Author: Walt Milowic

Climate Migration – The New Migration

Swamp Stomp

Volume 18 Issue 38

Research has shown that most people migrate for economic reasons. The search for jobs and a better way of life are what brought millions of people to the shores of the United States and we continue to admit over a million legal immigrants every year. Cultural and environmental factors also induce migration. Cultural factors can be especially compelling, forcing people to emigrate from a country. Forced international migration has historically occurred for two main cultural reasons: slavery and political instability. Today though, the reason an ever-increasing number of people are migrating is that of environmental factors – climate migration.

The International Organization for Migration (IOM) proposes the following definition for environmental migrants:

“Environmental migrants are persons or groups of persons who, for compelling reasons of sudden or progressive changes in the environment that adversely affect their lives or living conditions, are obliged to leave their habitual homes, or choose to do so, either temporarily or permanently, and who move either within their country or abroad.”

Climate change will transform more than 143 million people into “climate migrants” escaping crop failure, water scarcity, and sea-level rise, a new World Bank report concludes. Most of the changes in populations will occur in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, but it is also occurring in our own country.

Whatever the cause of climate change, be it human meddling or the natural course of events, climate change is happening, and at an accelerated rate. One factor seems to be increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. Average global temperatures have increased, sea levels around the world have increased and the amount of ice contained in the great ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica have decreased. The loss of Arctic sea ice is one of the clearest signs of climate change. The past four winters have been the lowest four maximum sea ice extents since 1979. At the same time, the region’s climate has seen temperatures increase at more than twice the rate of the rest of the world, with record-shattering seasons becoming more common.

In our own country, significant numbers of people are relocating. The increasingly hot temperatures and dwindling fresh water supplies of the southwest, the sinking coastline of the Gulf states, and the increasing number of devastating hurricanes that have plagued the south have motivated many to move to more northern locales like Seattle, Washington, and Madison, Wisconsin. People are more concerned than ever about the future of adequate water supplies, moderate weather, and comfortable temperatures to raise their families.

The decision to move to safer climates is obviously deeply personal, influenced by a person’s connection with the community they live in, their financial situation and their tolerance for risk. In the U.S., a recent study by Mathew Hauer, a demographer at the University of Georgia, estimates that 13 million people will be displaced by sea level rise alone by the year 2100. Extreme weather due to climate change displaced more than a million people from their homes last year and could reshape our nation.

Climate change is going to remap our world, changing not just how we live but where we live. As scientist Peter Gleick, co-founder of the Pacific Institute, puts it, “There is a shocking, unreported, fundamental change coming to the habitability of many parts of the planet, including the U.S.A.”

At a certain point, you have to ask: how long can New Orleans, a city already below sea level, keep pumping water out? In Miami and other cities vulnerable to sea level rise, there is much talk among architects and urban planners about sea walls and coastal barriers and floating houses. But in practice, it’s much more complex.

There are plenty of unknowns in how this will all play out, including unforeseen climate tipping points, technological innovations that help us adapt, and outbreaks of war and but at what point will we pass the tipping point and have to evacuate coastal cities and desert our “new” deserts.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/welcome-to-the-age-of-climate-migration-202221/ Welcome to the Age of Climate Migration – Rolling Stone, Jeff Goodell, February 25, 2018

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/03/climate-migrants-report-world-bank-spd/, 143 Million People May Soon Become Climate Migrants

http://www.phschool.com/atschool/ap_misc/rubenstein_cultland/pdfs/Ch3_Issue1.pdf

First there was Fracking, then came Re-fracking

Swamp Stomp

WM

Volume 18 Issue 31

Many people in the United States believe that hydraulic fracturing, better known as “fracking” is a relatively new technique used to help extract oil and gas trapped in layers far below the Earth’s surface. For the most part, they are correct. Modern fracking used in combination with horizontal drilling was only introduced in the 1990’s and with great success. But the history of fracking has a much longer and richer history that can trace its roots back to the 1860’s and the Civil War.

