Group 5: We misidentified the metal as Iron, when it is in fact Zinc. This occurred because we calculated the volume incorrectly which thereby translated to the wrong density. In addition, we observed that the metal did not melt. Our metal also fell apart onto the table which could have been a sign of possible meltage. As for our mineral, we believed that it was quartz, when it was actually Fluorite. We did not believe it had dissolved into the test tube; however, it in fact was slightly soluble. The largest error we made, which would have helped us determine correctly what the quartz and the metal were, was incorrectly calculating the density. If we would have done this part correctly, we likely would have determined the correct mystery materials.
I was not particularly surprised by the material in class or in the reading because my mother works as an environmental lobbyist. Some of the more scientific explanations and terms such as "hockey stick" were new to me, but my reaction remained the same as in the past few years -- disturbed and concerned. It is clear to me that we do not have any more time to waste before responding to this global crisis. The most important thing that I learned was that seemingly small differences in our actions and in the climate can have a huge impact. For example, the Paris climate accord has a target of keeping temperatures from rising more than 1.5 degrees Celsius, which seems to be a tiny difference. However, this will have a significant negative impact on glaciers, sea levels, and wildlife survival. This was also confusing to me at times, as I forgot to put these numbers into the context of the conversation. I also found this in our discussion on ocean acidification, as I would be confused why such a small difference in acidity would have such large consequences. I do not think that most politicians, corporations, and individuals are responding to climate change in the right way. I think it is important to push large corporations and politicians to take the lead on these issues because they have the most power. Politicians should enact legislation that prevents single-use plastics, oil fracking, and other actions that have detrimental impacts on our earth. Scientists have given us all of the information that we need to understand the gravity of this issue, and the lack of action will not protect the public good any longer.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/30/opinion/climate-change.html?searchResultPosition=3
Many people who don’t trust climate change science state that scientists don’t have enough evidence to back up their claims. However, after today’s class especially, I’ve come to realize how much evidence they truly do have. These are not just theories made in the dark like many people opposing the concept of climate change may think. There are years of evidence of rising temperatures and increased carbon dioxide emissions that have been collected. While this wasn’t new information to me after taking the AP Environmental class offered at my high school, it just reinforces the idea of the immense impact humans are currently having on climate change. While infrared radiation passes through Earth’s atmosphere and is absorbed, also known as the greenhouse effect, does play a role in climate change, it is exacerbated heavily by humans. With the continuous burning of large amounts of fossil fuels, NASA claims that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have risen from 280 ppm to 400 ppm in the last 150 years. NASA’s panel also concluded that there’s a 95% probability that human-produced gases like carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have been one of the main culprits of Earth’s rise in temperature in the past 50 years. This just goes to show that we have been the main proponents of causing the disastrous effects of climate change that we see today. In some senses, I do think the issue of climate change is now being handled in a better manner than it has been in the past. Recently, more people have been bringing awareness to this pressing issue. Climate marches and protests are becoming more popular, as well as increased education of climate change to young children and adults alike. All this is in hopes of sparking change among policymakers and big businesses to change their current policies and practices. If not the effects of climate change that NASA outlines, which include sea level rising, increased ice melting in the arctic, and many more will continue to occur and worsen with time.
ReplyDeletehttps://climate.nasa.gov/effects/
https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/
First and foremost, I am impressed by significant findings that scientists presented recently and I appreciated all their efforts contributed to the climate change field. In the past few decades, mounting evidence demonstrates a positive correlation between increasing human activity, especially burning fossil fuels, and climbing average temperature in global level. Studying climate change is a meaningful job but also a challenging task for scientists. Because they have to collect data from multiple resources and compare data in order to reduce bias. I believe gradually increasing temperature is a real effect since all independent measurements (like surface thermometer and satellite) head to the same direction and their measuring limitations are unrelated.
ReplyDeleteWith advancing computer model, scientists picture the future look of the earth with increasing heat caused by CO2, with a rising sea level due to melting glaciers, and with dropping PH rates of ocean water. In addition, an alarming message from the comparison graphs “aggressive reduction of CO2” VS “business as usual” warns us the seriousness of climate change if we do not take a major action right now. The time and speed are important themes in analyzing the impact of climate change. The earth is always dynamic with a wide range of temperature changing. However, if climate change happened gradually then the living creatures will have time to adapt but still some species gone forever in such hostile environment.
