hmnaranjo

January 30, 2014

Currently scientists cannot answer whether or not Hurricane Sandy was caused by global warming. This is because scientists must conduct detection and attribution research studies which take many months to complete. For instance, meticulous analysis which take months to make have been taken on past severe climate events such as the Russian heat wave and Pakistani floods of 2010 but still have not succeeded in finding a complete agreement about the causes of them. However, it is apparent that climate change most likely made the hurricanes impact worse than they would have been otherwise. It is unmistakeable that global warming is contributing to rising sea levels and warmer ocean temperatures off the northeast and possibly through a bizarre weather pattern that some scientists think bore the fingerprint of rapidly vanishing Arctic sea ice. Although Sandy started off as a hurricane, drawing  power from evaporation at the warm ocean surface, scientists recognized that by the end it was also drawing energy from another source: the extreme differences in atmospheric temperature and pressure that usually cause winter storms.

We can see a few patterns if we put into perspective the weather patterns as a whole. One way to look at it is that rainfall in tropical zones are becoming heavier. A study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology based on data from the last 20 years anticipated that for every increase in one degree Celsius,  tropical rainfall will be 10% heavier. Tropical rainfall can be an incentive for destructive weather. “Hurricanes don’t just create themselves; they begin in the tropics, where they move from disturbance to depression to storm, before being labeled a hurricane.” In discovering that tropical rain is getting heavier indicate that a storm most likely might be bigger and stronger, transforming into a behemoth like Hurricane Sandy did. As rains flow around a storm’s center, they’re building more heat, and developing a self-sustaining energy source. Hurricane Sandy ultimately clocked in as the second largest Atlantic storm in the world, with its winds extending over 580 miles (933 kilometers).

Satellite loop from the University of Wisconsin, showing Hurricane Sandy as it made landfall in New Jersey. (source)

On a similar note, a majority also view a warmer atmosphere and oceans as controlling elements for intense storms. They cause more moisture to be created and drop on us more immensely when storms hit. Many scientists look at this increasing rainfall as a signal that global warming won’t automatically bring us more hurricanes or storms but rather much more violent ones. Another aspect that made Hurricane Sandy unique was the cold northern jet stream (a current of high-speed winds) that headed south, reaching the warm tropical storm and creating a renewed blast of energy. Atmospheric scientists have observed that as the Arctic sea ice melts, the jet stream is more probable to move in large wavy patterns like it did with Hurricane Sandy. “Those patterns are courtesy of the North Atlantic oscillation, a defined region of pressure fluctuation.” And the Arctic Sea ice melting, of course, is often considered a symptom of global warming.

No matter what cause and effect led to this catastrophe, Hurricane Sandy is almost guaranteed to finish up being in the top 10  of costliest hurricanes in history. The hurricane comes shortly after Munich Re, a worldwide insurance giant that warned of growing natural disaster damages in the U.S., a pattern the company said is connected to global climate change. Regardless of the links between this specific storm and human-induced climate change, Hurricane Sandy acknowledged many urgent questions. Like the ways that climate change is affecting storm impacts and severe climate trends, and how exposed our coastal populations and infrastructure are to the those developing risks. These are questions that scientists, engineers, and political figures will be working hard to answer for many years to come.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/nature/natural-disasters/global-warming-cause-hurricane-sandy1.htm
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/how-global-warming-made-hurricane-sandy-worse-http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/30/did-global-warming-contribute-to-hurricane-sandys-devastation/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/31/climate-change-hurricane-sandy-global-warming_n_2050516.html

Response to the Ban on G.M.O.s

2 Replies


With all the negative rumors spreading about G.M.O.s around the United States, it seems evident that the bill would have gained more support than the County Council would have thoroughly considered the moment the bill to ban these genetically engineered crops on the island of Hawaii was proposed last May. Bills were introduced in 20 states that would demand “G.M.O” labels to be placed on any food that contains ingredients from genetically engineered crops, approximately one-third of all prepackaged food. Public hearings were influenced by informing the public of the sicknesses often associated to genetically modified organisms (G.M.O.s). These illnesses included cancer in rats, a rise in childhood allergies, out-of-control superweeds, genetic contamination, the overuse of pesticides, and the disappearance of butterflies and bees.

