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

Is it possible for genetically modified organisms to appear naturally? It appears so, according to the Science Daily article entitled “Spontaneous GMOs in nature: Researchers show how a genetically modified plant can come about.” A study conducted at Lund University in Sweden shows that horizontal gene transfer has occurred between two species of plant: the Festuca ovina and the Poa palustris. DNA analysis has showed that a small part of the Poa palustris’ chromosome was transferred into the DNA of the Festuca ovina. Specifically, the gene was for an enzyme named PGIC, which is specific to the Poa palustris plant. The method of gene transfer is suggested to be from a parasite or pathogen, like a virus. The researchers are certain that the gene was definitely a result of a transfer because the two species of plant are not viable for reproduction. The way in which this gene jump occurred is unclear, though researchers assume that a sap-sucking insect may have assisted the pathogen/parasite from first plant to the next.

The researchers and authors of this article seem to have some bias towards the debate concerning GMOs. The researcher is explicitly quoted about the fact that GMOs may spread to the natural world is a very weak and unimpressive argument. This shows that he is biased towards the side where GMOs are completely safe and very beneficial and as this research suggests, natural. In reality, this research was only done a few years ago and so, it is not too clear whether GMOs are natural or not. Imposing this point upon the reader doesn’t give much room for debate, since it is simply stated, with no counter argument for it. The article only makes use of one research study from a Swedish university. This is geared towards one side of the controversial GMO debate, unlike other articles that may incorporate both sides of the argument.

This article focuses on the findings of one research study, concluding that GMOs can be found in the natural world. It suggests that GMOs are naturally occurring and have been like so for hundreds of thousands of years. However, it only makes use of one research publication, which makes it a very biased article. Some readers may not be so critical in analyzing the article and may find relief in the fact that this article states that GMOs are perfectly safe and natural. This is not the case because more research has to be done and the effects it has on us due to its consumption. This article proves on side of the GMO debate very well, but lacks an explanation or acknowledgement of the various other unproven debate points about these controversial food items.

Link for the article:

 http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101104083102.html

In May, California caught fire again. Or maybe it’s more correct to say it kept burning. Wildfires have been a problem in California for as long as there were people that didn’t want them to occur, but they’ve only gotten worse in recent years. With the conditions of the land only getting worse and feeding larger, more devastating fires, science has a job to do and media has something to point and scream at.

The article I chose was “Fire Season Starts Early, and Fiercely,” published this May in the New York Times. In the article, the author discusses how conditions are getting worse, the fires are getting worse, and no one has any solutions because it’s not even clear what’s to really blame. Up until that last bit, the article was really well researched: experts from the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and the state’s Natural Resources department were interviewed; statistics were used; there was a handy graph.

But the most mention the article does to the cause of the fires is the especially dry conditions, draught, and one expert saying that climate change was assuredly playing a factor. The article went on to say absolutely nothing because it offered no possible solutions—sort of playing the whole thing to be a twist of fate. Twists of fate, I might dare say, are not science (unless we’re talking about entropic determinism and physics, I guess). The problem with this article is that it wasn’t written to further any degree of understanding, but instead to garner attention with the drama that wildfires present. With the experts, the journalist gives equal time to California inhabitants discussing the consequences the fires have had on them personally; there is even a video that explains the science behind how fires work but not the reason the fires are getting any worse. So, why are the fires getting worse?

