After doing some research, I would definitely say that global warming contributed to Hurricane Sandy. Although hurricanes are naturally occurring events thats happen during “hurricane season”,  global warming was a reason why the storm did much more damage compared to a storm in recent years. According to the Huffington post during the summer of 2012 temperatures in the Arctic Sea reached record breaking numbers causing water levels to rapidly rise. Pennsylvania State University climatologist Michael Mann said that “At least 1 foot of those 13.2 feet was arguably due to sea-level rise.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/06/hurricane-damage-climate-change_n_2081960.html

High-pressured air was blocked by Greenland which pushed the storm towards the East Coast, which is some what contrary to usual activity. The reposition of the jet-stream sent to storm crashing into New York’s coast.

This image is taken from http://www.climatecentral.org/news/how-global-warming-made-hurricane-sandy-worse-15190 and gives a very cool visual of how the storm tracked over the coast.

Another reason that global warming intensified the storm was due to increased sea level temperatures which resulted in an increased amount of water vapor in the air. This helped produce more rain. Some scientists might say that warmer air will actually help the US east coast by pushing storms of the coast and keeping them out to sea.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/09/130902-hurricanes-climate-change-superstorm-sandy-global-warming-storms-science-weather/

The site above supports that claim. This remains to be seen. I still think that with less greenhouse gas emissions the earth would be less warm and water levels would not have risen to record-setting numbers. We have experienced super-storms in the past and none of them have caused as much damage as Sandy did. The facts are there. Carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions are at all time highs and only increasing each day. I find it hard to believe that it is just ironic that water levels and greenhouse gases are breaking numbers and then this storm hits and destroys everything.

This is a very interesting topic and I am lucky enough to be a certified trainer at a Crossfit gym downtown, so this discussion is close to me. Part of my certification was understanding the importance of nutritional and how the body reacts to certain foods. My first thought of the topic was “No way, it is unhealthy for anyone to eat anything that’s not essentially organic. Additives and other pesticides damage the human body.” As I continued to read, the business school side of me starting to think about the effects of the small businesses who rely on GMO’s, for example the Rainbow Papaya farmers. I found myself being in the middle of the controversy, which I hate because I always like to pick a side and stick to it and debate it until the end, but this is a very different situation.

This is an interesting site that lays out both pros and cons of GMO’s. Take a look.

http://classes.soe.ucsc.edu/cmpe080e/Spring05/projects/gmo/benefits.htm

The Crossfit trainer side of me still says not to eat this type of product. The effects of pesticides alone in foods are unhealthy. A major portion of the population in the US flocks to Whole Foods and Trader Joes to get organic fruits and vegetables, and pay top dollar for it with no second thoughts about it. Putting foreign products that our bodies are not used to is very risky, and in opinion, does not taste quite the same.

Then the business side approach occurs to me. This is a snapshot of Monsanto’s stock

http://quotes.morningstar.com/stock/mon/s?t=mon

With 26,000 employees and revenue increasing about 3 billion dollars since 2011 it is a huge company that offers a ton of jobs. It’s stock alone has risen from $14 a share to over $100 in the last 10 years. If Mr. Ilagan were to approve this bill, the farmers on the island could suffer huge losses in revenue because people would no longer purchase their products. In my opinion, this would have been a domino affect. If one bill were to pass, this would be an opportunity for many other states to do the same. A huge company like Monsanto would suffer tremendously.

I think that consumers are going to choose what they want to eat regardless of what risks are presented about GMO’s and side effects. I choose to eat healthy, organic foods. There are plenty of people in the US who consume genetically modified foods who probably do not even know it, nor can tell the difference. I think that a company like Monsanto has too much upside, as far as revenue created and jobs they offer, to make them suffer by labeling foods with “GMO labels”, or passing bills to stop this type of biotechnology. If a person does not want to consume GMO’s then don’t. They can buy food that’s fresh and healthy. From a political stand point, Mr. Ilagan did the right thing. Farmers rely on their products to bought and it brings revenue to the country. For every person that is going to shoot down the idea of GMO’s and the dangers, there are plenty of people who are going to argue that innovation and science will lead to health benefits in food. It showed in the article when the bill was not approved. This does not mean that the 1,000’s of supporters of the bill are required to eat genetically modified products. They have options.

Welcome to Blogs.cas.suffolk.edu. This is your first post. Edit or delete it under Manage>Posts or make a new one under Write>Posts then start blogging! Be sure to visit the Design tab to choose a new look for your blog as well.

Also, for immediate “how-to’s” visit the Tutorials section, or the Getting Started section.