# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Choose Your AdventureWelcome to the Outdoors section of Exploration Junkie! Exploration often implies various outdoor activities and sports - on land, in the water, or in the air. And of course, it's also a lot of fun. Develop your outdoor skills now and take your outside experiences to a whole new level!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How do you feel about keeping animals in zoos? Read both sides of the argument to help you decide.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This piece is a response to "The Modern Zoo" from the May 2008 issue of Teen Ink. I volunteer at the Cleveland Metroparks Zoo and have gotten to know its keepers, veterinary staff, and other workers. According to the writer of "The Modern Zoo," staff torture animals, do not provide adequate living space, and keep the animals merely to entertain. In my three years of volunteering, I have never seen, nor had any reason to suspect, any foul play at my zoo. The allegations in "The Modern Zoo" that all zoos are inhumane and cruel is false, I believe.

According to the article in Teen Ink, "Zoos claim to educate visitors. Yet we've all seen the one-sentence signs that describe monkeys. What can be learned from this? Certainly not enough to justify inhumane captivity." One-sentence signs are not the end of zoos' efforts to educate. At my zoo an entire department is devoted to educating the public about conservation of animals and our planet. If zoos didn't care about education, why would they have this? While exhibits may display signs with brief information, staff work daily at the zoo to educate visitors about conservation and other critical topics.

Some zoo employees visit schools and businesses to educate the public about how to be more responsible with our environment. This department even organizes conservation projects around Ohio, such as the community effort to remove waste from Big Creek. Volunteers spent a day restoring the creek to a more healthy ecosystem. The zoo is also part of a national conservation campaign called Year of the Frog, dedicated to saving amphibian species from extinction. Zoos put forth tremendous effort to educate people, and to say that they do not is just not true in my experience.

"Zoo animals endure inadequate living conditions with no space," claims the article. It's not fair to make this generalization. My own zoo, for example, is planning a one-of-a-kind, spacious exhibit for its elephants. The exhibit encompasses many acres, and will be large enough to support a breeding population. If zoos didn't care about adequate space for their animals, why would they waste time raising millions of dollars to build this type of exhibit? Also, my zoo cares a lot for its animals; it houses the second oldest hippo in North America and its polar bears are twice the age of those in the wild.

I witnessed a life-saving surgery on a 13-year-old wolf. Veterinarians worked for two hours to save his life. Thirteen is very old for a wolf. Zoos do care for their animals, and do what they can to keep them strong and healthy.

"These animals are simply meant to entertain," claims "The Modern Zoo." That too is false. At the Cleveland Metroparks Zoo, animals are never forced to do anything for the sake of visitors' entertainment. We believe in positive animal/ human interaction. Zoo staff never force or coerce an animal due to this policy.

The author of "The Modern Zoo" is obviously very passionate in his opinion about zoos. I am also very passionate. I have not written this to personally attack him. Rather, I am simply stating facts. "The Modern Zoo" paints zoos as cruel, inhumane facilities, but it is both unfair and untrue to claim this about all of them. Many have state-of-the-art veterinary facilities and work hard to save endangered species.

I hope that readers will see that zoos seek to protect and save endangered species, as well as educate and encourage the public to do the same.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This piece is a response to "The Modern Zoo" from the May 2008 issue of Teen Ink. I volunteer at the Cleveland Metroparks Zoo and have gotten to know its keepers, veterinary staff, and other workers. According to the writer of "The Modern Zoo," staff torture animals, do not provide adequate living space, and keep the animals merely to entertain.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Have you ever been to a zoo? There are lots of zoos. Some take better care of animals than others, but no zoo can make animals feel like they are at home.

Some people think it's OK to keep animals in zoos; others say that it's wrong to take animals from their homes in the wild.
A zoo supporter might say

"The zoo is a great place to learn about animals."

"If kids don't see animals up close like they do at the zoo, they won't like them, appreciate them or want to help them."

"Zoos help animals make babies (called "breeding") so they won't become extinct."

"Zoos take good care of animals. When animals get hurt or sick, an animal doctor called a vet makes them better straight away. In the wild, sick animals would die."

"Animals are safe in zoos. They won't starve or be killed by other animals."

A person who thinks it's not fair to keep animals in zoos might say

"Zoos don't teach us much about animals because the animals there don't act the way they would in the forest, jungle or ocean, where they belong. We can learn more about animals by reading books or watching wildlife programmes on TV."

"Zoos that help animals breed just keep the babies or sell them. If they cared about stopping animals from becoming extinct, they would set the babies free in the wild."

"Animals are not happy in zoos. They want to be free to walk, run, fly, climb, hunt and have families. They don't want their babies to be taken away from them and put in a different cage or sold to a different zoo. They get angry and frustrated because they cannot leave the zoo, which makes them do strange things like pace up and down, lick the bars of their cages, rock back and forth and bob their heads. Scientists know that these things mean that the animals are very unhappy."

"When a zoo doesn't want an animal anymore, the animal gets killed or sold to another zoo and might have to travel far away in a lorry or aeroplane."

Talk About: Topics to Chat About!
1. Would you rather live in a zoo or in your home with your family? Why?
2. What kinds of things do animals need to be happy? Do you think animals in zoos get all these things? Why or why not?
3. Think about animals you've seen at the zoo. Do you think there is somewhere else they would rather be? Something else they would rather be doing? Why or why not?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Have you ever been to a zoo? There are lots of zoos. Some take better care of animals than others, but no zoo can make animals feel like they are at home. Some people think it's OK to keep animals in zoos; others say that it's wrong to take animals from their homes in the [...]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I would like to begin by defining “zoo.” It is a park-like area in which live animals are kept in cages or large enclosures for public exhibit. Hold on, large enclosures? More like tiny cages. As zoo funds are cut, cages become smaller wi

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When a great white shark is born, along with up to a dozen siblings, it immediately swims away from its mother. Born on the east and west coasts of North America, the south of Africa and southwest Australia, baby sharks are on their own right from the start. Their mother may see them only as prey. At birth the baby shark is already about 5 feet (1.5 meters) long; as it grows it may reach a length up to four times that. The pup (which is what a baby shark is called) will live its life at the top of the ocean’s food chain. But before it grows larger, the pup must avoid predators bigger than it is—including other great white sharks. Many baby sharks do not survive their first year. Young great white sharks eat fish (including other sharks) and rays. As they grow, the sharks’ favorite prey becomes sea mammals, especially sea lions and seals. Sharks count on the element of surprise as they hunt. When they see a seal at the surface of the water, sharks will often position themselves underneath the seal. Using their tails as propellers, they swim upward at a fast sprint, burst out of the water in a leap called a breach, and fall back into the water with the seal in their mouths. They can smell a single drop of blood from up to a third of a mile (0.53 kilometers) away. Sharks don’t chew their food; they rip off chunks of meat and swallow them whole. They can last a month or two without another big meal.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Curious Kids is a series by The Conversation, which gives children of all ages the chance to have their questions about the world answered by experts. All questions are welcome: you or an adult can send them - along with your name, age and town or city where you live - to curiouskids@theconversation.com. We won't be able to answer every question, but we'll do our best. Is global warming heating up the Earth? - Raphael, aged 11, Auckland, New Zealand.
The simple answer to this important question is "yes".

We know that both the planet's air and its oceans have been getting warmer over the last 100 years or more. We know this because it has been measured directly, by weather scientists called "meteorologists".

Almost all parts of the world have reliable weather records going back many years. These records have been used for a long time to describe and explain what "normal" weather is like around the world. But more recently, they have shown how "normal" weather has changed over time.

The new normal

Of course, the weather changes a lot naturally; from season to season, and day to day. But we know what sort of patterns to expect. For example, we know it's cold in winter and warm in summer.

