Midterm Report

Refer back to October 5th for notes on my carbon footprint. I'm not sure if this is what you want, but in refering back to your email about what you wanted in our midterm report I feel like I have already covered everything. But if I haven't please let me know.



Also refer back to October 3rd for information about the midterm project. I will be covering political aspects of the hybrid car. You can also refer to my groups wiki under your section in blackboard to see all of the work we have already done :)

Week of October 22

Beyond Oil

I thought the book was pretty interesting, the math was a little over my head (and I took AP Calculus!) and the conclusion was obvious (duh we are out of oil) However, I liked the different chapters on different types of fuel and I feel that it has given me a good background on fossil fuels, and I liked all the pictures and graphs. I dont have anything specific to say about it except that because I was a little confused I dont know if the data was manipulated...

Plenary

The woman was very boring and I think she was trying to cover a lot in a short period of time. Nothing too interesting about it, its no surprise that most of the world's energy resources aren't located in the areas with the most need, or the areas that would be most beneficial for american interests.



On another note:

Today I was walking around campus and someone was handing out pamphlets entitled "eating sustainably: fight global warming with your fork.." so of course I picked one up. The information is very biased because it was produced by "compassion over killing" an animal rights/pro vegetarian group. The group argues that raising animals for food is one of the leading causes of pollution and resource depletion today and that what we eat has more of an impact on the environment than what we drive. This is interesting cosidering that in the past we discussed the energy usage difference between plant eaters and meat eaters and one of my carbon footprint calculators asked me how often I ate meat. Therefore, there is obviously some truth behind the argument of this group, however I'm not sure I believe that what we eat has a greater effect than what we drive. I'll bring the pamphlet in on Wednesday.

Week of October 13th

Hurricanes and Climate Change- notes on one disputed point in an inconvenient truth