I think whether or not the climate change is due to human activity, the negative influences of changing in earth are on the table which threat global biodiversity and majority of living creatures sooner or later, including human. Strong evidence shows that we now experiencing increasing heat in land and sea, extreme variations of weather, reducing biodiversity, rapid ocean acidification, melting ice which causes higher sea level, etc. It is no time to wait! Even some people still claim that climate change is not human false and should keep “business as usual”. We should better listen to voices from the scientific field. No matter who is responsible for those current troubles, human, as a whole, has no excuse to not try their best and take action to end these negative trends.
One challenge to promote climate protection is scientific limitations. Even with most advanced scientific techniques, uncertainties and inaccuracy still exist when analyzing climate change. For example, a few decades ago, a lot of people even some scientists believe climate change is not a real thing because some evidence is not statistically significant. However, the paradox is that if the changes and harms are on the table like today’s situation, any remedy will be too late.
Moreover, how to interpret the scientific findings to the public is another difficult task. I think climate change don’t handle very well, even more people pay attention to this field, but they didn’t realize the severity and feel nothing individual could change. The increasing 0.8 ℃ in global temperature or sight changing in PH number is easily be presented as insignificant, even it is a dangerous signal sent by nature. For example, one misleading argument criticized by UK Royal Society is that scientists overstated the negative effects of climate change. However, according to IPCC’s prediction, the global average temperature increases this century for 2-3 ℃. The public may not aware of the tremendous harms caused by this sight number change. This would mean the “Earth will experience a larger climate in 10000 years history.” No one lived in the global average, the increasing warm will lead to frequent weather events like heat wines, flooding, and El nino. The changing climate pattern causes unequal distribution of harms and goods across countries. Usually, the developing and residents in poor areas will suffer most due to limited ability to adapt to the changes.
Source:
https://royalsociety.org//media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2007/8031.pdf
My biggest concern with how climate change is being "handled" is the responsibility of large corporations. A lot of the push to mitigate climate change is centered around individual's environmentally-conscious mentality and actions. However, corporations are responsible for 70% of greenhouse gas emissions since 1988 (The Guardian). These emissions have largely contributed to climate change and though climate change is irreversible at this point, it can be lessened greatly by the actions of these corporations. These corporate leaders are either hesitant or unwilling to reduce greenhouse gas emissions because of how it would affect short-term profits. There is a myth that clean energy costs more than using fossil fuels, however some studies have shown that over time clean energy is actually more cost-effective. A way for people to make an actual difference for climate change, besides altering their individual lifestyles, is to be politically active and elect politicians who will either regulate or heavily tax these corporations to deter them from using fossil fuels and move to sources of clean energy.
ReplyDeleteSource: https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change
My initial response to climate change science was that it is very technical as it involves hyper specific data over the course of many years. Furthermore, the science and data behind climate change seems to be very concrete as the studies conducted all point to the fact that our planet is negatively affected by climate change. This can has been shown in a variety of studies within a variety of environments. Climate change is certainly a topic of concern. Countless series of data and science support the fact that global climate change is occurring and is damaging the environment in a multitude of ways, which leads me to feel strongly in that action must be taken and environmental policy should be taken very seriously. Data also suggests that this is largely due to human activity, which raises the question of how humans can contribute to countering the damage that has been caused. I learned that “business as usual” emissions are specifically harmful as global surface temperature exponentially increases over time. This points to the fact that our global emissions must be reduced in order to decrease the collection of carbon dioxide and greenhouses gases in the environment, and if humans persist emissions rates as they have, there will be irreversible consequences. I found the margin of leeway in environmental studies to be confusing. I understand why certain predictions cannot be precise, but the ranges in predictions seemed especially large in the emissions graph we discussed. I do not think climate change is being handled accordingly on a global scale. Though I have seen changes on a local level, this has not been standardized throughout the United States, and it has especially not been standardized globally. I feel that scientific communication is highly important when discussing climate change and policy as scientific communication will spread information to the public. For this reason, scientific communication must be normalized so that people of all ages and education levels can understand the harms of climate change. The public must be informed on climate change and understand the grand effects it will have on society. Not only will our resources be limited, but human health, water, transportation, and various other portions of society will be disrupted. This is extremely risky on a global scale. https://www.globalchange.gov/climate-change/impacts-society
ReplyDeleteI think that climate change science is really important because it explains the changes that we are seeing and experiencing around us. I honestly did not know some of the terms around climate change science like “business as usual emissions” and that they had projected the levels of warming that are to be expected if we continue at the rate that is going now. The future does not seem very good if things do not change.
