Essay

Perhaps we are conscious 100 years ago (and also in the future), now. Have you tried looking through the eyes of your ancestors (and descendants)? Have you tried listening to their thoughts and dreams? ~

Wow, what a lot of questions and what-abouts (if I scanned that well enough). I'll try to wade through that later, but to the points: I had only read some of their responses. It (they) sounded very true to life. Fortunately, that "little voice in the back of your head" doesn't guide science. Chaos is not a synonym for complexity ...or vice versa It seems as if you see a disparity between "chaotic systems" (a term that pops up often in your posts) or chaos, and "simple" systems (between chaos & simplicity). [edit] You can learn about why using "30 year straight lines" is valid in the sort of analyses that you are concerned about... If you would learn about chaos theory (and relinquish the association with chaotic behaviour), and then simply google the terms: "simple robust non-linear systems" and "chaotic attractor" together; I'm sure you'll find enough to quiet that voice in the back of your head. === Though another voice, of alarm and worry for our future, may become noticeable. I can see why that might not be preferable; but once you taste the fruits of knowledge, you can't go back. ~

The problems didn't start in 2001. Fundamental economic problems have been plaguing our system since its inception as a virtually free-enterprise system. Government response (the will of the people) has been an increasing response to excesses of capitalism for over 200 years now. These things co-evolved, so it might be helpful to go further back than 2001, when they had to come up with some commodity (home loans) with enough volume to carry our economy forward during the "threat" years. That is specifically why the Bush Tax Cuts were designed to expire in 2010. ~

I'd suggest you need to learn more about chaos theory, simple robust non-linear systems, and how science in general works. I found the CRU explanations very true-to-life and realistic; not totally proper or perfectly ethical, but not illegal either. Back in '08/'09, I read about the bloggers gleefully telling everyone how they could bombard these scientists with email requests (and since they were public servants, they were required to respond), and how this would bring science back under the control of the public... or "whatever" reasoning they came up with to promote this strategy. The scientists descriptions (from '10/'11) of what they were dealing with at CRU sounded familiar..... So on the basis of what you seem determined to describe as a few bad apples, all of climate science and greenhouse theory is what: a conspiracy, a hoax, a misguided boondoggle, a religious crusade? How do you see climate science and greenhouse theory? ~

I don't know about Capra's God, or that he mentions that in the book, "Web of Life,"...but I can see you think that by linking emergent phenomena to physics, I must have been offering that as proof for "only physics" as a final answer. I'm sorry this came across that way. Physics does not preclude God, and if anything might do more to suggest God, imho; but that's another thread. Stuart Kauffman has a good book on this topic: "Reinventing The Sacred" http://www.edge.org/...an06_index.html BEYOND REDUCTIONISM [11.13.06] ...helping us get past the limitations of our clumsy, patchwork, and inadequate definitions. === ... So earlier I wrote: "A connection I see between this and the title is about being Humane and Just." "While I applaud the Occupy message of being more humane, as in... 'stop screwing us over' so much...." ...and "Whether it is religion, spirituality, enlightened self-interest, or secular humanism, it is something that helps society keep people focused on maintaining a viable population to support the continuity and continuance of their civilization. One of the problems of free-market fundamentalism is that the focus on the longer-term future tends to get lost in the inhumane (wild) frenzy. ~imho" "But however we define things, isn't this question of articulating the OWS movement mostly about humane-ness vs. selfishness; or short-term myopic perspectives vs. long-term broader perspectives?" === And I'd like to get back to duscussing this perspective: Athena, your focus on: ...is the key, imho, (going back to the title/OP). Lets focus on that actual awareness (and the lack of it in some people) instead of the various sources of that awareness. Whether the source is "defined" (by any individual) as coming from God or mammalian genetics or enlightened self interest, I don't particularly care. I may be right or wrong about defining it (for myself) as coming from God (contingent upon my definition of God) for everyone, but that doesn't matter for us here now. We need to be able to talk about the future of humanity and civilization without worrying about whether or not the motivation for our concern comes from God or enlightened self interest ~ humane-ness. Or does it matter where that awareness and impetus to care comes from? ~

