Eunice+Kim


 * Global Warming: what causes it, why we have to embrace energy conservation, and what we can do to help. **

By: Eunice Kim

**Guiding Questions:** What is energy conservation? What are the consequences of not conserving energy over time? Why should we embrace energy conservation and fund more on alternate fuel (sustainable energy) research? What is global warming and why should we care about it? What is carbon emission and what does that have to do with global warming? What does energy conservation have to do with cutting down carbon emissions? Is the rate of global warming directly correlated to human-related activities? How can saving energy be beneficial? To what extent can energy conservation help? How much effort will it take to save the environment or our resources by a substantial amount? What can //we// do to help?

= = = Source #1 - website =

**MLA for the source****:**
"Energy Conservation." United States Environmental Protection Agency. N.p., n.d.  Web. Aug. 1997. .

** Comment about the credibility of this source: **
This is a valid website; EPA is the United States Environmental Protection Agency. It's very reliable and the information on it is legitimate. This source is relevant to my research paper because EPA publishes specific (and correct) data regards to global warming/energy conservation based on the national data. .

Take your sources out for a coffee (summary/response):

 * 1) Summary/notes:**

In this source, EPA provides variety of national data related to global warming/carbon emissions/energy conservations. The main point this site makes is that energy conservation or further research into developing energy source from renewable source is quite critical. It talks about how we must save energy because we are dependent on fossil fuel, which is a nonrenewable source. This source overall supports my argument that burning up fossil fuels for use produces greenhouses gases and increases the rate of global warming, which lead to several detrimental impacts on our environment.

According to this website, "about 71.5 percent of electricity in the U.S. is generated from nonrenewable sources", and that "most electricity in the United States is generated by burning nonrenewable fossil fuels and there is a limited amount of these energy sources".

This is the how energy is made: Oil (fossil fuel) burns to make heat --> Heat boils water --> Water turns to steam --> Steam pressure turns a turbine --> Turbine turns an electric generator --> Generator produces electricity --> Electricity powers light bulbs --> Light bulbs give off light and heat

Energy use in a household: Air conditioner and heater = 50% Water heater = 20% Lighting and small appliances = 10% Refrigerator = 8% Other = 5% Ovens and stoves = 4% Clothes dryer = 3%

Renewable sources are "energy sources that can be renewed or restored." This includes wind (wind power), water (hydropower), sun (solar), vegetation (biomass), and internal heat of the earth (geothermal). "About 9.0 percent of electricity in the U.S. is generated from renewable sources."

Consumption of nonrenewable resource negatively impacts the environment (especially fossil fuels). It contributes to polluting the water and air. One of the biggest problems we have is the carbon dioxide emission from burning up gas as the energy source for the car. Carbon dioxide is one of the common greenhouse gases that contribute to increasing the rate of global warming. According to this article, "it is possible that this warming trend could significantly alter our weather."

Some negative impacts of global warming include:
 * threat to human health
 * environmental impacts (such as rising sea levels that can damage coastal areas, major changes in vegetation growth that causes some species of plants/animals to become extinct)
 * acid rain
 * changing the normal climate

Not only that, "sulfur dioxide is also emitted into the air when coal is burned. The sulfur dioxide reacts with water and oxygen in the clouds to form precipitation known as "acid rain." Acid rain can kill fish and trees and damage limestone buildings and statues."

With the help of energy conservation, we can cut down on some greenhouse gas emissions, as well as our monthly utility bill. According to this article, "in the U.S., the average family's energy use generates over 11,200 pounds of air pollutants each year. Therefore, every unit (or kilowatt) of electricity conserved reduces the environmental impact of energy use."

According to this article, the following are some ways we can conserve energy:
 * Walk, ride a bicycle, or use mass transit instead of driving; automobile emissions account for about 60 percent of air pollution
 * Install compact fluorescent light bulbs that use less energy and last 10 times longer than incandescent light bulbs
 * Air-dry your clothes on a laundry line instead of using a clothes dryer
 * Install a programmable thermostat that automatically adjusts the temperature when you are in bed or away.
 * Buy energy-efficient appliances. There are standard energy use tags attached to most new appliances that can help you determine which appliance will be the most efficient. These appliances may be more costly, but your utility bill savings will quickly make up for the extra cost.
 * Set the thermostat to 68 °F in winter when you're home and down to 55° F when you go to bed or are away (programmable thermostats can do this automatically).
 * Insulate the ceiling, walls, and floor of your home.
 * Plant a tree next to a window for shade to reduce the need for air conditioning.
 * Recycle items such as newspaper, aluminum cans, and plastic bottles; recycling these items requires less energy than producing them from brand new, raw materials.
 * Wash clothes in cold water and only in full loads.
 * Use energy-saving settings on washing machines, dishwashers, and clothes dryers.
 * Turn down the water heater thermostat to 120° F.
 * Turn off lights when leaving a room
 * Close heating vents and close doors to unused rooms.
 * Close drapes and windows during sunny summer days and after sunset in cooler weather.
 * Stop air leaks around windows and doors with caulk or weather stripping. Air leaks can rob your house of heat in the winter or make it too humid in the summer. As much as 40 percent of your heating and cooling costs can be due to air leaks.
 * Clean or change air filters on your air heating system in the winter and on air conditioning units in the summer so that they work more efficiently.
 * Share knowledge and ideas with family, friends, and neighbors.


