Too Much Trash

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/30218-really-big-things-americas-landfills-video.htm

Americans produce the equivalent to 82,000 football fields 30 feet deep per year in trash. This amount is astounding and think about how much it would be in one hundred years (8,200,000 football fields of trash.) Considering the population is growing more rapidly than one would imagine, this number per year could easily increase next year, and every year after that. An easy solution to this growing issue would obviously be to recycle. The problems to the solution are that most people have to pay to get a recycling truck to come to their house and some people don't want to spend the extra money. Another problem is that a lot of people are just too lazy to put a plastic bottle in a recycling bin rather than the trashcan. My opinion is that people should put forth a little extra effort and recycle to improve the earth and use up less wasted space on creating growing landfills.

Groundwater reservoirs are being depleted too quickly

Scientists have recently discovered that groundwater reservoirs are being depleted more and more rapidly. It has been found that 90 percent of water is being used for farming and irrigation purposes, and only the remaining 10 percent is used for drinking water. This action has caused various issues for ecosystems as well as a growing lack of sufficient groundwater resources. Researcher Petra Döll explains that some farmers have begun to use techniques to help conserve groundwater resources, but even so, the amount of reservoirs that are being depleted continues to increase. It has been found that current groundwater depletion is twice as high as it was from the last forty years of the twentieth century, and that the highest amount of consumption currently occurs in India, America, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and China. One possible solution to this issue could be for people to work together to create more awareness for water conservation throughout the world. However, this may be difficult because some people may not agree that there is a need to reduce water consumption, especially if the primary use for water for some people is for sustenance. Personally, I believe that water conservation is very important, because everything on the Earth depends on it. If we do not conserve our groundwater reservoirs, we will use it up before it can be replenished naturally. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140717094824.htm

Vulnerability of sharks in relation to longline fishing.

Vulnerability of sharks in relation to “bycatch” fishing

A study done by researchers at the University of Miami Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science and UM Abess center for Ecosystem Science and Policy observed the survival rates of twelve different sharks after being captured unitentionally in commercial longline fishing practices. The researchers not only took into account their survival, but also their capability to reproduce. They found that species of shark with slow reproductive potential and unusual body features are most at risk after being caught in these fishing lines. This includes but is not limited to the scalloped hammer head and the bigeye thresher. UM Research Assistant Professor neil Hammerschlag suggests that “techniques that reduce [the sharks] interactions with fishing gear in the first place may be the best strategy for conserving these species.” This includes stricter government regulations on where fishing companies can fish especially if those areas are known to be home to many of these species of sharks. One barrier to this would be that many big fishing companies have political ties and can easily manipulate their politicians. My opinion is that this is becoming a huge issue as commercial fishing becomes bigger and bigger and without a solution, these species of sharks will soon go extinct.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140722142702.htm

Replacing coal, oil with natural gas will not help fight global warming, expert argues

      Several theories have been accumulated over time in which state that simply replacing coal, oil with natural gas could drastically decrease the consumption of the planet earth with global warming, but recently Dr. Robert Howarth has discovered some results that are contrary to the previous results. Dr. Robert Howarth has done some research of his own and discovered that methane (including shale gas and conventional gas) were by far more robust opposed to the coal oil. Meaning that simply making the transition from the coal oil to other natural gasses will not lessen the time period or effects of global warming. In fact Dr. Howarth basically states that the replacement of the gas will actually jump-start the reaction,and in fact quicken the process. 

    Though it would be highly more admirable by a greater majority of scientist, I must say that I agree with Dr. Howarth. For one thing, it is almost a delusion in the aspect that one would think that simply switching a gas to another type of gas could drastically reduce the speed of a reaction. The gas is still gas , no matter how an individual views a gas, at the end of the day it is still a gas ( meaning that it will contribute to the overall speed of the global warming process. Another thing is I as an individual would be hesitant to changing the types of gas in a system, and cutting out the one type of gas completely that the planet has been accustomed to for so long. The way I view it is just like a human's diet; if an individual grows up only eating solid foods, the diet cannot switch over to a sole liquid diet because it would damage the system ( just as it could damage the earth's natural system). I am not a scientist, but I would think that switching the substances released to the environment would put the system and shock, and result in an unstable climate , and terrible weather conditions. So not only is the new gas more potent than the previous, but it could also damage the system a a whole. So is it truly worth it to attempt to slow global warming?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140721181805.htm

Los Angeles River becomes Urban Oasis

Located in the middle of the Elysian Valley, a manmade flood barrier is soon to become a place for locals to kick back and relax. Although the river is located in the middle of a booming city, there are some more quiet areas that led environmentalists to propose the idea in 1985. Now that the campaign passed in late May of this year, a one billion dollar project, Omar Brownson, head of the River Revitalization Corporation says, “It will be seamless in terms of how the city and river blend together… the wetlands, picnic spots, flood control terraces, and bird habitats spanning 51 miles.”  In addition to this, the team plans to tear down roughly 9 miles of concrete and replace it with a series of walking paths and bike trails, and turning 4,200 acres into Griffin Park.