These patterns are what we call the "climate": normal weather, plus its daily and seasonal differences.

So when scientists talk about "climate change", they mean important and out-of-the-ordinary changes to normal weather. This includes extreme weather like storms, floods, droughts and heatwaves happening more often.

The weather records tell us that the 20 warmest years on record all happened in the past 22 years. They also tell us that no one under the age of 34 has lived through a single month which was colder than "normal".

The obvious question is: why is this happening? Scientists know that the Earth has gone through periods long ago when it's been warmer or cooler than it is now. But the chances of the recent run of warm years happening naturally is very, very small.

We know that, because it's never been measured before: the last 30 years has probably been the warmest period of the last 1,400 years.

The only way to explain the steady warming of the past century, and especially the faster warming in the past 30 years, is through the effect of human activity.

Burning up

Fuels such as coal and oil are burned to power cars, trucks, trains and aeroplanes; to run offices, farms and factories; to heat and light homes.

These fuels are made from a material called carbon, and when they are burned, they make a gas called carbon dioxide. This gas escapes into the atmosphere and stays there for a long time, maybe even hundreds of years.

Science experiments have shown that this carbon dioxide gas is good at trapping heat, so when there's more of it in the air, the world warms up. About half of all the carbon dioxide that's ever come from burning carbon fuels was created in the last 30 years, which is also when the fastest warming has happened.

A warmer world

The effects of warming temperatures can already be seen in many ways around the world. Unfortunately, most of these effects cause trouble for people.

More frequent and longer-lasting droughts and heatwaves are likely, which will make it hard for people working outside in jobs like farming or construction. And it will probably be harder to grow food crops in drier soils.

In cold places like the Arctic, the warming climate melts extra snow and ice, adding water to the oceans that will cause the sea to eat away at many coasts.

In the world's high mountain ranges, melting snow and ice make water, which flows into major rivers. But this river water will eventually be lost, as the weather gets warmer and there's less and less snow and ice.

Many of these changes will make life harder for people, who may then want or need to leave their homes and move to other places.

It's easy to feel unhappy, thinking about the effects of global warming. But it's really important to remember that the future isn't fixed: what eventually happens is up to us. If we make changes - for example, by using renewable energy and wasting less food - we can change the future for the better.
If you'd like to see Richard Hodgkins answering more questions about climate change, you can find an extended Q&A here. More Curious Kids articles, written by academic experts: Click here to subscribe to our climate action newsletter. Climate change is inevitable. Our response to it isn't.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Curious Kids: how is global warming heating up the Earth?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Curious Kids is a series by The Conversation, which gives children of all ages the chance to have their questions about the world answered by experts. All questions are welcome: you or an adult can send them - along with your name, age and town or city where you live - to curiouskids@theconversation.com.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Climate change describes a change in the average conditions in a region over a long period of time.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
People are seeing change all over the world. Arctic sea ice is melting earlier and forming later. Glaciers are disappearing. Heat waves, storms and floods are becoming more extreme. Insects are emerging sooner and flowers are blooming earlier. In some places, birds are laying eggs before they're expected and bears have stopped hibernating.

So what's going on? Our planet is getting warmer, and even a small increase in temperature can change our climate. And when our climate changes, we're all affected.

A Natural Greenhouse

Earth is the only planet we know of that can support life. The reason Earth is different than the rest relies on a number of factors. We get just the right amount of energy from the sun (if we were any closer, we would burn up; if we were any further, we'd freeze). Our atmosphere is a layer of gases surrounding the Earth that absorbs ultra violet radiation and prevents temperatures from rising too high or getting too cold. The greenhouse effect is the process that causes the surface of the Earth to be warmer than it would be if we had no atmosphere. Without these three factors, most like on Earth couldn't exist.

The Greenhouse Effect

Natural Cycles

Several natural cycles of the Earth keep it and its atmosphere in perfect balance. Carbon is essential to life and the carbon cycle keeps it moving throughout all Earth's systems. Water is one of the most important things to our survival, and the water cycle keeps it moving around and around our Earth and atmosphere - even through our bodies.

Weather Versus Climate

Weather is what's happening with the atmosphere that surrounds us. It's not the same as climate, which refers to the pattern of weather we expect to see in a particular place. The weather is always driven by the sun's energy, whether it's warm outside or snowing due to the circulation of warm air to cold places and cold air to warm places by the atmosphere. This, combined with the movement of the oceans and the amount of moisture in the air creates everything from perfect sunny days to terror-filled tornadoes.

Even though the weather changes frequently, the climate of a particular place should always be about the same. In Alaska, for example, there shouldn't be any tropical-like weather. In California, it shouldn't snow too much in the winter.

The fact is, while the Earth's climate has changed many times over millions of years (ice ages, for example, happen naturally every 100,000 years or so), it really shouldn't be changing much during any one person's lifetime. We're still recovering from the last ice age, which is said to have wiped out the dinosaurs. While temperatures do rise gradually over time after an ice age, today our planet's surface temperatures seem to be rising faster now than they were 100 years ago. And this is what has many people worried.

Balancing Act

Our planet is always changing and its systems are constantly working together to keep a kind of balance. All forms of life, including humans, depend on this balance for their existence.

All living things are connected to each other in ecosystems by food chains and food webs. Plants get energy from the sun. Herbivores (species that don't eat meat) get energy by eating plants. Carnivores (that eat meat) get energy by eating herbivores. This is how energy flows through all ecosystems - starting from the sun.

When any one part of an ecosystem chain breaks, the survival of the entire system, along with every living thing that depends on it for survival, hangs in the balance. For example, if someone decides to spray a poisonous pesticide on plants to keep bugs from eating them, then lizards may accidentally ingest that poison when they eat the plants and cats may be poisoned, too, when they catch and eat the lizards. With no cats around, the rat population could explode - and rats carry diseases that are even more dangerous for humans.

Another example is when a volcano erupts. If the eruption is very big, it could do a lot of damage besides killing thousands of people. A volcanic eruption spreads huge amounts of ash and gases into the atmosphere and around the globe, which could cause temperatures worldwide to fall. And when temperatures change dramatically like this, it affects crop patterns and could lead to massive food shortages.

Temperature Rising

Whether you believe in global warming or not, the fact is that the 11 hottest years recorded in the last 100 years have all happened after 1995. The world is definitely getting warmer.

When the world's temperatures get warmer, a few things happen. The water cycle speeds up, causing more rain, droughts, wildfires and extreme heat waves. There will be more greenhouse gases in the air, as the atmosphere reaches capacity of how many gases it can absorb. Arctic ice will melt sooner and faster and won't be as thick or expensive when it reforms. The oceans will warm and cause sea levels to rise more quickly, which can cause flooding on land and water contamination. Glacier ice will melt.

Greenhouse Gases

These gases help keep the world from being too hot or too cold. But the amounts of some greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are increasing, making our planet warmer. Greenhouse gases include water vapor (mostly natural source), carbon dioxide (mostly human source), methane (mostly human source) and nitrous oxide (mostly human source).

Far North & South

The most global warming has been seen in the Earth's coldest places, like the Arctic, Antarctica, Alaska and parts of Canada, Scandinavia and Russia.

Arctic temperatures are rising twice as fast as anywhere else on Earth. There has been a huge amount of ice loss in the last 20-30 years. While some is natural, global warming seems to be the main culprit. Ice shelves that have been around for tens of thousands of years have collapsed due to lower temperatures, which causes sea levels to rise. Permafrost has started to melt, which results in forests and even towns and cities to crumble as the ground beneath them thaws.