Life is like pornography; I think I know it when I see it.... I like your point about a "system" but even "a system" can be somewhat arbitrarily defined. ...and with such a definition, things like climate, soil, and Gaia might qualify as life, as these "things" are organic/inorganic systems that evolve, or at least co-evolve. Hmmmm, does anything "evolve" or must everything necessarily co-evolve? ~

These are emergent phenomena, complexities of life that are built up from things that are all based on the laws of physics. The book, Web of Life, by F. Capra, covers this very nicely. Though the laws of physics allow for many more dimensions than we are aware of, and so there is about 95% of reality that is beyond our perception, or the science of material analysis, at this time. Seems as if there is room for more perspective. But however we define things, isn't this question about articulating the OWS movement mostly about humane-ness vs. selfishness; or short-term myopic perspectives vs. long-term broader perspectives? ~

You're right! It was a bad pun about agriculture and the soil bacteria that convert ammonia into "plant-available" nitrates. I hope the OP didn't think the answer lay buried in the literature about this or nitrogen fixation. I was recently surprised to learn, however, that: "Despite application of luxurious amounts of N and use of refined best management practices, crops still acquire 40-80 percent of their N from endogenous soil reserves, and an average of 50 percent of the N applied is lost from agricultural landscapes. --p.137 The Rhizosphere: An Ecological Perspective Edited by Cardon & Whitbeck; Elsevier Science, Hardbound, 232 Pages; Published: MAR-2007; Imprint: ACADEMIC PRESS. LC Call #: QK644 .R445 2007 This "lost" nitrogen is a large source of GHG pollution, as well as creating "Dead Zones" (and future oil shales?) in our coastal waters and fisheries, so it's an important topic. And I was happy to see someone learning about the reactions that supply those still important "endongenous soil reserves," supporting our food supplies, so I got carried away. The mention of a 2x factor didn't seem to be relevant either, so thanks for keeping the focus on useful results. A little color commentary can be nice, but it can be distracting too; so I'll try to tone it down a bit moving forward. Thanks for the help. === "Clearly, greater reliance on plant-mediated mineralization for nutrient acquisition in agroecosystems would reduce the potential for nutrient losses due to the tight coupling betwen the release of soluble, potentially mobile nutrient forms and plant uptake in the rhizosphere. This could be particularly advantageous in the case of N, which is highly susceptible to loss once it is converted to inorganic forms. Inorganic N pools can be extremely small while high rates of net primary productivity (NPP) are maintained if N-mineralization and plant assimilation are spatially and temporally connected in this manner." --p.137 Wow, anyone could become rich by inventing something to connect those processes spatially and temporally, in that manner. Or they could use biochar, which does that naturally, and cuts nitrous oxide emission up to 50% ([2007] David Laird, USDA National Soil Tilthe Laboratory). ~ Thanks again for making sure something more immediately helpful was conveyed.

From an ecological perspective, these reactions are important to the source of our sustenance. But I only mentioned metabolism with respect to how the 3 OP equations were NOT presented. I should have added that they also are written NOT to show any particular industrial (input/output) process either. They are general chemical statements that could be applied to understand either metabolic or industrial processes, right? ~

A connection I see between this and the title is about being Humane and Just. Whether it is religion, spirituality, enlightened self-interest, or secular humanism, it is something that helps society keep people focused on maintaining a viable population to support the continuity and continuance of their civilization. One of the problems of free-market fundamentalism is that the focus on the longer-term future tends to get lost in the inhumane (wild) frenzy. ~imho ...but about the Occupy movements specifically: Occupy the Media! Are we gonna have to listen to 10 more months of political kabuki theater, while the rest of the world and history progresses without us? Occupy Wall Street should demand a microtax on computerized transactions--especially short-term, round-trip financial (profit-taking, non-investment) excursions. The EU Merkozy solution is moving forward with this! Let's help them out! It should be a global standard, and it is something that global occupy movements can push for... hopefully without risking the predictable backlash of "world government" worriers. While I applaud the Occupy message of being more humane, as in "stop screwing us over" so much; I think the OWS movement needs to pick a few small concrete adjustments that could be made... to the system. A focused microtax, such as that, would only target those taking the largest "legal" advantage of the system, not the small or average or even most of the large investors. It would be a way for the system to show some "good faith" or reciprocity; or at least acknowledge that the Occupy movement is being heard or that Wall St. can be more humane. But that might be asking too much, eh? ~ Or we could make the 1% pay for the rehab. and recovery of the other 1% ( the Military Vets who protect our personal liberty and the liberties taken by Wall Street). ~