 * 2) My response to this source/why this source is useful:**

I agree with many points made in this article. Most of these points support my argument that the rate of global warming is induced by human-related activities. I also acknowledge that part of global warming occurs naturally by carbon dioxide and methane in the water vapor, but the sharp increase in the rate of global warming in the last few decades is mainly due to increased human-related activities and urbanization like how this article talked about.

This article is very useful for my research because supports the argument presented in my paper and persuades the audience to convey energy conservation. I certainly agree with the argument of this paper. It helped me gain more knowledge about the ways of conserving energy, and concisely provided me some information about a few other gases that contribute to greenhouse effect. I was able to obtain some valid data from this article as well. After reading this article, I feel the need to research further on what other gases contribute to it.

= Source #2 - scholarly article =

**MLA for the source:**
Solomon, S., et al. "Persistence of climate changes due to a range of greenhouse  gases." PubMed. National Center for Biotechnology Information, 5 May 2010.  Web. 25 Oct. 2010. .

**Comment about the credibility of the source:**
This scientific research paper/article was written by professionals in this topic (Chemical Sciences Division in the Earth Systems Research Laboratory) by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Boulder, Colorado. Therefore, this is a scholarly article. This source is a very valid source because it presents through research done over the course of several years and the was peer-reviewed and edited by several scientists with the same background; this was the actual scientific research paper. The targeted audience were the scientists and other professionals with a heavy background on this topic.

**Take your sources out for a coffee (summary/response):**

 * 1) Summary/notes:**

//Due to the heavy scientific background of this source, I tried my best to avoid/convert/explain the scientific terminologies to the best of my knowledge.//

In essence, this article examines the increased rate of global warming due to non-CO2 greenhouse gases and the relationship between the concentration of the gas concentration and the persistence of the warming, and how this is dependent on the climate system. This study shows that the persistence of the warming depends not just on the decay of a given greenhouse gas concentration but also on the climate system behavior, particularly the timescales of heat transfer linked to the ocean. They hypothesize what might happen if all the emissions were to suddenly stop & how they might remove the remaining CO2 from the atmosphere.

According to this article, carbon dioxide "displays an exceptional persistence that renders its warming nearly irreversible for more than 1,000 years". Some non-CO2 greenhouse gases are actually reversible at a very slow rate via series of chemical reactions in the atmosphere. However, these non-CO2 gases strangely "persist notably longer than the anthropogenic changes in the greenhouse gas concentrations themselves." Surprisingly, I found out that aerosol emissions also participate in greenhouse effect.

This study shows that for the common (and more well known) greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide and methane, both show "nonlinear optical absorption effects" which plays significant role in prolonging the warming. It shows that the "factors that slow temperature increase during periods of increasing concentration (of greenhouse gases) also slow the loss of energy from the Earth’s climate system if radiative forcing is reduced."

It concludes that "approaches to climate change mitigation options through reduction of greenhouse gas or aerosol emissions therefore should not be expected to decrease climate change impacts as rapidly as the gas or aerosol lifetime, even for short-lived species; such actions can have their greatest effect if undertaken soon enough to avoid transfer of heat to the deep ocean." It suggests that a mitigation policy to reduce the emissions is a necessary to alleviate the rate of global warming.

