Essay

...at 9:26? Hey, am I the only one surprised to learn Albert Einstein was born on 3/14 ...in 1879; or am I just the last to learn about this "of course!" bit of trivia? ~

Hi ...and welcome to the forums: Don't know about native species, but those grassland biomes did evolve experiencing more fires ...in general, I think; or they were at least within the catchment of some fire's residues. I'd suggest looking into "biochar," which is just a cleanly-made, natural (waste) biomass, char (natural charcoal), that is used as a soil supplement. Char enhanced soils will host a broader biodiversity of microbes, which can affect germination and survival rates. Biochar: it's a way to restore many of fire's benefits, to the soil; without the inconvenience of an actual (on site) fire. I know many experiments have been done with biochar and germination ...and survival rates; so biochar should be worth looking into. You can't go wrong with the International Biochar Initiative, http://www.biochar-international.org/ as a good starting point. ~SA

Hi Mike, In non-scientific terms, only mammalian soils are going to be rich and brown. Reptilian soils are red or white (or yellow)... It makes sense ...when you think about the quality of reptilian, compared with mammalian, dungs. ~

Yes, the focus on cutting emissions only, and not also including the soil's capacity to store extra carbon (or become a source of emissions itself, if it's disturbed, oxidized, and degraded) is a source of great consternation and heartache for me also. As I've mentioned in our chats, agriculture affects a much larger percentage of the planet's soils. Here are some numbers about the carbon reservoirs, in general; I'll try to find some specifics on agriculture (and forestry too) compared with urban disturbances. I think deforestation itself accounts for over a gigatonne (1Gt) of carbon emissions. Let me know about any questions.... ...They don't highlight the small contribution, which the decomposers make naturally, to enriching the soils with stable carbon (the same sort shown by the thin downward pointing arrows coming from the phytoplankton, zooplankton, and fish) in this cartoon. But that is a newly discovered, significant player in the carbon cycle. see also: http://globecarboncycle.unh.edu/CarbonCycleBackground.pdf ...much of this information below is from this University of New Hampshire, in USA. Quantities for Carbon (not CO2), [CO2 = C x 3.67; ....so 10Gt of Carbon = 36.7Gt of CO2] “... a Peta-gram (Pg), also known as a Giga-ton (Gt)....” [Huynh, sometimes they use tons (2000 pounds) and sometimes metric tonnes (2,200 pounds, or 1000 kilograms (sorry, not 2000 kg.) ...and for these purposes, they are equivalent]. Terrestrial: 1,500 Gt [Huynh, most recent estimates have doubled this number, so maybe up to 3,000 Gt] ...[“Current estimates suggest photosynthesis removes 120 PgC/year from the atmosphere and about 610 PgC is stored in plants at any given time.”]... Oceans: 38,000 Gt [38,000 Gt Total; but about 1,000 Gt are labile ...quickly/easily exchanged] Atmosphere: 800 Gt [Huynh, this source says 750 Gt, but it is a few years old. I’ve heard 800 recently] Crust (sedimentary/geologic): 75 million Gt of carbonates (60 million Gt) and kerogens (15 million Gt) [kerogens include Fossil Fuels, of which we burn and add about 10 Gt/yr to the atmosphere.] Fossil fuel geologic reserves including: Tar Sands: 100 Gt Peats: 250 Gt Lignites: 500 Gt Oils: ~1,000 Gt Shale Oil: ~4,000 Gt Coals: ~10,000 Gt Gases: ~10,000 Gt ...from Killops & Killops, Introduction to Organic Geochemistry; 2005. Huynh, These "fuel" reservoirs formed over geologic time, as various carbon-rich "soils" became buried and fossilized, to create these “fossil” fuels. === ====> This is end of information copied from university webpage cited above. Thanks for studying! HUYNH, This is key point! Notice how they mentioned the terminology, “Organic soil carbon ...rather than TOTAL soil carbon." The “organic” is the labile part of soil carbon, and... the “total” includes the stable part of soil carbon. Soil carbon is the largest pool of carbon, which we can easily change. Better land management means we can increase the “stable part” of soil carbon. That is the way to pull CO2 out of the air (via photosynthesis and processing). Thanks for caring! ~SA