Because the far north and south have very fragile ecosystems, when one part of the chain breaks the effects can be seen almost immediately. As the ice disappears, so are tiny sea creatures called krill are dying - and so are the many fish, birds and whales that eat them. Polar bears spend most of their time on sea ice hunting seals and other sea animals. As the ice melts, the bears' hunting season is shortened and female bears, with lowered body weights, can't seem to produce cubs. Warmer summers also mean certain pests' life cycles are longer than before. For example, the spruce bark beetle, which is only supposed to live for one summer, is now surviving for two. This tiny bug destroys an unimaginable number of trees in Arctic forests - and now it can do it two years in a row instead of just one.

Polar Bear on floating ice

The World Ocean

Most of the Earth's surface is covered by a single ocean. All forms of life - even those that don't actually live in the ocean itself - depend on it for survival. For example, our ocean helps control the Earth's temperature with its currents, by constantly keeping cold and warm water moving. Ocean water dissolves lots of substances, including carbon dioxide gas. All ocean creatures and even sea birds depend on microscopic plankton - tiny plants that take in carbon dioxide to grow - for food and survival.

But when the ocean warms (which it has been), it can't dissolve as much carbon dioxide, plankton can't survive and the currents change (which greatly affects the weather and other things on dry land). Also, the sea level rises, so certain islands that are currently above water may actually disappear in the next 100 years.

The effects of global warming on things that live in the ocean are massive. We already talked about plankton, but what about other species? Coral reefs - home to many ecosystems and living creatures - can die as water temperatures rise. Sea turtles depend on beaches to lay their eggs, but many beaches are disappearing thanks to rising sea levels. Whales, who depend on krill who depend on plankton, die. Fish stocks fall, translating into food shortages for humans.

Where is global warming going?

We All Live On Land

What changes are we seeing on land as a result of global warming? We're seeing longer periods of drought, more wildfires, growing deserts (which can't support farming), glacier melt and deforestation. In fact, every second a chunk of forest the size of a football field is cut down or burned somewhere in the world.

In terms of living things, the effects of global warming are causing huge changes and disruptions. Plants and insects are moving upward (north) and causing distress to the natural, original ecosystems of those areas. Birds are also moving further north and some are even laying their eggs earlier, which can be a problem when it's out of sync with insect hatchings (since birds are insects' main predators). The winter of 2006 was so warm that mountain bears in Spain decided not to hibernate (sleep for the winter).

And what about us humans? How does and will global warming affect us, our lives and our survival as a species? First off, all human needs fresh water to survive. But changing rainfall patterns and melting glaciers will cause severe droughts, during which crops will fail, causing huge food shortages. We can also expect more heat waves. In 2003, Europe experienced such an extreme spell of hot weather that more than 20,000 people died as a direct result of the heat. Also, mass extinction of many other species we depend on for survival will mean big trouble for humanity.

Our Energy Use

There is no doubt that it's our own fault the world's temperature is rising and global warming is happening. We depend too much on fossil fuels that release deadly amounts carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. We need to start considering alternative sources of energy quickly, like nuclear, solar and wind. We cut down trees, which use carbon dioxide in their natural life cycles, so less of the poisonous gas can be absorbed naturally.

Humans are high energy consumers. Every day, we each exhale 1 kilogram (2.2 pounds) of carbon dioxide into the air. We keep ourselves warm in cold places by burning huge amounts of fuel. We use tons of energy pumping, cleaning, heating and then disposing of water. The food we eat is a huge source of greenhouse gases: fossil fuels used in fertilizers and farm machinery, food processing, transportation, packing and cooking. Construction requires all kinds of building materials that can only be made with massive amounts of energy. Our major sources of transportation are huge consumers of energy - ships, jets and cars. Electricity isn't captured magically - it takes the burning of massive amounts of fossil fuel to convert energy into electrical current. And all the "things" in your life - clothes, cell phones, toothbrushes, etc. - are made using energy... and so are the packages all these things come in.

You CAN Help!

The problem seems so big, it may be hard for you to imagine that anything you do can really help at all. But it will. Here are some changes you can make in your life to help prevent global warming:

Plant trees

Start a seed bank (keep the seeds of many varieties of plants stored away safely)

Switch every light in your house to an energy-saving bulb

Reduce, reuse, recycle

Wear a sweater instead of turning up the heat in your house

Wear lighter clothing when it's hot instead of turning on a fan

Turn lights, computers and all your chargers off and unplug them when they're not in use

Only do full loads of laundry

Take shorter showers

Skip the car ride and use your bike, or walk or take the bus

Don't buy bottled water; drink tap water, and filter it if you like

Eat lower on the food chain (less meat) and eat fewer processed foods

Knowledge is power. Change can only happen if all of us read about, listen to and discuss what's happening in the world today.

Planet Power

If scientists are right, each one of us is at least a little bit responsible for global warming. So each of us has to decide what we're going to do about it, and what kind of world we want to live in.

Our planet has been around for almost 5 billion years. It's gone through so many changes during that time - global warming may be the Earth's next big change.

No matter what changes lie ahead, our planet isn't going anywhere. And neither are we. But what we do now could have a big effect on what our lives could be like in the near future. This is our planet - let's make sure in the future it stays as wonderful a place to live in as it is now.

Related Stories:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We are seeing change all over the world. Arctic sea ice is melting earlier and Glaciers are disappearing. Heat waves and storms are becoming more extreme. Learn all about Global Warming on Kidzworld!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Smithsonian's National Zoo: We Save Species

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Kids learn about global warming and changes in the Earth's climate. What are some causes? Teach greenhouse gases and carbon footprint.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Can We Stop Sharks From Going Extinct?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Here's Why Plastic Is SO MUCH Worse Than You Think!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Getting rid of plastics entirely is highly unlikely, but also unnecessary. What we need to do is learn to stop using bad plastics and start using good plastics instead, a polymer scientist says.

Last week scientists revealed higher amounts of micro plastics in the Arctic sea ice, as well as in ocean floor sediments two kilometres below the Great Ocean Bight.

Greens Senator Peter Wilson said Australia's current recycling crisis highlights why plastics need to be removed from everyday life.

But can society function without plastics? And are there some plastics worth keeping?

Professor Anthony Ryan, a professor of physical chemistry at the University of Sheffield, said it was not plastic that was the problem, but how people chose to deal with plastic.

"Plastic's inanimate, so it can't be bad, it's what people do with it that's bad," he said.

"The reason that we have plastic leaking out of landfill and into the sea is because there's a collusion between packaging manufacturers and consumers to use single use plastic because it makes the bottom line better for producers and makes products cheaper for consumers."

Professor Ryan said until consumers gave up their addiction to convenience and said no to single use plastic, plastic providers would continue to produce it.

"It's convenience at the cheapest price," he said.

He said in the end it was neither the consumer nor the producer who were paying the price of collecting and recycling the waste. Instead it was the whole of society picking up the cost.

"The tragedy is that you chucked your waste into somebody else's yard," he said.

So how do we get rid ofbad plastics?

Professor Ryan said regulation was needed to stop the use of "bad" plastics - that is, single use plastics.

Life without plastic bags

WA's plastic bag ban is imminent, and the biggest question for many seems to be what to line rubbish bins with when the ready supply of free bags dries up.

For that to happen he said plastics producers and governments worldwide would have to come together and decide which plastics would be best used for packaging materials.

At the moment he said there was no regulation at all, so producers could use whatever packaging material they wanted.

"And often you end it with multi-layer films - so many different plastics in one film that are impossible to separate and pre-process," he said.

"They provide all sorts of benefits that you would get from having a thicker film of a single plastic that you could reuse over and over.

"I would advocate that we actually go back to the future and we return to refilling packets.

"So refilling bottles and buying things loose, using packages over and over again and actually take an inconvenience in our lives in order to be kinder to the environment."

He said plastic did not have to end up sitting in landfills, and urged for a bigger emphasis on reusing certain products, such as bottles.

