Why Our Oil Boom Hasn't Lowered Gas Prices

By Chris Neiger |  
December 14, 2012

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2012/12/14/why-our-oil-boom-hasnt-lowered-gas-prices.aspx

Summary: This article says that even though we have found a boom in oil in the Midwest there still might not be a decrease in gas prices. In states like Texas,  and North and South Dakota they have found a lot of oil with new technology that help them locate oil pockets. Even though all this oil is found we still have to confined it which is a lot of money. Also gas prices are determined globally as well as nationally. This means that they may decide not to lower gas prices that much. 

Opinion: In my opinion I believe that this is a very interesting article. I think it is a good article about finding oil in our country. I am happy that we are finding a lot of oil in the Midwest because then our country has a better chance of keeping more oil available. The only thing that was disappointing to see was that our gas prices might not go down. I would hope with all the oil received that maybe we would have lower oil, but it looks like the price will stay the same. I am for the idea of drilling for oil on shore, but i hope that we can in turn lower the prices of gas. 

Questions: 

What do you think we should do about the current gas situation? 

Do you like on-shore drilling? 

Do you think that the prices for gas will go down if we strike oil? 

http://summitcountyvoice.com/2010/05/13/on-shore-oil-and-gas-drilling-reform-also-needed/

Greenhouse Gases

What is the Greenhouse Effect?

After 150 Years of Industrialization, Climate Change is Inevitable

From Larry West, former About.com Guide

http://environment.about.com/od/globalwarming/a/greenhouse.htm

What Causes the Greenhouse Effect?

Life on earth depends on energy from the sun. About 30 percent of the sunlight that beams toward Earth is deflected by the outer atmosphere and scattered back into space. The rest reaches the planet's surface and is reflected upward again as a type of slow-moving energy called infrared radiation.

The heat caused by infrared radiation is absorbed by "greenhouse gases" such as water vapor, carbon dioxide, ozone and methane, which slows its escape from the atmosphere.

Although greenhouse gases make up only about 1 percent of the Earth's atmosphere, they regulate our climate by trapping heat and holding it in a kind of warm-air blanket that surrounds the planet.

This phenomenon is what scientists call the "greenhouse effect." Without it, scientists estimate that the average temperature on Earth would be colder by approximately 30 degrees Celsius (54 degrees Fahrenheit), far too cold to sustain our current ecosystem.

How Do Humans Contribute to the Greenhouse Effect?
While the greenhouse effect is an essential environmental prerequisite for life on Earth, there really can be too much of a good thing.

The problems begin when human activities distort and accelerate the natural process by creating more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere than are necessary to warm the planet to an ideal temperature.

• Burning natural gas, coal and oil -including gasoline for automobile engines-raises the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
• Some farming practices and land-use changes increase the levels of methane and nitrous oxide.
• Many factories produce long-lasting industrial gases that do not occur naturally, yet contribute significantly to the enhanced greenhouse effect and "global warming" that is currently under way.
• Deforestation also contributes to global warming. Trees use carbon dioxide and give off oxygen in its place, which helps to create the optimal balance of gases in the atmosphere. As more forests are logged for timber or cut down to make way for farming, however, there are fewer trees to perform this critical function.
• Population growth is another factor in global warming, because as more people use fossil fuels for heat, transportation and manufacturing the level of greenhouse gases continues to increase. As more farming occurs to feed millions of new people, more greenhouse gases enter the atmosphere.

The Average Global Temperature is Increasing Quickly

Today, the increase in the Earth's temperature is increasing with unprecedented speed. To understand just how quickly global warming is accelerating, consider this:

During the entire 20th century, the average global temperature increased by about 0.6 degrees Celsius (slightly more than 1 degree Fahrenheit).

Using computer climate models, scientists estimate that by the year 2100 the average global temperature will increase by 1.4 degrees to 5.8 degrees Celsius (approximately 2.5 degrees to 10.5 degrees Fahrenheit).

Summary:

              The world needs sunlight and about 70% of it gets to earth the rest is  sent back into the atmosphere. The greenhouse effect can be too much sometimes and how we affect it is burning natural gases and coals, farming practices, deforestation, and population growth. The temperature of the earth is increasing. The increase by 2100 year, the temperature is going to be between 2.5 degrees and 10.5 Fahrenheit. 

Questions:

1. Why do you think that the temperature of the earth is increasing?

2. What do you think happens to the 30% of energy that is lost from the sun?

3.What are the some of the effects of the greenhouse effect?

