis that I could not imagining having to deal with in everyday life. I leave for school and grab a water bottle knowing it is clean water knowing i won't get sick. Kids in other parts of the world do not have this ability. It is truly sad and I wish the solution would come faster before more lives are taken due to bad drinking water.

Questions 3:

#1-How could you help?

#2-What organizations could help?

#3-Name two ways we could help fix this problem?

Uranium in Groundwater?

Uranium in Groundwater? 'Fracking' Mobilizes Uranium in Marcellus Shale



ScienceDaily (Oct. 25, 2010)

Recent studies at the University at Buffalo has shown that drilling Marcellus shale for natural gas, also known as "fracking", is causing uranium to be released into the ground.  The uranium eventually percolates down and enters groundwater. 

Uranium is naturally found within Marcellus shale.  This massive rock formation is located in New York and strethces down through Pennsylvania and Ohio, to West Virginia.  Marcellus shale is starting to become the nation's largest source of natural gas.

' "Marcellus shale naturally traps metals such as uranium and at levels higher than usually found naturally, but lower than manmade contamination levels," says Tracy Bank, PhD, assistant professor of geology in UB's College of Arts and Sciences and lead researcher. "My question was, if they start drilling and pumping millions of gallons of water into these underground rocks, will that force the uranium into the soluble phase and mobilize it? Will uranium then show up in groundwater?" ' (ScienceDaily).

To test her inquiry, Tracy and her colleagues tested the grounds of drilled Marcellus shale with sensitive chemical instruments.  Their results showed that they are not only found physically together, but are also chemically bound to each other.  This could be an extremely dangerous event if the contaminated water reaches the surface by causing the water to become a hazardous waste.

Opinion:  This is extremely alarming!  Uranium is one of the deadliest toxins in the world, and knowing that some is in our groundwater is horrific.  Even knowing that it's even in our own state of Pennsylvania is more frightening!  There must be something done immediately about this drilling before it starts affecting our environment.  Either some regulations or health precautions must be done by the government or EPA.  Hopefully this problem will be taken care of ASAP!

Questions:
1. Did you ever think there would be this dangerous of a contaminate in our groundwater?
2. Who do you think will act first to this problem?
3. Is this the only way that uranium can enter our water?  Name some other ways.

Go Wild: Celebrate National Wildlife Refugee Week

http://environment.about.com/

National Wildlife Refugee week is this week! Unfortunately it is almost over as it runs October 10th to the 16th. This week features special events and festivals that attempt to make an effort for the American society to get in touch with their own wildlife. The system of wildlife refugee was officially establish in 1903. The first wildlife refugee was named by President Theodore Roosevelt. It was tiny Pelican Island which is off of the Florida coast. Now there is more than 550 wildlife refugees and many more protection areas for different types of wildlife. There is at least one in all 50 states of the United States of America. This week provides every American to make an effort to get to know their wildlife as pretty much every refugee is within an hour drive from the major cities in each state.

Opinion: I think this week is great. Although I've never attended it and probably never will I think people who are interested in these types of things definitely should look into it. I feel it would be a great field trip idea too for an environmental science class like ours. If Mrs. Deluca could find where there nearest one is she could use it for future classes.

Questions:

1. Would you like to attend this week?

2.Do you think this week is really necessary?

3. Why do you think this week even exists?

Men Perspire, Women Glow

Men Perspire, Women Glow

             ScienceDaily (Oct. 8, 2010)

New studies have shown that men sweat more and more easily than women.  One reason for this has to do with testosterone in men.  Testosterone outputs more perspiration than estrogen.  Sweat happens when the body's core temperature increases, activating the sweat glands to try to cool down the body (even though it may feel as if you're getting hotter).   

Another reason may be how both males and females have evolved over thousands of years.  Yoshimitsu Inoue commented: 'Women generally have less body fluid than men and may become dehydrated more easily,' he explains. 'Therefore the lower sweat loss in women may be an adaptation strategy that attaches importance to survival in a hot environment, while the higher sweat rate in men may be a strategy for greater efficiency of action or labour.'

Inoue says that future studies will look more at different kinds of sweat in differents conditions, and how they differ with men and women.  As a physical trainer, he is very observant of these things and will work on the next study very tactfully.

Meanwhile, Inoue still thinks that both men and women should be in shape and exercise regularly in order to regulate sweat.

Opinion:  I never knew this.  I always thought that women just didn't try as hard as men.  It surprised me that women had less body fluid than man, which supports one of the reasons that they don't sweat as much.  Although women don't sweat as much as men, which some can see as an advantage, I see it as a disadvantage because this makes them more prone to dehydration.  Even though men and women sweat differently, they should both take precautions before exercising and heat waves.