Back in 1862, Lt. Col. Edward A. L. Roberts, a Lieutenant Colonel of the 28th New Jersey Volunteers, had the idea of opening underground oil-bearing cracks and crevices by the introduction of explosives. He eventually received one of many patents on a device he called the “exploding torpedo”. In his process, a long, thin, iron tube packed with black powder was lowered into a borehole. It was then back-filled with water to concentrate the explosive force downwards and detonated. Production in some wells improved by more than 1200%!

Through the years this technique continued to be successfully used and improved upon with further increases in production. Then in 1947, the first use of hydraulic fracturing, the introduction of pressurized fluids, was demonstrated in an oil field in Kansas, where 1000 gallons of napalm were injected into a limestone formation. There was little increase in production at the time, but this modest beginning led to further work with different materials and techniques and within a decade, 30% increases in oil production and 90% increases in natural gas production were common.

Then, in the 1980’s, companies began experimenting with combining the fracturing process with horizontal drilling techniques and by the 90’s modern fracking began to thrive. Previously unproductive wells were now producing and new formations, up until now, mostly inaccessible, began to produce in abundance. Some of the more notable formations are the great Bakken oil shale fields of the northern US and Canada and the Marcellus and Utica formations in the East. The USGS estimated the recoverable oil in the Bakken to be 3 to 4 billion barrels and possibly up to 7.4 billion barrels of yet to be discovered oil and more than 6.7 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. In the east, a new report by the Colorado School of Mines’ Potential Gas Committee (PGC) finds the Atlantic region — which includes the Marcellus and Utica shales — has the most promising natural gas potential in the country at more than 1,047 trillion cubic feet!

So, why do we need “Re-fracking”? Re-fracking is the practice of returning to older shale oil and gas wells that had been fracked in the recent past to capitalize on newer, more effective extraction technology. Re-fracking can be effective on especially tight deposits – where the shale produces low yields – to expand their productivity and extend their life. Wells sunk as little as three years ago and fracked until yields fell too low to be worthwhile are now being re-fracked. With wells costing many millions of dollars to drill and complete, it makes sense to return to see if new technology can extend their life. Most re-fracking success has been with vertical wells but an increasing number of horizontal wells show great promise. According to an analysis by the Los Alamos National Laboratory, on average just 13% of the gas from any given US shale is recovered. The potential for re-stimulating existing wells is therefore huge.

It is believed that over 90% of existing wells have undergone some form of fracking. Though there are health and safety concerns involving fracking, it is hard to argue with the results. Because of fracking, the United States has moved from a net oil-importing country, back to a net oil-exporting country. A recent concern, at least for natural gas, is that overproduction has lowered the price of natural gas to historical lows. While good for the consumer, it is not necessarily good for the producers who have had to cap off existing new wells due to oversupply (along with the inadequate infrastructure to get the gas where it is needed most.) The fact that fracking is now such an efficient process has allowed companies to continue to make money despite the abundance of natural gas in the marketplace.

There is no doubt that fracking and re-fracking are tremendous tools that will continue to benefit our country and the companies that produce our oil and gas. At least for the present, we can’t do without them. Let us hope that in our effort to become energy independent that we are mindful of the negative effects of this technology as well, and not sacrifice the health and safety of our nation’s people or our beautiful country from which we harvest these products. Do you think the pros of fracking out way the cons? Please comment below.

Sources:

https://web.archive.org/web/20121114205741/http://www.spe.org/jpt/print/archives/2010/12/10Hydraulic.pdf Hydraulic Fracturing, History of an Enduring Technology, By Carl T. Montgomery and Michael B Smith, 2010
https://aoghs.org/technology/hydraulic-fracturing/ Shooters – A “Fracking” History, By Bruce and Kris Wells, 2016, updated in 2017

https://www.businessinsider.com/the-history-of-fracking-2015-4 The origin of fracking actually dates back to the Civil War, By John Manfreda, OilPrice.com 2015

https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/08/24/refracking-could-be-huge-if-oil-stays-lower-for-lo.aspx, Refracking Could Be Huge If Oil Stays Lower for Longer, By Matthew DiLallo, 2015

https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/full/10.1063/PT.3.3761 Refracturing may not be all it’s cracked up to be, By David Kramer, November 2017

https://www.forbes.com/sites/judeclemente/2017/09/24/why-u-s-natural-gas-prices-will-remain-low/#2775e2ed3783 Why U.S. Natural Gas Prices Will Remain Low, By Jude Clemente, 2017

https://www.energyindepth.org/infrastructure-key-marcellus-utica-shales-realizing-enormous-potential/ Infrastructure Key to Marcellus and Utica Shales Realizing Enormous Potential, By Jackie Stewart 2017