I’ve done some research and it seems to be a combination of human activity and climate change (well, insofar as climate change is another kind of human activity I guess; all in all we’re all at fault). Wildfires are a pretty natural process in the wild and can even be somewhat beneficial—the fire burns away the tree canopy and lets more sun in for other plants to grow, fertilizes the soil with wood ash (which is a fantastic fertilizer that also helps keep the soil at a neutral pH using carbonates that remain after wood burns), and some species of plants have become sort of dependent on forest fires to further their growth, a good example being the Jack Pine which releases seeds as its temperature rises so that even if the tree dies, new ones will take its place. But because fires have always been so near to human settlement (because human settlement is everywhere), the general view of wildfires was always to put them out immediately, which has led forests becoming overgrown with more small trees and ferns that will feed fires to make them that much larger. The additional dryness added by climate warming has, as it turns out, not helped at all. This video and its provided sources do a better job explaining the phenomenon:

So now the problem becomes my main crux with the article: what can we do about it? And now my problem becomes the same as the article’s, because I have very little of an idea. Somehow we need to find a way to fix climate change, know when to put out fires and when to let them burn for a little longer, and put more water and dampness into dry regions. Let’s call Captain Planet.

In late August, when I first heard the news of a potential ebola epidemic, I did not take the news seriously, at all. Recently, when I learned that ebola has been all over the news, threatening the U.S., I realized this is a problem that can affect us.

I have decided to use the ebola virus as an example because it can (though hopefully will not) affect us severely. It is scary to think of how it is an actual threat that is very near, and I think because we can actually see in the future the virus affecting people close to us, for example, in Dallas. I think people, including myself, have more motivation to help causes, in general; when they see the cause, affecting people close and the risk is near, they finally feel the need to help.

The article I chose discusses the Ebola virus in West Africa and then applies the concerning issue in Africa to the United States. The main conclusion the author brings forward is that the situation in Africa can escalate to 10 times the initial rate, therefore the it can become a problem that has great potential to affect us. We therefore have to take measures soon and the measures will only be efficient if everybody complies.

The author brings evidence from the CDC that at the rate ebola is spreading, the number can increase to a range of 600,000 – 1.4 million people infected by January 2015. The WHO predicted 10,000 cases a week by December 1rst.

The author does not have any biases, however he does try to persuade the reader that precautionary action must be taken soon because of the predictions mentioned.

I think the author makes a good point that people should and I believe are currently taking precautionary measures. He proves that there is reason to take such measures and justifies that it is the right thing to do in this case. The virus has been spreading like wildfire and can, for lack of better terms, “destroy the world and humanity” and we would definitely not want that! If we want live to appreciate and know what science is, we should listen to the author and help in the efforts to stop ebola.

I’m sure most of you guys had a clear idea of an issue you wanted to further explore when Professor C first gave us the assignment to find an article on a controversial environmental topic, but in my case, I wound up choosing and article on an issue I didn’t even know was and issue, so I definitely learned something new.

I found an article on The Weather Network website (its actually a pretty awesome website just for exploring alone) about the “de-extinction” of endangered species which, again, I wasn’t even aware was a thing. I soon found out however, it most certainly is a thing.

Following the flow chart, I gathered that the author’s unspoken beliefs/feelings do not necessarily support the idea of ‘de-extincting’ animals. All of the evidence she provided throughout the article seemed to be of the failed attempts to ‘de-extinct’ animals, and of the attempts that were a success, she made sure to highlight all the defects and unfortunate events following the successful attempt.

Some scientists/experts on the other hand, are all for the bringing back of extinct animals. Some believe they “have an obligation to try and do this”, especially if we (humans) are the reasons the animals are extinct to begin with. Others argue that the resources invested in trying to bring back animals that are no longer living should be redirected to the animals that are living (I happen to agree).

If these animals are brought back, many feel the many threats the eliminated the species in the first place, like climate change and human interference, still exist today. (This is clearly true) If these animals are brought back, the chances of them becoming extinct again are tremendous.

I could be wrong, but it seems this author of this article is trying to emphasize the dangers and the sheer uncertainty about sure a serious scientific interest. If that was her intent, she won me over. I went from not knowing people were trying to bring back extinct animals, to actually hoping people song bring back extinct animals. It’s hard to explain, but just thinking about it makes me feel weird.

There’s the link if you want to read it for yourselves

http://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/endangered-species-the-de-extinction-controversy/10338/

And as far as the initial question: Is this science? I definitely think it is.