PDS APES 8th Period 2009-10

We always hear a lot about “Global Warming” or “Global Climate Change,” but is there even any solid evidence to back it up? The truth is that, even though the idea that global climate is changing at an unnatural rate because of human activities is still not 100% proven to be fact, there have been a lot of scientific observations that make it fairly obvious that we’re having at least some effect on the global climate. In class on Tuesday, we discussed this evidence of an unnatural increase in global climate and the possible effects it could have.

http://shewonk.wordpress.com/2010/02/14/a-ghcn-analysis/

By looking at this graph of the level of the temperature anomaly over the past 140 years, one can see how the earth has now reached record temperature levels. In fact, the first decade of the 21st century has been the warmest on record.

More evidence supporting the theory of global climate change can be found in the downtrend of the average thickness of glaciers and polar ice caps. Glaciers that exist high on the peaks of mountains and in other cold areas the world over have been shrinking at record rates, further suggesting that the global climate is increasing substantially. In South America and Asia, this loss has been particularly rapid and could threaten the water supply for millions of people. Also, the apparent increase in global climate has led to what seems to be a substantial decrease in the size of polar ice caps. Since 1970, it’s projected that 10 % of Arctic ice cover has been lost. Even though the melting of Arctic ice caps wouldn’t cause he sea level to rise because it’s already in the ocean, the melting of huge inland glaciers like in Greenland and Antarctica could very likely cause substantial increase in ocean levels, devastating coastal cities and coastal freshwater aquifers in the process. Finally, this loss of ice and snow cover can lead to a positive feedback loop in which the problem adds to itself in making the effects of climate change worse.  Since snow and ice have higher albedos than water and soil, they reflect more heat energy from the sun and keep the earth cooler as a whole. With glaciers and ice caps melting, more heat absorbent water and soil is being left behind, merely exacerbating the effects of global climate change.

http://www.everything-ice.com/images/LOW-E-Albedo-Chart.jpg (A chart that shows the reflectivity of substances due to the albedo effect)

http://shewonk.wordpress.com/2010/02/14/a-ghcn-analysis/

More evidence supporting unnatural climate change lies in the cold tundra and taiga biomes the world over. In these areas,  the frozen layer of soil known as permafrost that lies over 1 meter under the surface has begun to thaw for the first time in about 11,000 years, both reducing these biomes into muddy marshes (or thermokast ponds) that the wildlife isn’t adapted to living in and releasing loads of methane gas that have been trapped in the frozen soil. Methane gas is the most potent primary greenhouse gas next to nitrous oxide with a warming potential that is 23 times that of carbon dioxide.  Thus, as permafrost melts and methane is released, it seems that the rate of global climate change will continue to increase as well.

Lastly, increased acidity of the world’s oceans has been observed, most likely as a result of the increased level of carbon dioxide in the air from human activities. As the temperature and acidity of the earth’s oceans rise as an apparent result of global climate change, the ocean could stop being a suitable habitat for organisms with calcium shells and coral reefs could be destroyed as a result of “bleaching.”

So, when we were talking about RCRA’s classifications for hazardous waste in class today, I was a little confused. I know that corrosive, ignitable, and reactive wastes were all classified as hazardous, but aren’t corrosive and ignitable technically just subcategories of reactive? I mean, when stuff ignites, it’s reacting with oxygen at high temperatures, and when strong acids and bases corrode other materials, they’re reacting with them. I’m just wondering if it’s possible for a waste to be corrosive or ignitable without being reactive. Thanks!

Hey, guys. I’m just having a wee bit of trouble distinguishing multiple-use lands, moderately-restricted-use lands, and restricted-use lands. What are the differences between the different types of each again? National Wilderness Preserves are the only place left truly untouched, correct? I know this is a bit late, but if any of you guys could answer these questions for me, it would be a major help.

Maybe I’m just dumb, but I’m having a little bit of trouble distinguishing more precisely between the four demographic stages. I know that countries get more and more developed the higher their stage is, but a more indepth explanation of each individual stage would help. Thanks!

There are two “Human Population Problems” that we discussed in class on Friday:

1. The Annual Growth Rate (AGR) of a population is too high, leading to problems with overpopulation.
2. The AGR of a population is too low, leading to problems involving a “graying,” or aging overall population.

Big Picture: How to responsibly address an AGR that is too high.

There are 3 primary methods to addressing an Annual Growth Rate that is too high:

1. Family Planning: This doesn’t just include things like the government handing out condoms. Governments can fight high population growth by promoting sex-ed courses that help people in the community learn how to practice safe sex and avoid unwanted pregnancies. A good example of this method being used would be Thailand, where family planning programs helped to reduce the AGR from 3.2% in 1971 to 1.6% in 1986.
2. Industrialization: Most high AGRs come hand-in-hand with poverty. The poorer a nation’s population is, the less likely it is that the people in the population will use birth control or other means to avoid unwanted pregnancies. By industrializing, a nation increases its Gross Domestic Product (GDP), which in turn allows its population to raise its standard of living by making more money. As a population increases its standard of living, it will begin to be more cautious when it comes to sexual practices, causing its AGR to go down. Many Asian countries helped to reduce their AGR by industrializing and increasing their GDP.
3. Improve Education and Opportunities for Women: One of the biggest causes of a high AGR is the inability of the women in a population to have a say over how many children they have. In these societies, the men essentially decide how many children a woman will have, and a large amount of children (especially sons) is often seen as a positive thing. If women in these societies were to be given greater opportunities, they would be able to get better educations, become working members of society, and get a much greater say in the number of children that they bear. By empowering women, a nation is able to greatly reduce its population’s AGR.

What Can One Nation Do to Regulate Its AGR?

A nation can use policies, laws, regulations, and taxes to help control the growth of its population.

• China cut its Crude Birth Rate (CBR) in half by implementing its One Child Policy in 1972. This is one of the strictest  programs in the world. The government gives a ton of incentives such as extra food, larger pensions, better housing, free medical expenses, free school tuition, and salary bonuses to parents who follow the One Child Policy. After the couple has had one child (or two children in select cases), either the woman is required to wear an intrauterine device that greatly reduces the chance of pregnancy or one of them is required to be sterilized. If a couple chooses not to follow the policy, they are faced with a series of penalties, including fines, loss of land grants, and even discharge from the Chinese Communist Party.
• Countries such as the US use tax deductions and tax credits to control AGR. In short, if AGR is too low, the government can offer to reduce people’s taxes if they have more children, and if AGR is too high, the government can offer to reduce people’s taxes if they get sterilized . Tax deductions are expenses you are allowed to use to reduce your gross income that affects how much you are taxes, while tax credits are amounts subtracted directly from the amount of tax you already owe.
•  Governments can also use rebates to control a population’s AGR. Rebates are direct payments from the government to you, and can be given in exchange for a couple either having more children or having less children. You are probably most familiar with the rebates that are offered to you after you buy something in a store.

So, I was thinking back on that article we read last night, and it kinda got me thinking…

Sure, Diamond presented some good points about the downsides of agriculture, especially in regards to the problems presented by a society relying on a single staple crop, but I really felt that there were some HUGE overgeneralizations in his logic. For example, when he argued against the old theory that agriculture gave way to art because it gave people more free time, Diamond stated that many hunter-gatherer societies have MORE free time than agricultural societies. Diamond logic here was flawed because, while hunter-gatherers might have had more free time, this doesn’t change the fact that they were unable to settle down in one location for extended periods of time. I believe that agriculture DID probably help foster art not because it gave people more free time, but because it allowed them settle down in a stable location and thus be able to focus on matters other than survival.

These are just my thoughts. Does anyone else have anything to say about the article?