ReplyDeleteIn the article, “What climate change will do to three major American cities by 2100,” by Allegra Kirkland, Jeremy Deaton, Molly Taft, Mina Lee & Josh Landis, gives an overview of the potential changes by decades that could be seen. It ranges from more droughts, more floods and stronger hurricanes, rising sea levels and drastic increases of temperature. In this article, they use the business as usual emissions to estimate the drastic temperature changes from 1-2 degrees farenheit in 2020 to 8-11 degrees fahrenheit in 2100. They write the different effects that this rise in temperature could have like loss of homes because of the increase of sea level and destruction of ecosystems because of fires and droughts. This is a very eye opening article because it talks about all the things that can potentially happen due to climate change and global warming by using the business as usual emissions scenario.
Climate change is not handled the right way by the government and the public as a whole The changes in policy are very slow and they take so much to make small changes. This is an issue that required a lot of attention because we are already experiencing changes that are only going to get worse. Climate change has to be one of the priorities because it will and is affecting all of us.
https://qz.com/1727717/what-climate-change-will-do-to-three-major-american-cities-by-2100/
After learning more about climate change, I am both surprised and concerned with the way our planet is changing. I knew that we were mistreating our planet, but I wasn’t aware of the extent and the speed that our planet was warming. I am also alarmed that the carbon dioxide levels in our atmosphere have nearly doubled since 1950 (NASA). NASA says with 95% certainty that the rise in carbon dioxide levels is caused by humans, which shows the extent of the adverse effects of our mistreatment of the planet since 1950. At this rate, climate change is unsustainable and could do serious damage in the future.
ReplyDeleteI was particularly shocked by the hockey stick curve: it surprised me that temperatures were rising as quickly as they are now.
I found the concept of ocean acidification to be confusing at first simply because I hadn’t learned about it before. It was hard to grasp how very small differences in acidification could cause such significant damage to the ocean. The oceans are also so large that it is hard for me to imagine acidity collectively rising in oceans all over the globe. I also had never considered how rising acidity would have adverse effects on marine life.
At this time, I think that we are not handling climate change correctly--we are ignoring it. The world needs to change drastically in order to recover from the effects of climate change. New policies and global standards should be implemented in order to slash carbon dioxide emissions and reduce waste. However, politicians often ignore climate change for the sake of protecting and growing the economy. Slashing carbon dioxide emissions and waste could come at the expense of manufacturing and production, because reducing emissions would require an expensive change to the infrastructure to accomodate new and cleaner methods of production. While politicians often choose to ignore climate change, activists from all over the globe are protesting our mistreatment of the planet. This push for change is a step in the right direction and could lead to more and better responses from the government and industry.
NASA: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
As someone who studies government and public policy, most of my engagement with science occurs as justification for certain policies, however, the problem with involving science in politics is that data alone is never enough to make a policy change. When I read about the hockey stick curve graph, which shows how global warming has rapidly increased since 1990 compared to centuries before, I was surprised. I obviously have been aware of climate change, as government policies reducing carbon emissions happens to be a controversial and debated topic today. However, viewing the data gathered by computer models that can predict climate change has definitely been unsettling, even though throughout our everyday lives we may not notice anything changing. What I found most surprising was that developing countries such as India are actually the countries leading the fight for a more sustainable economy, and it’s because most industrialized countries were built around using fossil fuels. Changing the old system is much more difficult than building a new one.
ReplyDeleteI think some potential concerns with science behind climate change is that it is so politicized. This is because many international corporations have bodies of people that are constantly trying to disprove or attack the credibility of the science. Because it is impossible to predict the future, one can only trust computer-generated predictions so far. And because of how much power these corporations have, there is a constant struggle between whether policy should be focusing on what will grow our economy now, versus what will sustain our economy in the future. According to Guardian writer Tess Riley, “100 companies have been the source of more than 70% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions since 1988.” It is these same companies that remain consistently involved in preventing any kind of climate change policy from being passed, which means that a handful of people are responsible for the lack of action.