"In Germany they have a deposit scheme where plastic bottles are washed and refilled," he said.

"When I was a kid, glove bottles were washed and refilled - if I wanted a packet of crisps, I went and found that empty lemonade bottle, took it back to the shop, collected the deposit.

"If we gave plastic bottles, for example, economic value, then they would be collected, refilled and reused."

Because plastics are long molecules they do not mix, so nothing can be done with waste recovered from rubbish bins without a lot of labour into separating the different kinds of plastic.

Professor Ryan's solution was to have a standard polyethylene, PET and nylon that could be used to make bottles and boxes that could go on to be reused.

"Then there wouldn't be the leakage into the environment, because those packaging objects would have intrinsic value though the deposit scheme," he said.

A life without plastic is unlikely

Professor Ryan said to try and imagine what life would look like without plastic, you simply had to remove every item of clothing that was made from a polymer plastic case.

What plastics can be recycled?

Every plastic is fully recyclable, but not all can go into your household recycle bin.

"Every bit of your clothing would be gone," he said.

"Even if it is made from cotton, it's made from a polymer and that polymer is called cellulose.

"And if you look inside ... the concern about finding micro plastics everywhere, they could just as easily be naturally occurring micro plastics like cellulose fibers."

He said there was a lot of confusion surrounding plastic being poisonous.

"If it lasts forever and is inert, it can't be poisonous at the same time," he said.

Professor Ryan said if someone consumed tiny pieces of plastic, then the intestines would simply do its job and clear out the waste.

"You wouldn't end up with a big pile of microbeads hanging around in your stomach," he said. "They'd get cleared like everything else gets cleaned out... like small seeds get cleared."

Shoppers are seen with plastic shopping bags at a Woolworths store in Sydney, Friday, July 14, 2017 AAP(AAP: Keri Megelus)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Stop hating on plastic and learn how to use it right, expert says

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Getting rid of plastics entirely is highly unlikely, but also unnecessary. What we need to do is learn to stop using bad plastics and start using good plastics instead, a polymer scientist says. Last week scientists revealed higher amounts of micro plastics in the Arctic sea ice, as well as in ocean floor sediments two kilometres below the Great Ocean Bight.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The ISAF 2022 shark attack report

The Florida Museum of Natural History's International Shark Attack File investigated 108 alleged shark-human interactions worldwide in 2022. ISAF confirmed 57 unprovoked shark bites on humans and 32 provoked bites.
"Unprovoked bites""Provoked bites"Learn about other bite classification descriptions occur when a human initiates interaction with a shark in some way. These include instances when divers are bitten after harassing or trying to touch sharks, bites on spearfishers, bites on people attempting to feed sharks, bites occurring while unhooking or removing a shark from a fishing net and so forth. are defined as incidents in which a bite on a live human occurs in the shark's natural habitat with no human provocation of the shark.
Of the remaining 19 cases, four involved bites to motorized or non-motorized marine vessels ("boat bites"), two sea disasters where victim's boats sank, and four involved shark-inflicted post-mortem bites ("scavenge"). Three cases were regarded as "doubtful," or incidents that likely did not involve a shark. These included one case attributed to a bluefish and one collision with a shark.

In three cases, the nature of the incident was unclear with the available data ("No assignment could be made"). An additional two cases could not be confirmed as a shark-human interaction ("Not confirmed"). ISAF will continue to investigate these cases in collaboration with local law enforcement and medical professionals until they can be resolved satisfactorily.

2022 at a glance

Global total of unprovoked shark bites significantly lower than average

The 2022 worldwide total of 57 confirmed unprovoked cases is lower than the most recent five-year (2017-2021) average of 70 incidents annually. There were nine shark-related fatalities this year, five of which are assigned as unprovoked. This number is in line with the 5 year annual global average of six unprovoked fatalities per year.

Annual fluctuations in shark-human interactions are common. Despite 2021's spike in fatalities, 2022 was a return to typical long-term trends which show a decreasing number of annual fatalities. Year-to-year variability in oceanographic, socioeconomic and meteorological conditions significantly influences the local abundance of sharks and humans in the water.

U.S. leads world in number of unprovoked bites

Consistent with long-term trends, the United States recorded the most unprovoked shark bites in 2022, with 41 confirmed cases. This is lower than the 47 incidents that occurred in the U.S. in 2021. The 41 cases represent 72% of the worldwide total. This is an increase from 2021 when 64% of the worldwide unprovoked bites occurred in the U.S.

Australia 's total of nine unprovoked incidents was lower than the most recent five-year annual average of 15 incidents for the region. Four bites occurred in New South Wales, four bites occurred in Western Australia, and a single incident occurred in Victoria.

Egypt and South Africa each reported two incidents, all of which were fatal. Brazil, New Zealand and Thailand all reported single incidents in 2022.

Florida had most unprovoked bites in U.S.

For decades, Florida has topped global charts in the number of shark bites, and this trend continued in 2022. Florida's 16 cases represent 39% of the U.S. total and 28% of unprovoked bites worldwide. This is lower than Florida's most recent five-year annual average of 22 incidents.

In total, unprovoked bites by state were New York (8), California(4), South Carolina (4), Hawaii (5), North Carolina (2) and single incidents in both Texas and Alabama. One of the incidents in Hawaii was fatal.

In Florida, Volusia County had the most shark bites (7), representing 44% of the state's total. This represents a decrease from the five-year annual average of nine incidents in the area; however, Volusia County experiences considerable variation in the number of bites from one year to the next. Of the nine remaining bites, four occurred in Monroe, and single incidents were reported in Martin, Nassau, Pinellas, Brevard and Palm Beach counties.

Most bites related to surfing and board sports

Breaking from recent trends, surfers and those participating in board sports accounted for less incidents (35% of the total cases). Swimmers and waders accounted for the majority of incidents at 43%. Snorkelers/free divers accounted for 9%, and the remainder of activities were too varied to combine. These included jumping in the water, floating on a raft, and scuba diving (13%).

Risk of being bitten by a shark remains extremely low

Short-term trends show both fatal and non-fatal bites to be decreasing. The total number of unprovoked shark bites worldwide is extremely low, given the number of people participating in aquatic recreation each year. Fatality rates have been declining for decades, reflecting advances in beach safety, medical treatment and public awareness.

ISAF offers resources for reducing your risk of a shark bite and instructions for what to do if you encounter a shark.

Members of the press are also encouraged to check out our "Media Resources" page.

Gavin Naylor, Ph.D.
Program Director, International Shark Attack File
Florida Program for Shark Research
Florida Museum of Natural History - University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611 USA
(352) 273-1954
Email: gnaylor@flmnh.ufl.edu

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Florida Museum of Natural History's International Shark Attack File investigated 108 alleged shark-human interactions worldwide in 2022. ISAF confirmed 57 unprovoked shark bites on humans and 32 provoked bites. "Unprovoked bites" "Provoked bites" Learn about other bite classification descriptions occur when a human initiates interaction with a shark in some way.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Extreme Sports Addiction [Infographic]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"The more fearful a certain sport makes you, the greater the release of chemicals. The greater the release of these chemicals, the greater the addiction-like symptoms." -Dr. Marvin Zuckerman, Professor Emeritus, University of Delaware CHASING THE HIGH WHAT IS THE E TREME SPORTS ADDICTION?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Real sanctuaries are safe, comfortable places for animals to live after they've been rescued from not-so-nice places like circuses or laboratories. People can sometimes visit these sanctuaries, which is an awesome way to learn about and see animals without supporting businesses that hurt them, like roadside zoos or wildlife parks. Roadside zoos and wildlife parks use animals to make money. It's confusing because they sometimes call themselves "sanctuaries" or "rescues" to bring in more customers, because they know that people don't want to visit roadside zoos, but they're being dishonest when they do that.