Are Factory Farms Inherently Unsustainable? The Environment at Risk

Are Factory Farms Inherently Unsustainable? The Environment at Risk

By Stephanie Pedersen

SUNDAY SEPTEMBER 30, 2012

Photo: NDSU Ag Communication

Summary: 

      My article that I chose talks about factory farms and their sustainability through the future. Factory farms produce 99% of the meat we consume, and if these are not here in the future they could cause a huge problem. There are very serious environmental concerns besides the slaughtering of many animals. These animals are kept together and produce a lot of waste. Cows release methane as a waste product and are contributing 28% of our methane emissions. However, factory farms feed them diets that stop the production of methane, so instead they release nitrogen. This could turn into acid rains and could cause major problems for the environment and even for humans. When these farms obtain manure, they don't use it as fertilizer but dump it in lagoons. This contributes largely to the global warming crisis as these gases are released into the atmosphere and help destroy the o-zone layer. With all this happening, the biggest part of this crisis is that this is not sustainable. These farms run almost entirely off of fossil fuels and there is a limited supply of these. When temperatures change and supply's begin to limit, there is no way that we could sustain these farms.

Opinion:

     In my opinion, we should not get rid of factory farms now, but experiment with other ways that could be much better in the future. As stated in the article, 99% of the meat we consume comes from factory farms. That right there tells you that you can't get rid of them entirely. However, we have to change soon, because the detrimental impact they are having on the environment could be one that we can't fix. We should have more people working on developing new ways to run these farms because just like the article said, these run almost entirely on fossil fuels and those are limited. I for one know that I eat meat freely, but if we can't develop new ways to mass produce meat, everyone would have to eat it sparingly. This would have a loss in jobs in steakhouses, and a limiting of food choices. I can't tell you what exactly has to be done, but I can tell you something has to change; big time.

Questions:

1. What would you do to change this mass production system?

2. Do you think we should continue this process now even with it's negative impact on the environment? Why?

3. What rules or regulations could be set to change factory farms for the better?

http://www.theinternational.org/articles/258-are-factory-farms-inherently-unsustainabl

Zach Reilly


Article Title: The Basics of Landfills
Author: Environmental Research Foundation
Link: http://www.ejnet.org/landfills/ 




Summary:
Landfills are "carefully engineered" holes in the ground where solid and hazardous waste are stored.
They are made up of four main parts from top to bottom:  a bottom liner, a leachate collection system, a cover, and the area around where you are storing it. All these precautions are used to make sure waste doesn't seep into an aquifer, underground spring, or overflow into surface water. The liners used (clay, plastic, and composite) for a landfill are not perfect and are sometimes combined to make a more effective liner. Leachate is badly contaminated water that sinks to the bottom of the landfill. It is collected by pipes toward the sloped bottom of the landfill. These pipes are corroded and weakened by the weight on top of them, so they often break. The covers of these landfills are susceptible to pressure and are sometimes corroded, causing leaks and endangering the nearby ecosystem. All in all, landfills are environmental liabilities that are never good for the surrounding ecosystem, watershed, and organism communities.

Personally, i believe that while landfills are an easy and short term method for the disposal of waste, they pose more of a threat to the environment that we realize. Say if some contaminants were to leak out from the landfill and get into a creek. The small amount of diluted pollution wouldn't affect anything right away, but over time  organisms would accumulate a lot of toxins and spread disease among their species, throwing the equilibrium of the ecosystem out of whack. There are other ways of disposing of waste that don't harm the environment and i think that if we were educated more on those other methods then i believe that it would benefit ours and future generations. 

Questions:
1. Can you think of any more environmentally friendly ways to dispose of waste?
2. What would you do if you were in charge of the EPA to make landfills safer?
3. Do you think this will become a bigger issue with the environment than it already is? If so, when? If not, why?

deforestation

This arcticle, posted by the National Geogrphic, talks about deforestation, what comes from it and techniques used to do it.

 

Deforestation is clearing the forests on earth on a massive scale, usually resulting in damage to land quality. As stated in the article, forests are covering about 30% or earths land, and only ¼ of earth has land that you can stand on, so 30% of ¼ s not a lot. Currently, at the rate we are deforesting, earth will run out of forests in 100 years. Normally forests are cut down for money, for families to have homes, but mainly the reason is agriculture. Farmers cut down forests so they can have more area to plant on, or to let their livestock graze. Small farmers use a technique called “slash and burn”, where they cut down an area of forest and then burning it.in order to get paper products and wood, logging operations must be established, but they cut countless amounts of trees annually, and often, illegally. Also, not all deforestation is intentional; sometimes it is caused by both humans and nature from wildfires to overgrazing. Deforestation has many negative effects including the loss of habitat for millions of species, since 70% of earth’s plants and animals rely on forests for a permanent home. Another effect is climate change, the soil in a forest is moist but if you take the forest away, it will quickly dry out. The fastest way to stop deforestation would be to simply stop cutting down trees, but that’s not going to happen, instead, as suggested by the National Geographic, we could manage forest resources by eliminating clear-cutting to make sure forests stay intact.