In my opinion, this is a brilliant way to revitalize a major urban area, and allow the people in surrounding areas to experience nature in their backyards. Although the project will take a couple years before it gets off the ground, it has potential to become a regional natural resource.  However, I can imagine it will be slightly complicated to get the final approval from Congress to move forward with the plan.

Fun Fact: Any ‘Grease’ fans? John Travolta’s iconic car race took place here, just south of City Hall!

(http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/07/140719-los-angeles-river-restoration-kayaking-greenway/?rptregcta=reg_free_np&rptregcampaign=20131016_rw_membership_r1p_us_se_w#)

Increased Oil Pollution in Western Amazon

Spanish researchers have recently discovered that areas in the Western Amazon have been significantly contaminated by oil pollution throughout the last thirty years. Scientist Raúl Yusta Garcia led a group of scientists that found higher than acceptable levels of harmful substances including lead and cadmium in wastewater dumping sites. Another researcher, Antoni Rosell-Mele, described that this pollution has occurred because of insufficient monitoring of oil drilling and extractions. The pollutants may enter into the human food chain and affect wildlife and endangered species. This problem can be solved with increased restrictions and monitoring over oil drilling and extraction. However, this solution may not be short term because it may take time to train staff to monitor the oil drilling process. Another problem with this solution would be that it may impede the production of oil for those who need it. I believe that oil pollution is a growing problem, so it is important for us to start taking more precautions in the oil industry. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140612212535.htm

We Need To Save Ground Water!

Ground water reservoirs are depleting and fast!  According to Petra Doll,"the new estimate of global groundwater depletion is 113,000 million cubic meters per year for the period from 2000 to 2009, which is lower than previous, widely varying estimates.  This is a large problem because it means we will  eventually run out of water to water crops. This is most common use of groundwater nowadays. A possible solution is to start converting ocean water to fresh but this is extremely expensive. My personal opinion is that people should just conserve more water. This will help save some water. 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140717094824.htm

Bigger Particles = Bigger Problem

Wildfires release 34% of the world's annual soot mass into the atmosphere. Previously, it had been assumed that the soot particles released were the same as those released by vehicles, which are smaller than a micrometer in size. However, scientist have now identified that an overwhelming majority of the soot particles released by wildfires are much larger, called superaggregates. They are ten times longer than the regular particles and are much more compact. Investigations have been done on smoke samples from earlier fires, and these superaggregeates have been found in all the examined samples.  

Here's the problem: these superaggregates are able to be transported further in the atmosphere, and are more damaging the human lung. Essentially, a superaggregate released by a wildfire in California could reach states further away than the sub-micrometer sized particles could. Also, superaggregates being much larger, they contribute to 90% of the earth's soot emission, raising the annual soot mass. This may not seem like a big deal, but the higher the soot mass, the more clogged up the atmosphere, and the more global warming could be experienced.

The obvious solution to this problem, is limiting wildfires. However, as the name implies, wildfires are wild. Some are caused by camp fires left unattended or allowed to get out of control. These could be stopped by simply not allowing camp fires in high risk areas and strictly enforcing the rule. Others, though, are completely out of human control, such as those started by lightning. We cannot control how thunderstorms act, but we can control how we respond when lightning misbehaves. Having more people, even ordinary citizens, trained and ready to respond to a wildfire could aid in getting the fire under control much faster.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140707103639.htm

Too Many Fish, Not Enough Space!!