It's important not to get these horrible places confused with actual sanctuaries. But how can you tell the difference? It's easy! There are a few simple questions you can ask about a place to figure out whether it's helping or hurting animals the animals who live there.

You can find answers to these questions by browsing a facility's website and social media pages (your parents can help):

1. How are animals housed?

Real sanctuaries make sure that an animal's living space is as close to their natural habitat as possible. Animals should live with others of their own kind so they can have friends. It's mean to keep them all alone in small, dirty pens with concrete floors and nothing to do-and you should stay away from places like that.

2. What kinds of activities do the animals get to do?

The animals' living area should have lots of ways for them to play and enjoy themselves! For example, there should be a large structure for chimpanzees to climb on, water for bears to soak and splash in, and large fields for roaming and exploring. Animals need these things if they're going to be healthy, happy, and comfortable.

Animals should also live with others of the same species so they can communicate with each another easily and form relationships and groups. In many sanctuaries, the animals who already live there help teach the newcomers how to get back in touch with their natural instincts and enjoy life again.

3. How big is the facility?

Animals should be given enough space to explore, roam, climb, and forage. And a real sanctuary NEVER takes the animals out of the facility to show them off.

4. Are visitors allowed to touch or hold the animals?

True wild-animal sanctuaries (with big cats, bears, primates, or wolves) NEVER allow visitors to touch or hold the animals, even babies, and that includes taking photos with them. This would be scary for the animals and dangerous to the visitors, too!

5. Where did the animals come from?

The animals who live there probably came from a place where they were mistreated, so they have a sad and painful past. The staff will want to share each animal's story so that visitors can learn about the various places that hurt animals (like laboratories, circuses, and roadside zoos). Real sanctuaries provide animals with a permanent home for the rest of their life. They NEVER trade, borrow, or loan animals.

6. Does the facility breed animals?

Sanctuaries NEVER breed animals, meaning that they don't make any of the animals have babies. Places that do breed animals are using them to make money-that's not right, and that's not a sanctuary.

7. What is it like to visit a sanctuary?

Most sanctuaries only allow very limited visits. Usually a guide takes people on a small tour of the place and doesn't let them walk around by themselves.

8. Is it accredited?

True sanctuaries are accredited by the Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries (GFAS), a group that makes sure sanctuaries follow strict rules to protect the animals who live there, like the ones listed above.
*****
All living, feeling beings deserve a comfortable place to live where people aren't always staring at them. A true sanctuary puts the needs and wants of the animals first. So if you care about animals, NEVER visit a roadside zoo or a wildlife park, and explain to your friends and family why places like that are bad for animals!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
8 Ways to Tell a REAL Sanctuary From a Roadside Zoo | PETA Kids

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Roadside zoo or animal sanctuary? This list will explain the difference-so you can figure out if a place is hurting or helping animals.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Two shark researchers who came face to face with what could be one of the largest great whites ever recorded are using their encounter as an opportunity to push for legislation that would protect sharks in Hawaii.

Ocean Ramsey, a shark researcher and conservationist, told the Associated Press that she encountered the 20ft (6-metre) shark on Tuesday near a dead sperm whale off Oahu. The event was documented and shared on social media by her fiance and business partner, Juan Oliphant.

The Hawaii department of land and natural resources said it was aware of photos of the great white and that tiger sharks also had been feeding on the whale.

Oliphant, who photographed the now viral images, said it was unclear if the shark was the famed Deep Blue, believed to be the largest great white ever recorded.

"She looks the part right now," Oliphant said. "Maybe even more exciting that there is another massive, you know, super-size great white shark out there. Because their populations are so dwindling."

The shark photographed could be Deep Blue, thought to be the largest ever recorded. Photograph: @OCEANRAMSEY/AFP/Getty Images

Ramsey, who operates the Oahu-based One Ocean Diving and Research with Oliphant, said she had been pushing for several years for a bill that would ban the killing of sharks and rays in Hawaii and hoped this year the measure would become law.

She said the images of her swimming next to a huge great white shark proved the predators should be protected, not feared.

There's not a lot of sympathy for sharks because of the way they're portrayed in media

Ocean Ramsey

Still, the veteran shark diver doesn't think the general public should recklessly get into the water with the giants, especially around a food source like a rotting whale carcass.

Ramsey said extensive training and time spent studying shark behavior had kept her team and customers safe. She teaches people about how to act and, more importantly, not act when they encounter a shark in the water. She said she had swum with the huge shark on research trips to Guadalupe Island, Mexico, and also led cage-free shark diving tours.

Unlike many marine mammals, sharks are not a federally protected species, though there are laws against the sale of their fins.

"There's not a lot of sympathy for sharks because of the way they're portrayed in media and they don't have the cute cuddly appearance," Ramsey said. "You can't hate them for being predators. We need them for healthy marine ecosystems."

Ocean Ramsey reviews footage of her encounter. Photograph: Caleb Jones/AP

Ramsey and Oliphant want to make sure that people realize that shark bites are uncommon.

"The idea that they see people as a food source, that is rubbish and that needs to go away because really that's ultimately leading to the demise of these animals," Oliphant said.

Ramsey said it was impressive that the great white had survived a "gauntlet of human death traps".

"I don't know how old she is," Ramsey said. "But for her to survive through so many longline fisheries and, you know, gill nets and team nets and fishermen who might just kill her because they think that she is a monster ... it's very special."

Shark protection legislation, sponsored by the Hawaii state senator Mike Gabbard, is planned to be reintroduced this year.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Diver filmed with huge great white: sharks must be 'protected not feared'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Two shark researchers who came face to face with what could be one of the largest great whites ever recorded are using their encounter as an opportunity to push for legislation that would protect sharks in Hawaii.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The answer to the question 'will killing sharks save lives' is: maybe. We may never know if the shark cull has made Western Australia's beaches safer.

Targeting large sharks using drum lines and no nets is a novel approach. Previous efforts in NSW, Queensland, South Africa and Hawaii only passingly inform it. Shark experts are reluctant to predict if the WA programme will reduce shark bite incidents.

The history of shark control programmes is littered with claims of success and failure. But these need to be viewed with temperance. The infrequency of incidents make them statistically unreliable and a large number of variables affect shark attack rates. Changing lifestyles and uses of the ocean, growing coastal populations and potential (but unknown) fluctuations in shark numbers create a cryptic puzzle that defies definitive assessment of shark control programmes. We will certainly not know anything by April, when the WA policy is set to expire.

There are unanswered questions relating to the research underpinning this policy. The government seems to have conducted a wide-ranging canvass of opinions in the scientific community. But one of the major scientific assessments of WA shark management recommended that drum lines and nets should be avoided. More than one hundred scientists have urged the government to desist on the grounds that the policy is misinformed. The scientific community has generally condemned the cull, mostly on the basis of by-catch. Although by-catch from drum lines is less than from nets. There have also been concerns raised over the attractiveness of baited hooks and caught animals to large sharks. I have not been able to find any research that can confirm this theory, nor can it be ruled out. If there is so much opposition from scientists, by what criteria was the information provided to government assessed and formed into policy?

The intention to target individual sharks after a fatal attack is, to my mind, the most cynical aspect of this policy. It is intended to appease community anger towards sharks, yet has little foundation in reality. The identification of an individual shark is near impossible and there is little evidence to support the 'rogue shark theory' that a killer will kill again.

Many opponents of the cull, especially on social media, have told Western Australians to 'just swim somewhere else'. This is unsympathetic and unhelpful. While it is not untrue, this attitude fails to acknowledge the practical impossibility of driving to a safe coastline when you live in WA. It also ignores the deep, heartfelt connection many people have with the sea and the pain they must experience from not feeling safe enough to enjoy it.

