Wisconsin Emissions: Patterns to the Effect's Concentration?

This map gives us a nice view of the midwest at night. We can see how bigger cities might have brighter, more expansive lights, and that's why places like Milwaukee, Chicago, and Minneapolis, are much more prominent in our view. This allows us to notice the areas that, one, are using the most power to light their towns/cities, and two, likely need the most power to sustain the other needs for the number of people living there. Let's compare this to the maps below, and see how that affects their energy consumption, emissions, and the health of the environment in that area. But there's a catch, we're going to focus solely on the Wisconsin area and see if we can really pinpoint the effects there.

With our reference to the midwest cities and their probable/statistical needs, we have some context to use when looking at this web map. Now, when you see these circles covering Wisconsin, whether red, orange, white or some color in between, you're really viewing the sum emissions from each individual power plant in Wisconsin, from the year 2019. But there's more specific information too, this map also includes the carbon dioxide outputs from those same facilities, as well as their energy totals and manufacturing method(s). Alone it is a great source of information to see how gigantic our greenhouse gas emissions are, but take another look with our previous map in mind, (To zoom in the map above, or any map, tap the plus tool. This will allow you to see the locations of the maps' effects more specifically). You may notice that especially around areas such as Milwaukee, Green Bay, and even Madison, there is both a noticeable light signature from the first map and a collection of power plants seen surrounding them in the second. This isn't a coincidence, just a confirmation of the suspicion: Places we can see clearly on the original map are going to have larger energy needs, a higher pollution rate of greenhouse gases, and therefore a larger impact on the environment. This is something most of us probably assumed, but now we have clear evidence. This proof also allows us to use more data when looking at the upcoming information. We'll be able to see the less noticeable, but even more important effects that our carbon footprint has as well as global warming.

Take this piece of data, for example, it describes the historic and projected days per year in which parts of Wisconsin will have a temperature over 100°F. If we base our analysis on the previous maps, we can see the expanse that's been shaded in this projection actually covers almost all the facilities and cities which were subjects in the last paragraph. Meaning, the estimated temperature/climate increases are going to, at least most distinctly, be seen in the areas where the energy requirement and therefore emission volume is higher. Bigger populations are going to see higher temperatures before others because it's their area that's releasing the most gases into the atmosphere!

This theory is supported furthermore by the evidence shown in this comparison. Now, not only do we see that the emitting facilities correspond with population and a projection, but they also seem to be in at least semi-relation to heat severity. On the map once again, there are power plants positioned almost on top of locations with distinguishable heat-severity markings. Which, gives us a pretty good illustration as an affirmation of our carbon footprint's direct impact on the temperature.

But what about everything else? What other effects does our immense pollution volume have? And I can guarantee the answer isn't something you'd have ever thought greenhouse emission could touch. Tornadoes. Or should I say tornado frequency? Consider the correlation between our "control" map and this new one, (which details the "Annualized Frequency" or yearly amount of tornadoes in certain sectors). Even after surface-level scrutiny, a correspondence similar to the one we've already established is quite noticeable. Though, in the way of contrast, we can also discern that districts with higher frequencies are slightly below the emission bases. Nevertheless, our CO2 and all other greenhouse gas releases do have relevance with this form of extreme weather, and there is a reason behind the incongruency. That reason is illustrated entirely by the data of "Weather Spark" displayed below.

If you haven't already, you may want to quickly check out the images above: See if you can make some observations for what they have in common, and at the very least, try to get a feel for the topic this section is all about. When you do, you may notice that is of course wind, the foundation of tornadoes. You see, while the placement of the higher tornado frequencies and the power plants do not quite line up, the variance is common for pretty much all of them. All the higher frequencies are below the emission sources. So, have a look at the tops and bottoms of the graphics. These show the prevailing wind direction (or the most significant wind direction), and the months of the year. Together they summarize which months have what prevailing wind direction by representing which months line up with which certain wind direction. But, the real point here is that the prevailing wind direction is south during the months "May and June [which] are usually the peak months for tornadoes." - (The information coming from  Where Tornadoes Happen | Center for Science Education ). And this all means that, during the season where tornadoes are many, the wind direction, pushing the greenhouse emissions with them, is predominantly south. Which, if you think about it, makes up for the maps being slightly out of sync. So, do greenhouse gas emissions really have a huge impact on tornado frequency? It's hard to know for sure, but the data certainly shows there is a connection between the two.

