Prime-Evil

Computer models are not neccessary to identify the problem. Computer models are only neccessary to investigate the problem. The problem is simply that CO2 levels are too high, and that CO2 levels increase with deforestation and fossil fuel burning. The practical question is: How much deforestation and fossil fuel burning should be permitted while the problem is investigated?

That is what I am curious about. Historical levels of biomass.

I think normally towards the end of an interglacial period you would have more biomass than we have, and that would drive CO2 levels down and lead to a long slow decent into another ice age. I think it is the combination of deforestation, soil depletion, and fossil fuel burning that is causing CO2 levels to rise so high. In Northern forests at least, before we started logging the forest were less dry, and so they were less susceptible to forest fires.

Today, if we leave to much residue after logging it dries out and causes fires. If we don't leave residue the soil gets depleted faster, so we are damned if we do and damned if we don't. I think all the forests of North America are being managed to intensively. This too must change.

Prime Evil.

The information in the first paragraph of your last posting is excellent.

The second paragraph' date=' however, is speculation and should be identified as such.

 

I am skeptical of the current global warming paradigm. Not because I am saying it is definitely wrong. But because I am very aware of the enormous amount of doubt and uncertainty surrounding global climate change. As Dr. Augie Auer (meteorologist) recently said at a public meeting; "If we cannot predict next Wednesday's weather, how can we predict next Century's climate?"

 

I think there is a lot of arrogance surrounding the paradigm. We know that the computer models that predictions are based on are imperfect. Yet they are constantly used to predict all kinds of disasters.[/quote']Isn't that just a lot of rhetorical spin? Who is being arrogant. How should we be sceptical?

I am not sure that humans are that much of an exception to the rule. If you include things like make-up and high heels, you should also include luxury cars and sneakers. You could separate out items that are recieved as gifts, or have the appearance of gifts, but that can also be part of the appeal. Males and females are both naturally seductive and provocative, sometimes in different ways, but often by using methods normally associated with the other. It is notable that moderation and frugality is attractive to neither males or females, unless done in a very sly and seductive way, implying an underlying abundance of sexuality and excess. Usually however, this ploy is about as subtle as a baseball bat. Modesty and moderation are rarely effective when they are genuine. Sex sells. Whatever sells, is sex.

Like peacock plumage, sports cars are attractive because they are wasteful, not because they are functional or efficient. Even hybrids are mostly plumage. They get somewhat better fuel economy, but are still overpowered wastefully expensive inappropriate technology. Thus, they are attractive.

We are so doomed.

.

ecoli

Your query from dehammer's post.

 

umm... proof please

 

In fact' date=' any basic book on geology will confirm the gist of that post. I don't think dehammer quite got the dates right. Last time I looked, the ice age had lasted a bit less than 1 million years, with interglacial periods about each 100,000 years. Give or take 20,000. However, he is quite correct in saying we are still in an ice age. We just happen to inhabit the latest interglacial.[/quote']Recent ice ages have lasted 100,000 years, including interglacial periods of 10,000 to 40,000 years. The decent into glaciation is relatively slower than interglacial warming. The last peak in glaciation was 23,000 years ago. This current interglacial warming period began roughly 10,000-14,000 years ago.

 

Wht is unusual about this one is that the rise of the human species has suppressed and reversed interglacial reforestation and is no causing carbon dioxide level to rise to super-interglacial levels. We are now entering a period where we will not be able to look to examples from the past to predict an already uncertain future. We should be in for a wild ride.

 

Just smile and wave boys. Smile and wave.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age#Causes_of_ice_ages

http://ethomas.web.wesleyan.edu/ees123/iceages.htm

 

"They create a Desolation, and call it Peace"

.

So when is it's Birthday?

In Roman times, grapes were grown and wine made near the city of York. Can't be done today. It is too cold.