...to which It is my impression that (barring some "magic bullet" solution) there is an increasingly solid scientific consensus about 'how much & when' changes will occur, for the big picture; and that would be changes far greater than civilization could easily deal with, as well as global changes unprecedented on both evolutionary and geologic scales, and all unfolding within the next few generations or so ...and continuing for many generations and centuries into the future. The only debates about "how much warming will happen, and when" usually also include demands to know "where" those changes will occur; since these are debates among either policy makers, scientists working to improve the models, or casual observers wondering about the future ...or those looking for failures within the general expectations about the relatively short-term effects that have been predicted to occur during the early stages of a global warming event. Maybe that is drawing too much of a distinction between the general agreement and consensus about the greenhouse gas problem, and the specific details about how such an unprecedented global event will unfold across space and time, during the early stages; what do you think? ...plus, we shouldn't forget global acidification either. ~

That is the way I've understood it to be. They speak about a half life" sometimes, for CO2 in the atmosphere; but it is not a physical constant (like the decay rate of radioactive stuff) or a physical property of the molecule itself. The rate depends on the biogeochemical cycles of carbon, overall. That's why, as we keep screwing up the biogeochemosphere, the estimated rate keeps getting longer and longer ...I think. I was lucky enough to meet with a biogeochemist recently; wow! Nature has already developed a way of scrubbing CO2 (inorganic carbon) out of the atmosphere! It is called photosynthesis. The trick is to keep the scrubbed carbon (organic carbon) in the ground, or shunting some of the yearly biomass wastes into the ground ...building new and productive soils ...which we also need to feed growing populations anway. === But if civilization or most people vanished overnight, then there would be a massive redistribution of carbon; and I'd expect CO2 levels might return to normal, fairly quickly ... or even end up with CO2 levels lower than pre-industrial levels ...due to the large changes to the biogeochemical cycles of carbon, as civilization decayed and was overgrown and reabsorbed. But by "fairly quickly" I still mean many decades or even over a century to "re-stabilize" CO2 ...though it would still continue changing slowly as the biosphere continued evolving. But it would still take longer than that to restore the original conditions of the climate, if at all possible. ...istm. ~

Last Fall, I got a copy of a book from 1991, which summarized the "state of the art" back then ...regarding climate science. They are cautious in their statements, as scientists should be; but I thought the predictions would be fun to compare with today. I copied a few quotes relating to many issues that come up in the news ...especially the "growth of ice in Antarctica" and the "variability of greenhouse warming." From: Oxford Monographs on Geology and Geophysics no.16; Paleoclimatology; Crowley & North; 1991. re: a natural "cooling phase" or "plateau in heating" 14.1.2 Implications of Historical Climate Fluctuations for Detection and Modulation of a Greenhouse Warming "The amount of potential variance due to these natural fluctuations appears to be enough to modulate the course of any unidirectional warming due to CO2 forcing (at least in the early stages of a warming). This conclusion is obviously open to debate. We include it here not because it may be right but because it may help focus the discussion as to the relative importance of volcanos, the sun, CO2, and stochastic processes in determining the evolution of climate on decadal to centennial time scales." -p.257 .... re: a region affected differently 14.2.1 Regional Responses to a Greenhouse Warming "Although the East Antarctic Ice Sheet could grow during the initial stages of a greenhouse warming, it is possible that melting could occur if CO2 values reached very high levels. Since CO2 doubling studies indicate winter warming around coastal Antarctica of 8-14 C degrees (cf. Fig. 2.12), much higher CO2 levels could tilt the mass balance of the ice sheet from accumulation to ablation." -p.258 === I think the entire 21st century will qualify as the early stages of a global warming event, as they are speaking of it here. In the news, when they talk about "Antarctica gaining ice," they mean EAST Antarctica (as predicted by global warming theory, back in the early 1990s). West Antarctica is still warming and losing ice ...in response to greenhouse warming. === So.... Of the four major [most general or basic] predictions (for the early stage of a global greenhouse event): 1.) Polar latitudes will warm faster (and more) than lower latitudes. 2.) Arctic sea ice will decline ...seriously (and possibly disappear seasonally or totally). 3.) East Antarctica may gain ice as the hydrological cycle is ramped up by greenhouse heating. 4.) A disruption to the thermohaline circulation in the Atlantic may occur. [The first is widely known, but I don’t know the source; and the last three are from that 1991 Oxford monograph on climate, quoted above.] Check the “yes box” for the first three; although we may consider #2 as a failure, since the ice is declining faster than the specific ice-projection models predicted. Numbers 1 & 3 might seem contradictory at first glance (warming, yet more ice in some places?), but their specified scenario is becoming reality, now, 20 to 25 years later. If #4 also happens within the next decade or so, to what extent must the circulation be disrupted, for everyone to agree that this prediction has also been met? ~