I think that this is a very important topic since forests are like a filter keeping out greenhouse gasses just like a filter keeps junk out of you water. Not only that but forests also contain many keystone species, or we can assume it does because of its large biodiversity. This issue can also bring in job opportunity, such as becoming a scientist who would try to figure out ways to use other cheaper organic materials that you can use to make, say, paper out of, and by cheaper I mean easy to produce and quick to grow. That would act as an alternative to paper production and save the amount of trees as well as get people jobs.

Would it be a good idea to start a program that focuses on making cheaper alternatives for paper, as suggested in the paragraph above?

Should governments begin to regulate births and set a maximum amount of people aloud to be born annually per year or another similar system to help stop the demand for wood for housing projects?

Should there be more jobs dedicated to more efficiently recycling wood so that it may be used again for the same purposes?

Oil Effects on Endangered Species May Be "Mind-Boggling"

http://www.livescience.com/9935-oil-effects-endangered-species-mind-boggling.html

Summary: This article talks about the oil spill in the gulf of Mexico and how huge an impact it is having on all marine life. Even organisms that don't live in the ocean such as the Louisiana state bird are being effected. The article then talks about an organism that experienced huge immediate effect; the largetooth sawfish. It was listed as an endangered species only three weeks after the oil spill. Not only are big organisms going to be effected, many bottom dwellers will be effected too. The oil spill is limiting the range of habitats of different organisms, and this could lead to a decrease in genetic diversity. The oil is being carried by a loop current, or stream of water that flows near Florida. If this oil continues to flow there, it could threaten many of the native species. Coral reefs are being majorly effected because the oil destroys their ability to reproduce. Many species such as pelicans and whales are dying, and they cannot produce quick enough because of their slow reproductive rate, or late sexual maturity, making them less fit. A recovery time of one hundred years has been set to restore the sawfish, but the oil is destroying their habitat, and they may not have a place to live. The oil spill in the gulf is having a massive effect of all marine life, and everything connected to it.

This article is reliable because one of the people resourced (Gerald Weissman) was the editor-in-chief of articles published by the Federation of the American Societies for Experimental Biology.

Opinion: I think the recovery plans for the organisms effected by this oil spill should be prioritized, because if not, a major extinction in this area could occur. If that happened, it would be very hard to restore life, and the environment would become much less stable than it was before. I know myself that I personally enjoy viewing all of the different marine life when I go to bodies of water, and this would not be possible here. Over time species become more fit through the process of natural selection, and this oil spill is limiting the genetic diversity of the species, so this process is moving backwards now. Without a big recovery plan in order, this habitat could be destroyed forever.

Questions

1. What do you thing of the recovery plan of one-hundred years?

2. How will humans be impacted by this oil spill?

3. What organism do you think will be impacted the most and why?

The Role of Temperature in the spread of lionfish

WRITTEN BY: WAYNE BENNETT SEPTEMBER 2012 0 COMMENTS

Lionfish are voracious predators with few natural enemies and early indications are that they will significantly impact the ecological balance of Florida and Caribbean reefs

The expansion of exotic red lionfish into the western Atlantic may be explained by their tolerance of cooler waters, according to a new study.

The red lionfish, Pterois volitans, is perhaps the best recognised and most notorious group member of scorpion fishes – a large and diverse group that take their name from the potent sting they deliver using a formidable array of venomous spines. Prized by aquarium hobbyists for their showy looks and hardy nature, the fish are a bane to biologists struggling to manage exotic introductions in the Mediterranean and western Atlantic.

The Atlantic introduction is especially troubling as the fish have established persistent populations from North Carolina on the US eastern seaboard, to the Florida reef track, into the Gulf of Mexico and throughout the Caribbean Sea – all in less than 20 years. Lionfish are voracious predators with few natural enemies and early indications are that they will significantly impact the ecological balance of Florida and Caribbean reefs.

Temperature is thought to be an important environmental factor influencing red lionfish ecology in the Atlantic. While surprisingly little is known about their thermal ecology, it is clear that this tropical fish can feed, grow and reproduce in cooler Atlantic waters. In 2012 researchers with Operation Wallacea quantified thermal niche, preferred temperature and metabolic thermal sensitivity of native population of red lionfish from Hoga Island, Indonesia.

The findings indicate that while the red lionfish thermal niche is not notably large, it is shifted towards cooler water temperatures. For example, lionfish could be acclimated to temperatures as low as 12.5°C and exhibited a preferred temperature of 23°C. A similar study on blue-spotted ribbontail stingrays from the same back reef habitat yielded considerably higher acclimation and preferred temperatures of 17.5 and 28.2°C, respectively.