I recently read an article about the migration of tropical fish into temperate areas of the ocean. Now this is a problem because the main fish that are migrating are species that tend to eat plat life like kelp. The fish then overgraze and end up dramatically reducing the size of kelp forests and sea grass meadows. Temperate areas such as Sydney, Australia, Japan, the eastern Mediterranean, and the Gulf of Mexico have all seen a rapid increase in the numbers of parrotfish, rabbitfish, and unicornfish. These are the main culprits behind the decrease in kelp forests, and it is a result of ocean warming. Some possible solutions to this problem of the migrating fish would be to emphasize the capture or fishing of these animals for the pet trade, food, and for fishing bait/chum. The barriers to these solutions could be that the meat of these fish isn't very good or they don't sell we'll in the fish trade. I personally believe that we should control the populations of these fish to a certain extent, but I do not believe we should try to completely stop the migration. I believe this because this is something that happens naturally and something we have seen in the past. Habitats have completely changed in the past with the altering of temperatures. Even though humans have accelerated this temperature change it is something that can and will happen eventually and we can't stop it without slowing global warming.

 http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140709100104.htm

Jack Oliver 

Record Levels of UltraViolet Rays Hit South America

On December 29, 2003, a team of American and German researchers measured a UV index of 43 in the Bolivian Andes in South America. This is the highest level of ultraviolet radiation that has ever been measured on the Earth’s surface. The team leader, Nathalie A. Cabrol explains how a UV index of 11 is considered extreme so this kind of radiation is incredibly alarming. Another alarming fact that Cabrol mentions is that these measurements were taken not in Antarctica where holes in the ozone have been recurring issues, but that they were found in a tropical climate zone over small villages and towns.

The root of this issues comes from ozone depletion not only in specific countries but all over the world. One way to stop this worldwide problem would be to create international environment regulations similar to those that protect endangered animals. The issue with this solution though is that many countries are reluctant to restrict their own businesses and industries and also many countries chose to remain ignorant to the fact that ozone depletion is a real issue. I personally think that this data should prove to the world that this is becoming a serious problem, and I also believe that without an international intervention from the United Nations or another international organization, it will be nearly impossible to slow down the inevitable disappearance of our one and only ozone layer.

Source:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140708131821.htm

Save the Parrotfish, Save the Reef

Since the 1970s, the coral reefs in the Caribbean have diminished by more than 50%. Originally, it was believed that this was caused by changes in climate. However, reefs in other areas that had been disappearing in an altered climate, experienced a dramatic comeback without the climate having returned to how it was before. A new cause has been found for the vanishing reefs in the Caribbean. The reef's two main grazers: the parrotfish, and the sea urchin. These two creatures are in charge of eating parasites and algae that are harm the coral and their population has also diminished since the 1970s.

A recent study done by the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network reveals that the reason the parrotfish are dying off is a result of fishing companies increasingly bringing in more fish per day than past years. For the sea urchins, pathogens and other invasive species are being introduced to the Caribbean, especially the Panama Canal area, due to all the shipping that occurs there. The report the GCRMN did to publicize their findings suggests adopting conservation, and inducting management strategies to the fisheries that will lead to restoring the population of the parrotfish. The problem with their plan is the unemployment it would probably cause. To solve this problem, the GCRMN says that part of their efforts would include examining alternate occupations for those that loose their jobs as a result of the conservation efforts.

Another solution that I see, would be to limit the shipping activities that take place in and around the Caribbean so as to reduce the pollution. Also, investigating the source of the pathogens that are killing off the sea urchins and replacing that source or eliminating it altogether would aid the sea urchin population.  

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140702093608.htm

Record Levels of Solar UV recorded on Earth’s Surface

 Researchers from the United States and Germany recorded a record level of UV radiation in the Bolivian Andes that could be a precursor for what could possibly come with a UV index of 43. Just to highlight the magnitude of that number, one might experience an index of 8 or 9 on a warm summer day at the beach, alerting the use of sun protection. This index was not taken in a place that lacks human inhabitants; it was taken in the tropics where small towns and villages are located. A UV index of 43 is extremely dangers for not only humans, but the entire biosphere.

The researchers were investigating the high altitude Andean Lakes for an astrobiology study. With the results, they were able to compare the Earth’s surface at that point in time to that of early Mars. However, the intense radiation coincided with various other factors: ozone depletion caused by the aerosols of recent seasonal storms and fires, and the recording of large solar flares within two weeks of the record UV index (which are known to affect atmospheric chemistry). Although the event is not directly caused by climate change, it is a prime example of what could happen if the ozone thins globally.

High UV indexes specifically damage DNA sequences, the photosynthesis process, decrease the viability of eggs and larvae. Therefore, I believe it is extremely important to monitor UV levels. 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140708131821.htm