...Yes, at odd times I can borrow a regular computer. I'll try to fill in that list. I did find the page numbers, for some key points I've been ranting about since 2011, in that ASM report, "How microbes can help feed the world [2013]." The significance of evolutionary relationships is highlighted well on page 6-7, especially the first two sentences (of main text) on p.6 ...and the first paragraph on p.7 ...plus the hilarious line ...about the evolution of plants: "How did they [plants] manage to avoid being consumed, especially since they cannot run away?" There is a fascinating chart on page 9. And then on page 12, in the last paragraph, is the most significant information (new discovery), which I have been highlighting in one of my slides ...about the rhizosphere. "It has been estimated that up to 30% of a plant's primary production (that is, the amount of carbon the plant turns into organic matter through photosynthesis) actually leaves the plant as exudate into the soil; the microbes must be making a fairly substantial contribution to earn such a high investment of the plant's resources."

Thanks for that. It is nice to see somebody else thinks we need to not only reduce the CO2 emissions, but also increase the absorption (biosequestration) of CO2, to restore stability in temperate-zone climates. The carbon-richness in soils, which is critical to restoring and maintaining productive soils, comes from CO2 that plants have converted into "root exudates" that then "feed" and help grow the soil. === Mostly, high-tech strategies for cutting emissions are being developed and/or implemented. Only a very few emission-cutting strategies employ natural (low-tech) means, and none of these(?) recognize the "carbon negative" potential in some strategies ...such as growing more productive soils! See: http://cmi.princeton.edu/wedges/intro.php & the teacher's guide at: http://cmi.princeton.edu/wedges/pdfs/teachers_guide.pdf See also, general info at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stabilization_Wedge_Game === The most significant advance toward recognizing the significance of carbon-rich soils (Mollisols & Chernozems) for developing productivity and for stabilizing atmospheric carbon levels, comes from a recent report by the American Society for Microbiology; and there is a description and link to the pdf report at: http://academy.asm.org/index.php/browse-all-reports/800-how-microbes-can-help-feed-the-world ... The actual report in .pdf format can be found above or searched online under: HOW MICROBES CAN HELP FEED THE WORLD. It's not about eating microbes, but rather about using microbes to help build and maintain carbon-rich, productive soils. === If you want to learn about all the connections between civilization and land use, then some good books to read (or just read summaries of) would be: Plows, Plagues, and Petroleum ...by Ruddiman Vestal Fire ...by Pyne Changes in the Land ...by Cronin Larding the Lean Earth ...by Stoll 1491 ...by Mann Thanks again! ~

Soils don't automatically "absorb" CO2. Healthy, growing soils (will only "absorb" CO2, as those soils) build up a higher carbon content [in the form of Humic Substances (HS)] when the conditions are right and enough moisture is avialable. But those same soils will lose carbon (as the carbon from HS is metabolized or oxidized or "mineralized" into CO2) if the soil dries out or other conditions degrade the soil. So it is a good question to wonder about what happens to soils that are paved over. I don't know about research, but I may find some time to look. I often wonder about soils buried under glaciers, so that would be a good place to start. But more than the few buildings that you are targeting, I expect the vast conversion of agricultural lands into suburban tract homes, streets, and driveways, paved over much more land. Agriculture itself, as parcticed on an industrial scale, also degrades the carbon content of soils. Including the energy intensive resources used in modern agriculture, over 30% of all greenhouse emissions can be linked to that economic sector of the global economy. So you're on the right track, looking at land use for fixing the carbon imbalance problem (as well as many other global socio-economic problems). ~ p.s. To clarify, the soils don't absorb CO2 directly, but they "absorb" or store carbon, which came from the organic matter that plants created by converting CO2 into sugars.

"This is a discussion..." on a climate change forum. Maybe it should be moved to philosophy of science or some other forum. But let me ask if you think scientists invented tobacco; is that why they are to blame? And... "astronomical ...rates" that are "routinely" found... should be big news. Do you have a citation for that? The link you provided didn't include any citation that I could find within its long exposition. === Next you'll be blaming gun violence on the Chinese, since they invented gun powder; right? I still wonder how you think blame can be ascribed so specifically; and as well, why you think blame needs to be figured out and ascribed to someone, or any class of someones, in particular. I try to keep a "no-fault" perspective on history, since they usually didn't know what they were doing... or had some myopic motives. It's even true today; but history is history, and we can only move forward. We're here! We're in fear! Get used to it!