Peter Grande – Part of Nature’s Greatest Show on Earth

Swamp Stomp

Volume 18 Issue 30

If you’ve ever driven our country’s major highways, you have most likely come across a few of the world’s more interesting phenomena. Billboards the size of an Imax screen exclaim, “Come and see the world’s largest ball of yarn, the world’s tallest Tepee, (or one of my favorites), world’s largest cherry pie!” Well, not to be outdone, Mother Nature has put in a bid for a “worlds largest” recognition but you won’t see it on any billboard because it only occurs every 3-10 years on average, and even then, it’s only visible for about 24-48 hours. It’s hard to plan to advertise when you don’t know the exact arrival date, about as hard as predicting the birth of a baby.

So without further ado, Mother Nature proudly presents, “The World’s Largest Flowering Structure (inflorescence) on Earth, the Amorphophallus titanum!” AKA “The Corpse Flower” because of the smell it produces, and the less descriptive name, Titan arum. This unique plant is native to the rainforests of western Sumatra, Indonesia, on steep hillsides that are 120–365m above sea level, but it has also been successfully propagated over 570 times around the world since 1889.

The Titan Arum grows from the world’s largest known corm, sometimes weighing up to 220 lbs. (100kg). During the non-flowering years, a single leaf, the size of a small tree, shoots up from the corm. This leaf branches out into three sections with each of these sprouting more leaflets. Each year, this shooting leaf dies and a new one grows in its place. After many years, the plant finally gathers enough energy to bloom. But when it does, it goes all out, producing the largest unbranched inflorescence in the plant kingdom, ranging from 1-4m tall.

This past July the author was part of a large crowd of onlookers who were able to witness the rare bloom of “Peter Grande” at the Plant Delights Nursery, Raleigh, NC. One way of keeping track of Amorphophallus clones is to name them, hence, “Peter Grande”. Other names of specific plants include The Amazing Stinko, Carrion my Wayward Son, and Pewtunia! Who knew Botanists had such imagination?

Once the “flower” appears, a not completely understood process that includes powerful waves of olfactory-battering scents reminiscent of decaying flesh begins the process of pollination. According to the Chicago Botanic Garden’s blog, an analysis of the stench found that it consists of dimethyl trisulfide (also emitted by cooked onions and Limburger cheese), dimethyl disulfide (which has an odor like garlic), trimethylamine (found in rotting fish or ammonia), isovaleric acid (which also causes sweaty socks to stink), benzyl alcohol (a sweet floral scent found in jasmine and hyacinth), phenol (sweet and medicinal, as in Chloraseptic throat spray), and indole (like mothballs). This potpourri of chemicals is assumed to attract pollinators to the plant that they make their way down to the bottom of the inflorescence, deposit pollen on the stigmas, and then remain with the plant for about 24 hours before departing. If successfully pollinated, numerous red fruit, often called berries, are produced. Since the plant draws large amounts of energy from its corm as the seeds develop, eventually the plant dies. Should pollination not occur, the plant survives and begins the process all over again.

Mother Nature has produced a truly amazing plant, but one that is known to be vulnerable to extinction. The rainforests of Sumatra are under massive threat of deforestation, as vast areas are logged for timber and to make way for oil palm plantations. It is estimated that Indonesia has now lost around 72% of its original rainforest cover, and the scale of deforestation is continuing at an alarming rate.

We are fortunate botanists have been able to cultivate this rare species in greenhouses around the world and we owe our thanks to nurseries like Plant Delights, for helping assure that people in future generations are able to witness this wonder of nature.

