Global Warming: Are oceans headed for a dead zone?

Author: Bob Berwyn
Publication: February 25, 2013
http://summitcountyvoice.com/2013/02/25/global-warming-are-oceans-headed-for-a-dead-zone/

Picture: Recently, some scientists have been discovering more about our oceans and marine life using ancient fossils. They can use these to predict what can happen with our marine life today.










Summary: This article is about scientists using ancient marine fossils and what happened in the Jurassic age to predict what could happen to our marine life today. Through extensive observations, studies have suggested that what happened then could be the same today. Global temperatures on the rise and oxygen levels falling could lead to a close extinction of marine life. Researcher Richard Twitchett and colleagues performed an experiment where they laid sedimentary rocks with marine fossils inside on the sea floor. They recorded the conditions at that time, in the ocean and in the rock. They compared these records to current publications on ocean sea level, temperature, and concentrations. Twitchett and colleagues performed an ecological analysis to find out how the sea floor changed over time. Later, they found a dead zone within the rock, with nothing living inside of it. There was a return of life eventually, but it was completely new species. This pattern discovered shows extreme similarity between what happened in the Jurassic age with marine life.Rising sea levels and declining oxygen levels will not be good for our marine life in the future.

Opinion: I find this article to be very interesting. Who knew that fossils from millions of years ago could help us predict what could happen in the future? The outcomes of the experiment performed are very interesting. Extinction of our marine life will not be good for the world. We depend on our sea life for multiple things, including food, and even jobs. If what happened in the Jurassic ages happened today, it would be a complete disaster. But, it is a good thing we found this information out, because then we could prevent it in the future, by trying to prevent global warming.

Questions: 
1. What are some ways that we could stop this from happening?
2. Do you believe the experiment performed along with fossils from Jurassic times could help predict the future of marine life?
3. What do you think would happen if marine life became extinct?

Biodiversity Richness

From: Andy Soos, ENN
Published February 14, 2013 04:16 PM

Biodiversity Richness

http://www.enn.com/enn_original_news/article/45597

Picture: This is an ecosystem very rich in biodiversity with many different species. They all work together and depend on each other. Their individual survival depends on their neighbor.

Summary: This article was about the major causes of biodiversity. Biodiversity does rely a lot on climate. An example they used in the article was the tropics and the Polar Regions. The tropics generally have a higher biodiversity because they can support more species, while the Polar Regions can support few. Many of these scientists thought and theories have come from their work in Australia. In Australia, people have shown that its rich plant life was long ago destroyed by the ice ages. A common thought is evolution impacts a change in biodiversity, while they proved that extinction causes more changes. It is because of “five major mass extinctions and several minor events that have led to large and sudden drops in biodiversity.” A quote used in the article, “Traditionally scientists believed some places have more species than others because species evolved more rapidly in these places”, is proved wrong because scientists are figuring out that extinction causes more change than evolution. In Australia, scientists found out that any plant species that survived the ice age is now stronger and can stand a bigger climate change then many people would believe. On the other hand, the plants in other regions with more diversity may not hold up as well to dramatic climate changes.

Opinion: I found this article very interesting. When I always thought about different species in an area, I believed it was because each species had evolved, causing the difference in richness. Now I know that it was probably due to extinction of other species. I believe scientists should really pay a lot of attention to biodiversity because if we can figure out how a climate change would affect an ecosystem, before it happens, we could help. Also, if extinction is causing a change in biodiversity, we should do whatever we can to help endangered species, before it is too late.

Questions:

1. What do you think would be the best way for scientists to see how strong an ecosystem is?

2. Do you think extinction is a bigger factor in biodiversity change than evolution? Why or why not?

3. Other than try to reduce climate change, how might people be able to help with biodiversity?

-Natalie Laurito

US seeks to list wolverines as threatened, cites global warming

US seeks to list wolverines as threatened, cites global warming

Laura Zuckerman

Rueters

February 1, 2013

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=us-seeks-to-list-wolverines-as-thre

This photo shows a picture of a wolverine in its natural habitat-snowy areas. As the snow continues to melt from global warming, wolverines will have their homes taken away from them and many will not survive.

Summary: The endangered and threatened species list may have a new addition soon. The United States government is considering adding wolverines to list since there are less than 300 remaining. Although humans and other people like skiers in snow areas do not directly disturb the areas in which they live, humans are indirectly hurting them from global warming.  The wolverines are becoming threatened because of warmer temperatures and less snow. Before global warming majorly took place, the wolverines’ population decreased because hunters treasure their fur and trap and poison them to get their prize. Many are aggravated that authorities are trying to take care of the wolverines, but are not setting a plan forth to stop global warming. They are mad because that is what hurt the wolverines and many other threatened and endangered animals in the first place. Animal officials are coming back to say that they are not in charge of taking care of global warming anyway. If global warming continues to go on and get worse, the human population will start to see many animals, including wolverines, disappearing.