This tropical fish can feed, grow and reproduce in cooler Atlantic waters

Together the results may explain the persistence of lionfish in cool US waters. Metabolic studies revealed that increasing temperature elevates biological rates exponentially, a feature consistent with the current hypothesis that warmer Caribbean Seasummer temperatures relative to the Pacific, have contributed to the rapid reproduction rate and alarming pace of lionfish expansion into the Caribbean.

The current plan is to repeat these studies with a Caribbean lionfish population at the Operation Wallacea site in Honduras. The potential exists to see significant changes in thermal tolerance characteristics between the two sites, owing to the small founding population in the Atlantic. Insights gained from these comparative studies will provide a better understanding of red lionfish thermal ecology between the two regions and how global climate change may effect lionfish distribution of both areas.

• Wayne Bennett, Professor of Physiology, University of West Florida

Summary: 

                The exotic Red Lionfish has a tolerance for cooler water temperatures and is expanding quickly. It is a member of the scorpion group and it gets its name from its bite and it venomous spikes on its body. They are predators with vary few enemies. The temperatures in the pacific are contributing to the fast reproduction and expansion of lionfish. They want to repeat these studies with the Caribbean lionfish in Honduras. The data from both of these studies will provide a better understanding of the lionfish species.

Questions:

1.Do you think the expansion and reproduction of Red Lionfish is bad or good? Why?

2. Is it important to understand more of this species?

3. If it was up to you, Would you make them nonexistent?

thermal pollution

Summary: This article, called thermal pollution was posted january4, 2007, and by an unknown author. The article is reliable hence the fact it was posted on a professional website and it give facts on what thermal pollution is doing to the environment and the problems that it is causing. It is also a topic that is still currently happening and not getting any better in our modern society.

The article starts of by giving a definition of what thermal pollution is, and that is the degradation of water quality by any process that changes ambient water temperature. It also talks about what bodies of water it is normally associated with such as streams, rivers, lakes, and oceans. The article also tells about how thermal pollution often happens when humans are producing electricity, but it can also be from the removal of vegetation.

The article goes into deep detail about what causes thermal pollution and how it happens. It talks about how energy can come from two sources, a direct source, which would be the burning of wood in a fireplace or it can be from the conversion of heat from a heat engine such as turbines and steam engines. It also talks about how much energy is tuned to fuel or a fuel source (30-40% of energy) and what happens to what is left over. Afterwards it tells you about how water is transported to facilities that use water as a coolant and gives a specific example, The San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station between Los Angeles and San Diego, California, and how much water is consumed and transported (2,400 million gallons per day and830, 000 gallons per minute). There is also a good graphic of how the water temperature is distributed.

Next it talks about the effects it has on the environment. A primary effect that was stated in the article would be direct thermal shock. Some others are changes in dissolved oxygen and redistribution of organisms in a local community. The article say that they are trying to stop fish and other aquatic organisms from getting stuck and killed in the pipes by gradually increasing to temperature of the water of the heat treatment. Although they are trying to stop the wildlife from getting killed, their plan, ironically, is causing more problems. That is because those changes in temperature change the reproduction of the organisms making them more susceptible to disease. The article also states how if the water is colder it can then brake down organic material faster and therefore reduce oxygen levels. So that gives the problem of not solving thermal pollution by adding cold water to the mix. The article also stated how some good came out of thermal pollution, believe it or not. Some organisms like coral adapted to have a higher thermo tolerance.

Finally the article talks about the abatement of organisms that is caused by thermal pollution. So far the only immediate effects seen are the mortality of plankton. Some other possible abatement can be caused by nuclear power plants and their steam towers, which can cause meteorological changes.

Opinion: I think that thermal pollution can be a serious problem when in local area, especially one were a lot of endangered species live or a habitat that select organisms need to live and survive. It can also cause other local issues but it can also help organisms and commercial companies by increasing reproductive rates of certain fish and increase thermo tolerance for other organisms. On a world wide scale I do not think that thermo pollution will be a problem unless we make so many energy plants that it will happen everywhere. I, myself have no personal connection to this topic but I’m sure others will, especially those who specialize on this topic.

1-Should we try to dump the hot water to where commercial fisheries fish to help with a supply of food?

2- If more people move up north, should we limit the amount of people who can live up there so electrical plants aren’t numerous and start pumping hot water into the cold?

3- Should we try to use hot water treatments on aquatic organisms in labs to get the same thermo tolerance seen in coral and then try to breed them as a new species for commercial gain?

