Author: Kate Good

By: Kate Good

As the world struggles to create “nature friendly” technology to compensate for our gas-guzzling vehicles and electricity needs, a major solution to global carbon increase has been overlooked. Collaborative research from forest scientists and over 13 universities suggests that the best way to combat global warming is by protecting indigenous lands

Deforestation of indigenous lands causes large amounts of carbon dioxide to be released into the atmosphere, by creating protected areas where the natural habitat is preserved, hundreds of thousands of tons of carbon dioxide will be prevented from entering into the global carbon cycle.

Described as a  “win-win” situation, the protection of indigenous lands will slow forest loss, conserve biodiversity while simultaneously preserving local cultures.

Industry and urbanization does not only pose a threat to natural environments, but cultural ones as well. While this approach seems to be a step backward in the movement to create new “green” technology, logically it makes the most sense.

Research shows that all of the indigenous lands and protected areas (ILPAs) in the world contain more than 312 billion tons of carbon. It is projected that the protected areas founded between 2003 and 2007 could prevent over one-third of the world’s annual greenhouse gas emissions of carbon dioxide from being released by 2050.

In areas such as Brazil, indigenous lands account for approximately four times the area of already existing national and state protected lands, however, without protection, these lands face the direct threat of deforestation.

The expansion of industrial land as apposed to the establishment of protected natural areas is not only costly in the monetary sense but also environmentally. Rather than looking to assuage the damage caused by industrialization, efforts to protect and maintain indigenous lands holds a long-term benefit to the health of the environment.

Over the course of the December climate talks in Copenhage, developed countries agreed to financially support poor nations in protecting their forests from deforestation, however there is no governmental mechanism in existence to carry out these changes.

Sources:

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100315/full/news.2010.123.html

By: Kate Good

Off the shore of Washington and Oregon low oxygen levels in the Pacific has caused the death of hundreds of Dungeness crabs.  Like mammals, underwater species need oxygen to survive. In a recent study, marine researchers at Oregon State believe that the temperature increase associated with global climate change is directly linked to lowering oxygen levels in oceans.

Areas of hypoxia (lacking oxygen) are common in the deep ocean, however, it appears that areas in the Pacific, Atlantic and Indian oceans are spreading.  This phenomenon can be caused by the excess of nutrients within water, causing large increases of algae growth. As algae levels rise, the ability of sunlight to penetrate water decreases along with the amount of oxygen that can be dissolved. As algae die and breakdown they consume oxygen, if the oxygen is not replaced, the result is a dead zone.

Scientists believe that as water temperatures rise, the warm water on the surface acts as a cap, inhibiting the natural circulation patterns, disallowing deep waters from reaching the surface where it can be replenished with oxygen.

There is a delicate balance between upwelling and the ocean ecosystems, as this process provides many low dwelling species with oxygen. Scientists do not yet know the future implications that will follow with mass oxygen depletion. However, the large amount of dead Dungeness crab illustrates the dire consequences of oxygen depletion.

Though hypoxia takes place in the deep ocean, humans play a large role in its occurrence.  After rain, or excessive watering, the fertilizers used on agricult

ural fields, golf courses, and suburban lawns runoff into lakes and streams that lead to major bodies of water.  The effect that fertilizer has on plants on land is the same with plants in the ocean, however, when underwater excessive plant growth has serious consequences.

Sources:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20100307/sc_mcclatchy/3444187_1;_ylt=Akn9Ml_HbwT6n4ol7reh6LzHSpZ4

http://toxics.usgs.gov/definitions/hypoxia.html

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/products/pubs_hypox.html

By: Kate Good

In the world of climate change there is much debate over the reality of greenhouse gases and the volatile nature of toxic chemical emissions. However, in a new study, published February 17, 2010, scientists are beginning to look at air pollution as a possible inhibitor of global warming.

The thick black clouds of smog produced from coal burning power plants in Asia seem to be having the reverse effect of warming in the atmosphere. In fact, the dark layer acts like an umbrella, blocking the sun’s radiation from reaching Earth’s surface reflecting them back into space.

The most recent work being done on the climate effects of air pollution is being done in New York at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, led by scientist Drew Shindell.

In Shindell’s study, a number of scenarios have been run for the years 2000-2080, putting controls on the output of SO₂ and NO_X from power plants. While initially SO₂ creates a cooling effect, when unchecked, once controls are put on the warming potential of CO₂ comes into effect. When run for longer time trials, without controls on SO₂, the effects of CO₂ eventually catch up to SO₂, eliminating the net cooling effect.

In the 1970’s, the United States began the Clean Air Act, which cut emissions of SO₂ and NO_x to reduce acid rain and to improve public health. Many other industrial countries followed curbing their own emissions, interestingly, during this period global temperatures increased rapidly after having been stable in the preceding decades.

If having high levels of air pollution in fact produces lower global temperatures, all the work done by environmentalists in the past will be completely void.

Meinrat Andreae, an expert on aerosols from the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry in Mainz, Germany, is quoted describing this phenomenon as,  “enjoy now and make others pay later.”

While SO₂ may seem like a good temporary fix to rising global temperatures, it is also a deathly chemical. Sulfur dioxide is associated with increased respiratory disease, difficulty in breathing and premature death. So, even though this chemical may aid in blocking the sun’s radiation, it is still a harsh chemical compound that is harmful to humans when present in air.

By: Kate Good

Among the laundry list of harmful “greenhouse gases” that are thought to be responsible for global warming, water vapor just does not seem to fit in. It is known that water vapor in the lower stratosphere dominates temperature as it is able to absorb and radiate heat, much like water vapor can on Earth’s surface. This ability to hold heat qualifies water vapor as a viable greenhouse gas. However, new research shows that water vapor has not only played a key role in global warming but now may be responsible for the recent plateau in global temperatures.

A team of researchers from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Boulder, Colorado, reported a 10% drop in the amount of water vapor in the stratosphere (the atmospheric layer 10-50 km above Earth’s surface) since 2000. This decrease in stratospheric water vapor offset the previous predictions for greenhouse gas warming by approximately 25%.

Interestingly, water vapor projections from researchers at the University of Reading, UK, in 1999, found that an increase of stratospheric water vapor could have boosted present day warming by up to 40% compared to carbon dioxide on its own. Meaning, the current decrease of water vapor levels is a very good sign.

While the exact cause for this sudden decrease of stratospheric water vapor is unknown, scientists believe that the simultaneous drop of 1° Celsius in the temperature of the stratosphere is to blame. The colder temperature freezes out water vapor that would have otherwise entered the stratosphere and added to warming. However, like the fall in the amount of water vapor, the fall in temperature is too not yet completely understood.

Sources:

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100128/full/news.2010.42.html