There is a lot of "harm on the environment" from e-wastes and manufacturing effluents and by-products, but those are relatively local. Plastic itself causes many problems as trash in the Pacific. All sorts of assaults are being inflicted, through massive consumption and little recycling of products or wastes. While the scientists "invent" or facilitate the introduction of new technologies and products that make life better for many, it is the capitalists or the corporations that market the growth of consumption... and set up the system to discourage reuse or recycling. And certainly it was not the scientists who discovered how to burn fossil fuels for heat or profit. Even electricity was just a novelty for decades, before somebody decided to generate and market and distrubute it to clients. As others have said, it is not about the invention or discovery, but rather about the use and application of the invention or discovery (which science has little say in) that harms the environment; so I'd say "no" to science being to blame for either the ozone hole or general environmental harm, and certainly not to blame more than "Western Civilization" in general. === CO2 especially, and on a global scale, is harming the environment; both through acidification of the seas and skies and soils, and by retaining solar energy that is heating those same seas and skies and soils. The National Academies say that before the end of this century, we are on track to recreate conditions that have not existed on this planet for about 30 million years. Those conditions would not support our present agricultural (or other food and fiber harvesting) ecosystems, including arable soils, which only evolved within the past several million years. Scientists are detailing and parameterizing the problems of massive consumption/emissions, and pointing out ways to solve these problems, but policy makers need to listen. However, I'm still not sure where (or why) you could look for blame. Even in the late 1800s, at least one scientist was warning that excessive burning of fossil fuels might warm the planet and stave of any future ice-age conditions. So maybe just some scientists need blaming, but then so do some people from every other segment of society, especially the profiteers. ~ imho

Whatever high-tech ways they might develop for co-opting biochemical pathways and extracting energy, pyrolysis exists now and the process can also help solve many socio-economic problems. I agree with a report from http://www.charcoalproject.org/ that I saw several years ago, which said: After all... as these WorldWatch folks say, in: Mitigating Climate Change Through Food and Land Use: 2009 "Why should we not take every opportunity to find synergies between action to reduce climate change and action to advance other social goals?" -p.36 Pyrolysis can convert biomass into value. ~

Correct! Your analysis (of how to rebalance the carbon cycle) gets to the heart of the solution. Plants are already sucking down over 100 gigatonnes of Carbon (GtC) each year, before that new biomass decays and releases its carbon back into the air, during the yearly growth and decay cycle. Creating energy (or to be accurate, "releasing energy"), while shunting some of that "new biomass" out of the yearly cycle, provides a way to rebalance the carbon cycle. Pyrolysis ("burning" in low-oxygen conditions) of waste biomass will create heat that can be converted into power; while pyrolysis also creates charcoal (stored carbon) that retains about 20% of that "new" carbon from the [harvested] wastes of the "new biomass" from each yearly growth/decay cycle. Charcoal created through high-tech pyrolysis, and used sustainably to preserve its stored carbon, is called biochar. The International Biochar Initiative has lots of information about efforts to further this solution. http://www.biochar-international.org/ In addition to the energy released during charcoal (biochar) production, the biochar created also has value itself. Biochar, used as a soil supplement, can help repair much of the damage wrought by industrial-scale agriculture, and it can help realize the 5 Food Security Steps, in addition to helping implement most of the 8 U.N. Millennium Development Goals. 5 Food Security Steps: http://www.geog.psu.edu/sites/default/files/Scientific%20American%20Article.pdf 8 UN MDGs: http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/mdgoverview/ === We still need to cut emissions of fossil carbon, but.... Basically, you're right; there is enough biomass, if we would manage our lands more extensively. And then: Pyrolysis could convert that new biomass (shunting some "fossil" CO2) into restoring and maintaining rich agricultural soils, thus perpetuating a virtuous and sustainable cycle. === Is this along the lines of what you are suggesting? ~

I agree that trying to test soil moisture parameters with an indoor experiment might not reveal much, and how could you be sure of "evenly" distributed heat from your source.... But whatever setup you use: I'd be interested to see the difference that a soil amendment might make. Adding charcoal to soils, called biochar, is a way to improve water retention, nutrient retention and CEC, and biochar also helps soil aggregation--reducing water leaching and erosion--which is extra important in sandy soils. Some plants produce more "root exudate" than others, and the more root exudate produced, the more water will be retained. Biochar stabilizes the root exudates, helping to build up higher levels of humic substances in the soil, which also helps retain more water. Biochar also promotes microbiological and mycorrhizal activity in the soil, which helps retain more water too. Just search: biochar, or the international biochar initiative, for lots of info... especially if you're interested in sustainability issues.