Sources:

https://www.livescience.com/51947-corpse-flower-facts-about-the-smelly-plant.html Corpse Flower: Facts About the Smelly Plant, By Alina Bradford, Live Science Contributor | May 30, 2017

https://www.plantdelights.com/pages/amorphophallus-titanum-flowering July 2018

http://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:84456-1

Climate Change

Swamp Stomp

Volume 18 Issue 28

The average global temperature has been rising at an alarming rate for about two centuries now. Of course, this is not the hottest the Earth has ever been; during the time of the dinosaurs, the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere were much higher. One does have to consider though, how hot our planet can become while remaining habitable for humans.

The Industrial Revolution, beginning in the early to mid-1800s, started at a faster rate of climate change also known as Global Warming. As our global society has grown more technologically advanced, our reliance on fossil fuels has raised the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. The pre-industrial revolution CO2 level was about 280 parts per million. During the Industrial Revolution, coal began to be used as a fuel for machinery. The introduction of oil and gas later on also contributed a large number of emissions, especially in the 20th century.

Global temperature has risen a good amount within the past century especially, but global warming as a term may be misleading to some. Bringing a snowball to the Senate does not prove global warming false. Global warming leads to more extreme weather, such as an increase in the number and severity of hurricanes, and even winter storms. It also has a more gradual effect. Glaciers and ice caps are melting in warmer times of the year and at a faster rate than normal, and the colder times of year are not enough to make up for the damage. The average temperature of our oceans, which absorb much of the increased heat, have risen by about .3 degrees. Considering the fact that oceans cover over 70% of the earth’s surface, that represents an enormous amount of energy being absorbed.

In recent years, many governments have put measures into place to reduce their carbon footprints. This has helped lead to a slow-down in the rate of global warming, enough so that many people have called it a “pause”. This is incorrect because the global temperature is still increasing, albeit at a slower rate.

Around 2036, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere will reach 560 parts per million, double the Pre-Industrial Revolution level. This will cause the world to cross a climate threshold, leading to even greater environmental issues. The slow-down may give us a few more years to correct our behaviors, but only a few.

The slowdown in the rate of global warming shows us that although we may not be able to totally reverse the damage we have caused; our efforts thus far have not been in vain. Now is the time for radical changes in policy. As individuals, we can do our best at reducing our own emissions and make more environmentally sound decisions, but it can only go so far. It’s time we held governments and corporations to the same standard we hold our citizens. We need to move toward clean energy as a society, and quickly. At this point, the possibility of making Earth uninhabitable for humans is not a matter of if, but when.

Source:

Michael E. Mann, Earth Will Cross the Climate Danger Threshold by 2036, Scientific American, April 1, 2014

Global climate change – Vital Signs of the Planet, https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Holly Shaftel -editor, July 2, 2018

Goldilocks Wetlands

Swamp Stomp

Volume 18 Issue 23

Based on Kepler Space Telescope data, that there could be as many as 40 billion Earth-sized planets orbiting in the habitable zones of Sun-like stars and red dwarfs in the Milky Way, 11 billion of which may be orbiting stars like our own sun. These are the “Goldilocks Planets,” planets at just the right distance from its Sun to allow temperatures for liquid water. They would be not too hot and not too cold and could potentially allow life to evolve.

On Earth, it is not just the presence of liquid water that gives our planet Goldilocks status. Our orbit, the percentage of reflective surfaces, and the chemical composition of our atmosphere all contribute. The energy Earth receives from the Sun is in balance with the energy our planet loses to space.

In speaking of the “habitable” zone surrounding a star, the word is a bit misleading. Habitable for what? Life found on Earth? We don’t really know what a planet needs to harbor life. Worlds inhospitable to human life could be teeming with life we can’t even begin to understand. All we know is that for the kind of life that exists on Earth, liquid water is a necessity – at least intermittently. With current technology, we don’t have the capability to conclusively detect liquid water on the surface of any worlds outside our own solar system, so we use the temperature of the star and the distance of the planet’s orbit. Even though water can be liquid on the surface, various geophysical aspects, such as atmospheric pressure, radiation, and planet chemistry must be taken into account.

