- I discovered that if everyone in the world lived life the way I lived it, we would need 5.2 Earths to provide enough resources. This pretty close to the average of the United States of 5 Earths needed to provide enough resources. This isn’t really a positive result, but at least I know that I am not exponentially worse than the rest of the United States. Honestly I was kind of surprised that I needed so many planets to sustain my way of life.
- The three sections that I maximized were meat consumption, waste/recycling habits and transportation. All of these maximizations had similar effects of amount of planets needed to sustain that style of living. Meat consumption increased the number of planets needed the least amount, from the original 5.2 to 7.5 planets. Both waste/recycling habits and transportation increased the planets needed to almost eight! These increases are understandable. I think, as an individual, I would choose to eat less meat, and buy more groceries locally. I also feel like I could reduce my carbon footprint by taking public transportation instead of always driving to school. And I should take more opportunities to carpool as well. I could also, instead of just recycling, try to also buy products made from recycled materials.
- As a society, I believe that we need to take initiative and focus on recycling more and buying more items made from recycled material. Also, to decrease our carbon footprint, we should try to take public transportation when we can, instead of driving places. The planet would also benefit from trying to purchase produce and meat that are locally grown. Also, if we made more of an effort to recycle (which is the most obvious solution), we would be able to decrease our footprint significantly! These small changes could culminate into such a decrease of our carbon footprint.
All posts by michellecherian95
A Day in the Hall of Biodiversity
Overall, my experience at the Hall of Biodiversity was great! When I first walked into the room, I didn’t know what to expect, but then I looked up at the ceiling and saw beautiful displays of different kinds of animals and flora that instantly caught my attention. Then, when going closer and actually exploring these different displays, the hall itself taught me so much about conservation, endangered species, the Dzanga-Sangha Rain Forest, and what I can do to help the conversation effort.
The two displays that I chose to observe were The Dzanga-Sangha Rain Forest, mainly focusing on the section “Forest Elephants and The Saline”, and the Resource Center, mainly standing around the “Laws and Regulations” board. The “Forest Elephants and The Saline” display focused the movement of forest elephants into the Rain Forest in search of food, how these elephants differ from the savanna elephants, and the large population of these forest elephants that live in the Dxanga-Sangha Rain Forest. It was mainly a general display of information, most likely used to inform museumgoers about these animals and give them a broad understanding about the topic. The “Laws and Regulations” display seemed like a more biased argument that tried to inspire citizens to take a stand in environmental laws, inform them on what has already been done, and show the different ways they could get involved in the effort as a whole.
We were lucky enough to go to the museum on the day that both elementary schools and high schools decided to have field trips there as well. This gave a lot of insight in how both younger children and teenagers react with displays. When observing the “Forest Elephants and The Saline” display, there were many children floating in and out of the display. I think there was some incentive to stay there because they were answering questions on their worksheets, but there were some students that were really absorbed in the material. Some children flipped through the little booklets to answer the questions they had for class, while two boys stood for about ten minutes watching the videos that were on display. The little children had a tendency to peer over the glass walls and try to look at what was on the ground. I honestly believe that this display shows the information it conveys effectively. There are visual representations of the rain forest, videos displaying information and booklets that you could flip through to read. One of the boys who was focusing on the video even went to his teacher afterwards and started asking information about the display. This shows that the display has the ability to spark and interest to the topic in a young child, which in and of itself is a very difficult thing to do.
In contrast, there weren’t many people who passed through the “Laws and Regulations” display. Most of the people who did venture into the display were high school or middle school students that were reading the board to answer questions for an assignment. One professor kind of periodically came to the display and started talking to his students about different laws and regulations that the display was discussing. Usually, this display didn’t really catch the attention of many people. There was literally one point in which this whole group of about fifty kids just walked through the display without even bating an eye to any of information. It’s difficult to find new ways to display information like this. When speaking of laws and regulations, the only way to effectively display information is to focus the facts and write them down. There were videos in the display, but they were hidden until you walked into the booth. Perhaps the display would catch more attention if the videos were more visible as you were walking through the hall.
I think the exhibits successfully display the ideas of conservation, but the words that are used can only have so much power if people are drawn to read them. Perhaps if there displays were more interactive, people would be more likely to be drawn to these displays and further more read the information that they provide and become more informed about conservation itself.
Ultimately, the Hall of Biodiversity l brought a whole new dimension to the things that we learned in class. It was so cute to see kids run through this rain forest display and feel as if they were transported into a different world. This exhibit definitely educates people on the beauty of biodiversity from the moment they walk in and look up at the walls.