"When it comes to extreme weather, the connection is pretty clear; the warmer the world, the wilder it gets. And with the speed that emissions still enter the atmosphere, we're right on track for an unrecognizable future." http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Kpigok-lVK4 NOTE: Celsius [centigrade] is used throughout the whole clip. So double the Celsius degrees, for any of those "change in temperature" numbers, to get Fahrenheit degrees of change... roughly. * === Several worthwhile quotes are found in this less-than-20 minute Australian video, such as: This last quote cleverly refers to evaporation and precipitation globally; and includes "transpiration," whereby plants "drink" water and then "release" a lot of water from their leaves into the atmosphere, as a big part of the global water cycle. === One major point, in the video, is about land-use & land-cover changes affecting how, if the sun is "free to heat the surface," a lot more local moisture is lost. Soil moisture buffers temperature changes, due to the extra material (water) in the soil that has such a high heat capacity. To clarify, their main point is that moisture, once in the air, adds to the heating and storm potential. It seems to me we can conclude: Soils, and how we manage our soils, can either magnify or moderate weather events. ==> They explain how... "Extremes are intensified" ...with only a 0.8 degree C [~ 1.5 F] rise in global average temperature... due to a lot more water vapor (full of stored heat) lurking in our skies. "That means we're getting more water from a [rare] big storm, than we would have 30 or 40 years ago; around 7% more per degree rise in temperature." This is twice the effect, predicted by the models, according to the video! They add that further "changes to the hydrological cycle could be 30%" if the expected warming continues. === Their second main point explains how... The Jet Stream is formed and stabilized! And how it is becoming a major driver of weird weather. Whether hot and dry, in a "big stagnant High," or cold and soaked by odd incursions of frigid Arctic air plunging far enough south to collide with warm Tropical moisture directly, we have a "bumpy ride" to prepare for. === After watching the video, we might conclude, istm: How Jet Streams are changing may be unpredictable; but the risk to (or the loss of) our Temperate Zone agriculture needs to be considered, if planning for the future. === Before watching this video, some metric conversions might be helpful. They mention: 0.8 © = (F) 1.44 degrees... change in global average temperature; & 100mm/hr = 3.94 inches/hr... Re: ...istm, this... ...is a Change Climate is causing. === fyi: === "And with the speed that emissions still enter the atmosphere, we're right on track for an unrecognizable future." ~~~ p.s. I don't usually watch videos online; But When I Do, I Prefer Dos Equis... as I jot down a few notes and quotes. ~Enjoy

The fire, is what "forms when oxygen mixes [chemically] with a fuel" Just to clarify, the superheated gas doesn't form "when oxygen mixes with a fuel." ...[unless that is how they define "superheated"] Yes, that is right. A superheated volume or body of gas (a hot plume) that combines (chemically) with oxygen is fire; and the light we see is from the gas molecules combining (reacting) with oxygen molecules... within that flame-shaped plume of superheated gas... as electrons move around within those reacting molecules or atoms of gas. === You could have a plume of superheated gas, where if enough oxygen was NOT available, the superheated gas would NOT ignite to become a flame. It would just remain a volume of superheated gas that did not emit any light (nor emit the extra heat that would normally be generated when reacting with oxygen). Fire spreads because the extra heat, from the ignited superheated gas (flame), causes nearby fuel to suddenly become a superheated gas. If enough oxygen is available, the new superheated gas will also ignite and release extra heat, which causes more nearby fuel to suddenly become a superheated gas... repeating the cycle. So the fire spreads, if enough oxygen continues to be available as newly superheated gas is generated. If you hold a match next to a piece of wood, some of the wood will continue heating up until it turns into a volume of superheated gas (hot smoke). Once that curly lick of smoke (superheated gas plume) ignites and burns, it heats adjacent wood until that wood suddenly vaporizes into smoke. That smoke helps repeat the cycle, while oxygen is available. ~ Right, and the light that we see from electrons relaxing, after they are exited by mixing chemically, is what we see as fire. So the shape of the flame is the shape of the (body of) chemically reacting gases. ~