• new study in Nature Science journal says that hurricanes and typhoons are stronger and longer over the past 30 years- The duration and strength have increased by a factor of 50%
• Usually a 1 degree C increase in water temperature results in a 5% increased intensity of storms. We have had a .5 degree C increase and much greater effects than would be expected
• How hurricanes work- heat results in warmer water which results in more evaportation. More storms are picked up by low pressure systems and the spin of the earth causes storms to whirl around center of low pressure. All driven by warm air.
• Hurricanes form over water with a temperature above 26 degrees C as a rule
• Some argue hurricane intensity fluctuates on a decade to decade basis, based on factors like El Nino, other argue that worldwide these strong interdecadal swings cancel out and we see an upward trend of increasing hurricane intensity
• Others argue that currently the number of hurricanes is holding steady
• According to Nature article- a 1 degree C increase in sea temperature is currnelty resulting in a 31%increase in global frequency of category 4 and 5 hurricanes. Add to that fact that ocean temperatures could increase by 2 degrees C by 2100
• Some argue that climate models work well on the global level but can't be applied accurately to areas smaller than 200 square miles- which is larger than many storms
• Mr Knutson and friends at NASA's geophysical fluid dynamics lab in Princeton produced a year by year "hindcast" of hurricane numbers over the past 30 years. They predict an 18% decrease in annual hurricane count by late this century. They argue that what matters in hurricane formation is the difference in temperature between the sea and the top of the troposphere (the weather zone of the atmosphere) and global warming will warm the troposphere faster than it will warm the Atlantic. Others argue that there are flaws in the model used by Mr. Knutson in that it cant produce big storms and with an increase in large storms in the future, and the number of overall storms staying the same, of couse the number of small storms would decrease.
• Kerry Emanuel (from MIT) wrote an article in the March 2008 Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society claiming that the results of climate moels suggerst other factors are likely to contribute to the increase in the number of storms, refuting his previous claim that global warming is the main contributor to the increase in the number of storms. His team inserted seeds of tropical storms throughout climate models and observed which develop into tropical storms and hurricanes. They found that the over all number of hurricanes will decrease over the next 2 centuries but hurricanes in general will increase in intensity. There is some uncertainty in the study in that the climate models show that in some areas intensity will increase and it others it will actually decrease.
• Others claim that research in general about this issue is difficult because the hurricane record pre-1970 is entirely unreliable and climate models cannot detect individual tropical storms.
• Some records- based off the number of people dieing and money being lost due to hurricanes- are unreliable because the information is skewed due to more people living in hurricane zones
• Some argue the path of hurricanes will change due to global warming (think of jet streams and conveyer belt)
• Johan Nyberg of Geological Survey of Sweden used coral samples from the North East Carribean to build a record to wind sheer and sea surface temperature dating back to 1730. Wind sheer is the difference in speed and dirrection between low winds and higher winds and causes a decrease in rainfall which causes denser coral. An increase in wind sheer decreases the number of hurricanes because it breaks up the systems as they form and a decrease in hurricanes results in less rainfall which results in denser coral. Nyberg foiund that the frequency of major hurricanes decreased gradually since the 1760s and had an all time low between the 1970s and 1980s. He argues that we are just returning to the norm. Elsner counter argues that the north east Carribean might not have always been in the dirrect path of hurricanes
• The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) (a group of 125 experts) said that "given the consistancy between high resolution global models, regional hurricane models and maximum potential intensity theories it is likely that some increase in tropical cyclone intensity will occur if the climate continues to warm"
• Others focus on the why the North Atlantic (the focus of many of the studies are done because it is where US hurricanes gather strength) is an exception. They argue that most tropical climates have an average sea temperature of 26 degrees C all year round, while the temperature of the North Atlantic fluctuates below and above this temperature, making this temperature a switch for hurricanes. The North Atlantic is therefore more sensitive to sea surface temperatures
• A survey by Mr. Holland found that starting in 1905 for about 25 years there were about 6 tropical storms a year. Starting in 1931 there were about 9.4 storms a year and between 1995 and 2005 there have been about 14.8 storms a year. Between 1931 and 1994 there was no long term variation in the number of storms and then the number increased signficiantly in 1995. This corresponds with and increase in sea temperatures Holland argues. Others contend that there are cycles of 30 to 40 years of quiet followed by 30 to 40 years of business.
• Chris Landsea at NOAA's National Hurrican Center claims that the reason the number of hurricanes seems to be increasing is due to fact that storms previously not picked up by meteorologists are now better detected due to new technology. He claims there are many "missing storms" in old data.
• Brian Soden (from the University of Miami in Florida) used 18 climate models to study this issue. He claims that an increase in vertical wind sheer caused by climate change will counter balance the warming effect. He says that in the upper atmosphere westerly winds will increase "sheering" against easterly winds in the lower atmosphere, which is what he calls a change in the Walker circulation. He says this will occur in some areas more than others. He compares this change to the similar shifts in Walker circulation during El Nino years. Emanuel counter-argues that sensitivity to windsheer is probably overestimated stating that a 10% increase in water temperature results in a 65% increase in the intensity of storms while a 10% increase in wind sheer resuls in only a 12 % decrease in the intensity of storms.
• The media also influences the issue. For example the media always publicizes big hurricanes and big hurricane years but ignored that fact that 2007 was one of the calmed hurricane seasons in the North Atlantic in 30 years. Some argue that this is because a slow warming does not make for memorable images on tv and when judging risks, due to the avalability heuristic, we gauge a danger according to how many examples of ti are available in out minds. Therefore, some believe, that the manipulation by the media helps the fight to end global warming

Long story short, no one knows for sure whether the increase in hurricanes and tropical storms is caused by climate change. Both the inaccuracy of climate models and the lack of sufficient hurricane records result in the inability to know what is really going on, however, the general concensus among scientists is that whether or not the number of storms is increasing, their intensity definately is. Therefore, we can't wait for more data, we have to act now! As for the inconvenient truth, a very disputed issue is presented as fact by Al Gore, which in my eyes is an issue especially when so many people will believe what he says. He isn't talking to a scientifically knowledgable audience and should be careful not to manipulate their views. All in all, however, his view is supported by many scientists, even if it is just a theory. Right now theory is all we have and people wont act off just theory, but we have to act. So maybe, as far as the movement to end climate change is concerned, presenting theory as fact is a necessity. We can decide later whether the manipulation of the general public was worth it or neccessary, after we get global warming under control.