1. Did you honestly even notice the difference between men and women sweating?
2. What is an advantage of sweating a lot for men?
3. Search the internet or another source to see which sex is dehydrated more and explain the results.

Half the Amazon Rainforest to be Lost by 2030

http://www.naturalnews.com/023673_Amazon_rainforest.html; http://news.mongabay.com/2010/0407-hance_us_east.html

Due to the effects of global warming and deforestation, more than half of the Amazon rainforest may be destroyed or severely damaged by the year 2030, according to a report released by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF).

WWF’s report explains that 55% of the Amazon will be either destroyed or severely damaged within the next 20 years because of spreading suburbs, the timber industry, droughts, agriculture, fires, and livestock. Another contributor is global warming which is reducing the amount of precipitation.

Also, by 2100, global warming will reduce precipitation by 20% and increase temperatures by 4 degrees which will further increase forest fires.

Considering that the Amazon contains about half of the Earth’s rainforest, too much damage will result in a noticeable effect on the climate.

The report also predicts that the “point of no return” will be in 15-25 years, a lot sooner than originally thought.

According to a study appearing in Bioscience, the US has lost almost 4 million hectares between 1973 and 2000.

Opinion: Going along with our last discussion about cars affecting the environment, this topic is also a monumental contribution to global warming. It is critical to our future that we not only stabilize our forest population but also turn it around and increase the population.

1: What are some major logging companies that are contributing to global warming?

2. What are some major organizations that are helpful to stopping deforestation and how do they help?

3. How can south American authorities prevent too many fires?

The Road to More Fuel-Efficient Cars

http://tugatnature.wordpress.com/2010/10/05/the-road-to-more-fuel-efficient-cars/

Lately, the U.S. has been continuing to reduce oil consumption, and there is both good and bad news coming from that. The good news is that automakers have been selling American cars with more fuel efficient engines. Surprisingly, 25 years ago an engine could only extract half as much power from a gallon of gas as today. The problem is that over the years cars have been increasing in size and power, so more oil is being consumed by these vehicles. While trying to make cars more fuel efficient, we have actually just been making cars bigger with more muscle.

It is possible that in a short amount of time automakers will be pressured to meet certain fuel economy standards. There are also gas tax proposals that haven't gotten much political support. The most recent proposal for standards is to achieve 34 mpg for new cars and trucks by 2016. Some groups have even set requirements of up to 60 mpg! These new standards would add approximately $950 to the price of the car, but save $4000 in fuel costs over the entire life of the car.

Opinion: There are many different opinions and ideas on this topic. I believe that we should set requirements to save on both fuel costs and efficiency, but not right at the moment. We definitely need to give automakers time to engineer these fuel efficient cars and be able to sell them at a reasonable price. Six years may be too short of a time frame to complete this task, but we do need to seriously think about changing our ways. With the billions of cars constantly driving everywhere, standards should be set. I for one care a lot about the environment, so if this will help, I'm all for it.

1) What year do you think is a reasonable time to force automakers to have made this adjustment?

2) How much do you think these standards will help the environment (particularly the pollution)?

3) Do you think the majority of the population will agree to buying these improved cars for a higher price, or rather stick to the cheaper vehicles that are worse for the environment?

working and shopping from home is worse for enviornment

http://www.emagazine.com/view/?5346
In recent study, enviornmentalists found that shopping or workking from home may actually be worse for the enviornment then friving to work or the store. Contrary to common belief both activities increase carbon emmisions. Not only that, but telecommuting can increase your monthly bill by up to 30%! Telecommuting can also increase the chance that someone will accept a job farther away from their house or urban center.
However, in some cirrcumstance telecommunicating CAN BE a better alternative. For example, one has to buy enough products, about 25 simultaniously, or replacea shopping trip that would have been a long drive.
Proffesor Phil Blythe Chair states that this new data tells us 2 things. One is that climate change isd a real threat to our planet, so we can't get overwelmed by the task, and use rebound efects as our excuse, Second, We must make sure that rebound effects don't override the possitive benefits of the current policys, and don't just move carbon emmisions from one sector to another.

Opinion:
I don't think that it this data really makes a whole lot of difference. If the two ways to work and shop are equally as bad for the enviornment it doesn't really matter which one we do. Until a better way to work/shop comes out this data really is useless other than just the eye-opener of wow, telecommuting isn;'t as enviornmentally friendly as I thought.

Questions:
1) What is a good alternatoive to telecommuting or driving to work or a store.
2) In what ways is telecommuting better for the enviornment, in what ways is it worse?
3) What precautions do you think will be taken in the futeure to make shopping and working better for the enviornment?