Extreme Weather of Last Decade Linked to Global Warming

The past decade has been one of unprecedented weather extremes. Scientists of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) in Germany argue that the high incidence of extremes is not merely accidental. Scientists are relating the increase in temperature and rainfall to human-caused global warming. In 2011 the US was hit by 14 extreme weather events that caused damages up to 1 billion dollars each. In most states the months of January to October were the wettest ever recorded. Japan also registered record rainfalls, while the Yangtze River basin in China suffered a record drought. In 2010, Western Russia experienced the hottest summer in centuries, while in Pakistan and Australia record-breaking amounts of rain fell. 2003 saw Europe´s hottest summer in at least half a millennium. The question is whether these weather extremes are coincidental or a result of climate change," says Dim Coumou, lead author of the article. "Global warming can generally not be proven to cause individual extreme events but in the sum of events the link to climate change becomes clear." "It is not a question of yes or no, but a question of probabilities," Coumou explains. The recent high incidence of weather records is no longer normal, he says. I think that these climate changes could be from global warming due to the fact that this has been an ongoing issue. Or maybe these major weather changes are just one big coincidence. My solution for the problem would be to work harder on the issue of global warming. The problem with this solution is getting people to actually get involved.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120325173206.htm

Cell Phones Qualify As Hazardous Waste

The cell phones that people throw out in the United States qualify as hazardous waste according to the ACS’ Environmental Science and Technology which is a semi - monthly journal.  There are long standing about the quantity of consumer electronics products that wind up in dumps and landfills. An estimated 700 million cell phones already have been discarded or are stockpiled awaiting disposal, with 130 million cell phones trashed in 2005 alone. Researchers used standard lab procedures to analyze chemicals in simulated cell phone "leachate" (the liquid that dribbles out into the soil from cell phones in dumps and landfills). Lead in the leachate was high enough to make cell phones classify as hazardous waste under Federal regulations, the study found. Lead-free phones, however, still are classified as hazardous waste under California regulations due to high levels of copper, nickel, antimony and zinc in the leachate. In my opinion, I think the cell phone makers should start creating phones that don’t contain these hazardous chemicals. I know it may be hard to leave out some of the materials that create the cell phone but I now they can find better materials that wouldn’t produce hazardous waste. My solution for this problem is to have a different area for cell phones to be desposed once they are thrown out. Put the cell phones some where that can't be effected by the waste they produce. The problem with this solution is that this waste may cause pollution in any area you put it.     

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070416092940.htm

EPA Introduces a more Strict Soot Pollution Policy

Friday the Environmental Protection Agency introduced a new policy that requires factories and local governments to cut down on soot pollution. Soot pollution has been linked to many public health concerns such as, asthma, lung disease, heart disease and increased risk to the elderly and children. Manufacturers, factories, utilities and businesses fought against the policy due to the fact that many had to make changes to their own companies. EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson supports the act saying that it will help to save many people from asthma and other health effects. I believe that the EPA’s policy is very reasonable. Reducing soot pollution will absolutely help the public and it is not asking much from the companies. A barrier to this policy is the many businesses and factories teaming up to reverse the bill. In my opinion reducing soot pollution will have a great benefit to the publics health and will not cause considerable effects to the business that have to comply with it. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/science/earth/epa-proposes-tighter-soot-rule.html?smid=re-share&_r=0

Noise Pollution affecting Ocean

The ocean used to be quiet all except for the noises of fish and other sea creatures, but rising noise pollution from human activity as disrupted this balance. Noise from boats, oil rigs, and military testing all contribute to the noise that is now affecting the ocean and sea creatures. This noise can especially cause problems to dolphins and whales who heavily rely on hearing to navigate and communicate. Luckily the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association is trying to fix this problem by creating an undersea map tracking the sound across parts of the ocean and trying to pin point where most of the noise pollution is coming from. Using this technology will help scientist to be able to find out which areas suffer from the most noise pollution and will hopefully be able to solve the problem and help the local sea life. This solution may very well work but the shear amount of time, money and the size of the ocean are major problems that the NOAA needs to hurdle. In my opinion NOAA should gain support from other ocean organizations in America and other countries. If enough support is raised, then this project could be a success.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/11/science/project-seeks-to-map-and-reduce-ocean-noise-pollution.html