This article presents us with a concise (yet very useful) information about global warming and the factors that played in increasing the rate of it. Some other good key points that could be useful for my research paper:
 * Carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and other greenhouse gases increased over the course of the 20th century due to human activities. The human-caused increases in these gases are the primary forcing that accounts for much of the global warming of the past fifty years, with carbon dioxide being the most important single radiative forcing agent. Recent studies have shown that the human-caused warming linked to carbon dioxide is nearly irreversible for more than 1,000 years, even if emissions of the gas were to cease entirely.
 * The importance of the ocean in taking up heat and slowing the response of the climate system to radiative forcing changes plays a key role in the ocean’s thermal lag.
 * Climate changes caused by transient volcanic aerosol loading persist for more than 5 years, and a portion can be expected to last more than a century in the ocean which clearly shows that these persist far longer than the radiative forcing decay timescale of about 12–18 mo for the volcanic aerosol. Thus the observed climate response to volcanic events suggests that some persistence of climate change should be expected even for quite short-lived radiative forcing perturbations. Climate changes induced by short-lived anthropogenic greenhouse gases such as methane or hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) may not decrease with decreases in concentration if the anthropogenic emissions of those gases were to be eliminated.
 * In the absence of mitigation policy, concentrations of the three major greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide can be expected to increase in this century. About 20% of the emitted anthropogenic carbon remains in the atmosphere for many thousands of years, until much slower weathering processes affect the carbonate balance in the ocean even if the emission were to stop.
 * The removal processes of other anthropogenic gases including methane and nitrous oxide are much more simply described by exponential decay, due mainly to known chemical reactions in the atmosphere.
 * Emissions of key non-CO2 greenhouse gases such as CH4 or N2O could lead to warming that both temporarily exceeds a given stabilization target and remains present longer than the gas lifetimes even if emissions were to cease. Various recent study shows that the reductions of non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions are an approach that can reverse some past climate changes.
 * An accurate assessment of the benefits of greenhouse gas mitigation options requires consideration of climate change impacts of these compounds, including not only their magnitude but also their persistence. Ocean heat transport and its response to climate change is crucial to evaluation of the speed with which near-term warming would abate if emissions of various gases were to be reduced, including methane, nitrous oxide, and various hydrofluorocarbons; the same considerations apply to absorbing aerosols including black carbon


 * 2) My responses/why this source is useful:**

I didn't have much background knowledge on what might happen if the CO2 emissions were to suddenly stop until I read this paper. After reading this source, I kind of get the sense of what may happen, but I'm still not so clear on the process of global warming/greenhouse effects mainly because of the heavy scientific language used in this paper. I think I need to do more research on it. However, this paper completely supports my argument that a policy they call "mitigation policy" is necessary to avoid further catastrophic consequences from the effects of global warming.

This source is useful for my paper because it shows what might happen if the CO2 emission were to suddenly stop. It shows that it would still take thousands of years to remove the remaining CO2 emission and reductions of non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions is necessary to reverse the climate changes (hypothetically). It also calls for an action on a mitigation policy to reduce the carbon emissions (both CO2 and non-CO2 greenhouse gases). My argument calling for an action against the carbon emissions is readily supported through this study. After reading this article, I was able to learn more about what caused the increased rate of global warming over a course of several decades, and what other greenhouse gases (non-CO2) contribute to global warming. However, I realize that I need work on cutting down on all these heavily scientific terminologies/details that can be confusing.

= Source #3 - book =

**Comment about the credibility/validity of this source:**
This book was published by the American Solar Energy Society (ASES) in 2007. This is a very credible source because all the articles in this book were written by scientists/professors/doctors in this major background. It was published in 2007, so the information/data in this book are still valid.

**Take your sources out for a coffee (summary/response):**

 * 1) Summary/notes:**

The main purpose of this book is to convey the readers (specifically scholars in this specific background) that the problem of global warming is extremely serious and that the burning of fossil fuel is the primary cause of this, and there is little time left to act to prevent the most catastrophic consequences that follows global warming; therefore we must engage in energy conservation and R&D in innovating a reliable renewable source. It provides how energy efficiency and renewable energy can be applied to relieve global warming.

__//Due to the massive length of this book, I've just summarized it into a few key points://__

According to this book, the industrialized countries must reduce emissions by ~60-80% below today's value by 2050 to achieve worldwide carbon reductions.

The largest energy consumption (therefore leading into increased emissions) are from buildings, vehicles, and industries. According to this book, improvements in these areas can lead to significant energy reduction:

Key quote - "Energy efficiency improvements in buildings result from better building envelope design, daylighting, more efficient artificial lighting, and better efficiency standards for building components and appliances [...] the building sector will provide ~40% of energy savings. Improvements in transportation result from lighter-weight vehicles, public transit, improved aerodynamics, and more efficient propulsion systems [...] this will save ~30% of energy. [Lastly], energy reductions in industry accrue from heat recovery, more efficient motors and drives, and the use of cogeneration (also called combined heat and power or CHP) systems that provide both heat and electricity[...] this will save ~30% energy. Electricity savings resulted from efficiency improvements in the buildings and industry sectors. Natural gas savings accrued from more efficient industrial process heat and space water heating in the buildings. Oil savings came mostly from transportation improvements such as lighter-weight vehicles, improved aerodynamics, and better propulsion systems."

