Geography 101

007 - Science vs Politics II

2012-01-11T12:32:00.000-08:00

It seems that the debate between scientists and politicians about climate change is never going to end in the United States, and I don't understand why. Other core countries (Japan and those in Europe) don't seem to have this debate. For example, France (LINK), Germany (LINK), and Sweden (LINK) have all officially acknowledged climate change and have taken action to mitigate its effects.

It's a much different story in the United States. While it is true that the EPA is studying climate change, has come to conclusions consistent with scientists and countries worldwide (LINK), and has data to support their work (LINK), none of this seems to make it into high-level politics or mainstream news. In addition to this lack of information, we seem to have a great deal of mis-information and fear mongering. One recent result of this is the controversy surrounding and barrage of hate mail directed towards climate scientist Katherine Hayhoe (LINK). I find this appalling. It's one thing to disagree with someone or ignore them altogether, but to actively attack them with hate mail is inexcusable.

I think this is happening for a couple reasons. First, we are reaching a point where our governments (both federal and state) are becoming ineffective. We don't have to look very hard to see this happening. Our leaders SHOULD be speaking up and taking a stand on important issues like climate change, globalization, and the impending debt crisis. Instead they have their heads buried in the sand. They skirt these issues and divert attention to other, less important issues like gay marriage or prayer in school.

Second, our social values in this country have changed. It used to be that intellect was valued and respected. That doesn't seem to be the case any more. For example, in 1969 we landed men on the moon and returned them safely to the earth. The people responsible for this were geniuses and America loved them. They were national heros. Today, people who understand and study science are likely to be labeled elitists, communists, or worse, by a large number of americans.

How did this happen?

006 - Science vs. Politics

2011-12-20T19:26:00.000-08:00

You may have noticed that some high-level people within our government (notably in congress) have skirted the issue of climate change, and in some cases denied it's existence entirely. Additionally, several of our republican presidential hopefuls are disputing it. Newt Gingrich currently denies its existence, as does Mitt Romney (despite acknowledging global warming as governor of MA). Perhaps most disturbing, though, is Rick Perry. He has not only alleged that the science behind climate change is false and fraudulent, but has gone so far as to CENSOR scientific data published in Texas.

LINK

Now, I understand that producing oil, selling cars, building roads, etc... is good for our economy and needs to continue. However, denying the existence of a pending problem (or possible catastrophe) in order for private industry to make a quick buck right now seems to be a bit short-sighted to say the least. I would go so far as to say that this is a disservice to our country and to humanity as a whole. There IS a middle ground. It IS possible to continue producing oil and selling cars, while at the SAME TIME studying the environment and finding solutions to our current and future problems. I don't understand why some of our politicians don't understand this, and I find it extremely frustrating.

Here's an article discussing this in more detail:

LINK

005 - Climate change in the news...

2011-12-03T18:05:00.000-08:00

The concentration of greenhouse gasses are increasing faster than expected, with the biggest jump in history being recorded in 2010. The concentration of greenhouse gasses is currently higher than it's been at any time within at least the last 800,000 years.

LINK

New figures show that this past decade was the warmest on record, with 13 of the 15 warmest years occurring since 1997. 2011 will likely be the 10th warmest year on record, despite the cooling effect of La Nina.

LINK

004 - Global warming II

2011-11-30T13:19:00.000-08:00

In my previous post, I mentioned that global warming was pretty generally accepted, with a possible exception being oil companies and the scientists employed by them. That may no longer be the case. Surprisingly, a recent study performed by climate change skeptic Richard Muller and funded largely by oil tycoons David and Charles Koch verified that global warming is actually happening.

It seems that even the skeptics can no longer deny the facts.

LINK

003 - Global Warming?

2011-11-30T12:47:00.001-08:00

Yes.

It's now pretty accepted that global warming is happening. Scientists agree (with the possible exception of those employed by oil companies or the like), and there's a significant amount of data to support this. But... Why is it happening, and why do we care?

One of the big buzzwords we've all heard is "greenhouse effect", and it's been implied (and sometimes stated outright) that the greenhouse effect is bad. This is not entirely true.

It is true that our planet works like a giant greenhouse. It receives short wave energy from the sun (primarily visible light), some of which heats the surface. The warm surface then re-radiates energy back toward space, but this time as long wave (infrared) energy. Some of this infrared energy is captured by our atmosphere and retained as heat, and some is reflected back to the surface. Without our atmosphere capturing and reflecting these infrared waves, the planet would be significantly colder than it is, and unable to sustain life as we know it.