Articles used (not a real bibliography, just some imporant information in case we want to use the articals in the future):

"Wind Sheer may Cancel Climate's Effect on Hurricanes" from NewScientist.com by Phil McKenna published in April 2007.

"In 2008, a 100% Chance of Alarm" from the New York Times by John Tierney published in January 2008

"Tropical Storms Stepping up with Climate Change" from NewScientist.com by Jeff Hecht pubished in September 2007

"Global Warming link to Hurricanes Likely but Unproven" from NewScientist.com by Catherine Brahic published in December 2006

"Coral Reveals Increased Hurricanes May be Norm" from NewScientist.com by Catherine Brahic published in June 2007

"Climate Myths: Hurricane Katrina was Caused by Global Warming" from NewScientist.com by Emma Young published in May 2007

"Hurricane Expert Reconsiders Global Warming's Impact" from Chron.com by Eric Berger published in 2008

"Analysis: Will Warming Really Lead to Fewer Atlantic Hurricanes" from New Scientist Journal by Fred Pearce published in May 2008

"Is Global Warming Worsening Hurricanes?" from Time.com by Bryan Walsh published in September 2008

"Is Global Warming Making Hurricanes Worse" from NationalGeographic.com by John Roach published in August 2005

Insulation

Notes on Insulation in case we come back to the topic in class:

Quotes are directly from websites not my own work, they are just research notes I copied and pasted to use in class. I used: http://www.ornl.gov/sci/roofs+walls/insulation/ins_01.html

• The effectiveness of insulation is rated by an R-value. The higher the R-value, the greater the material's ability to insulate. Each inch of fiberglass blanket insulation, for example, provides an R-value of about 3.27.
• *Start with the attic. Heat rises; make every effort to keep it from leaving when it does. By bringing a minimally insulated attic up to proper insulation levels, you may be able to save up to 30 percent on your heating bill.
• Insulating crawl spaces can trim from 5% to 15% off heating costs
• If you go to the trouble of insulating, it's also smart to make sure that doors and windows are properly weather strippedto cut down on air infiltration and heat loss.
• Heating and cooling account for 50 to 70% of the energy used in the average American home. Inadequate insulation and air leakage are leading causes of energy waste in most homes. Insulation:saves money and our nation's limited energy resourcesmakes your house more comfortable by helping to maintain a uniform temperature throughout the house, andmakes walls, ceilings, and floors warmer in the winter and cooler in the summer.
• Batts, blankets, loose fill, and low-density foams all work by limiting air movement. (These products may be more familiarly called fiberglass, cellulose, polyicynene, and expanded polystyrene.)
• The still air is an effective insulator because it eliminates convection and has low conduction. Some foams, such as polyisocyanurate, polyurethane, and extruded polystyrene, are filled with special gases that provide additional resistance to heat flow.Reflective insulation works by reducing the amount of energy that travels in the form of radiation.
• The different forms of insulation can be used together.
• Rigid insulation is made from fibrous materials or plastic foams and is produced in board-like forms and molded pipe coverings. These provide full coverage with few heat loss paths and are often able to provide a greater R-value where space is limited.
• Reflective insulation is most effective in reducing downward heat flow.
• Fiberglass. Among its benefits, it doesn't burn or shrink, bugs don't like it, and it's made from silica sand, a terrifically abundant resource. However, with potential health risks such as lung damage and cancer warnings, some forms and brands of fiberglass are safer than others, so do your research and ask questions to find the best solution for your home.
• Cellulose. Economical, readily available and better for the environment than fiberglass, cellulose is composed of recycled newspaper and, occasionally, small quantities of shredded cardboard. It carries less health risk than fiberglass, but can condense as it settles and take on moisture, potentially molding if it stays wet.
• Rigid Foam (Foam Board). Mostly made from polymers, water-resistant rigid foam has almost double the R-value (heat flow resistance) of cellulose or fiberglass insulation. Rigid foam is divided into three types: polyisocyanurate (polyiso), expanded polystyrene (EPS) and extruded polystyrene (XPS), each varying in cost, R-value and environmental friendliness.
  
