"Some truly revolutionary scientific theories may take years or decades to win general acceptance among scientists. This is certainly true of plate tectonics, one of the most important and far-ranging geological theories of all time; when first proposed, it was ridiculed, but steadily accumulating evidence finally prompted its acceptance, with immense consequences for geology, geophysics, oceanography, and paleontology. And the man who first proposed this theory was a brilliant interdisciplinary scientist, Alfred Wegener." -The Origins of Continents and Oceans (4th edition) 




If you were a scientist during the early 1900's would you have supported Wegener and his theories. Why or why not? Explain.
 

Geologist R. Thomas Chamberlain said, "If we are to believe in Wegener's hypothesis we must forget everything which has been learned in the past 70 years and start all over again." 
 

See the links below for more information on the topic.
http://www.scientus.org/Wegener-Continental-Drift.html
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/wegener.html

Write a paragraph response to the question posed above including a quote from one of the resources provided or one of your own to use as support for your statements. Then respond in an additional paragraph to two other students. Please include your first name only and the period.

Dirt

Dirt

Dirt

How can humans “listen to nature” and bring their needs
and activities into alignment with those of nature? Are there 
ways you can be more attentive to the natural world in your
daily life? How?

Respond to the post above in a minimum of 5 sentences. Be sure to answer all parts of the question and support your answer with evidence from the video "Dirt" or another resource. Then, read and respond to two other students posts. Explain why you agree or disagree.

Please sign your FIRST NAME AND PERIOD or your comment will not be posted!

Ch 10 Blog Human Population Growth

Ch 10 Blog

Human Population Growth

The Earth's population has increased dramatically over the past century. In 1804, there were an estimated one billion people on the planet. By 1927, that number had doubled, and it doubled again in 1974. At that rate of growth, the Census Bureau estimates, the world population could reach 9.4 billion by the year 2050.
China is the world's most populous nation with about 1.32 billion men, women and children - about 20% of world population. The second largest is India, with 1.12 billion - about 17 percent of all people on Earth. India is followed by the United States, with 300 million and Indonesia, with 225 million people. Together, these four nations contain nearly half of the world's human population.
There's an obvious link between the number of people and the amount of pressure we are putting on the environment. More people require more resources to survive. That means more potential for polluting the planet's air, soil and water.
That's where we all come in. Saving the environment will require everyone's best efforts - not just those of politicians, scientists, grownups or kids acting alone.- by David George Gordon 

Check out this National Geographic Video that explains the graph belowhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sc4HxPxNrZ0 

What's Your Plan? How are you going to be a part of the solution to environmental woes? 

Posts must be a minimum of five sentences.
Please sign your first name and period only!

Earth Day is April 22! 

Click the links below for ideas!

http://www.scholastic.com/actgreen/

http://www2.scholastic.com/browse/collection.jsp?id=271

Earthquake Blog

Seismic-Safe, But at What Cost?

 


Seismic-safe buildings save lives and reduce damage. Despite these benefits, the technologies have drawbacks. Seismic-safe features, such as cross braces, may reduce the amount of usable space in a building. It is also expensive to add theses features to an existing building. Communities must make trade-offs between the benefits and the costs of seismic-safe buildings.

How do cities establish building codes and decide how much money can be spent on seismic-safe construction? Where do you think the most emphasis and funding should be focused?

For more information see the following websites:
CA Seismic Building Codes
Earthquake-building-codes-california
Build-earthquake-resistant-housing

Alfred Wegener

 Alfred Wegener

"Some truly revolutionary scientific theories may take years or decades to win general acceptance among scientists. This is certainly true of plate tectonics, one of the most important and far-ranging geological theories of all time; when first proposed, it was ridiculed, but steadily accumulating evidence finally prompted its acceptance, with immense consequences for geology, geophysics, oceanography, and paleontology. And the man who first proposed this theory was a brilliant interdisciplinary scientist, Alfred Wegener." -The Origins of Continents and Oceans (4th edition) 

If you were a scientist during the early 1900's would you have supported Wegener and his theories. Why or why not? Explain.
 