What Is Science?
The number of individuals that believe climate change doesn’t exist is decreasing. It is widely accepted that the average temperatures across the world are increasing. There are people who still feel like the only people that will be affected by this change are individuals along the coastal areas. There is new research rising saying that the daily and nightly difference in temperature is changing at a faster rate than the difference in seasonal temperatures.
In this article, George Wang, a postdoctoral fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Developmental Biology in Germany, explores the daily and nightly differences in temperatures and how those differences will affect the world in the long run.
Along with his partner, Michael Dillon, an Assistant Professor in the Department of Zoology and Physiology at the University of Wyoming, Wang gathered over one billion temperature measurements from 7906 weather stations that collected samples from January 1, 1926 to December 31, 2009. With this data they used a new mathematical technique to determine the difference in temperatures from winter to summer and from day to night as well as computer clusters on two continents, the majority at MPI for Developmental Biology. This allowed them to characterize the variability in temperatures. This evidence is both based in a lot of estimation through data collection. They used this extensive data to estimate the global changes in the annual and diurnal temperature cycles from 1975-2013. The problem is these mathematical techniques weren’t described in the article, which makes the reader wonder how these estimations were made and how valid they are.
Wang and Dillon were able to conclude that the most intense changes in the differences in temperatures take place in the poles and far from the oceans. In these locations, the difference in the temperatures during summer and winter are increasing while the temperatures between day and night are increasing. Essentially, the areas that aren’t tropical are becoming more tropical. These conclusions go against the public assumption of climate change solely affecting those living in coastal areas.
If these conclusions were proven to be true, the consequences would be drastic in the long run. Bugs might live longer in non-tropical regions which could increase the spread of disease and crop damage. If the diurnal temperature difference continues to increase, plants in temperate climates would find it difficult to react correctly to the season and might end up flowering too early or too late, causing some seasons to pass by with these plants not bearing any fruit.
Wang and Dillon are trying to guide readers to their conclusion, but their using data collected to persuade readers. There is a bias towards the conclusion that they made in their study, but this is also based in the data they collected. However, there is room to continue collecting data and seeing if the estimations made could be solidified into concrete conclusions. As for if this article should be considered science, there is a lot of basis in science, but it should go into further detail of the processes used to generate these estimations to add more concrete evidence to the conclusions made.
Article: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/10/141009100928.htm
Bioblitz: Lichen
I walked into Bioblitz and was put into the lichen group. When our lichen specialist asked the group what our favorite part about lichens was, we all kind of shrugged our shoulders. None of us really began Bioblitz knowing what a lichen was.
Our specialist began by informing us about lichens. We learned that some believe lichens are not organisms. Instead, some scientists consider lichens their own ecosystems. Lichens are made up of the symbiotic relationship between algae and fungi. There are split up into three basic categories: fructicose (which looks more elevated and shrubby), foliose (which looks more leafy and flowery) and crustose (which more flat against the tree or rock it’s growing on).
So we began our Bioblitz journey by getting up close and personal with lichen, using a set of magnifying glasses.
This is a picture of the first lichen we discovered. The strangest thing was that none of us really knew what a lichen was, but we pass by them every day. They live on trees and moss and we just mistake them for things like moss or some other type of greenery. But in reality, there are whole ecosystems, or what some scientists consider whole ecosystems, on something as miniscule as a small section of a red oak tree.
We identified it by looking through guidebooks. When the group found a picture in the guidebook that looked like the lichen in question, we would use chemical tests to see if our predictions were correct. We first put potassium followed by chloride and waited for the colors to change.
I think the most exciting part of the whole BioBlitz experience was to be able to look at the lichen under a microscope. In some of them, you could actually see the algae wrapped around the fungi. You could actually see the ecosystem that these scientists were talking about in this tiny space.
This trip truly opened my eyes to the nature that actually exists within the city. When you think of the city in general, you think of buildings, not a lot of green space. Yet, we were able to experience acres and acres of green space in an urban atmosphere. If there are tiny ecosystems on one tree, imagine how many ecosystems the whole NYBG could contain!
I have an increasing respect for the scientists that study these organisms.They get up close and personal with all different types of organisms in order to identify them. Their interest in their work is so inspiring. Humans tend to only see the whole world as something that solely serves us, but there are so many other animals and so much more plant life that contributes to this world that these scientists bring to light. They open up new worlds to us.