Opinion: I feel like our country really needs to fight to stop global warming. So many bad things are happening to our world from global warming like this in particular, animals dying and disappearing. Many effects could come from certain animals dying and it could have major effects and changes to the food chain, like we learned about from the gizmo in class. Although I understand that it is not the wildlife official’s jobs to worry about the air and the global climate, I think that they should be trying to stop global warming because it is greatly affecting them too. Noah Greenwald, a man who works at the Center for Biological Diversity, said, “It doesn't make any sense for the Obama administration to be acknowledging wolverines are endangered by climate change and yet, at the same time, not seek to address greenhouse gases.” I think that Noah Greenwald is on point with what he said. The Obama administration needs to understand that there is a high power to why the wolverines are endangered and do something about that.

Questions:

1. Since global warming would take a long time to stop, would we ever be able to replenish to wolverine population?

2. Although wildlife officials say it is not their job to improve global warming, shouldn’t they want to help and save the animals because that is what their job is all about?

3. What are some of the effects in the food chain that could happen if wolverines became extinct?

Melting Tundra Releases Carbon Dioxide Quickly

Melting Tundra Releases Carbon Dioxide Quickly

By: Christa Marshall

Climate Wire

February 12, 2013

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=melting-tundra-releases-carbon-dioxide-quickly

This graphic shows the immense amount of permafrost within the Arctic soil that will melt when hit with ultraviolet rays, which it has not been exposed to in a long time.

http://icons.wxug.com/metgraphics/climate/permafrost_cross_section.png

Summary:

As the earth gets warmer, ice in the Arctic is beginning to melt. Not only is that problematic by itself, but the ice that melts away is exposing soil that had been covered for a long time to the sun’s ultraviolet rays. This soil is called permafrost soil, and when it melts, it releases more carbon dioxide into the air, which continues to speed up global warming. Due to this, the Arctic is warming about twice as fast as the rest of the earth is. Also, scientists are worried that all the carbon dioxide being released from the permafrost will eventually double the amount of CO₂ on the earth.  It causes a nearly endless cycle to occur where heat thaws this permafrost, which releases more carbon, which eventually heats the earth more and thaws more permafrost. This is happening much more rapidly than scientists expected it too, and it has them concerned due to the massive amounts of carbon dioxide stored in the permafrost.

Reflection:

I thought this article really showed how global warming and an increased amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can affect our planet in ways that we didn’t even know a lot about. It shocked me that even though the amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere could double through this process, heating the earth a lot more, we still aren’t doing much to stop it. In class, we showed that increased amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would be difficult for ecosystems to deal with, and since this process could double the amount of CO₂, it could also prove potentially harmful to all of our ecosystems on the earth.

Questions:

1.       What do you think would be the best way to stop the permafrost from melting at such a quick rate?

2.       Since this process is so much like a cycle, do you think it will be able to be stopped?

3.       How  will the release of CO₂ into the atmosphere affect other tundras around the world?

Scientists Tweak Photosynthesis in Pursuit of a Better Biofuel
By David Biello  
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=tweaking-photosynthesis

This picture shows one leaf that is genetically enhanced. You could make them smaller or bigger based on what you want to happen in photosynthesis. 

Summary:

Researchers have been trying to find a way for plants to make biofuels for many years. The biggest problem is that photosynthesis is very inefficient. Out of all the sun’s energy, plants can only turn about 1-3 percent of it into carbohydrates. The U.S.Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy will fund 10 projects to genetically engineer plants for their growth and pigments. The University of Florida will use $6 million to enhance pine trees to make more turpentine, which could be used as fuel. They are thinking in the future, engineers may make a black plant to absorb all of the sun’s rays. Scientists also have to face the problem that we only have so much water. We can’t really use the water we need to drink on making energy.

Reaction:
I thought this was a very interesting article. The engineers on the job still need to come up with a few solutions to some of the problems of genetically engineering plants. These new, more powerful plants would need to use more resources that humans need as well.

Questions:
1. Why is photosynthesis so inefficient?
2. How is the US researching more ways to improve natural energy production?
3. What are some ways being currently researched or considered to improve plant energy?
4. How is our water quantity limitation a factor in photosynthesis?

Max Griffith