Geologist R. Thomas Chamberlain said, "If we are to believe in Wegener's hypothesis we must forget everything which has been learned in the past 70 years and start all over again." 
 

See the links below for more information on the topic.
http://www.scientus.org/Wegener-Continental-Drift.html
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/wegener.html

Write a paragraph response to the question posed above including a quote from one of the resources provided or a resource of your own to use as support for your statements. Then respond in an additional paragraph to two other students. Please include your first name only and the period.

Fracking

Fracking! A Blessing or a Curse?

Untapped natural gas reserves in the eastern U.S. could solve our nation's energy needs. "Natural gas is supposed to be the "bridge fuel." It's supposed to be the energy source that will lower the environmental impact of our global energy demands while we transition away from filthy, carbon-spewing coal and oil to our clean energy future of solar panels, wind turbines, or whatever the technology turns out to be." (Jervey, 2011) At least that's what they want you to believe.



A recent study from Cornell University reveals that emissions of carbon dioxide are less when the fuels are burned,  but when you also consider the climate impact of extracting the fuels natural gas can be as bad for the climate as either coal or gas. This is mostly because during the extraction of shale gas a pretty enormous amount of methane is released, directly into the atmosphere. Methane is a notoriously strong greenhouse gas, capturing around 20 times as much heat as carbon dioxide.

Furthermore, methane and other poisonous gases are contaminating the ground water, river systems, and drinking water supply. Laws protecting citizens like the Safe Drinking Water Act do not apply to natural gas and therefore permits continue to be given out for drilling. But at what cost to the environment and people's health.

What is more important, fueling our nation or preserving it's ecosystems and human lives? Is it possible to find a balance? If so, how?


Take a stance on the issue and support it with evidence. Respond to the question in a full five sentence paragraph and then respond to two other students each in a full paragraph as well.


Please state your first name only and period.

Resources:

CBS News Special

2001 Energy Conference

http://www.gaslandthemovie.com/whats-fracking

http://www.good.is/post/bridge-fuel-to-nowhere-natural-gas-could-be-worse-for-the-climate-than-coal/

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/natural-gas-its-not-easy-being-green/

Ch 11 Blog

Ocean Issues

 
The oceans supply us with food, help regulate our climate, and supply a livelihood for millions of people. Just as important, we depend on the oceans for recreation and renewal. But our seas are not the infinite bounty they appear to be. Today, no part of the oceans remain unaffected by human activities. And among the many factors influencing our ocean ecosystems, none has a greater impact than fishing.

Humans have been fishing the oceans for thousands of years. But over the past five decades technology has allowed us to fish farther, deeper and more efficiently than ever before. Scientists estimate that we have removed as much as 90 percent of the large predatory fish such as shark, swordfish and cod from the world's oceans. In 2003, the Pew Oceans Commission warned that the world's oceans are in a state of "silent collapse," threatening our food supply, marine economies, recreation and the natural legacy we leave our children.

Through better practices, we can create healthy, abundant oceans for everyone. Seafood Watch, a program of the Monterey Bay Aquarium, has always been about making this vision a reality. Working with consumers, fishermen, restaurants, retailers and suppliers, we've been making a difference since 1999. - Source Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch Program

Check out the Seafood Watch website http://www.montereybayaquarium.org/cr/default.aspx?c=dd 
Even better....download the app to make sure you are prepared to make good choices next time it's Sushi night!

Pocket Fish Guide

Using this information, answer the following questions:

• How many people in your household eat fish?
• If someone in your household purchases fish, where are they most likely to buy it?
  • Supermarket (name if known)
  • Fishmonger or other small supplier
  • Restaurant or takeaway
• How often do people in your household consume the following:
  • Fresh fish (from a fish counter)
  • Frozen fish
  • Tinned, pickled or preserved (e.g. smoked) fish
• Does anyone in your household eat fish from a restaurant or takeaway? If so, are they able to find out where the fish comes from/how it was caught?
• How many people in your household would you say are aware of over-fishing or of sustainable fishing?
• How many people in your household would know what symbols to look for if they wanted to buy sustainable seafood?
• Most importantly, what information would encourage shoppers to buy more sustainably?