Essay

=== But back on topic, the "abrupt" changes you mention were long ago and far beyond the "few millennia" that I mentioned. Though you are right; even those abrupt changes were far slower than today's very abrupt and drastic change in CO2 levels. Scientific American had a recent article on how today's CO2 excursion is occurring at about 10 times the speed of the PETM, one of the most famous "abrupt and drastic" changes in geologic history. http://www.scientifi...-global-warming "Surprising new evidence suggests the pace of Earth's most abrupt prehistoric warm-up paled in comparison with what we face today. The episode has lessons for our future." Figure 2. Rate of temperature change today (red) and in the PETM (blue). Temperature rose steadily in the PETM due to the slow release of greenhouse gas (around 2 billion tons per year). Today, fossil fuel burning is leading to 30 billion tons of carbon released into the atmosphere every year, driving temperature up at an incredible rate. "Many of the other climate feedbacks that we either already observe today or expect to experience probably took place during the PETM warming, as well." http://www.wundergro...limate/PETM.asp But our future looks to be as "drastic" as the PETM, even if the PETM was "slow" compared to today's rate of change. ~

CSCCC? ...who? JonB, What "think tank" are you talking about? The only one I saw was your reference to the CSCCC, which is so proud of its "non-governmental" (i.e. private) funding.... ...however, that's just wikipinion....=== Neither do I think Matt Ridley speaks for several millennia of future generations of humanity.... === But to get back onto topic.... AGW affects the poles more than the tropics, where hurricanes form. Also.... Hurricanes are one of Nature's Best heat engines, which transport a lot of heat poleward, but they may not be "linear" indicators of extra heating globally. [my edit/clarification] This seems accurate, and highlights the importance of the Temp. Differential between SST's and lower Stratosphere/Tropopause temps. Mainly, it points out the lack of a direct relationship between hurricanes and SST's. So greenhouse heating could change these terms or parameters differently, driving the temperature differential to either favor or supress hurricanes. But either way, hurricanes are still weather; and the Greenhouse Theory (or AGW/Climate Change) is not based on models of the weather or the temperatures. Neither is it based on historical trends or current observations of weather or temperatures. Greenhouse theory is about basic physics, and the changing chemistry of our atmosphere; and the consequent changes to oceanic pH and long-term changes to the climate system's overall heat distribution; not weather. === Having said that, I recently heard that these days: "record lows" are outnumbered two-to-one by "record highs," ...plus.... http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ October 4, 2011 Summer 2011: Arctic sea ice near record lows "The summer sea ice melt season has ended in the Arctic. Arctic sea ice extent reached its low for the year, the second lowest in the satellite record, on September 9. The minimum extent was only slightly above 2007, the record low year, even though weather conditions this year were not as conducive to ice loss as in 2007. Both the Northwest Passage and the Northern Sea Route were open for a period during September. Arctic sea ice extent for September 2011 was 4.61 million square kilometers (1.78 million square miles). Average ice extent for September 2011 was 4.61 million square kilometers (1.78 million square miles), 2.43 million square kilometers (938,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average." That is 34% below "normal," the recent average. "As in recent years, northern shipping routes opened up this summer. The Northern Sea Route opened by mid August and still appeared to be open as of the end of September. The southern "Amundsen Route" of the Northwest Passage, through the straits of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, opened for the fifth year in a row." "....Fifth year in a row!" I didn't know that! ~ === But who cares about the weather or the temperatures this season or decade or century? We are pushing our atmosphere back to conditions prevailing 30 million years ago, within just several more generations! Hello?! Does anyone see a problem with surviving those conditions, for the next several millennia? Eocene soils would not support agriculture enough to feed our population, or support Earth's present biodiversity, to say the least! I think that neither the Arctic, nor the four seasons, nor higher primates, had evolved at that point! === But that is several generations away.... ~