Depending on how you look at it, there are one or two last effects of this pollution most of us don't think twice about. Either way, the problem, or problems are due to extreme ozone levels, but ozone isn't the criminal, it's our emissions that are once again causing both the spikes and the dips. And the reason this isn't just a simple or one-way issue is because it's occurring on two levels. Take a second to view this image for an example:

Over the years we can see, from the 1960s, as well as in the 1970s when the graphs and illustrations really show some decrease, that the volume of something is dropping substantially. And, by the title on the left side of the graph or the look of the illustrations below it, you can probably tell that the material that's taking this dip is ozone, more specifically atmospheric ozone. The thing is, this ozone layer in the atmosphere, we need it, it's our protection against incredibly harmful UV rays from the sun, which can cause things like skin cancer. Unfortunately, the cause of this potentially disastrous event was also thought to be needed by businesses like those in the "refrigerants, solvents, degreasing agents in the electronic industry," as quoted from www.sciencedirect.com. CFCs, that's what they called these greenhouse gases, CFCs and HCFCs. Even a single chlorine atom in one of these gases we release into the air, says the NEEF (www.neefusa.org), could "destroy thousands and thousands of ozone molecules." So, it's no wonder why the ozone layer is being depleted. However, by 1996, the EPA "phased out" or disallowed any production importation of the CFCs into the USA, and the Montreal Protocol did the same in many other countries, but others still are suspected to have kept their use in place. HCFCs on the other hand are in hopes to be "completely phased out by 2030" as described by Britannica (www.britannica.com). For now, we just have to realize the risks and strive for this goal to be achieved.

Our other problematic encounter with ozone comes in its ground form, commonly called ground ozone. This ozone is yet another form of emissions that are released from the centers we see on our original map. This, along with what's described as "inhalable particles" by the US EPA's website (www.epa.gov), is being measured by the top map above, and the web map on the right in the comparison. Why you may ask. Because, this ground ozone substance, which sadly provides no help in repairing the atmospheric layer, and the pm1.0 and pm2.5 matter you'll also see in the measuring points, they pose very real health hazards, such as lasting lung disease/damage. In addition, take a quick glance back at the comparison, do you notice that the measurement points are all placed around areas with pollution facilities? And that there's none around areas that don't have any. The perimeters surrounding these places of emission are the most susceptible to those effects, it's yet another piece of evidence of what the greenhouse gases we produce every day, can do.

With all these negatives from our greenhouse gas emissions, they may seem too immense to face. But, in no way is it an "end all, be all" situation, just a steep hill to trek, and a lot of people to do it. I mean, just look at the masses of renewable energy sources even in Wisconsin! We've got renewable capacities shown by the web map like wind, solar power, biomass, as well as hydroelectric energy, and tons of them too! In terms of our pollution source map, there must be two to three of these renewable power sources for every one of the CO2 emitters we see on that map. However, we know these renewable sources do not have the potency to replace the energy measures produced by plants we see on the emissions map. So we know we still have quite a bit of progress to make and work to do before these green house gas plants can be "phased out" along with their effects.

In reiteration, our releasing of tons upon tons of greenhouse gases, like CO2, which happen every day, it's detrimental to the environment we see around us and when we look up. Cities like Milwaukee, Madison, and Green Bay, they all have larger populations as well energy needs as opposed to the smaller towns seen in the rest of Wisconsin. And, by the evidence shown, they'll also be the first to see the effects of this energy consumption/production. These effects include the well-known global warming, potentially hazardous air quality, and those seeming unrelated until evidence is presented, like how our emissions impact tornado frequency. However, we do have the means, to stop or at least control these results, the Montreal Protocol, for example, is making some great strides to limit air pollution's depletion of the ozone layer. And as we saw on the renewable capacities map, we've found many methods of producing energy more cleanly. But individuals can help with this project as well, even just the simple act of switching off the light in a room you're not using is a way to aid. Because remember, as of right now, this is the only world we've got to live in, so we want to make sure it lasts for as long as we can make it.