Amazon Under Threat From Cleaner Air

The UK and Brazilian climate scientists say that the Amazon rainforest which is so crucial to the Earth's climate system is coming under threat from cleaner air.The new study identifies a link between reducing sulphur dioxide emissions from burning coal and increasing sea surface temperatures in the tropical north Atlantic, resulting in a heightened risk of drought in the Amazon rainforest. The Amazon rainforest contains about one tenth of the total carbon stored in land ecosystems and recycles a large fraction of the rainfall that falls upon it. So any major change to its vegetation, brought about by events like deforestation or drought, has an impact on the global climate system. Dr Matthew Collins of the Met Office Hadley Centre stated that, "The rainforest is under many pressures. Direct deforestation is the most obvious immediate threat, but climate change is also a big issue for Amazonia. We have to deal with both if we want to safeguard the forest." Sulphate aerosol particles arising from the burning of coal in power stations in the 1970s and 1980s have partially reduced global warming by reflecting sunlight and making clouds brighter. This pollution has been predominantly in the northern hemisphere and has acted to limit warming in the tropical north Atlantic, keeping the Amazon wetter than it would otherwise be. Chris Huntingford of CEH, another of the co-authors, explains: "Reduced sulphur emissions in North America and Europe will see tropical rain-bands move northwards as the north Atlantic warms, resulting in a sharp increase in the risk of Amazonian drought." Lead author Professor Peter Cox of the University of Exeter sums-up the consequences of the study: "These findings are another reminder of the complex nature of environmental change. To improve air quality and safeguard public health, we must continue to reduce aerosol pollution, but our study suggests that this needs to be accompanied by urgent reductions in carbon dioxide emissions to minimize the risk of Amazon forest dieback." This information is very interesting; I’m shocked that cleaner air could potentially harm the trees. In my opinion I think we could try a little harder to reduce pollution to help the environments all over the world. My solution for this problem is to find a chemical balance for the amazon so we can have clean air but also keep the amazon hydrated. The problem to this solution is finding the difference between helping and harning the Amazon.   

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080507133259.htm

Venice Threatened by Global Warming

The lagoon city of Venice better know for its canals and waterways has become plagued by damaging floods recently. In November more than 70% of the city had floods, some were recorded up to 5 feet deep! Venetian officials blame the floods on storms in the ocean, but they also blame the rising water levels on global warming. The city is sinking at a rate of 4mm a year and water levels continue to rise due to climate change. If not stopped the part of Venice may be lost to the sea and more deadly floods may occur due to the climate problem. Levies and dams could be used as possible solutions to keep the rising tide at bay. Unfortunately dams and barriers will not solve the whole problem if global tides continue to rise. In my opinion the historical and cultural value of Venice deserves to be protected and this should be yet another reason why Global warming should be handled. 

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/europe/italy/121112/venice-floods-acqua-alta-photos

Resisted for Blocking the View, Dunes Prove They Blunt Storms

Years ago,  it was decided in Long Island, New York not to create dunes along the beaches.  Surfers railed against it fearing it will interfere with their surfing and residents did not want their views to be blocked. They voted against the $7 million dollar construction plan to build the dunes. Little did they know it would save them in the years to come. Communities further down voted for the plan and the dunes were constructed.  When hurricane Sandy hit it cost Long Island $200 million dollars while  the beaches with the dunes protecting them were spared. I believe these dunes should be built in areas that are common for hurricanes to hit. This way they will be further protected by the storms. The only barriers would be the costs and the community fighting against it. It is a very safe and in a way economic for the beaches to build dunes. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/04/science/earth/after-hurricane-sandy-dunes-prove-they-blunt-storms.html?ref=earth&_r=0