Stepping away from the morality and assessing the policy on its stated aims is important, but it is not the definitive answer to the WA shark problem. If the cull was certain to be effective (which it isn't) the response would still have to take into account the impact of by-catch on biodiversity. Finally, we must ask ourselves what motivates our hand - research or revenge?

Note: For those of you outside Australia, I'll dip back into the blog tonight (9pm AEST, 10am GMT) so your comments will not be in vain!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The answer to the question 'will killing sharks save lives' is: maybe. We may never know if the shark cull has made Western Australia's beaches safer. Targeting large sharks using drum lines and no nets is a novel approach. Previous efforts in NSW, Queensland, South Africa and Hawaii only passingly inform it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Let us help you live a life you love. Find tools to help you have fun and make the most out of each and every day.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Today scientists released a new report that details how climate change is affecting weather and climate across the United States and how future changes in climate could play out across the country.

The Climate Science Special Report (CSSR), created by a U.S. government organization that coordinates and integrates federal research on changes in the global environment and their implications for society, also lays out the current state of science relating to climate change and its physical effects.

"It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century."

"It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century," the report concludes. "For the warming over the last century, there is no convincing alternative explanation supported by the extent of the observational evidence."

And the observational evidence is manifold. Thousands of studies outlined in the report document rising surface, atmospheric, and oceanic temperatures; melting glaciers; diminishing snow cover; shrinking sea ice; rising sea levels; ocean acidification; and increasing intensity and frequency of rainfall, hurricanes, heat waves, wildfires, and drought. The report meticulously outlines how these effects can be largely traced back to human activities and associated emissions of radiatively important gases and particles.

Underlying the report is a broad scientific consensus: The farther and the faster the Earth system is pushed toward further change, the greater the risk is of unanticipated effects, some of which are potentially large and irreversible.

For example, without major reductions in emissions, the increase in annual average global temperature relative to preindustrial times could reach 9°F (5°C) or more by the end of this century. Although emission rates have slowed as economic growth is becoming less carbon intensive, this slowing trend is not yet at a rate that would limit global average temperature change to 3.6°F (2°C) above preindustrial levels by century's end.

And there's more. Sea levels are likely to continue to rise, and many severe weather events are likely to become more intense. Brace for more record-breaking high temperatures, including multiday heat waves, and more severe precipitation when it rains or snows. Drought could plague the western United States for decades to come. Atlantic and Pacific hurricanes are expected to get even more intense.

In other words, the report shows that our current emissions trajectories will bring our planet into a very different climate state than it is today, with profound effects for the United States.

An Authoritative Voice on the United States' Climate Future

The report is designed to serve as the foundation for efforts to assess climate-related risks and inform decision-making about responses.

This newsletter rocks.

Get the most fascinating science news stories of the week in your inbox every Friday.

The CSSR was created by the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) as volume 1 of the Fourth National Climate Assessment (NCA4) [ Wuebbles et al., 2017]. USGCRP oversaw the production of this stand-alone report of the state of science relating to climate change and its physical impacts. CSSR is designed to be an authoritative assessment of the science of climate change, with a focus on the United States, to serve as the foundation for efforts to assess climate-related risks and inform decision-making about responses.

The CSSR serves several purposes, including providing (1) an updated and detailed analysis of the findings of how climate change is affecting weather and climate across the United States, (2) an executive summary and 15 chapters that provide the basis for the discussion of climate science, and (3) foundational information and projections for climate change, including extremes, to improve "end-to-end" consistency in sectoral, regional, and resilience analyses.

The CSSR integrates and evaluates the findings on climate science and discusses the uncertainties associated with these findings. It analyzes current trends in climate change, both human induced and natural, and projects major trends to the end of this century.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is the lead administrative agency for the current report. Other agencies involved include NASA and the Department of Energy; representatives from national laboratories, universities, and the private sector also helped write the report.

The report underwent several drafts and multiple reviews, including one by the public, and expert reviews by the 13 USGCRP agencies and the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. What results is a comprehensive document on the state of climate science, with assessments of statistically likely scenarios of climate in the United States through the end of the century.

Advances in Science Since the Last Assessment

The CSSR represents the most comprehensive assessment of the science done for an NCA. As such, the report reflects a number of advances in climate science since the Third U.S. National Climate Assessment (NCA3) was published in 2014.

Researchers can now more closely pinpoint the human influences for individual climate and weather extreme events.

For example, since NCA3, stronger evidence has emerged for the ongoing, rapid, human-caused warming of the global atmosphere and ocean. Researchers can now more closely pinpoint the human influences for individual climate and weather extreme events.

In addition, significant advances have been made in understanding extreme weather events in the United States and how they relate to increasing global temperatures and associated climate changes. The new report also discusses the extent to which atmospheric circulation in the midlatitudes is changing or is projected to change, possibly in ways not captured by current climate models.

For the first time in the NCA process, sea level rise projections incorporate geographic variation based on factors such as local land subsidence, ocean currents, and changes in Earth's gravitational field. In an examination of potential risks, the CSSR found that both large-scale state shifts in the climate system (sometimes called "tipping points") and compound extremes have the potential to generate unanticipated climate surprises.

Report Highlights: Global Perspective

At the heart of the report are some indisputable facts. The global atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO ₂) concentration is now everywhere more than 400 parts per million (ppm), a level that last occurred about 3 million years ago, when both global average temperature and sea level were significantly higher than today. Continued growth in human-made emissions of CO ₂ over this century and beyond would lead to an atmospheric concentration not experienced in tens to hundreds of millions of years.

What's more, the past 115 years are now the warmest such time span in at least the last 1,700 years. Global annually averaged surface air temperature has increased by about 1.8°F (1.0°C) since 1901 (Figure 1).

Many other aspects of global climate are changing. For example, global average sea level has risen by about 7-8 inches since 1900, with almost half (about 3 inches) of that rise occurring since 1993. Human-caused climate change has made a substantial contribution to this rise, contributing to a rate of rise that is greater than during any preceding century in at least 2,800 years.

Global average sea levels are expected to continue to rise, by at least several inches in the next 15 years and by 1-4 feet by 2100. A rise of as much as 8 feet by 2100 cannot be ruled out.

What Does This Mean for the United States?

Annual average temperature over the contiguous United States has increased by 1.8°F (1.0°C) over the period from 1901 to 2016; over the next few decades (2021-2050), annual average temperatures are expected to rise by about 2.5°F for the United States, relative to the recent past (average from 1976-2005), under all plausible future climate scenarios.

The report documents how, across the board, the higher temperatures projected for the United States and the world are expected to increase the intensity and frequency of extreme events. Changes in the characteristics of extreme events are particularly important for human safety, infrastructure, agriculture, water quality and quantity, and natural ecosystems.

Below are peeks into some of the realms in which the United States is expected to face profound change. What's striking here is that events that we consider to be extreme may become the new normal by century's end.

Coastal Flooding. Global sea level rise has already affected the United States; the incidence of daily tidal flooding is accelerating in more than 25 Atlantic and Gulf Coast cities. Sea level rise is expected to be higher than the global average in some parts of the United States, especially on the East and Gulf coasts of the United States. This is due, in part, to changes in Earth's gravitational field from melting land ice, changes in ocean circulation, and local subsidence.

Larger Precipitation Events. Heavy precipitation, as either rainfall or snowfall, is increasing in intensity and frequency across the United States (Figure 2) and the globe. These trends are expected to continue. The largest observed changes in extreme precipitation in the United States have occurred in the Northeast and the Midwest.

Heat Waves. Heat waves have become more frequent in the United States since the 1960s, whereas extreme cold temperatures and cold waves have become less frequent. Recent record-setting warm years are projected to become common in the near future for the United States as annual average temperatures continue to rise.

