Polar vortex: winter is coming (but the planet is still warming)

TERRAIN: Factory foods cost more than just the calories

Depending on how intensely you were focusing on the chicken pesto pizza last time you waited in line in Thorne, you may have noticed the informative cards that were recently posted alongside some of the dining options. These signs state the “carbon footprint” of one serving of a given dish.
At dinner last week, a friend expressed mild annoyance at the cards. If something she really wanted to eat was on the menu that night, she said, it was unlikely that knowledge of the dish’s carbon footprint, however high, would affect her decision to eat it. Conversations about the environmental impact of food are often touchy, and I’m sure that many of our peers would agree with her statement.
A carbon footprint is the measure of how much carbon dioxidemust be released into the atmosphere in order to bring a particular product to the consumer, who can then eat it, wear it, or play Candy Crush on it. These footprints have become a concern because mass consumption of carbon-intensive products contributes directly to global climate change.

TERRAIN: Dangers of the KXL pipeline: why tar sands oil is not the answer

Three weeks ago, as the rest of campus was bracing for midterms, seven Bowdoin students were arrested after participating in a planned student protest in Washington, D.C. against the contentious Keystone XL pipeline. The pipeline, which would transport tar sands oil from Alberta, Canada to the U.S. Gulf Coast for shipment, has been adopted as a rallying point for many environmental activists.
What is tar sands oil, exactly? It’s an unconventional form of oil, meaning it’s not extracted using the conventional oil well technique. Tar sands contain a heavy, viscous type of petroleum called bitumen. This substance, which has the consistency of cold molasses, is found in sandstones from which the tar sands get their name. In order for crude bitumen to be transported and processed into other products like gasoline and diesel, it must first be “upgraded,” or purified, so that it can flow through a pipeline. Upgrading the bitumen to be transported takes energy and makes it one of the most carbon-intensive fossil fuels.
Because of tar sands oil’s oversized carbon footprint, the debate over the Keystone XL pipeline, and over tar sands oil more generally, is a fairly high-stakes one. Put plainly, the tar sands oil matters, both in its own right and as a harbinger of the future of energy policy in the United States.
Leaving politics aside, our nation’s decisions about tar sands oil will directly impact the climate. Because of the refinement process, tar sands oil creates far more carbon dioxide per barrel than conventional oil. On a scale from clean to dirty, tar sands oil falls somewhere between conventional oil (not impressive) and coal (public enemy #1). This decision will also carry significant political weight. Debate surrounding the pipeline is ongoing, and anti-Keystone activists have leveraged President Obama’s promises regarding climate change policy against him.
They insist—quite possibly rightly—that his decision about the pipeline will ultimately determine his legacy on curbing climate change, and that a decision to allow the pipeline’s construction flies in the face of his promises. The president’s indecisiveness on Keystone XL especially stings considering that his election was largely underwritten by the youth vote, a group to which many anti-tar sands activists belong. I’d imagine that most of the kids protesting on Obama’s front lawn earlier this month probably voted for him.
Proponents of renewable energy fear that a large newfound source of fossil fuels, even an unconventional one like the tar sands, will sound the death knell for any hope of serious investment in renewable energy in the coming decades. According to most climate scientists, we don’t have that kind of time to twiddle our thumbs. Many people hope that a technological “silver bullet” will save the human race from climate change without requiring any major lifestyle, consumption, or infrastructure changes. I can assure you that opening the Pandora’s Box that is the Alberta tar sands will not bring us any closer to achieving this goal.
So, what could possibly have compelled over 1,000 students to come knocking on President Obama’s door earlier this March? Many anti-tar sands activists hope that, since the tar sands oil must almost certainly be transported by pipeline (rather than by rail) in order to be profitable, halting the construction of Keystone XL may prevent the tar sands oil from being brought to market, and possibly prevent further exploration of tar sands oil in the future. They hope that by protesting publicly and making their voices heard, they will be able to make people listen in Washington and beyond.
It might seem a little crazy to those of us not raised in an era of widespread activism, but this is the reality of the American political process. For those of us without Koch Brothers-level money, these are the types of actions available to us. Write or call your congressperson. Vote. If you’ve got a lot of free time (and maybe some of that money), run for office. And, if you realize that you really care about something, don’t be afraid to take it to the streets. I’m proud of our student protesters for making a big statement, and I hope that everyone can someday feel passionately enough about something to do the same.

TERRAIN

Polar vortex: winter is coming (but the planet is still warming)

This piece represents the opinion of the author:

February 20, 2014

If you regularly check any news outlets or have an overprotective mother, you’ve probably heard of the polar vortex. It sounds like something straight out of a B-horror movie and it’s been making life miserable for people all over North America this winter, so the media circus surrounding it doesn’t come as a surprise.

So what is it, exactly? The polar vortex—basically just an air current that flows around the pole—is always there, but we only hear about it on the news when it’s acting wonky in a way that negatively affects us. The polar vortex goes through phases and has two extreme states, which represent the ends of a continuum known as the Arctic Oscillation (AO).

The descent of the polar vortex into North America this winter can be partially blamed on a negative phase of the AO. During negative phases, the polar jet stream current that wraps around the northern hemisphere gets weaker, allowing cold air to escape from the Arctic and bring freezing weather down to lower latitudes.

Conversely, during the positive phase of the AO, the strong polar jet stream current acts as a physical block that keeps cold air locked up in the polar region. This allows for warmer winters south of the poles. The AO also affects the extent of sea ice in the Arctic—our current negative phase is presumed to be contributing to the recent record lows in Arctic sea ice coverage.

During negative phases of the AO, the polar jet stream typically moves further south. This year, it’s only been slightly negative and hasn’t moved drastically southward, but rather has begun to dip up and down like a roller coaster. That’s why this winter brought extreme cold weather to the lower 48 states while Alaska, Russia and Europe were spared: unlike them, we happened to be trapped under a little trough of the polar jet stream current.

So if this is just a phase, you might ask if we should just wait it out until the cold passes, burn our winter coats, and skip merrily off into an eternal summer? That attitude is exaggerated, but isn’t completely unreasonable: during positive AO phases, like the one that lasted from the 1970s to the mid-1990s, winters in the eastern U.S. are warmer than average. We still experience winters during those phases, however, so don’t throw out those Bean Boots any time soon.

Need another reason to hold onto your ugly sweaters? Ongoing research hints at the possibility that, thanks to anthropogenic climate change, newly warming Arctic air masses could alter air circulation patterns and permanently weaken the polar jet stream. This would make extremely cold winters common in North America and Europe, much like the harsher conditions of a negative phase of the AO. New research from NOAA indicates that this year’s jet stream current was weak enough to allow the polar vortex to break apart into little mini-vortexes, one of which meandered southward and brought -40°F temperatures to the Midwestern United States.

According to NOAA’s records, this pattern of polar vortex breakup has occurred much more frequently in recent years than it did before the 90s. This discovery has led some researchers to suspect that climate change might be ushering in a new era of super-cold winters, ones that even a giant ice wall probably couldn’t keep out—although we’ll be spared White Walkers.

So next time someone asks you how global warming could possibly be happening if it’s so cold outside, just tell them: the earth is still warming, but winter is coming.

Comments are permanently closed.