...not sure I follow, but those equations are not balanced between each other (if that makes sense) and so yes? you do need to account (adjust) for the proportions? ...in all 3. Does that give you a different way of looking at it? ~ p.s. ...in other words, those equations are not meant to describe the input and output of a particular metabolic pathway. They are just 3 philosophical statements that can be related to each other in various ways and circumstances; not a unified input/output statement.

I notice that your answer is exactly half of the expected. That should be a good clue! Dig in to these most important of reactions for bacteria; nitrifying denitrifiers & denitifying nitrifiers... assimilatory and dissimilatory nitrification! ...or words to that effect. ~

Good point! Don't confuse Red Herrings with Debunking. A Red Herring is bunk, and it can be debunked; as with the idea that global biogeochemical change is simply hype from a bunch of save-the-fuzzy-polar-bear fanatics. I think that Lomborgism was debunked long ago... or was that just another "think tank" media blitz. === While polar bears are cute, any given species shouldn't be the point about the problems of global warming. The Arctic is one of the main modulators of our mid-latitude weather. The Arctic physically drives increased seasonal diversity, which then replenishes many of our mid- to lower-latitude ecosystem resources (especially water), and it drives the temperate seasonality of the mid latitudes--for which our main food crops are adapted. Monsoon paleoclimates always show shifts in responce to changes in the ice sheets, so that (along with other tropical effects) should be expected to affect tropical agriculture too. The National Academies reports that CO2 will soon be at levels which the Earth had about 30 million years ago. That is a time back before the Arctic stabilized and before tropical (nutrient-poor) conditions, which had always prevailed in the mid latitudes, were replaced by the past 5 to 10 million-years worth of evolved, temperate-adapted, nutrient-rich conditions and biodiversity. CO2 levels will shift the climate back --2 to 3 times further back in time-- than what our current temperate world (and ecosystem resources) evolved to thrive in. The Arctic ecosystem is also the basis for much of the oceanic food web; though continued acidification (from extra CO2) of the ocean will change the food web either way. So an important reason to reduce CO2 levels isn't about maintaining a particular population of polar bears or a particular sea level; it's about preventing acidification of the seas and soils, saving the sea ice, and maintaining an intricately evolved food web--our food chain. It's not about saving any particular charismatic species, but about saving the biodiversity that took millions of years to evolve into species adapted for living in today's temperate world; it's about saving the source of our species' sustenance.

In this thread: http://www.sciencefo...mits-to-growth/ ...a model covering those parameters is discussed. It is based on biophysical dimensions (food, fuel, other resources) and biosocial dimensions (population, standard-o-living, etc.) to predict growth, sustainability, and limits. http://www.newscient...f-collapse.html ...talking about old economic theories.... New Scientist, 7 January 2012 "These notions, however, were based on little more than speculation and ideology. The young scientists tried to take a more rigorous approach: using a computer model to explore possible futures. What was shocking was that their simulations, far from showing growth continuing forever, or even levelling out, suggested that it was most likely that boom would be followed by bust: a sharp decline in industrial output, food production and population. In other words, the collapse of global civilisation." That model might be a good basis for an economic theory based on modern-day reality. Such a theory should be more gobally relevant, and "disproving" faulty aspects would occur quickly as they should be noticeable across a wide range of conditions. It may be a fools errand to try reworking "economic theory" using only the "basics" that were defined generations ago-- when nation-states were newly evolving, vast and new frontiers were continually opened before old ones filled, and regional developments affected local populations rather than global biodiversity & global biochemistry --when "competitive advantage" made sense as a foundational principle. Competitive advantage works great on a local and regional level, where feedbacks are rapid and local controls are organized. So it is an important part of a global economic theory, but it shouldn't be the philosophical basis for any theory... imho. === Mixing psychology and economics is what caused many of our current problems; just google: Dichter advert.... But psychology (the little that we currently know) may be helpful. The psychology involved should probably be directed at helping various populations and generations get beyond their personal ideologies and focusing more upon physical realities--getting beyond short-term considerations and focusing more on long-term viability--to help promote a reality-based economic theory. === The model highlighted in New Scientist article talks about the long-term prospect for civilization: "Only when the growth of population and industry were constrained, and all the technological fixes applied, did it stabilise in relative prosperity." From what I know of biophysics and ecology, this sounds like a robust model--at least it is based on physics rather than ideology. ...and it's been around long enough to retrospectively double check.... ~