Forest Fires. The incidence of large forest fires in the western contiguous United States and Alaska has increased since the early 1980s and is projected to further increase in those regions as the climate warms, with profound changes to regional ecosystems. The frequency of large wildfires is influenced by a complex combination of natural and human factors.

Drought. Annual trends toward earlier spring snowmelt and reduced snowpack are already affecting water resources in the western United States, with adverse effects for fisheries and electricity generation. These trends are expected to continue. Under the highest emissions scenarios and assuming no change in current water resources management, chronic, long-duration hydrological drought is increasingly possible before the end of this century.

Recent droughts and associated heat waves have reached record intensity in some U.S. regions. At this time, the report notes that evaluating the human effect on recent major U.S. droughts is complicated. Little evidence is found for a human influence on observed precipitation deficits, but much evidence is found for a human influence on surface soil moisture deficits due to increased evapotranspiration caused by higher temperatures.

Hurricanes. Physical processes suggest, and numerical modeling simulations generally confirm, an increase in tropical cyclone intensity in a warmer world, and Earth system models generally show an increase in the number of very intense tropical cyclones. For Atlantic and eastern North Pacific hurricanes, increases are projected in precipitation rates and intensity. The frequency of the most intense of these storms is projected to increase in the Atlantic and western North Pacific and in the eastern North Pacific.

Atmospheric Rivers. These narrow streams of moisture account for 30%-40% of the typical snowpack and annual precipitation on the U.S. West Coast. They are also associated with severe flooding events when they shed their moisture. The frequency and severity of landfalling atmospheric rivers will increase because rising temperatures increase evaporation, resulting in higher atmospheric water vapor concentrations.

A Fate Dependent on Emissions

The magnitude of climate change beyond the next few decades will depend primarily on the amount of greenhouse gases (especially carbon dioxide) emitted globally. And without significant cuts to emissions, annual average global temperatures will almost certainly rise beyond 2°C by the end of the century.

Choices made today will determine the magnitude of climate change risks beyond the next few decades.

In other words, the oft-stated goal of keeping globally averaged temperature change at or below this level to minimize potential impacts on humans and ecosystems can be met only through substantial reductions in emissions before 2040: Choices made today will determine the magnitude of climate change risks beyond the next few decades.

With significant reductions in emissions, the increase in annual average global temperature could be limited to 3.6°F (2°C) or less. Figure 3 shows the projected changes in U.S. temperature for two possible future pathways.

The science is in, and the CSSR documents it in a way that's both comprehensive and revelatory. It also provides important input to the development of other parts of NCA4, which will focus primarily on the human welfare, societal, economic, and environmental elements of climate change. Volume 2 of NCA4, with an emphasis on the impacts of climate change, is planned for publication in late 2018.

Acknowledgments

Writing the CSSR required the concerted effort of a large, diverse, and experienced author team of climate scientists from across the United States working for many months. The USGCRP provided organization and guidance for the overall process, NOAA provided oversight as the lead agency, and NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information provided technical, editorial, and production support for the document drafts and final product. We appreciate the independent reviews from the public and that conducted by the National Academy of Sciences.

References

Wuebbles, D. J., et al. (Eds.) (2017), Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, vol. 1, U.S. Global Change Res. Program, Washington, D. C.

Author Information

Donald Wuebbles (email: wuebbles@illinois.edu), Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana; David W. Fahey, Earth System Research Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Boulder, Colo.; and Kathy A. Hibbard, Earth Science Division, NASA Headquarters, Washington, D. C.

Editor's note: The authors of this Eos feature are the lead authors of the Climate Science Special Report. Donald Wuebbles was employed at the Office of Science and Technology Policy in Washington, D. C., and the National Science Foundation in Arlington, Va., while the report was being prepared.
Citation:
Wuebbles, D.,Fahey, D. W., and Hibbard, K. A. (2017), How will climate change affect the United States in decades to come?, Eos, 98, https://doi.org/10.1029/2017EO086015. Published on 03 November 2017.

Text © 2017. The authors. CC BY-NC-ND 3.0
Except where otherwise noted, images are subject to copyright. Any reuse without express permission from the copyright owner is prohibited.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Will Climate Change Affect the United States in Decades to Come? - Eos

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Today scientists released a new report that details how climate change is affecting weather and climate across the United States and how future changes in climate could play out across the country. The Climate Science Special Report (CSSR), created by a U.S.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I am a lifelong fan of good zoos (note the adjective) and have visited dozens of zoos, safari parks and aquaria around the world. I also spent a number of years working as a volunteer keeper at two zoos in the U.K. and my own interests now span to the history of zoological collections and their design, architecture and research so it is probably fair to say I'm firmly in the pro-zoo camp.

However, I am perfectly willing to recognise that there are bad zoos and bad individual exhibits. Not all animals are kept perfectly, much as I wish it were otherwise, and even in the best examples, there is still be room for improvement. But just as the fact that some police are corrupt does not mean we should not have people to enforce the law, although bad zoos or exhibits persist does not mean they are not worthwhile institutes. It merely means we need to pay more attention to the bad and improve them or close them. In either case, zoos (at least in the U.K. and most of the western world) are generally a poor target for criticism in terms of animal welfare - they have to keep the public onside or go bust and they have to stand up to rigorous inspections or be closed down. While a bad collection should not be ignored, if you are worried the care and treatment of animals in captivity I can point to a great many farms, breeders, dealers and private owners who are in far greater need or inspection, improvement or both.

If you are against animals in captivity full stop then there is perhaps little scope for discussion, but even so I'd maintain that some of the following arguments (not least the threat of extinction) can outweigh arguments against captivity. Moreover, I don't think anyone would consider putting down a 10000 km long fence around the Masai Mara to really be captivity, even if it restricts the movement of animals across that barrier. But at what point does that become captivity? A 10000 m fence? 1000 m fence? What if veterinary care is provided or extra food as in many reserves or as part of conservation projects. I'm not pretending that an animal in a zoo is not in captivity, but clearly there is a continuum from zoos and wildlife parks, to game reserves, national parks and protected areas. Degree of care and degree of enclosure make the idea of 'captivity' fluid and not absolute.

What I would state with absolute confidence is that for many species (but no, not all) it is perfectly possible to keep them in a zoo or wildlife park and for them to have a quality of life as high or higher than in the wild. Their movement might be restricted (but not necessarily by that much) but they will not suffer from the threat or stress of predators (and nor will they be killed in a grisly manner or eaten alive) or the irritation and pain of parasites, injuries and illnesses will be treated, they won't suffer or die of drought or starvation and indeed will get a varied and high-quality diet with all the supplements required. They can be spared bullying or social ostracism or even infanticide by others of their kind, or a lack of a suitable home or environment in which to live. A lot of very nasty things happen to truly 'wild' animals that simply don't happen in good zoos and to cast a life that is 'free' as one that is 'good' is, I think, an error.

So a good zoo will provide great care and protection to animals in their care. These are good things for the individuals concerned, but what do zoos actually bring to the table for the visitors and the wider world? This is, naturally, what I want to focus on, but it is I hope worth having dealt with the more obvious objections and misapprehensions.