__//The basic content of the entire book is mostly based on the outline below. Each chapter is a detailed scientific research/study with various data to support on these methods listed above, and the authors for each chapter vary.//__

There are many ways to promote energy efficiency. The following is the list of the methods (and an outline of the book) and short description on //to what extent// they will help according to each research (please note that "MtC/yr" is the unit used for "metric tons of carbon emissions per year"):

1) **Buildings** - revised market transformation policies; can save up to ~40% energy; can reduce up to ~275 MtC/yr 2) **Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles** - can reduce up to ~42% of carbon emissions from U.S.; can cut down on carbon emission by ~205 MtC/yr 3) **Solar Power** - can cut down on carbon emission by ~48 - 78 MtC/yr 4) **Photovoltaics (PV)** - can cut down on carbon emission by ~48 - 78 MtC/yr 5) **Wind Power** - can cut down on carbon emission by ~138 - 224 MtC/yr 6) **Biomass** - can cut down on carbon emission by ~ 139 - 225 MtC/yr 7) **Biofuels** - can cut down on carbon emission by ~ 70 MtC/yr 8) **Geothermal Energy** - can cut down on carbon emission by ~63 - 103 MtC/yr

According to the data provided, we can cut down on the carbon emissions by 635 - 740 MtC/yr (metric tons of carbon per year), with an average of 688 MtC/yr.


 * 2) My response/why this source is useful:**

I completely agree with all the arguments presented in this book, especially the argument about how the federal government should invest more money on research and development. What I want to know more about after reading this book is what can we do in our everyday lives to help cutting down emissions.

I find this source extremely helpful for my research paper because it goes deeper into the subject talked about in Source #4 (below) and gives me various studies done by these professionals in the ASES to support the claim that these methods can actually help us cut down carbon emissions. It shows me what kind of renewable energy/methods are currently used (and how they work) and also supports my argument that the federal government should invest more money on R&D. It also gives me an approximate range on to what extent these methods can help, and provides useful data and details to argue for my point in my research paper.

= Source #4 - popular article =

**MLA for the source**:
KAMMEN, DANIEL M., and Daniel M. Kammen. "The Rise of Renewable Energy." //Scientific American // 295.3 (2006): 84-93. //Academic Search Premier //. EBSCO. Web. 27 Oct. 2010. <[] >

**Summary/why this article is useful:**
This article is from //Scientific American//, which is a well known popular article. Therefore, some validity/credibility of this article is potentially questionable.

This article talks about the benefits of innovating renewable energy source. According to this article, the idea of renewable energy has been around more than 3 decades ago; however, not many people were interested or willing to support further research in this area of research because the concept of global warming was not very ubiquitous public knowledge. As rapid urbanization took place in the last few decades, global warming has become an alarming popular issue, and the demand and interest for alternative fuels such as the use of solar cells, bio-fuels, and wind turbines (to name a few) have increased. This article talks about how the U.S. must invest more spendings on research and develop to innovate a successful alternative fuel for our future.

This source is going to be very helpful in my research paper because it informs me about the ways of promoting a renewable energy source and why they are important for our future. I learned about various types of renewable energy we currently have (such as solar, wind, green fuels, etc), and how much energy we can save each day (therefore, how much carbon emission we can cut down) with a reliable renewable source. However, since we currently do not have a stable alternative energy source, the U.S. federal government need to spend more money on R&D (research and development) and innovate further on alternative fuel.

= Source #5 - blog =

**MLA for the source:**

 * CJ. "Re: Back to the Basics: National Geographic's Global Warming 101." **
 *  Global Warming Awareness Blog. Ed. Benj Arriola. N.p., 12 May 2010. Web. **
 *  1 Nov. 2010.  back-to-the-basics-national-geographics-global-warming-101.html#more-98>. **


 * Summary/helpful or not helpful: **

This was a comment I found on a blog called "Global Warming Awareness Blog". It is definitely not a reliable source because it is a blog and people without much knowledge about this topic can just go and write stuff on it. This wasn't a helpful source. Many of the information people wrote were incorrect and heavily opinion-based.

I found a good example of why this blog isn't a good source:

The author of this comment (who give his nickname as "CJ") talks about how he // thinks // that global warming is not caused by man-made carbon dioxide emissions. While I do respect his opinions, his assertions were merely incorrect and invalid. He is definitely not a credible author (more like a random guy with little or no background in this subject of matter). Also, his level of seriousness taken into this comment can be questioned by looking at the constant grammatical/spelling error he makes in his comment.

Here's a short glimpse of what "CJ" says:

<span style="color: #333333; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS',Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 21px;">"...the sun is the single most important factor that drives climate change, in addition the most important greenhouse gas is water vapour (99%), the rest is other gasses, CO2 is munite in the percentage of greenhouse gas, I’m talking about in the 0.000- single digits. On top of that, if you look at the ice core surveys done, you will see that the earth’s climate has been alot warmer than it is today".

Clearly, he believes (for some reason that is not specified) that global warming is not caused (or the rate of it is not increased) by human related activities. This is not a valid argument for many reasons; but at most, the reason why this is a not a valid argument is because he 1) is not a professional in this area of study, and 2) doesn't have any valid sources to back up this claim.