JohnB, a good point. Of course you are not confusing "the annual carbon cycle and fluxes" [the "natural" amount that dwarfs the anthro CO2] with the natural volcanic amount that is dwarfed by anthro CO2. And just think... if we could shift that flux in the "natural amounts," which do dwarf anthro emissions ...shifting just 1% or 2% would solve the problem, eh? That is the point about focusing upon land use--and the rhizosphere--to make a big difference. http://www.sciencefo...post__p__648780 re: your "Here is where we differ" post. Note: the relevant quote from that post is bolded below (p.31). Also from the 2007 book, "The Rhizosphere: An Ecological Perspective "Globally, the input of C to the soil [is] ...approximately one order of magnitude larger than the global annual rate of fossil fuel burning and other anthropogenic emissions...." "Thus small changes in the equilibrium between inputs and decomposition could have significant impact on atmospheric CO2 concentrations...." --p.31 ...also relevant: ~ "Thus small changes in the equilibrium....

Constantly!?!~ ...but back on topic: If you're talking about 30 year trends, I think the graph at the top of the page is more indicative of the problem. But why talk about 30 year trends at all? It is diverting attention away from global warming theory, which is based on the GHG properties of CO2. These apply over time spans much longer than 30 years, and the theory is not based upon recent temperature trends or paleoclimate records. ~

Yes, that is a good description of the imbalance. Managing the balance, as naturally as possible, should be the goal. We've been oxidizing carbon to advance and evolve, as a species, for over half a million years now; and the new balance between oxidized and reduced carbon in the biogeochemosphere (too much oxidized) is beginning to cause problems. Nature had evolved to maintain that balance with natural (somewhat reductive) wildfires, but for several hundred years now we have worked very hard to exclude natural wildfires from the landscape at large (and have even caused more-oxidative wildfires). Pyrolysis simply substitutes for the evolved pyrolytic process of natural, uncontrolled fires and brings it within our control to replace the benefits that natural fires have always brought to soils... for almost half a billion years now (except the last few hundred years). These two books cover the topic fairly completely: ...Library of Congress Call# = QE516.5 .K55 2005 & It is a way of aspiring to be as good as Nature, rather than trying to transcend Nature; as E. O. Wilson suggests we do. ~

I realize this is cross-posted, but to be clear: Pyrolysis directly addresses the "heart of our problems," which is managing the balance of carbon--and the balance of food, fuel, and fiber--in the global biogeochemosphere. [edit] ...and should not be confused with "carbon capture & sequestration" technology, which is an ill-conceived, dangerous, uneconomical, band aide (imho).

Maybe you missed the second half of that title (after the 2050 date)... "while greatly reducing environmental damage." That is sort of the main point really. The green revolution was about a few making lots of money by feeding extra people while destroying the environment. This new knowledge allows many people to make a little money by feeding planned people while fixing the environment. recall - over 30% of GHG emissions can be managed through land-use sectors. ~ ?

Right. No, that doesn't sound good. New industries need the demand first. This is all predicated on a global recognition of the value of carbon, which is where global education and cooperation are needed. Our future will be determined by how we manage carbon. As carbon-based life forms, living in a carbon-based economy and ecosystem, it only seems to make sense. Plus it is the only sense that makes things viable in the long term, so either we will eventually figure this out... or not. New Industries can produce (directly or indirectly) food, fuel and fiber, by managing the balance of carbon that cycles between the atmospheric and soil pools. Neat, huh? Pyrolysis is the key to these new industries. Specifically, reductive pyrolysis.... While this book does not go into the details of reductive pyrolysis, the title suggests the direction we need to be moving. ~