• The following are suggestions of what insulation is best for the specific areas in your home:
• For loft or roof insulation use: Mineral wool quilt, Blown mineral wool, or Blown cellulose fiber.
• For duct or pipe insulation use: Mineral wool mat, Pre-formed split foam insulation, Foil-faced fiberglass insulation, Vinyl-faced insulation, or Ridged foam insulation
• For wall insulation use: Blown-in cellulose, or Fiberglass (batt and roll) insulation
• There are several good alternatives to fiberglass insulation if you want a "green" product to insulate the addition.
• Insulation made from recycled denim is treated with a fire retardant. It's not made of used fabric but scraps from the manufacturing process. In general, growing cotton is tough on the environment because of the heavy use of pesticides, so this may not be the best option, although it's a good use of otherwise wasted material.
• Wool insulation provides an option that is natural and renewable. Although wool is flame resistant naturally, it is subject to insect damage. So the insulation is usually treated with boron to deter insects. But boron is a naturally occurring element and not known to be carcinogenic.
• Cellulose insulation is probably your best bet. It's made from 80% recycled newspaper, and the chemicals that hold it together do not use formaldehyde. Fire-retardant chemicals are also necessary to make the product safe. R-values of fiberglass, wool cellulose are similar, but can vary significantly based on a number of factors. Cellulose insulation is more affordable than wool insulation, too.
• Don't overlook Structural Insulated Panels (SIPs) as an option for building the new addition. SIPs are basically slabs of polystyrene sandwiched between two sheets of oriented strand board (OSB). Because the polystyrene allows very little air to pass through the walls, they produce a super-insulated structure.

Week of October 6

On the plenary speaker:
I had a serious issue with her public speaking skills and she did neither inspired my attention nor my passion. She obviously did not have the knowledge necessary to answer all of the questions asked and she definately should have had other members of the project with her (specialists in the economy and politics etc...). On the other hand, while it is obvious her plan would never work due to the constraints of society she admits she ignores, I think it is interesting to see what we would have to do if we could do everything necessary to stop global warming right now. Its a good perspective to start with, and then come in and judge the system more practically, in that way, her topic was interesting.
On friday's class:
The discussion was awsome. I think that once we are allowed to take science where we want as a class (the political and economic sides of the issue) we think critically and broadly about the main issues presented in the class. We seem to have passion and a desired direction when we are allowed to discuss as we please, and although the direction is obviously not focused on science it is science based and augmented by what we learn in class.
Some notes:

Thermodynamics

I Heat and Temperature

• Heat- transfer of energy across the boundary of a system due to a temperature difference between the system and its surroundings
• Temperature- average thermal energy of particle
• Scales- Kelvin, Celsius, Fahrenheit
• Heat Capacity- C=Q/change in T
• Specific Heat- c=Q/(m x change in T)
  Q- cm(change in T)
• The amount of energy required to raise the temperature, c, indicates how much resistance to raising the temperature
• Exothermic- releasing heat energy
• Chemical action
• Mechanical-thermal= friction
• Different kinds of energy
• Acoustic
  Mechanical
  Nuclear
  Electromagnetic
  Electrostatic
  All lead to thermal energy
  
  II First law of Thermodynamics
  
• Energy is conserved in a closed system
• Heat is energy
• Heat is not conserved; work energy is not conserved, only total internal energy is conserved
• E=heat + work= summation of Q+ summation of W
• Internal energy= kinetic energy of molecules, potential energy within and between molecules
• Friction causes heat
• Change in E= Q-W
• For constant E: Q=W
• Heat added or withdrawn balances work done on and by the system

I also looked up some cool Bill Nie videos on thermodynamics in case you want to use them in class:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=466uJSRuyrU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4jDlvniz4U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcxVIi0nErk

My Carbon Footprint

I have currently used the following sites to calculate my carbon footprint:

1. http://www.carboncounter.org/offset-your-emissions/personal-calculator.aspx

• according to this website I emit 5.3 metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere
• my emissions were far below the national average
• I was told that I should donate $12 per ton of CO2 to offest my carbon emissions - for me this would be $5.30 a month or $63.60 a year
• in order to estimate my emissions I was asked what type of home I live in, in what state and what size the home is. I answered; apartment, Washington DC and small. I was asked how many cars I drive, which is right now zero, and how many miles I fly a year: about 5.