 

Mercury In Drinking Water

 

Author: APEC Publication:EPA National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Date:10/24/12 Drinking Water Contaminants- Mercury This picture helps describe the natural cycle mercury takes  through the environment. Mercury is a liquid metal found in natural deposits as ores containing other elements. Electrical products such as dry-cell batteries, fluorescent light bulbs, switches, and other control equipment account for 50% of mercury used. Why is Mercury being regulated? In 1974, Congress passed the Safe Drinking Water Act. This law requires EPA to determine safe levels of chemicals in drinking water which do or may cause health problems. These non-enforceable levels, based solely on possible health risks and exposure, are called Maximum Contaminant Level Goals. The MCLG for mercury has been set at 2 parts per billion (ppb) because EPA believes this level of protection would not cause any of the potential health problems described below. Based on this MCLG, EPA has set an enforceable standard called a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL). MCLs are set as close to the MCLGs as possible, considering the ability of public water systems to detect and remove contaminants using suitable treatment technologies. The MCL has also been set at 2 ppb because EPA believes, given present technology and resources, this is the lowest level to which water systems can reasonably be required to remove this contaminant should it occur in drinking water. These drinking water standards and the regulations for ensuring these standards are met, are called National Primary Drinking Water Regulations. All public water supplies must abide by these regulations. What are the health effects? Short- or Long-term: EPA has found mercury to potentially cause the following health effects when people are exposed to it at levels above the MCL for relatively short periods of time: kidney damage. How much Mercury is produced and released to the environment? Large amounts of mercury are released naturally from the earths crust. Combustion of fossil fuels, metal smelters, cement manufacture, municipal landfills, sewage, metal refining operations, r most notably, from chloralkali plants are important sources of mercury release. Nearly 8 million lbs. of mercury were produced in the U.S. in 1986. From 1987 to 1993, according to EPAs Toxic Chemical Release Inventory, mercury releases to land and water totaled nearly 68,000 lbs. These releases were primarily from chemical and allied industries. The largest releases occurred in Tennessee and Louisiana. The largest direct releases to water occurred in West Virginia and Alabama. What happens to Mercury when it is released to the environment? Mercury is unique among metals in that it can evaporate when released to water or soil. Also, microbes can convert inorganic forms of mercury to organic forms which can be accumulated by aquatic life. How will Mercury be detected in and removed from my drinking water? The regulation for mercury became effective in 1992. Between 1993 and 1995, EPA required your water supplier to collect water samples once and analyze them to find out if mercury is present above 2 ppb. If it is present above this level, the system must continue to monitor this contaminant every 3 months. If contaminant levels are found to be consistently above the MCL, your water supplier must take steps to reduce the amount of mercury so that it is consistently below that level. The following treatment methods have been approved by EPA for removing mercury: Coagulation/Filtration; Granular Activated Carbon; Lime softening; Reverse osmosis. How will I know if Mercury is in my drinking water? If the levels of mercury exceed the MCL, the system must notify the public via newspapers, radio, TV and other means. Additional actions, such as providing alternative drinking water supplies, may be required to prevent serious risks to public health. This is a factsheet about a chemical that may be found in some public or private drinking water supplies. It may cause health problems if found in amounts greater than the health standard set by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Drinking Water Standards: MCLG: 2 ppb MCL: 2 ppb link: http://www.freedrinkingwater.com/water-contamination/mercury-contaminants-removal-water.htm Summary:         Mercury is a liquid metal used mostly in electrical products and control equipment. In 1974 Congress passed the Safe Drinking Water Act, making it madatory for levels of unsafe chemicals to be measured and regulated in drinking water. If mercury is accumulated in the body, over time kidney damage can occur.Although it is bad for humans, we help it through its cycle in many ways. Combustion of fossil fuels, metal smelters, cement manufacture, municipal landfills, sewage, metal refining operations, r most notably, from chloralkali plants are important sources of mercury release. Mercury is unique in that it can evaporate when released from water, unlike most metals. Since Mercury is dangerous we have developed ways of filtering it out, like reverse osmosis, coagulation/filtration, and lime softening.       While i do believe it is important to maintain our own levels of mercury, people in third world countries probably drink more mercury in a month then we do in a year. I personally believe that the resources we have should be aimed toward helping those who cannot filtrate or clean the water themselves. The great amount of bioaccumulation might even affect a fetus, who's kidney has barely developed, and may never if the mercury levels aren't controlled. We waste clean water without even knowing it, and all this wasted clean, filtrated water could support a small, third world country. Questions; 1. Do you think that we should filter our water even further than we alreay do? 2. Do you think having little or no exposure to mercury in water could have unintended side affects? 3. What is your stance on the current acceptance level of mercury contamination in water? Do you believe it should be higher or lower?