Like some others on the nine-member Council, Greggor Ilagan was one of the few members who were confused from the Council on exactly how one defines a genetically modified organism. Are they living things whose DNA has been transformed usually with the addition of a gene from a distant species to develop a favorable trait? He could fathom why almost every single one of his colleagues had been persuaded to ban the G.M.O.s, but only because of all the negative cases he heard about them, but were all these cases proven? No they were not, which is why I can see why he was first confused as to what a G.M.O. even was. Many were not pleased with his wanting to ban the G.M.O.s at first, especially the island’s papaya farmers. They claim these genetically modified crops are not dangerous and that an engineered assortment had actually saved their fruit from a disastrous disease. Another study mostly mentioned by ban supporters reported that a diet consisting of G.M.O corn created tumors in rats, turned out to have been completely disproved as well. This just shows that a majority of the supporters of banning G.M.O.s have not conducted stealthy research on the matter and are almost trying to brainwash people into siding with them, especially Margaret Wille.


Margaret Wille, the bans sponsor, lacked scientific evidence to prove that these G.M.O.s are harmful to organisms yet she still was keen on “fixing the issue before its too late”. Ms. Wille’s bill would ban the cultivation of any genetically engineered crop on the island, except for two crops already grown there such as corn and papaya. She also prohibited field tests to study new G.M.O. crops and penalties would be $1,000 per day. She quoted “If you control the seed, you control the food; if you control the food, you control the people”. Even though some companies have agreed to stop the use of G.M.O.s, the groundswell against genetically modified food has angered many scientists, who contend that those against G.M.O.s have distorted the liabilities identified with them and minimized the risks of being unable to attempt to use the technology to improve how food is grown. It is not beneficial, trustworthy, or even respectful that many growing advocacy groups disregard, reject or ignore the decades of scientific studies that literally show the safety and extensive benefits of genetically engineered crops.  Its unfair to papaya farmers because the papayas they grow are “genetically modified papayas that are the only commercially grown G.M.O. fruit in the U.S. and account for 75% of the 30 million pounds harvested annually here”. This takes away much of the profit they could earn from selling these crops. Even though her bill was anti-science, Ms. WIlle still felt she had enough reasoning to support it. However, Mr. Ilagan and his staff discovered evidence that seemed to prove otherwise in almost every case causing me to side with Mr. Ilagan even more.

There were cases that blamed G.M.O.s for causing negative effects on organisms such as a report about hamsters saying they lost their ability to reproduce after three generations as a result of a diet of genetically modified soybeans. This case was deemed false after other scientists conducted many other studies.  It was also shown that butterflies were disappearing, but Mr. Ilagan discovered that it was not a toxin produced by modified plants that harmed them, as he had thought. I have to say that I respect him for considering both points of views and taking a stand even though it caused many people to mock him because they are unhappy with his decision to not support the ban anymore. That takes a lot of nerve when your people are looking to you to confide in even if the choice you make isn’t one they even want to consider. In addition to that, he heard several times that there were no independent studies of the safety of genetically modified organisms. But Biofortified, which earned zero funding from industry, named over a hundred such studies. This included a 2010 complete review sponsored by the European Union, that discovered “no scientific evidence associating G.M.O.s with higher risks for the environment or for food and feed safety than conventional plants and organisms.” People were trying to say that GM Cotton has caused people to commit suicide but Mr. Ilagan later found an article staying that this assumption was false. According to the article, research showed in 2011 that the number of suicides among farmers hadn’t risen after the new seeds were introduced than before. And in 2012, a study found that farmers profits actually increased because of reduced misfortunes from pest attacks. I agree with Mr. Ilagan that farmers may commit suicide because of their debt issues but not because of the G.M.O. issue. That makes no sense it would be because of the G.M.O. issue because the whole point of banning them is to prevent organisms from falling ill and facing death.

After finding out many of the scary stories he heard about the dangers of G.M.O.s were bogus, on October 1st, Mr. Ilagan changed his mind and voted to block the bill from moving out of the committee. This did not prevent the bill from passing though or for people to feel pleased with Mr. Ilagans refusal to sign the bill regardless of its acceptance. I have to say that even though many people mocked Mr. Ilagan for his decision, I agree with his decision that they shouldn’t have banned G.M.O.s until they can conduct more research and at least find enough proof that they are majorly unsafe for all organisms. I agree with his belief that officially prohibiting crops because they were made with genetic engineering would not change the patent laws. I feel he was just trying to do what he thought was right for his people and the rest of the world. He highlights the idea that in doing a deed that is deemed good by the majority doesn’t always achieve what one is trying to achieve and is not always the correct answer. When it comes down to a big decision that affects the world around us and if Mr. Ilagan still felt there are questions unanswered, why should he have to vote yes if he doesn’t feel 100% about it? Ms. Wille said to deny the ban “would be to ignore the cries from round the world and on the mainland” but it can be seen as unethical if he were to ignore his beliefs and what he genuinely feels is the right thing to do from within.
A Lonely Quest for Facts on Genetically Modified Crops