Psy: An evolution forum seem appropriate enough for this topic, since "UV inhibition of phytoplankton" illustrates what evolution has always had to cope with.... ....[Note: cDOC = chromophoric Dissolved Organic Carbon (Humus/Humic Substances).] "The photosynthetic underwater light climate (photosynthetically active radiation, PAR) is controlled by cDOC in two ways, by determining the quality of underwater light and the maximum depth at which photosynthesis can take place. The depth to which UV light penetrates... is a function of cDOC components in water...." --p.118 Just small concentrations (of at least >4mg/L) "...are sufficient to act as a biogeochemical shield against UV-B radiation, allowing UV-B to penetrate only a few decimeters into the water column." -p.119 Anthropogenic oxidation of humus worldwide is a growing problem for various reasons; not least of which is that "...while the DOC content decreases linearly, the UV-B penetration increases exponentially. This is especially striking at lower concentrations (<3 mg/L)." -p.119 ....[Note: "forest borders" relate to levels of cDOC] "Aquatic ecosystems suffer from several symptoms of global climate changes, such as ozone depletion and subsequent increase in UV-B radiation, and movement of the forest border. Yet, which of these symptoms has the most adverse effect on lake or river [ecosystems]?" -p.121 "...a 20% reduction in cDOC has a much greater effect on UV inhibition of phytoplankton, than a similar percentage depletion in stratospheric ozone." -p.121 In addition to contributing 30% of the global greenhouse-gas emissions, through Land-Use changes.... Anthropogenic oxidation of humus worldwide, which continues through Land-Use changes, is a growing problem for other reasons! [see: Sixth Mass-Extinction Event and UV-B radiation] ~

~ Cypress, It is changes in solar insolation (from Milankovitch cycle) at 65 degrees N. latitude, which causes permafrost to begin melting... which begins the warming cycle of interglacials. It is not a net "warming" which triggers glacial/permafrost melting, but just a change in the distribution of insolation. === Our current CO2 loading of the atmosphere completely overwhelms that natural forcer; so yes, we have prevented any future return to the "glaciation mode" until CO2 levels return to normal. This is good, but we are in danger of overcompensating the natural cooling forcers; to the point of causing Eocene (over 30 Mya) condition to predominate. ~

"...atmospheric CO2 is projected to increase to levels that Earth has not experienced for more than 30 million years." Yikes!!! This is from: Understanding Earth's Deep Past: Lessons for Our Climate Future (2011) Board on Earth Sciences and Resources (BESR) Division on Earth and Life Studies (DELS) National Academies Press This fascinating journey into "Deep Time" is worth a look, and it is free! http://www.nap.edu/c...record_id=13111 QP, this is from the National Academies Press. A change worth 30 million years, occurring within about a century, has not happened for over 50 million years (or longer) of Earth's history. We were just lemurs in the trees, that long ago, and the modern C4 grasses had not even evolved yet. This is also before the polar ice caps existed. This is unprecedented, within the evolutionary histroy of mammallian life. But I'd sure like to get the citation for that 2010 book you mentioned. ~

You think we should wait until GW fully manifests to get the final proof? But each ecosystem component has a different lag time for heating to manifest; and what about ocean acidification? When would you suggest... ummm well, nevermind. Fortunately, your belief doesn't dictate reality. In reality, there is the Wedges Strategy, which can stabilize and even reverse the CO2 problem before its effects are fully manifested in the environment. http://cmi.princeton...edges/intro.php There are now more than 15 wedges ready to go, and we only need to pick 8 or 9 to stabilize CO2. There are many options to mix and match wedges also; and some of these wedges help solve many of the 8 Millennium Development Goals. For profit? What could create more value than restoring ecosystem services? I guess it depends on what generates demand for something. Some of the "wedges" involve new products and new industries and include low, medium, and high-tech solutions. They seems ideally suited for our current situation where old products and old industries are not driving much demand. I googled: Land use wedges and the 8 Millennium Development Goals ...and these came up ==> http://www.un.org/en.../climate_07.pdf & also My link came up, along with... Mitigating Climate Change through Food and Land Use see page 33, first paragraph re: Millennium Dev. Goals #1, #3, and #7. ...and that's just a partial list. I could go into more detail on the economic co-benefits of land-use change (furthering Goals #4 & #5 also) if you're interested. === Not only is the problem solvable, but it seems to be our only opportunity for creating new economic sectors (or reviving old sectors) that can handle the 8 billion (or 1 billion additional) people that will be here in another decade. We need to double food production!! over the next 40 years! Please help these people by advocating for these types of solutions, which should lead to developing new, sustainable economic sectors. Thanks, ~ That is a very good description!=== JohnB: It might be more accurate to say increased heat loss, rather than a "cooling effect;" but either way, about half of that increased heat loss is re-radiated back down toward the planet's surface. That's why at night it stays warmer than the surface of the moon, though in dry (desert) areas it does get much colder at night than it does in more humid areas (with similar daytime temps). If there is more CO2, then its heating effect will increase water vapor. That extra water vapor then adds even more heating (of the surface) from the atmosphere. ...and it increases the heat loss to space also, to balance the increased heating from CO2. One difference between heating from CO2, and from other sources, is that the heating occurs 24/7/365 over every square foot of the Earth's surface, decade after decade. Other forcers are variable and usually don't persist as is predicted for this injection of CO2. ~