The Earth's atmosphere consists primarily of Nitrogen (78%), Oxygen (21%), and Argon (1%). The infamous "greenhouse gas" carbon dioxide is actually pretty scarce, currently making up only about 0.04% of the atmosphere. Why do we need to worry about then? Two reasons: 1) CO2 is a very powerful greenhouse gas; even a tiny bit makes a big difference when distributed over the entire area of the Earth. 2) CO2 concentrations are on the rise: In 1960, the CO2 concentration was approximately 0.032%; in 2010 it was up to 0.039%. This doesn't sound like much, but it's actually an increase of about 22% over that time period. 22% is a lot. That amount of change must certainly have an effect, right? Yes, in fact it has. From 1900 to 2000, global average temperatures have increased about 1.8 degrees fahrenheit. This may not sound like much. After all, we'd all like it to be warmer outside, right? Wouldn't it be nice if it were summer all year? Or if it never snowed?

Unfortunately, this subject (like so many things in life) isn't that simple. Warmer temperatures, even slightly warmer, will contribute to severe weather (more severe storms, and more often). Not to mention a host of other related issues like melting icecaps, sea level rise, desertification, loss of habitat (even for humans), and possibly water or food shortages.

These issues need to be taken very seriously, and will be discussed in a future post.

002 - What is geography???

2011-09-28T20:27:00.000-07:00

"What IS Geography?", I hear you ask. Good question. Based on my observations, it seems that many people don't know the answer. When I tell people what I'm studying, I'm often met with a blank stare or a question like: "So... Ummm... Are you, like, planning to be a geography teacher then?"

I tell people that geography is the study of where people meet the world. It's the study of people, the natural environment (land, weather, resources, etc..), and how they interact with each other. It's a broad topic that can include almost anything, from city planning to resource management to climate change.

Here's a really cool video. You wouldn't think so, but we could discuss a number of different geographic concepts that are present, de-industrialization being the most obvious.

Enjoy...

001 - A little background...

2011-09-27T23:29:00.000-07:00

Why am I blogging about geography? Good question...

Since a very young age I've been interested in public works projects like bridges, dams, highways, railroads, etc. which naturally led me into the civil engineering field. For the past 12 years (1999-2011) I've worked as a project manager for a civil engineering firm. Our primary focus was land development, i.e. changing raw land into a mall or subdivision or something. Part of my job was to lay out the lots and design the roads, parking lots, and drainage systems that were needed. Initially I found the work fun and challenging, but over time I began to lose interest. In 2009 and 2010 the economy slowed and I had more time to reflect on the world around me. I began to suspect that my relatively small projects had an impact on society as a whole, but I wasn't sure exactly how. How did they fit into the bigger picture? And, was I actually making a positive impact on the world?

Most of my projects were typical of current land development practices. We designed strip malls, commercial complexes, suburban subdivisions, rural McMansions, etc... I don't think any of the projects I worked on would have been considered "green" or "sustainable". Some of the projects were just a bad idea entirely. But my opinion didn't really matter. The critical decisions were made by the project owner (who generally hoped to make money), and the local planning department (who had their own agenda). Nobody seemed to care if there was a better idea, unless it led to them making more money.

This began to bother me more and more. I began to wonder what the future had in store. Would these types of projects - which had become the standard over the past 75 years - be viable in the future?

During some idle time at the office back in mid 2010, I was reading about new software and new technologies in the engineering field. GIS (Geographic Information Systems) was one of them, and it really captured my interest. I decided that it would probably be beneficial to pursue training in this area in order to broaden my career prospects. One option was a certificate program available through the Geography department at San Francisco State University. After learning about the GIS program, I started reading about the Geography department in general and the courses available: Climate systems? Agriculture and food supply? Urban geography? Transportation systems? Resource management? Fascinating! These were topics that already interested me, and which I already thought about from time to time. After some deliberation, I decided to skip the GIS certificate program and pursue a bachelor's degree in geography.

Two major factors weighed into this career change: 1) I firmly believe that our fossil-fuel economy peaked in 2008, and the trend from now on will be a decline, forever. This resulting economic stagnation will mean less construction projects and less need for architects and civil engineers. In my opinion, job prospects in these fields will not be great in the future. 2) Due to climate change, increasing population, and dwindling resources, I expect there to be significant shortages of fuel, water, and food in the not-too-distant future. Even within the United States. Being educated on these issues seems like a no-brainer.

I applied to the geography program, was accepted, and began classes in the Fall of 2011. I've been attending classes for less than two months now, but based on what I've learned so far I know this was the right choice. I've already been exposed to some big concepts. Important concepts. Things that I think everyone should know about, which is why I'm writing this. I'd like to share information and encourage people to think about and discuss these topics.