Quote sandwich practice

In my opinion New York isn't prepared for sea level rise because we are not acting proactively regarding global warming because as sea level rises, the risk of flooding and other disasters rise as well. On the article "New York is lagging as sea and risk rise, critics warn" Mireya Navarro said "The waters on the city’s doorstep have been rising roughly an inch a decade over the last century as oceans have warmed and expanded. But according to scientists advising the city, that rate is accelerating" (Navarro).This is sadly true because there is abundant  evidence to prove it.this acceleration is due to the rising in CO2 levels the we are irresponsibly dumping in our atmosphere and so on. I think New York has to be aware that the sea level will keep rising indefinitely  if we don't act fast. I believe that New York has the resources needed to prevent most of the damage that this atrocity will cause. However the city just decide to look the other way in my opinion because it will require a lot of work to prevent the damage that sea level rise might cause.

Peer review.

Hello I am Julien and today i experienced my first peer review in my ENG 101 class.They reviewed  my draft of the letter for mayor de Blasio about global warming, here is what they had to say about it. They told me that I'm on a good path overall, that the information that I used was precise. However they told me that i need to work on my thesis that it was lacking information. Also that i need to use information from the book since i mentioned the book by name in the introduction but failed to mention anything from the book. They also gave me more sources of where to get information about this matter. I'm going to rewrite the paper entirely keeping in mind the feedback that my peers gave me which I thought were pretty good. At the moment I don't have any major concerns about the assignment. I think that with the feedback that I obtained today I'll be able to write a neat letter for mayor de Blasio.

A contrast.

Hello everyone I'm Julien, and today i will be comparing two graphs from "The Climate Casino" a book written by William Nordhaus. I'm doing this because summarizing visual information is important and it involves something called quantitative reasoning, a skill required for my English class.

 I will be tackling the graphs talking about Greenland and its ice sheet.On page 52 we can see figure 10 a graph telling us the historical temperature estimated for Greenland. This graph is to illustrate us the equilibrium that the Greenland has maintained for the last 7,000 years. The graph is represented on the bottom by 5 units, each unit representing 10 thousand years, and on the top left side it shows the temperature, the line in the middle that goes across the graph, shows the imbalance of the temperature for more than 40,000 years, and over the last 7,000 years the fluctuation is minimum.

The other graph I'm going to write about is the graph located on page 62, this graph shows the tipping point for the Greenland ice sheet. This figure shows the response of the Greenland ice sheet to different locations. On the bottom side of the graph we can see 11 units going from 0 to 10, each unit representing a change in temperature. On the left side of the graph we can see the "Volume (% present)", this side has 6 units each representing 20 % starting from 0. On the middle of the graph we can see a line that starts at 100% located at the top of the graph going from left to right, this means that every time the temperature rises volume of the ice sheet decreases gradually, but it reaches its tipping point, the point where melting is irreversible, at 6 C global temperature rise, this means that the ice sheet will melt in just a matter of time regardless of what we do. This will contribute to the sea level rise because we talked in class before that when ice sheets start to melt the sea level rises. 

Blog Assignment #1

    Hello everyone I'm Julien Gutierrez, a student intrigued and worried  by the uncertainty of our planet. In this blog I'm gonna write about the most relevant points of the article posted in "The New York Times" called "New York is lagging as seas and risks rise, critics warn". I will also React to a comment of my choice from the " Reader's Picks". I'm doing this because it is my first  blog assignment, and because a glance at reality from time to time only helps.

     This article is about the precautions that we're taking to prevent the damage from future hurricanes/storms. The article starts off by saying that, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg is doing extensive research on the phenomenon that is climate change. However, critics say that New York is still not prepared for potential floods that could happen in the future and hinder transportation, low income districts, and deprive a vast amount of people of their homes. "They lack a sense of urgency about this" said Douglas Hill, an engineer with the storm surge research group. Officials in New York say that adapting a city of 8 million people is an issue of great complexity. "It's a million of small changes that need to happen" said Adam Freed, until august the deputy director of the city’s Office of Long-Term Planning and Sustainability. He also said that “you can’t make a climate-proof city.”  New York has nearly 200,000 citizens living less than four feet above high tide according to the research group climate central. What does this mean?, this means that all these people are at risk if we don't act accordingly. These  people may lose their homes or even their lives due to floods that may occur since they're less than four feet above high tide. And we all know that sea level is rising due to global warming. This will eventually worsen the situation. A 2004 study by Mr. Hill a the storm research group at stony brook suggested installing barriers at certain points of the city. Closing these barriers during hurricanes would prevent floods caused by immense tides. City officials say that they're considering this idea, but others claim that this could interfere with aquatic ecosystem and that the barriers may eventually become obsolete in the future since the sea level is rising. Also the cost of these barriers could reach 10 billion. 

      In the comments section of this article i found one comment particularly interesting written by Jim Gordon, he wrote that our best choice is to transition into clean and renewable energy. Also that building those walls is a mistake, not only because the cost is just ridiculous, but also because it will only pollute more the environment. I strongly agree with Jim, I believe that the only way to get out if this mess is by trying to pollute less or maybe even not pollute at all the environment. We need to eradicate our current sources of energy and move to a new clean one, one that doesn't affect our environment. And we need to do everything we can do to prevent the officials of New York from building those walls. it will be a waste of money, and it will hurt our planet even more. it's like we're fighting fire with fire. 

"A tale of two lakes"

William Nordhaus, in his book "Climate casino"  on chapter 2 "A tale of two lakes", wrote a  sentence that really caught my attention."We humans control the future of our planet". He is basically saying that, our actions have a major impact on the planet.The impact could be good or bad, it depends on the action. I strongly agree with this because, of the two lakes he contrasted in this same chapter, one that was left intact ls now the home of many organisms, and the other lake located in the Aral sea in central Asia, once the fourth largest lake of the world, has shrunk over the years because the USSR (The Soviet union) diverted the course of the waters. Now the lake is slowly decaying and we're doing nothing whatsoever to prevent the lake from vanishing because we all have our "own problems", not realizing that, this problem will affect us all in the future if we continue to ignore these kind of problems, because if we keep doing what we're doing, it's not only this lake that will vanish,  maybe this behavior of "ignoring" what doesn't affect us directly will  become a habit of the human race,hence, contributing to the deterioration of our planet.