I think you'll find that CO2 varies by a few ppm/decade over the past few millennia, as you suggest "similar to a sine wave;" not changing much on the multidecadal scale, except slowly over centuries. Here is a .edu link on climate for that period. The site is hosted (for his classes) by one of the top-ten "carbon cycle experts" globally, and you can ask questions or get clarifications if needed. http://ats150.atmos....astClimates.pdf ~

Hey Cool! That sounds like the information that I was wondering about.... http://www.sciencefo...post__p__633161 I wasn't sure if this might be the first evidence on an impact event, but other's are on the trail it seems. That idea of a tail hitting before the impact might explain some of those similar (heating and deflation) observations, which are so widespread. Thanks! ~ p.s. &.. Thanks for the graph Grandpa; as I notice the big dip at 4kyr BP....

"...have allowed us to interpret the 4kyr BP dust-event as the fallout of a distal impact-ejecta rather than a sudden drought. I ran across this recently, and wondered if there is any biblical or other historical/anectodal record of a global event such as is suggested by this evidence below, for an impact event. === I'm still studying soils and their (recently recognized) strong influence upon climate, but impact events affect climate too.... New Trends in Soil Micromorphology Kapur, S., Mermut, A. R., Stoops, Georges Published: 2008 LC Call Number: S593.2 /.N48 /2008 Hardcover, ISBN 978-3-540-79133-1 "...have allowed us to interpret the 4kyr BP dust-event as the fallout of a distal impact-ejecta rather than a sudden drought. ...link the fallout of the far-traveled dust with high temperature effects at the soil surface and violent deflation of surface horizons by high speed winds." "Results are based on soil data from the Eastern Khabur basin (North-East Syria), the Vera Basin (Spain), and the lower Moche Valley (West Peru) compared with a new study at the reference site of Ebeon (West France)." "In the four regions studied, the intact 4kyr BP signal is identified as a discontinuous burnt soil surface with an exotic dust assemblages assigned to the distal fallout of an impact-ejecta." "Studies showed how a high quality signal allows to discriminate the short-term severe landscape disturbances linked to the exceptional 4 kyr BP dust event from more gradual environmental changes triggered by climate shift at the same time." There is lots of literature about the climate shift at ~4000 BP. Googled: trend in climate "4,000 years BP" http://hol.sagepub.c.../1/117.abstract "Our results show that this aridification trend began around 8000 yr BP, and culminated around 4000 yr BP." http://www.sciencedi...033589499921087 "Age-constrained pollen data and magnetic susceptibility of an alpine peat profile from the Garhwal Higher Himalaya display a continuous record of climate and monsoon trends for the past 7800 yr." ALSO: http://books.google....fs1dKneX8&hl=en# "Forest Ecosystems" By David A. Perry "In the eastern North America.... A very warm and dry period from 8000 to 4000 years BP produced major changes in vegetation patterns.... The cooling trend that began approximately 4000 years BP readjusted these boundaries to roughly those we see today. Similar changes occurred in western North America." "A major warming trend beginning around 8000 BP was accompanied by both the appearance of Douglas-fir and an increase in fire frequency. With the return to a cooler, moister climate around 4000 BP, fire frequency declined and community composition shifted to western hemlock/red cedar/Douglas-fir, a forest type that persists today." === From Peru to Syria, "...the intact 4kyr BP signal is identified as ...the distal fallout of an impact-ejecta." Wow! Anybody else heard about an impact event at 4000 BP before? ~

