Cycle for me Baby, Yea!

I learned about the many nutrient cycles in our world that human activity has changed for the worse. The first example of this is excess phosphorus released by fertilizers into the ocean. This causes a bloom of sea-life, which kills the other organisms. Another, which I kinda already knew about, was the increase of carbon in the atmosphere due to the burning of the fossil fuels. What I didn't know was this simultaneously reduced the carbon sink levels underground. The last thing I learned was how excess legumes (Peanuts, peas, green beans, etc) planted create an excess of nitrogen in our soil.

Two ways this information relates to environmental science includes the effects on nutrient cycles and the political implications of the damage being done. The cycles being interrupted change fundamentally how the species involved can interact or even live in their environment. Less or more of something can be the difference between life or death of some species. The political side deals with how we stop these problems. On one hand, the positive feedback loops created by these issues with teh cycles in destroying ecosystems. On the other, how do you tell a family of peanut farmers to find new work?

A question I have is which cycle being affected is the most dangerous? Will changes to the sulfur cycle really matter? Which do I need to be conscious about when i spend money or go somewhere?

Bro This Shit's Important!

Three things I learned from the article were many specific instances of introducing a new species to an ecosystem and it screwing up a food web. The titular example presented involved palm trees being planted instead of native trees near the ocean shore where giant Rays lived. Since Palms make crappy homes for birds, they moved away and there was no poop (nitrogen) flowing into the water, creating life for the Rays to strive off. The other two examples I learned about were similar situations involving Salmon off the west coast of the United States and Foxes killing birds in Alaska. Both times nutrients were removed from the land or sea ecosystem, endangering the nutrient cycle involving the other.

Two ways these events affect Environmental Science include the use of Chemistry and Economics. The cash crops being grown (palms) are there to support life of humans there and other places, so the argument comes to the forefront of weather or not they need to protect the rays, even if it means losing their line of work. The chemical side of the equation comes in the form of the Nitrogen cycle involving the guano. A special isotope called Nitrogen-15 was the key variety of nitrogen that enrich the ocean and soil near the shores. Without it, the trees, plankton, and other sea-life would suffer greatly.

A question I want to ask now is what can I eat as a person living in Houston that won't support some farm ruining lives elsewhere? What foods can I eat that are grown in places they naturally belong and don't kill the planet at the same time? My guess would be not many.

Coral, yer Mom's dead!

Three things I learned from this article include the alarming rate that coral reefs are being affected by climate change (exacerbated in 50 to 100 years), that water absorbs one third of all carbon dioxide emitted by the burning of fossil fuels, and that coral reefs support a quarter of all fish in the ocean.

The above info applies to APES when we see the chain reaction caused by the carbon dioxide entering the water. The substance makes the ocean more acidic (three times as of last year) which in turn makes it difficult for clams, mussels, etc. to grow shells. When these fish all die there is no food left for bigger fish, so they go to the shore to eat us and Jaws goes from Science Fiction to Documentary. Another way this pertains to our class is through the political side. The article discusses how the only real way to fix this problem is to drastically slash the amount of fossil fuels burned near water areas.

Even if we stopped polluting the ocean, what do we need to do to restore the reefs?