For whatever reason... God seems to have created this C-14 decay property, which allows us to look back into history; and He created all of the other properties of reality, which seem to confirm that picture of Deep Time, or add to it. Even if everything was created 6 millennia ago, it was created to look as if it is much older and that it evolved through a long process. Don't you think God created it thusly, for a purpose? Don't you think there is a Grand Story out there, for which we have been granted the privilege of discovering and learning from; and from which we might more fully comprehend our domain and honor that purpose? === I'd like to hear your friend's reply to this perspective. ~

Those are good points too, and probably a better perspective for studying development; but all of those processes depend on the genes being signaled in some way to begin, continue, and finally stop each process. The OP also asked about how the signals cause the DNA to act, so we should mention the chemical binding of signal molecules to the DNA directly; as well as the chemical binding of "signal molecules" to other cellular molecules (which then bind to the DNA as a signal). Or there can be a whole cascade of different signal molecules between the cell wall and the genes in the nucleus, but ultimately some signal must tell a gene how to help the cell act out, "as if it knows," its position and function... within the organ or body. Transcription of the genes is "regulated" by the signaling. The chemical bonding of the signal to the DNA (or to the "coating" molecules of DNA) causes the chromosome to change shape--enough to change how easily transcription of the DNA can occur--either stopping or starting, or speeding or slowing-- regulating the production of proteins. ~.

They get lots of nitrogen from the soil, and critical phosphorus, as well as other important nutrients and micronutrients. In nature, plants exude up to 40% of their fixed carbon into the soil (through their roots), which feeds the microbes that "fix" the nutrients and return them to the plant, in plant-available forms. [1] ...or fertilizers can replace that process, and the root exudates tend to be shunted into faster growth. This affects micronutrient metabolism, as well as the plant's micro-RNA profile [2] (which can affect our immune system). [3] [4] ~ [1] The Rhizosphere, by Cardon & Whitbeck, 2007 [2] Scientific American, "Food We Eat Might Control Our Genes," Dec., 2011 [3] Journal of Lipid Research, "A big role for small RNAs in HDL homeostasis," May, 2013 [4] Search: {HDL/LDL proteins immune response} (...or HDL/LDL proteins & inflammation ...or HDL/LDL proteins & innate immune)

Whoops, I probably shouldn't have mentioned quorum sensing, since it has nothing to do with "organ shape" or any complex-animal processes. It is however, an interesting example of the amazing ability of simple cells, and suggestive of how more complex processes might evolve. === You mention that, "signals can be different only proportional with the population density." And if that were true, then your point would seem valid. But signals can be more complex, especially the relative ratios of different chemical gradients: The gradient provides a "different environment" for each cell (or row/layer of cells); and so sensitive genes can be turned on or off, or their expression rates modified, or even linked with other genes--by the different "signals" that the different environment (gradient) produces. There are several videos by Sean B. Carroll, which explain this much better. Try http://seanbcarroll.com/ ...or try to find his video lectures of "Endless Forms Most Beautiful" & "The Making of the Fittest," which are two books he has available. I've enjoyed that several times on our public-access cable. PBS probably has "What Darwin Never Knew" available. === But ultimately, the different environment of each cell will provide signals to the genes of that cell. Different genes react to different signals, and genes react differently to different levels of a signal--or ratio of signals. Sometimes it is a proportional reaction, or it may be an on/off reaction dependent upon some signal threshold. There are many different possibilities, and those can be modified depending upon the activity of other genes (which are sensing other signals). Sublime design emerges. ~

...that's not a tongue, but the front of a whole larva. It's funny how they can turn around, within their cocoon/house, and crawl in either direction. "Case Bearing Moth Larva" Common Stored Product Pests http://www.unexco.com/storprod.html ...but, "So named because the larvae carry their pupal cases about as they feed and travel, case-bearing moths are much less likely to be found in your home than the Common Clothes moth." So.... Clothes Moth Caterpillar Archives http://www.whatsthatbug.com/category/caterpillars-and-pupa/moth-caterpillars/clothes-moth-caterpillar/ They seem to build their cases out of lint and other common dusts (TP dust) and detritus (along with their own silk), probably adapting to live inside houses, imho. ...a little over a quarter inch long; right, 8mm! ~