How Much Water Do We Really Have

POSTED ON MAY 30, 2012 AT 10:03 AM BY KARA CAPELLI AND HOWARD PERLMAN

If you took all the water on earth – in oceans, ice caps, lakes, rivers, groundwater, the atmosphere, and living things – and wrapped it into a sphere, it would have a diameter of about 860 miles. That 860-mile-high sphere is represented by the largest bubble in the picture, which stretches from Salt Lake City, Utah to Topeka, Kan. It has a volume of over 332 million cubic miles. If you popped this bubble with a giant pin, the resulting flow would cover the lower 48 states to a depth of about 107 miles.

Climate change will also impact water availability. Projections indicate a steady increase in temperature progressing through the 21st century, generally resulting in snowpack reductions, changes to the timing of snowmelt, altered streamflows, and reductions in soil moisture, all of which could affect water management, agriculture, recreation, hazard mitigation, and ecosystems across the nation. Despite some widespread similarities in climate change trends, climate change will affect specific water basins in the U.S. differently, based on the particular hydrologic and geologic conditions in that area. For example, USGS models project that changes to snow pack in the Sprague River Basin in Oregon (pictured above) could cause annual peak streamflows to occur earlier in the spring as overall basin storage decreases, which may force managers to modify storage operation and reprioritize water deliveries for environmental and human needs.

In reality, most of the largest bubble is stretched over about 70 percent of Earth’s surface, a very thin layer over the land. As we stare out into them, we think of oceans as vast expanses. And in many parts of the world we feel water-rich, even as we hear stories of regions where water is far from abundant. This graphic shows that this amount of water is not nearly as abundant as it may feel.

Furthermore, most of this water is unusable to humans, because we need freshwater to survive, and 98 percent of that large bubble is saline. The much smaller blue sphere over Kentucky – by comparison, about 169.5 miles in diameter – represents the world’s liquid freshwater, including groundwater, lakes, swamp water, and rivers. However, 99 percent of that bubble is groundwater, much of which is not accessible to humans.

Now we can start to answer the question, how much water is available to humans? Do you notice that tiny blue speck over Atlanta, Ga.? That’s the bubble representing freshwater in all the lakes and rivers on the planet. Most of the water that people and ecosystems need every day comes from these surface-water sources. The diameter of this sphere is a mere 34.9 miles, with a volume of a little over 22,000 cubic miles. The sphere looks tiny compared to, say, the Great Lakes region, which is the largest freshwater source on Earth. But keep in mind that tiny dot is about 35 miles high.

In 2005 Americans used about 328 billion gallons of surface water and about 82 billion gallons of groundwater per day. Surface water is used as the primary supply of drinking and irrigation water, but groundwater is used for these purposes too. Groundwater is also vital in keeping rivers and lakes full, and it provides water for people in places where visible water is scarce, such as in the desert towns of the western U.S.

Still – look again at the picture. It doesn't seem like a lot of water! Certainly, it’s not. It’s important to remember that water is a precious resource. It’s never sitting still; it moves between the air, the land, underground, to the ocean and back again via the water cycle. USGS scientists conduct studies to understand how much water is available now and for the future, including how water flows through the water cycle, how surface water and groundwater interact, and how the quality of our water impacts availability. These studies are important for wise water use, especially as the world becomes increasingly water stressed




Summary: This article explains about how much water we really have. This takes up 70% of the world. The small one is the amount of freshwater, but we cant get it because 99% is underground. The little tiny blue ball is the amount of water we can actually use as drinking water. If Americans use 82 billion gallons of groundwater and 328 billion gallons of surface water then we might not have a lot left in a little while. While the water cycle does provide us with some extra water it still dumps a lot of water into the ocean which can never be used again. I hope that our world takes a notice and does something about it. 

Opinion: I think that this article is great. I am a little bit worried about the water amount after reading this article. Seeing how much water we have left is shocking. I didn't think that in my lifetime that we could be close to no water. I think that we need to do everything in our power to save as much water as we can. We need to somehow reach the groundwater below. If we can reach that then we can help many people get more water. Also i think that we should all work together. We shouldn't just have a United States water plan, we should have a worldwide plan to help all that are in need of water. That is my opinion on this article. 


Questions: 

What do you think we should do about the water situation? 

Should we work with other countries on this project why or why not? 

Were should we get our water supplies from? 

Should we share the water or keep it for our own country? 