2. http://www.nature.org/initiatives/climatechange/calculator/

• according to this website I emit 14 tons of carbon a year
• I am below the national average- which this website says for a person in the United States is 27 tons a year and for a person in the world is 5.5 tons a year
• I was asked: how many people in my house- I said 4 because thats the number of people in my suite but then I proceded to calculate the carbon emssions for just myself.
• I was asked what kind of home I live in (small apartment) with how many bedrooms (1) and in what state (DC.) I was also asked if I effiently heat and cool my house, use lighting, and use energy star product to which I answered sometimes and if I used hot water efficiently to which I answered no.
• Next I was asked what kind of car I drove (none) and how many long (2) and short (2)flights I have flown in the last year.
• I was asked how often I eat meat (most days but not every meal) and if I eat organic food (no) and if I recycle (yes... all materials locally recycable) and if I composte waste (no)
• According to this calculator I emit most of my emssions driving or flying or in my home, which is similar to the national trends, however my food and diet is a much larger portion of my energy emission than the emissions of the average American

Some interesting points

• I flew much more this last year than usual, which may have skewed the results of the second survey
• The first survey didn't include diet and I am a huge meat eater which may have an an effect on the results
• Neither survey had a "dorm room" option for home, so my makeshift "small apartment" answer my skew the results
• The second survey was probably more accurate because it asked more questions, and I liked to see how the positive actions such as recycling and using energy star products factored in to my total emissions.

Semester Project

The Hybrid Car- how it can be made more affordable, why it should be made affordable and why the government isn't doing more to promote its use right now.

Science-
What is the effect of cars on the road- how much do car emissions contribute to global warming?
How do hybrid cars work? What parts of Hybrid cars are expensive, are there cheaper versions of these parts?
How effective would a full switch to Hybrid cars be on reducing global warming? Is it worth it? Are there other options to fix the car problem?

Economics-
What could be done to convince suppliers to create more hybrid cars?
How can we increase the demand for hybrid cars?
What resources do economists need to create these cars?
How does the European/Asian car market compare to the American car market relative to the sustainability of the cars produced?
What would the effect be of increasing hybrid car production on the national and world market?
Would jobs increase or decrease?
Would people travel more or less? What would be the effect on infrustructure?

Politics-
How is the relationship between the government and oil companies effect hybrid car production? How can the government make hybrid car production more effective and profitable?
How could one convince the government to make an investment in the hybrid car market? Which party would support this investment more? Who would vote for it? How could the idea be sold to the voting public?
How do oil and hybrid lobbyists effect the governments decisions and agenda?
Who should we vote for in 2008 in regard to this issue?

Notes on Class Projects

Solar Power

• need 10 billion square meters of solar panals to capture enough energy for all of US energy needs at any given moment
• 1/6 area majave desert
• this is assuming 100% efficiency- which is impossible- so multiply area by ten to make it more accurate
• furthurmore, we would need infrastructure to transfer energy
• 31.7% of New Mexico would have to be covered with solar panals to supply energy for entire US
• Only 1% of US land area would have to be allocated
• to put it into perspective the area of all paved land in US is 157,989 km^2 which is about 1.5% of US land area
• we need to only fill 2/3 of paved roads to with solar panals to provide energy for ENTIRE US- and this is with current technology
• right now we only use alternate energy to meet 1% of our energy needs

Obviously the implication of this problem is that the United States is not taking advantage of the current alternative energy technology available and should be doing more to make this technology more efficient. If the government could find a way to make pavement into solar technology/ panals think of how efficient that would be! We should try to make something that already covers a vast amount of land in the United States, like road ways, into solar panals or have then in some way absorb energy from the sun. Either way, we really need to use alternative energy to a greater extent, especially if we really want to stop being dependent on foreign energy sources and oil in general, once again it is clear that we already have the means to be energy independent, we just aren't doing it for some reason...I am constantly more and more disappointed in the government the more I learn about the capabilties of new technology and how effective it could be (only 1% of US land would need to be allocated to provide energy for the entire US!!!)