I understand it was relatively cold ~500AD

I understand it was relatively warm ~1000AD

I understand it was relatively cold ~1500AD

I understand it was relatively warm ~2000AD

But extra-ordinary climate change due to extra-ordinary CO2 levels has really just begun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

Give it time. You ain't seen nothing yet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_History_and_Flux-2.png

History repeats itself, but it never repeats itself exactly.

Two things which are the same, like years, or ice ages, are not the same.

In the face of uncertainty we should err on the side of caution. Aristotle also teaches us we should lean away from our natural dendencies. He offered a third bit of advice in such matters, but I cannot recall what it was. I have never understood skepticism to be an argument for recklessness.

.

I agree that Science does occasionaly require imagination' date=' like "what if?" or "How about I try some THIS instead?" type of thinking, but "leaps of Faith"?

I can`t envision one instance where this may be the case in Pure Science as you stated.

seriously, I really can`t think of Any.

 

as for these books, can you Honestly think of any Better Way to make up you mind about it, without actualy Reading it for yourself?[/quote']No perhaps not pure science. I am in applied science so I can't speak for pure science. I am not even sure what it is. But don't we always have to state our assumptions, or put our faith in others work based on some balance of probabilities or sense of priorities. Is there ever any absolute certainty, or does everything only have to be good enough for the girls we go out with?

 

I admit that is a very different thing than blind religious faith, but everything has its limits. I am not suggesting we need more religion in our science. I think we already have to much. Neither am I suggesting that we should have less science and rational thinking in our lives and society. Surely we don't have enough. I am only suggesting that we will always need a little something beyond science, and of course it should be as rich and diverse as is our nature. I think if we ever lost a sense of Nature we would realy be adrift. That perhaps is as much reason as any other to protect the biomass levels and biodiversity of our ecosystem, so that it will always be beyond our understanding. So that it will always have the potential and complexity to be more than just biomass levels, and biodiversity, and ecosystems. Of course there is complexity at all levels of abstraction and scales or time and space in nature, but forests and wetlands and such natural habitats are at a scale for which our human senses are best adapted. Or perhaps it is just a matter of bandwidth.

 

"O wonder!

How many goodly creatures are there here!

How beautious mankind is!

O brave new world,

That has such people in't!"

 

- Shakespeare, The Tempest

.

Somethings are more harmful than beneficial.

Somethings are more beneficial than harmful.

Should we be more sceptical of the harm of polution, or the need for so much of it?

Perhaps the best example of this is lawn care, but there are many many others.

Personally, I have grown sceptical of anyone who tries to sell me anything, including scepticism.

.

and i think you are wrong

Getting married and having children is a great way to discover myths.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth

"Mythology, mythography, or folkloristics. In these academic fields, a myth (mythos) is a sacred story concerning the origins of the world or how the world and the creatures in it came to have their present form. The active beings in myths are generally gods and heroes. Myths take place before time, before history begins. In saying that a myth is a sacred narrative, what is meant is that a myth is believed to be true by people who attach religious or spiritual significance to it. Use of the term by scholars does not imply that the narrative is either true or false. See also legend and tale."

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/myth

Main Entry: myth

Pronunciation: 'mith

Function: noun

Etymology: Greek mythos

1 a : a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon b : PARABLE, ALLEGORY

2 a : a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone; especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society <seduced by the American myth of individualism -- Orde Coombs> b : an unfounded or false notion

3 : a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence

4 : the whole body of myths

p.s.

The notion that we can't both be right is something of a myth.

All generalizations ultimately fail, but are still useful.

.

evidently Not. and so until he reads them with an Objective eye, he can`t possibly Hope to establish this for himself. then and ONLY then, when "armed" with information can he make his deductions and then choice. anything outside of this would merely be anecdotal, subjectively biased opinion worth little more in Scientific value than the electrons used to produce these words on screen.

.

One of the things that turns me off many religious zealots is what they say about nature. I can understand being against worshipping snakes and sacrificing virgin toads and stuff, but what's wrong with a simple walk in the woods. Some zealots just need to get out more.