Mass Extinction Underway, Majority of Biologists Say

Mass Extinction Underway, Majority of Biologists Say Washington Post Tuesday, April 21, 1998 [Note: scroll down this page for HUNDREDS of links to updates about the current mass extinction. Most recent update: September 3, 2012.] By Joby Warrick Staff Writer A majority of the nation's biologists are convinced that a "mass extinction" of plants and animals is underway that poses a major threat to humans in the next century, yet most Americans are only dimly aware of the problem, a poll says. The rapid disappearance of species was ranked as one of the planet's gravest environmental worries, surpassing pollution, global warming and the thinning of the ozone layer, according to the survey of 400 scientists commissioned by New York's American Museum of Natural History. The poll's release yesterday comes on the heels of a groundbreaking study of plant diversity that concluded than at least one in eight known plant species is threatened with extinction. Although scientists are divided over the specific numbers, many believe that the rate of loss is greater now than at any time in history. "The speed at which species are being lost is much faster than any we've seen in the past -- including those [extinctions] related to meteor collisions," said Daniel Simberloff, a University of Tennessee ecologist and prominent expert in biological diversity who participated in the museum's survey. [Note: the last mass extinction caused by a meteor collision was that of the dinosaurs, 65 million years ago.] Most of his peers apparently agree. Nearly seven out of 10 of the biologists polled said they believed a "mass extinction" was underway, and an equal number predicted that up to one-fifth of all living species could disappear within 30 years. Nearly all attributed the losses to human activity, especially the destruction of plant and animal habitats. Among the dissenters, some argue that there is not yet enough data to support the view that a mass extinction is occurring. Many of the estimates of species loss are extrapolations based on the global destruction of rain forests and other rich habitats. Among non-scientists, meanwhile, the subject appears to have made relatively little impression. Sixty percent of the laymen polled professed little or no familiarity with the concept of biological diversity, and barely half ranked species loss as a "major threat." The scientists interviewed in the Louis Harris poll were members of the Washington-based American Institute of Biological Sciences, a professional society of more than 5,000 scientists. Sources:http://www.mysterium.com/extinction.html Picture: http://marinebio.org/oceans/conservation/biodiversity.asp                                          Summary: What this article is about is the mass extinction that we are going through. This environmental worry surpassed global warming in a poll from four hundred scientists. The rate of extinction has skyrocketed and is now the greatest rate in history with one out of eight plants facing extinction. The last mass extinction, where the dinosaurs became extinct, was lower than the rate of extinction that we are going through now. Scientists predict that one fifth of species could be extinct within thirty years’ time. Even with all this data, some scientists believe that we are not going through a mass extinction. Many of the species that are going through extinction are due to humans, but humans do not really care about this and are just now doing something to prevent this. The scientists at the Washington-based American Institute of Biological Sciences were the scientists interviewed, and they have different opinions whether we are going through a mass extinction or not.                 I believe that we are definitely going through a mass extinction. Species are going extinct every day that I have never even heard of. As I grow up I keep hearing more and more prevention movements but I believe that we are too late. We keep cutting down all the species environment, and no matter how hard we try, the population will keep expanding and more species will keep going extinct. 1.       Do you think we are going through a mass extinction? 2.       What changes in biodiversity have you noticed over the past five years? 3.       What do you believe we should do to help prevent this problem?

Atmospheric Aerosol Climate Caution

ScienceDaily (Oct. 1, 2012) — Carbon dioxide is                not the only problem we must address if we are to understand and solve the problem of climate change. According to research published this month in the International Journal of Global Warming, we as yet do not understand adequately the role played by aerosols, clouds and their interaction and must take related processes into account before considering any large-scale geo-engineering.

---

There are 10 to the power of 40 molecules of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Those carbon dioxide molecules absorb and emit radiation mainly in the infrared region of the electromagnetic spectrum and their presence is what helps keep our planet at the relatively balmy temperatures we enjoy today.

Too few absorbing molecules and the greenhouse effect wanes and we would experience the kind of global cooling that would convert the whole planet into a lifeless, ice-encrusted rock floating in its orbit. Conversely, however, rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide lead to a rise in temperature. It is this issue that has given rise to the problem of anthropogenic climate change. Humanity has burned increasing amounts of fossil fuels since the dawn of the industrial revolution, releasing the locked in carbon stores from those ancient into the atmosphere boosting the number of carbon dioxide molecules in the atmosphere.

However, these rising carbon dioxide levels do not complete the picture of climate change, scientists must also take into account tiny particles in the atmosphere, aerosols, made up of condensing vapours, soot, and dust. There is certainly no doubt that these species affect how much solar energy is reflected from Earth's surface and how much is trapped. According to Jost Heintzenberg of the Leibniz-Institute for Tropospheric Research, in Leipzig, Germany, the number of aerosol particles is a mere 10 to the 26. Of course, the weight we lend to a single carbon dioxide molecule compared to an aerosol particle, which might contain many more than a single molecule is a moot point.

Nevertheless, Heintzenberg sees a conundrum in how to understand atmospheric aerosols and how they affect cloud formation and ultimately influence climate. There are multiple feedback loops to consider as well as the effect of climate forcing due to rising carbon dioxide levels on these species and vice versa. "The key role of aerosols and clouds in anthropogenic climate change make the high uncertainties related to them even more painful," says Heintzenberg. It is crucial that we understand their effects. Geo-engineers are considering projects on an enormous scale that might one day be used to manipulate levels of atmospheric aerosols and influence cloud formation in order to cool our planet. Such efforts while seeming fanciful today might eventually allow us to influence, if not take control of, the climate to some extent. If the models fail us in terms of aerosols and clouds then such manipulations might cause more problems than they fix.