But distance isn’t everything. When it comes to the temperature on a planet’s surface, the atmosphere has an enormous effect. Too thick (think Venus), the planet is too hot. Too thin (think Mars), the thin atmosphere might cause the planet’s store of ice to sublime directly into water vapor, yet both of these planets are considered to be within the habitable zone of our sun.

So, are we going to eventually find swamps, marshes, bogs, fens, lagoons, vernal pools, and pocosins on Goldilocks planets? Wetlands are areas that must meet three important factors: hydric soils, wetland vegetation, and wetland hydrology. By that definition, we already have a good chance of finding two criteria, soils and hydrology. But life on another planet, well, that’s the big question.

Since wetlands tend to be on larger bodies of water because of their topography and used for water retention and filtration, we would be looking for more than just a trace of water or ice. Liquid water would have to be at least intermittently present for the chemical processes that are required to make most hydric soils. Natural ponds and wetlands most often occur as lowlands or depressions, so the surface of the Goldilocks planet must also be compatible with these landforms.

Would seasons be a requirement for soil/wetland production? Perhaps not if there was still a significant period of liquid water through a “Goldilocks” year. A “day” corresponds to one rotation of a planet. Could wetlands survive a constant sun-oriented model with no rotation at all, or a whirlwind of day and night caused by a fast rotation?

Life originated in our seas on Earth. Would it do the same on “Goldilocks” or would it be so different that life would develop directly on land? Would there be wetland plants just because we had water? Maybe water is not essential to our new “exo-plants”. Depending on the density of the atmosphere and specifics of the sun, radiation could be strong and constant. Would this affect the evolution of plant life, causing mutations, or premature death of the plants? Would trace elements not usually found on Earth affect growth or spread of plants? Would the chemical processes of life not work, or would they just be different?

When it comes to the organic component of soils, we need plants! The plants characteristic of ponds and wetlands include moisture-loving plants, some of which are totally submerged, partially submerged, float on the surface or favor the shoreline and commonly include algae, grasses, sedges, rushes, water lilies, and forbs. On Earth, plants can grow and prosper in a variety of mediums from water to cracks in rocks. It seems that if life were to evolve then plants should do well if our Earth is any type of example.

At some point, the Army Corps of Engineers might have to come up with a brand-new set of indicators for the new “Exoplanet Regional Supplement,” but at least for hydrology, (the study of water), the presence of water on a planet would naturally give us many of the same indicators like standing water, saturation, etc. Would we see moss trim lines or evidence of aquatic fauna though?

For soils, would there be redox features without free oxygen in the atmosphere? Where would we be without our F3 indicator! Since so many of our soil indicators are based on the presence of plant life in some form or another, A indicators might be problematic.

In all likelihood though, it seems as if indicators would be found on a Goldilocks planet. They may not be the same on earth, but they would do the job. Maybe a pristine exo-wetland might even help us develop new and better wetlands on Earth!

Now, if we can only keep Earth invasives like Phragmites and Reed Canary Grass out, we’d be golden.

References:

https://www.dnr.illinois.gov/education/Pages/PlantListWetland.aspx
https://sos.noaa.gov/datasets/earth-our-goldilocks-planet

https://www.coursera.org/learn/global…/the-goldilocks-planets

Cosmos 72 – Dec-Jan 2017, “‘Goldilocks’ planets might not be so nice,” issue 72, by Kate Mack https://cosmosmagazine.com/issues/parallel-worlds-science-or-sci-fi
https://www.dnr.illinois.gov/education/Pages/PlantListWetland.aspx
http://www.usace.army.mil/

NASA, Chromospheric variations in main-sequence stars, Jan. 01, 1995

E. E. Mamajek; L. A. Hillenbrand (2008). “Improved Age Estimation for Solar-Type Dwarfs Using Activity-Rotation Diagnostics”. Astrophysical Journal. 687 (2): 1264