.

p.s. My apologies to any traditional snake and toad cultures I may be ignorant of.

.

evidently Not. and so until he reads them with an Objective eye, he can`t possibly Hope to establish this for himself. then and ONLY then, when "armed" with information can he make his deductions and then choice. anything outside of this would merely be anecdotal, subjectively biased opinion worth little more in Scientific value than the electrons used to produce these words on screen.

.

The trouble with electric is to get good charging and discharging efficiency you need lots of batteries, and batteries add weight which means you need more power for the same performance, which means you need more batteries.

It's a trade-off. You end up 90% x 90% x 60% at best.

That is for AC/DC + Charging + Discharging.

You can add about another 75% because of wieght of batteries.

Also it usually takes fossil fuels to make electricity, so another 33%.

90% x 90% x 60% x 75% x 33% ~12%

So you can do just as well, or better, with a 10-20 hp diesel.

But electric is nice and quiet for short distances.

Also, the solar panels avoid a lot of innefficiency.

Again, keep the weight down, and the HP down.

Scooters are very efficient for one passenger.

At some point a bicycle is even better.

At some point, walking is best.

.

There are many good religions and Islam is only one of them.

As with most things in life, it is best to learn to be moderate.

To do this it is best to listen to and observe the moderate.

Religion is for the most part just a cultural thing anyhow.

Ignore the zealots. Better to talk a walk in the woods.

Honour thy Mother and thy Father. Consider the End. Fear the Land.

.

92% isn't possible, thermodynamically speaking. 40% would be very good. 20% would be a considerable improvement good if you could get it over a wide power range. The focus should be on being efficient at 5-10HP while still being capable of 60-80HP.

Yeah. We have a lot of woods here and I like to do a lot of hiking. Most of New Brunsick has been logged several times over and is used mostly for cheap fibre, so I often wonder if there is still enough to live off compared to 200 years ago. Gone is the forest primaeval, but they still find a really old stunted tree here or there. The logging has greatly increased the white-tail deer population, but the woodland caribou went extinct about 100 years ago. The Moose population is still healthy as we are doing a better job of protecting wetlands. The Mi'kmaq were more of a Maritime people than the other Abenaki tribes. In the past 400 years there is much less marine life - walrus, seals, whales, cod, salmon. So it's hard to imagine what they lived on if you only look at what is left of our natural habitat. There is still some abundance, but it is different, and I think it is less in total. I am not sure how much less. Half maybe.

It is still very abundant however, even as it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Brunswick

The Black Bear is an interesting example of how we might live if we were out there. In all of New Brunswick, (28,500 sq.mi.) we have about 25 people, 3 deer, 1 moose, and 0.5 bear per square mile. People are mostly in small cities of course. It is interesting when I go hiking to think that there are bears out there and they see or smell me, but I never see them. Of course many of them are fed donuts twice a year by 'guides' in preparation for the Spring and Fall bear hunt. I suspect we have two somewhat distinct bear populations now, those that still live in the wild, and those that are more or less 'farmed'. Anyhow, it might be a while before the Atlantic Salmon return to our rivers. They were coming back for a while after we fixed up a lot of their streams but aquaculture and overfishing here and off Greenland and Iceland seems to have taken its toll. They are 'farmed' now also. Doesn't seem right. Sure it still taste good, but that's not always the point is it? We start by taking natures abundance and then we are turning nature into farms, and then farms into factories. Where are we going with all this progress? How will we define 'nature' in 100 years?

.

There is a bit more to my statement about lack of harm from DDT etc. These products are fat soluble, as opposed to water soluble, and tend to end up in layers of fat or blubber. If injected into blood, they kill at quite low doses. However, when they enter the body in small amounts over a period of time, they accumulate in fatty tissues. They are stored there, and are, effectively, biologically inactive. While there is a lot of hysteria about the fact that animals such as polar bears have a lot of these products in their bodies, the chemicals are in fat layers, and evidence to show they interfere with normal metabolism is basically lacking. And that is not due to lack of studies.