"Before considering such remedies the aerosol-cloud-climate conundrum needs to be reduced to a level of uncertainty that is comparable to those related to anthropogenic greenhouse gases," explains Heintzenberg. "Considering the complexity of the aerosol-cloud system the challenge will be to identify the necessary essential knowledge and differentiate that from marginal details and focus research efforts on these essentials in order to simplify the complex aerosol-cloud system without losing indispensable features," he says.

Jost Heintzenberg. The aerosol-cloud-climate conundrum. Int. J. Global Warming, 2012, 4, 219-241

http://saga.pmel.noaa.gov/aceasia/prospectus/Image65.jpg

Summary: People have been burning millions of fossil fuels for a long time but that isn't the only thing that is causing global warming. From soot and mineral dust going in the air aerosol goes into the atmosphere. When the sun tries to shine down on the earth the aerosols just reflect it back into space. This can cause a raise in temperature in the atmosphere which gets trapped in there. This causes an increase in temperature which is what global warming is. I think that aerosols are a main cause of global warming and if we can bring those levels down then maybe we can help the cause. It might be easier to stop this than burning fossil fuels.

What do you think we should do about the aerosol in the atmosphere?
What do you think it the main cause of aerosols in the atmosphere?
What do you think is easier to stop the aerosols in the air or the burning of fossil fuels?

in this article  bio-engineers have discovered a way to transmit messages from cell to cell. they took the bacterium M13, a bacteria that doesn't damage your body, but instead "sets up shop" inside you, it eats the food that you eat and it sends texts indiscriminately. the bacteria can send messages to other cells and due to its non-lethality bio-engineers took its key attributes and "reprogramed" it and therefore created what might be a "biological internet". with this new discovery, they were able to successfully transmit messages cell to cell. with more study on this subject biologists and bio-engineers could create multicellular communities to accompish important tasks. the M13 takes strands of DNA that bio-engineers can use those DNA strands and make what is basically a communication channel and it essentially creates an internet for cells.   With this scientists can tell cells to stop growing, start growing, etc. and with this they can potentially stop cancerous cells and other diseases that include cellular mutations. the range of the M13 can be up to 40,000 base pairs and so far they have been able to transmit a message as far as 7 centimeters! cellularly speaking this range is very long. soon if this field is practiced scientists could make biosynthetic factories where they can make complicated fuels or large masses of microbes. Effectively, we’ve separated the message from the channel. We can now send any DNA message we want to specific cells within a complex microbial community,” said Ortiz, the first author of the study.  


i think that with this research is going to be extreamely helpful in the medical field as well as to create new biofuels that are completely renuable . not only will it help in those areas but it can also help in making new and improved technologies for this . i think that this research is going to be worthwhile for the new medicines, fuels, and at this day and age it will be very helpful since it can offer people new jobs. 

should this research be funded even though we know so little about it, or its consequences?
how worthwhile will it actually be since we are getting so close to stopping cancer and diseases related to it?
should scientists continue studying the M13 or try to find a potentially more efficiant bacteria?

Water pollution

Water pollution is a large set of adverse effects upon water bodies (lakes, rivers, oceans, groundwater) caused by human activities.

Although natural phenomena such as volcanoes, storms, earthquakes etc.
also cause major changes in water quality and the ecological status of water, these are not deemed to be pollution.
Water pollution has many causes and characteristics.
Increases in nutrient loading may lead to eutrophication.
Organic wastes such as sewage and farm waste impose high oxygen demands on the receiving water leading to oxygen depletion with potentially severe impacts on the whole eco-system.
Industries discharge a variety of pollutants in their wastewater including heavy metals, organic toxins, oils, nutrients, and solids.
Discharges can also have thermal effects, especially those from power stations, and these too reduce the available oxygen.
Silt-bearing runoff from many activities including construction sites, forestry and farms can inhibit the penetration of sunlight through the water column restricting photosynthesis and causing blanketing of the lake or river bed which in turns damages the ecology.


      My Summary.......

      Water pollution can be found in lakes, rivers, oceans and groundwater. Volcanoes, storm, and earthquakes are not deemed to be or can be polluted.. Run off water can come form forestry and farms which may be  polluted. Organic wates such as seeage and farm watse can have severe impacts on the eco system. Pollution is when grabage, sewage, or any trash is thrown or put into the water. This can also include metal, oil, food, and solids.




Links:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/w/water_pollution.htm


Questions

What should we do to prevent water pollution?