I believe that debating back and forth about who is correct about climate change is the wrong approach. Instead, we should be focusing on preventing global warming or ocean acidification one step at a time, because despite the rapidly impending damage to the planet, policy just doesn’t change as quickly as some people want it to. Finding ways to be sustainable without impeding economic growth will be more effective if private companies are the ones that begin making the effort, rather than the government attempting to force policies, which is what they receive the most backlash for.
https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change
Climate change needs to be discussed. I learned from class that there is enough scientific evidence to prove that climate change is real. Scientists have produced significant research to show that denying this is foolish. I am unsure about how detrimental the effects of climate change will be in the future. The media documents certain climate change activists saying we are rapidly approaching human extinction and other people saying its effects are not an extreme threat. I am wondering if there is a middle ground here, and if so, what is that argument? I also wonder how confident climate scientists feel about their conclusions. Do they think they have all of the information possible, or are they leaving the door open to hear new ideas? In other words, how comfortable do they feel making future predictions? Some potential concerns with the science is that previous predictions about climate change have not always been correct, allowing people to ask why climate change is worse now than in the past.
ReplyDeleteMy initial response to climate change is that there is a great deal of awareness (at least in the community I live in) and that this awareness is good. The problem to me occurs when discussing climate change solutions. I think people lack an ability to converse effectively about this issue because it is one that charges people emotionally. Until people of all different views are able to converse about ways to implement solutions to climate change, this issue is not able to be handled correctly. Also, it is hard for the world to fight against climate change unless all countries try to help. It is far more challenging to have a significant effect in solving climate change if countries that account for a large percentage of carbon emissions disregard the issue. It takes more than just the efforts of the United States in order to help the changing climate. We need to open up informed debates on ways to help the environment. I am interested in learning about different ways that help to solve the issue of a changing climate. The outside source I read was from Scientific American and the title was “How Nuclear Power Can Stop Global Warming.” The article allowed me to learn that nuclear power can offer alternatives to emitting greenhouse gases. Its effectiveness is backed by scientific research and I think it will be involved in future policy discussions. I found it interesting and would like to conduct more research into the topic.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-nuclear-power-can-stop-global-warming/
This was Shane Brackup's post. I also posted it on the main page so it has my name next to it now!
DeleteSam Clayton Climate Change Blog
ReplyDeletePersonally, I have been familiar with climate change science for a long time now. My mother works in the field of environmental conservation, thus climate change and counteracting it has always been a reality in my life. What left an impression for me was how Professor Leber presented the science. In media, in popular culture, and in many discussions climate change is often referred to as a theory, or as something that is filled with grey areas. In our discussion, however, the science was presented the way it should be; as facts and correlations that lead to one conclusion. I believe that what concerns most people is the measurements that come from proxies like trees and ice. It is easier for people to comprehend data that is cut and dry. The most important part of this lecture and the most important part of the way Professor Leber delivered it, is how it was presented as a series of data correlations and trends that, alone, would be difficult to connect to the bigger picture, but in combination with one another make it far more likely that they are proving something tangible. Proof of climate change needs to continue to be presented the way professor Leber presented it.
The Audubon Naturalist Society, a conservationist, environmental education and advocacy group references a "7 steps for 7 generations" idea, where they provide 7 steps individuals can take to combat climate change. The 7 generations refers to the idea that these steps are being taken in order to preserve the planet for 7 generations to come. I believe that this idea, along with the way climate change data should be presented, could lead more people to understand and act on the data with which they are presented.
https://anshome.org/climate/
Hannah Robertson: I was not surprised by the science behind climate change. Taking a class while abroad I learned all about feedback loops and how they are natural in some cases but in others are working to speed up climate change. I believe the most important thing to learn about climate change science is where the side that does not believe in climate change comes from and how to debunk their arguments. And important component of facing climate change that I do think needs to be addressed is the role and influence big businesses have on the government that prevents them from actually addressing the problems of climate change. In "Exxon Accused of Misleading Investors on Climate Change," the author relays how big businesses such as Exxon use their legal savvy to skirt around laws and also fool the government. It is important to consider the political side of these issues as they are what can actually fix the problems of climate change.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.com/news/business-50132400