...and @JohnC I wouldn't say it quite the same way. That sounds like a conversion from chemicals into light, but that isn't what your getting at, I hope. Some "chemical" energy can be converted into "light" energy, but other changes in "chemical" energy (especially heat) occur during chemical reactions. In other words, the chemical isn't turning into light, but rather some chemical reactions may "release" some light. === Not all chemical reactions give off light, but they all involve changes in "chemical" (heat) energy. "Fires" can burn and spread, while just smoldering without flames, which illustrates a slower and more incomplete chemical reaction (still oxidation) that only glows with red-IR light. But a flame occurs when enough hot fuel (smoke) is mixed well enough with oxygen (as the smoke rises and diffuses) to permit "complete" oxidation (a chemical reaction that gives off a brighter light, along with more heat, rapidly)--a flame. So the "flame" is shaped by the area in space filled with (very rapidly) oxidizing smoke. === Depending on whether the flame smoke is more carbon-rich or hydrogen-rich, you can get a different colored (yellow/blue) flame, or parts within the flame, as the smoke/fuel oxidizes. Other elements also produce unique colors when oxidized (reacted/combined with oxygen), which forms the basis of certain spectroscopes. ~ Assuming this is right and correctly expressed, does that make more sense... or make it more complex? p.s. "Chemical reactions" involve the exchange and rearrangement of electrons (which sometimes produces light), between and within atoms; so in a sense, chemical reactions involve a "flow" of electrons slightly similar to electricity. But I wouldn't try to understand one as an analogy for the other; though you possibly could define electricity as an ongoing chemical reaction that propagates contiguously... though you probably shouldn't....

Right! BC extends all the way east to include the Eastern Slope (Front Range) of the Rocky Mountains. We've got Mountain Pine Beetles killing trees like crazy in this area, and it's worse up in the Canadian Rockies. The climate used to be cold enough, on many mountain tops, to keep the beetle from migrating from one valley to another; but recently those mountain tops have been warmer. Even the pika is losing it range, being pushed off the mountain tops by advancing heat. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110420081826.htm "...the rate at which the climate-sensitive species is moving up mountain slopes has increased 11-fold since the 20th century...." Now the Pine Beetle can travel more easily between mountain ranges. === http://www.nps.gov/romo/naturescience/mtn_pine_beetle_background.htm "Pine Beetle Epidemic From Canada to Mexico: Park Takes Local Actions Bark beetles are native insects that have shaped the forests of North America for thousands of years. Bark beetles range from Canada to Mexico and can be found at elevations from sea level to 11,000 feet. The effects of bark beetles are especially evident in recent years on Colorado's western slope, including Rocky Mountain National Park...." "Hard winters with cold temperatures can kill beetle eggs and larvae wintering under a tree's outer bark. Related to general climate warming, average winter temperatures in the Rocky Mountains have been higher than normal over the past ten years. Trees have also been weakened by a prolonged period of low precipitation. The combination of milder temperatures and low precipitation has aided a vast outbreak of beetles." Mountain pine beetle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_pine_beetle The threat of mountain pine beetle to Canada's boreal forest. It may be the largest forest insect blight ever seen in North America. Climate change is said by ... Pine Bark Beetles Poised for New Attacks on Canada's Boreal Forests www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=pine...beetles...canadas...‎ Apr 11, 2013 - After more than a decade, the mountain pine beetle epidemic that surged ... to 2011 to become one of the worst ecological disasters in Canadian history. ... "The rate of expansion surprised virtually all of us," said Allan Carroll, ... === I've heard it is about 10 times worse up in BC than it is down here in Colorado. Our recent "Black Forest" fire was said to be more severe due to the large number of "beetle kill" trees in the area. ~

I don't think there is much that relates electricity with fire. Nor did I mean to say electricity is "relaxing" electrons, but just that the light you see (associated with some electricity) is from "relaxing" electrons. Electricity should still be thought of as "flowing" electrons (or electron holes). I'm no expert on electricity, so I should probably have kept my first answer to that "what is flame" part of the question. Please don't confuse electricity and light, based on that mention of "sparks" above. But at least you have a better notion about flames now, as the light you see coming from the (oxidative) chemical reaction, right? ~ Cheers