Right, but population growth rate seems to be inversely proportional to development level; so focusing on industry and the fixes, to promote development, seems more beneficial. It tackles the "too optimistic" projections, and it improves the population problem indirectly (probably more than practically enforced measures ever could). Even if we had ZPG right now, the crash would still come (without the industry constraints & fixes). Even with continued PG now, the crash can be averted (with the industry constriants & fixes). "And while the model was too pessimistic about birth and death rates, it was too optimistic about the future impact of pollution." I'm not trying to say population doesn't matter at all, but.... C'mon... ...aren't they saying it is the industry & pollution part-o-the equation, rather than population, that needs more improvement right now? And that is all correct, but what other option is there? It needs to be noted that the "green" revolution is at the root of many of today's current resource problems, so this new information (within the past decade) about land use does provide a new option...

I don't think private companies remove jobs; but improved "productivity" (or increased efficiency) does cause problems, as does outsourcing, monopolies, etc. But that is just the ebb & flow of free enterprise, so it is a necessary part--being that sector which provides the growth, diversity, and novelty so important--in any sustainable system or economy. But more specifically, about being close to the edge....It always seems that way, eh? I agree simply relying upon our old industries to provide jobs is a losing battle, but new industries should grow up to provide those needed jobs. Industries focused on those 5 food security steps would provide the best return on investment, at least in the long term, so hopefully that will happen. Global education about this, and cooperation along these lines, would provide a good ROI also. There is the potential for a lot of new jobs, if we focus on preparing for the future instead of remodeling the past; and these would be jobs enhancing needed development rather than extra growth. === This was new information to me, and I was surprised to learn about this new potential for land use to address so many economic, resource, and social problems simultaneously; how about you? ~

I should have included some of the details from that SciAm article to make this clear; but the point about more food is not to accommodate more or extra people, but to better accommodate the existing and projected people. "In Brief: The world must solve three food problems simultaneously: end hunger, double food production by 2050, and do both while drastically reducing agriculture's damage to the environment." "By 2050 the world's population will increase by two billion or three billion, which will likely double the demand for food, according to several studies. Demand will also rise because many more people will have higher incomes, which means they will eat more, especially meat. Increasing use of cropland for biofuels will put additional demands on our farms. So even if we solve today's problems of poverty and access—a daunting task—we will also have to produce twice as much to guarantee adequate supply worldwide." As people do better, they tend to eat higher up on the food chain. This isn't about any pet project, such as a non-condom male contraceptive; this is about fundamental socioeconomic change across many sectors of society and economy. === The New Scientist article mentioned: "Only when the growth of population and industry were constrained, and all the technological fixes applied, did it stabilise in relative prosperity." Even if we had ZPG right now, the crash would still come (without the industry constraints & fixes). Even with continued PG now, the crash can be averted (with the industry constriants & fixes). === Population isn't the critical part of the problem now. Population is already "constrained" when compared with what was projected. "And while the model was too pessimistic about birth and death rates, it was too optimistic about the future impact of pollution." === Aren't they saying it is the industry & pollution part-o-the equation, rather than population, that needs more balance?

...Right on! It's hard to believe that only 40 years ago they didn't know how that behaviour is standard for complex systems --didn't know about chaos theory, stable attractors, simple robust non-linear systems-- and how the world is filled with nothing but physical and biological examples of such boom-n-bust cycles. Yes, this is the reason scientist sometimes get characterized as "alarmist" or "running around with their hair on fire." If you were uniquely positioned to see the impending overshoot, and the likely delay, then you might feel obligated to run around sounding the alarm. ...if the alarm is heeded in time! ...it always comes down to the health of the soil, I notice. Yikes!!! ...But I bet they didn't know about this new information --the recent paradigm shift on humus and soil carbon-- and how it relates to so many of the parameters in their model. -[Title slide2: SciAm; Nov., 2011] New paradigms about soil & humus—and their connections with land use, agricultural productivity & yield, climate & the carbon cycle, and socioeconomic resilience & the Millennium Development Goals—all make an affirmative answer much more likely. ...Logos & Nomos. Yep, couldn't have said it better! ~