The Pros And Cons Of Climate Change

Throughout history, humans have modified their environment for a multitude of reasons such as housing, agriculture, and industry, but we are now seeing major changes at a scale not witnessed before. The greenhouse effect has run rampant through man’s use of fossil fuels and is causing major changes to the planet, many unseen by those living in places like the continental United States. Human overuse of dirty energies that produce CO2 has led to shrinking Arctic ice and warmer temperatures that have caused disruption for the animals and people who live there. Glaciers are melting, the ice sheet is melting, breeding seasons are changing, and people and animals are being displaced (Greene et. al., 2008). Certain aspects have been beneficial to

In 1979, when climate change was first truly being studied, there were different reports published, one by scientists and one by economists, that showed two contrasting conclusions: The scientists said that the accumulating CO2 was the problem, and the economists disagreed claiming, “we should wait and see.” Some politicians then decided to only use the study done by the economists to influence policy towards a more economically rewarding route, no matter the consequences stated by the scientists (Oreskes and Conway, 2010). To this day, people have used similar tactics to drive the forces behind climate denial, with most reports coming from scientists with heavy ties to the fossil fuel industry that obscure their objectivity. But the truth is, climate change is happening, and it is taking a great toll on our environment, especially in the arctic region, where habitats are at their most vulnerable. It is possible that sometime before the next century, the Arctic Ocean could become entirely ice free during the summer months. A recent study showed the connection between CO2 emissions and the rate at which the sea ice disappears (Notz and Stroeve

“Within a species, timing of breeding was positively correlated between the two colonies, suggesting that factors affecting the phenology of these species operated at a regional rather than a colony scale (Wanless et. al. pg. 274, 2009).” This study agrees with the one done D’Alba, Nager, and Monaghan in that climate change is changing the breeding seasons to become earlier, in accordance to the higher temperatures in late winter and spring. This research adds on well to the previous study because it not only has a longer time span, but also uses multiple species and colonies. There was also shown to be correlation between certain species’ breeding success and the availability of phytoplankton and certain species of fish. This study concluded that phenology was affected at a regional level rather than at that of a single colony, along with the fact that some species showed no change, some bred later, and others bred sooner. There was also no real reason discovered for the fact that certain species bred later given that the peaks in plankton appeared earlier. “Nevertheless, these contrasting trends highlight the increasing risk of trophic mismatch with potentially serious consequences for seabird populations and ecosystem functioning in coastal areas (Wanless et. al. pg. 283,