One of only a few hundred Sumatran tigers left in the world, this individual is part of a captive breeding program that is linked to conservation efforts - protecting wild areas and reintroducing animals to them. Photograph: /Dave Hone Photograph: Dave Hone

Conservation - reservoir and return. It's not an exaggeration to say that colossal numbers of species are going extinct across the world, and many more are increasingly threatened and risk extinction. Moreover, some of these collapses have been sudden, dramatic and unexpected or were simply discovered very late in the day. Zoos protect against a species going extinct. A species protected in captivity provides a reservoir population against a population crash or extinction in the wild. Here they are relatively safe and can be bred up to provide foundation populations. A good number of species only exist in captivity and still more only exist in the wild because they have been reintroduced from zoos, or the wild populations have been boosted by captive bred animals. Quite simply without these efforts there would be fewer species alive today and ecosystems and the world as a whole would be poorer for it. Although reintroduction successes are few and far between, the numbers are increasing and the very fact that species have been saved or reintroduced as a result of captive breeding shows their value. Even apparently non-threatened species and entire groups can be threatened suddenly (as seen with white nose syndrome in bats and the Chytridiomycosis fungus in amphibians) it's not just pandas and rhinos that are under threat.

Education. Many children and adults, especially those in cities will never see a wild animal beyond a fox or pigeon, let alone a lion or giraffe. Sure television documentaries get ever more detailed and impressive, and lots of natural history specimens are on display in museums, but that really does pale next to seeing a living creature in the flesh, hearing it, smelling it, watching what it does and having the time to absorb details. That alone will bring a greater understanding and perspective to many and hopefully give them a greater appreciation for wildlife, conservation efforts and how they can contribute. All of that comes before the actual direct education that can take place through signs, talks and the like that can directly communicate information about the animals they are seeing and their place in the world. This was an area where zoos were previously poor and are now increasingly sophisticated in their communication and outreach work. Many zoos also work directly to educate conservation workers in foreign countries or send keepers abroad to contribute their knowledge and skills to zoos and preserves helping to improve conditions and reintroductions all over the world.

Research. If we are to save many wild species and restore and repair ecosystems we need to know about how key species live, act and react. Being able to study animals in zoos where there is less risk and less variables means real changes can be effected on wild populations with far fewer problems. Knowing say the oestreus cycle of an animal or their breeding rate helps manage wild populations. Things like capturing and moving at-risk or dangerous individuals is bolstered by knowledge in zoos about doses for anaesthetics, and experience at handling and transporting animals. This can make a real difference to conservation efforts and to reduce human-animal conflicts, and collectively provide a knowledge base for helping with the increasing threats of habitat destruction and other problems.

All in all with the ongoing global threats to the environment it's hard for me to see zoos as anything other than being essential to the long-term survival of numerous species. Not just in terms of protecting them and breeding them for reintroduction, but to learn about them to aid those still in the wild, as well as to educate and inform the public about these animals and their world: to pique their interest so that they can assist or at least accept the need to be more environmentally conscious. Sure there is always scope for improvement, but these benefits are critical to many species and potentially at least, the world as a whole, and the animals so well kept and content, that I think there can be few serious objections to the concept of good zoos what they can do. Without them, the world would be, and would increasingly become, a much poorer place.

A version of this piece was first published in 2012 here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Modern zoos are much more than a collection of animals and more important than ever

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Zoos Are Not Prisons. They Improve the Lives of Animals.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
After the death of Harambe the gorilla at the Cinicinnati Zoo, do not forget the work zoos do to keep endangered and extinct animals alive.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Zoos are great, right? You get to be up close and personal with some amazing animals that you'd pretty much never get to see in the wild. Clearly, zoos are a win for people. But when it comes to the animals, zoos might cause more harm than good. Should zoos exist?

TEACHERS: Get your students in the discussion on KQED Learn, a safe place for middle and high school students to investigate controversial topics and share their voices. Click to see this video and lesson plan on KQED Learn.

How did zoos become a thing?
Humans have been capturing and displaying exotic animals for thousands of years. The earliest known collections date back to 3500 BCE in Egypt, where rulers kept hippos, elephants, baboons, and different species of large cats. Now back then, that didn't mean that your average Egyptian could go check any of that awesomeness out. These early zoos were really just a way for kings to flex on other kings. Modern zoos, where the public can come and watch animals exhibiting their natural behavior, didn't really become a thing until the early 1800s. The longest continuously operating zoo in the world is the Vienna Zoo, which has been going strong for more than 260 years.

What are the arguments in favor of having zoos?
Zoos may be great entertainment, but their big goal is to educate the public about wildlife and what we can do to protect them. Zoo animals are sort of like ambassadors for their counterparts in the wild. Zoos also contribute to scientific research. "Zoo" is short for zoological park, and zoology is the scientific study of animal biology and behavior. In addition, zoos work really hard to save animals that are threatened in the wild. Zoos can take at-risk animals, breed them in captivity, and then reintroduce them back into the wild.

What are the arguments for NOT having zoos?
Zoos have their problems. Not all zoos are created equal. Some are clean and well staffed, others aren't. There are some in the richest cities in the world, and there are some in conflict zones. What this means is that not all zoos have the resources to properly care for the animals they house. And for many critics, no amount of education or research justifies keeping animals captive. That captivity can be REALLY bad for both physical AND psychological health. And while zoos have been really helpful is saving endangered animals, it doesn't work out for certain species. For example, most large carnivores like lions and tigers that are bred in captivity die when released into the wild. It turns out that they haven't developed the natural behaviors they need when they're out on their own and have to fend for themselves.

SOURCES:
Do we need zoos? (The Atlantic)
https://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2016/06/harambe-zoo/485084/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Are Zoos Good or Bad for Animals? | KQED Education

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Zoos are great, right? You get to be up close and personal with some amazing animals that you'd pretty much never get to see in the wild. Clearly, zoos are a win for people. But when it comes to the animals, zoos might cause more harm than good. Should zoos exist?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It's not a fair fight.

In the "battle" between people and sharks, it's not even close. On average, humans kill about 100 million sharks around the world each year, with most targeted by commercial fishermen for their fins and flesh.

And despite their fearsome reputation and often breathless media attention, sharks kill only about six people a year worldwide, according to the Florida Museum of Natural History's International Shark Attack File.

In the U.S., on average, one person dies each year from a shark attack.

In 2017, there were 155 incidents of alleged shark-human interaction worldwide, according to the International Shark Attack File. Closer investigation found 88 of those incidents were "unprovoked" attacks that occur without provocation from humans.

Sharks killed five people worldwide last year.

Through the first six months of 2018, there have been 25 shark bites around the world, only one of which was fatal (off the coast of Recife, Brazil, in early June). Of those 25 attacks, seven have occurred in the U.S.

Maybe we should blame shark mania on " Jaws". The national fear of shark attacks got its start some 43 years ago with the release of the movie blockbuster that unleashed the primal fear of being eaten alive while swimming.

Since then, shark attacks continue to get plenty of media coverage, despite their rarity. How rare? The odds of being killed by a shark in the U.S. are 3,748,067 to 1.

Amazingly, bees, wasps, dogs and snakes are responsible for far more deaths each year in the U.S. than sharks, the Shark Attack File said.

According to a recent study, most U.S. deaths are not actually due to wild animals like mountain lions, wolves, bears, or sharks, but are a result of deadly encounters with farm animals, insect stings or dog attacks

At the beach, you're actually in more danger just walking along the shore than in the water, according to the Shark Attack File. From 1990 to 2006 there were 16 U.S. deaths due to falling in a hole at the beach compared to 11 shark attack deaths.

If you're clamoring for more about sharks, check out Nat Geo Wild's 2-week-long SharkFest, which premieres Sunday, July 15, at 8 p.m. ET. The network's sixth annual summertime special has "the latest insights from the top shark researchers, a comprehensive look at the many shark species in all their glory and two weeks of our top shark shows," the channel said in a statement.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sharks vs. humans: At 100 million deaths against 6 each year, it's not a fair fight

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the "battle" between people and sharks, it's not even close. On average, around the world, humans kill some 100 million sharks each year. And despite their fearsome reputation and often breathless media attention, sharks kill only about six people a year - worldwide.