.

The other question has to be what we are really getting in return for all this.

Some of it is very good, but most of it does not seem neccessary.

.

Prime Evil.

I will make an attempt at your queries.

 

Quote :

1. In the context of a 50 year half-life' date=' are the micro-organisms destroying these chemicals and biochemicals completely, or are they also using them within their own structures, at least partly? In other words, does the 50 year half-life refer to the entire breakdown chain, or just the levels of the most complex chemicals that you start with?

 

2. How long does it take for these micro-organisms that breakdown these chemicals to evolve or adapt to the new concentrations/structures compared to more naturally occuring chemicals/biochemicals?

 

3. Is it possible that sub-biological chemical changes to the environment can cause evolutionary or adaptive changes at this micro-organism level which causes the population and diversity of these micro-organisms to go up but also change significanty, such that the population and diversity of higher level organisms eventually collapses and has to rebuild because they cannot adapt as quickly?

 

4. How long would such a process of high level die-off and renewal take and is it reversible?[/i']

 

1. Micro-organisms use enzymes to break down organic molecules. For DDT, PCBs and the like, this takes a long time. The delay comes from the chemical stability of these compounds. For a million molecules, it takes 50 years to attack and destroy 500,000. then another 50 to destroy a further 250,000. etc. Treat it as a two stage process. Stage one lasts until a particular molecule is initially successfully attacked. This takes time. Stage two is to complete the destruction, all the way down to simple harmless materials like carbon dioxide and water. This is really fast. Essentially instantly, compared to the 50 year time scale. Thus the 50 year half life is the entire break down cycle.

 

2. Evolution and adaptation. Mostly, the concentration in the environment of DDt etc is very low, and the breakdown of these by micro-organisms is incidental to their normal way of life. Thus there is no driving force towards genetic change. Occasionally, there may be a pool of highly concentrated chemical. When this happens, bacteria may adapt. If and when they do, the actual adaptation is rapid. The spread of the new genes through their population is also rapid, if said genes are advantageous. Probably a few days, or weeks. However, sometimes there is no apparent adaptation at all, for decades.

 

3. I doubt we would see any collapse of higher organisms. The food chain is sufficiently complex that a change in one or more populations of micro-organisms would not have too much impact higher up.

 

4. Die off and renewal etc. We are dealing here with micro-organism ecology - mainly bacteria. At this level, changes occur quickly, including ecological change. Rebalancing the ecology would take days only, if it happened at all.

Thanks. I think that answers those questions but leaves one other.

If we use the ratio of human biomass vs total above and below ground forest and wetland biomass as a measure of our vulnerability, how much higher can the human population go, and how much lower can the forest biomass go, before things get 'too risky'?

Oil is a product of the earth and is a natural part of the eco-system. Refined petroleum products are a little different but during naval battles much of it was burnt in the explosions of munitions. The carcuses of the ships made nice homes for sea critters. Nature continued as usual.

 

I tend to believe that the eco-arguments are overblown. One only has to look at history to see what our fore fathers did. America had much more woodlands in 1492 then today. It was the second lungs of the world. The world is still breathing fine with one lung. Grass has more photosynthsis surface area per acre than a dense forest. Add shrubs will small leaves and the second lung may have improved.

I thought bass was a fish.

Why is it spelled bass if it is pronounced base? That always bugged me.

I have another fun question, perhaps less picky.

I know the type of instrument "bass" is a noun. But when you are speaking of the range of frequency, is that a noun, or a noun used as an adjective, or an adjective in its own right, or something ambiguously in between? Can it also be used as an adverb, as in play that a little more bass?

It's still possible to eat these plants isn't it?

EDIT - I guess they are dried first, and used more as a medicine than a food.

http://www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/crops/medicinal/bkq00s07.html

.

Formic acid is what ants secrete.

.