You've got a good picture, I'd say; especially regarding the path of a "given photon" ping ponging. (but I'm speaking from a biochemist's perspective) It's something I've wondered about too. I know some basics and learned some additional stuff recently (and try to "figure out" the stuff inbetween). I don't think energy is actually "lost," but after a photon is absorbed it can "downshift" to lower frequencies when it is "regenerated" (if I can be imprecise with terminology), but only if some kinetic energy is co-generated to balance the loss in frequency. Plus this only works for certain permitted "balances" of kinetic and EM energy. ...or words to that effect? I think the right combination of collision and absorption can even generate the emission of a photon of a higher wavelength, but that would be rare... if even possible. Hey, I'd welcome any corrections on this (above & below). ...but, so from another perspective.... Absorbed frequencies activate different (permitted) vibrational modes; and occasionally thru collisions, some of the vibrational energy is transferred away. In that case, a lower energy photon may be (re)emitted. But if no vibrational transfer (energy loss) occurs, the absorbed photon would be re-emitted unchanged (not the "same" photon, but one of the same frequency)... and as you say it may be then re-absorbed by another GHG with the proper (resonant) structure... or travel on out to space, or travel back to the surface. ...and by "resonant structure" I am trying to describe the way molecules absorb EM radiation in quantized, discrete frequency bands (as opposed to being "invisible" to large ranges of non-absorbed frequencies). ...and again, I'll welcome any help with my lack of proper terminology (or QM/other concepts). === The vibrational modes of molecules are more easily understood, and GHG's are notably different from the main components of our atmosphere, nitrogen and oxygen. O2 & N2 are diatomic (duh), but this means that they don't have many vibrational modes (and especially few modes which resonate with IR frequencies). Nor do they resonate with visible light either, or else our atmosphere would be rather opaque. But GHG's are often triatomic (H2O, CO2, O3, N2O) or larger molecules such as CH4 and the CFC's. These triatomic (and larger) molecules have many more modes of vibration, which happen to resonate with (absorb) certain IR frequencies. My professor gyrated and danced around to demonstrate the many extra vibrational modes of triatomic molecules, in his lecture on GHG's. But there is a .pdf that covers this stuff too, and gives some relative percentages for the incoming, re-radiated, and outgoing light/heat that you mentioned. see: http://ats150.atmos....nergyBudget.pdf (page 1 & 2 especially, for percentages) & http://ats150.atmos....houseEffect.pdf (page 3 for vibrations of triatomic GHG's, but all... overall) === ~

Thank you, thank you, thank you! Yes, I was completely confusing those two (red algae vs. purple non-sulfur bacteria) ...or whatever the autotrophs were, which used the rhodopsin. I should review phylogeny; plus it's changed since the 70's when I studied.... I should also review when the chloroplasts were adopted as endosymbiotes... (or whatever it is called when an independant organism adopts a host and becomes dependant and incorporated by the host as a fundamental organelle). ...and the whole prokaryote/eukaryote revolution. Where does chlorophyll fit in to that timeline? === http://mbe.oxfordjou...nt/22/1/21.full http://faculty.clint...es/prokaryo.htm ...hmmmm. Thylakoids are a normal part of chloroplasts, aren't they? http://www.enotes.co.../photosynthesis {emphasis added} Wow! But to the point/OP: This (adding additional pigments) is how evolution handles the need to absorb additional wavelengths, it seems. The physics of molecules with conjugated, double-bonded regions/structures, just doesn't favor developing a single way (molecule) for absorbing adjacent frequencies over a wide range of colors, I'm betting. I still think getting two useable absorption peaks from one molecule is rare, and an evolutionary coup. ....Such a long amazing journey! ...and thanks again! ~

I'm not sure hooking a variety of molecules together can be compared to finding a unique way of converting electromagnetic energy into work via a single molecule. However.... I think you are underestimating the limits that physics imposes upon evolution. It's not about creating a pigment that absorbs all light frequencies, such as melanin; but it's about finding a pigment that will reliably generate chemical or redox potential, regardless of what it absorbs as an energy source. When you put the constraint of translating that absorption into work rather than simply heat, then you constrain the possible structures available for evolving a workable absorption system (I would say). === But still no clue as to why you think this is important? ~ p.s. All this biochemistry evolved long before land-based life evolved, by about a billion years I think. That's why the red algae point is relevant.

Nor do I know if this is new, and.... I'm passing over the symbolic structure you've elaborated since I never studied logic, but to get to the gist.... Aren't you just theoretically adding more dimensions or perspectives by which to judge a problem or find a solution (truth)? Sure, when viewed from enough perspectives, you can always find some truth that is valid across a contradiction; but is it a practical perspective? Or put another way.... It seems logical (but maybe not practical) that if you add enough dimensions (as variables) to view a set of problems, then you'll always be able to find a "solution in common" across the set of individual solutions to those problems. But if you limit your dimensions to those of significant or relevant influence, then it'll be more difficult or even occasionally impossible to find a solution-in-common across the set. === It is often helpful to view multiple problems (such as a contradiction) as if they are multiple, simultaneous, non-linear, multi-variate equations; to see if there is a solution in common across the set of solutions to a given list of problems. Isn't that what you are doing, in a theoretical way, above; but without accounting for the need to limit the multi-variate aspect to only significant or relevant variables? Of course I suppose significance and relevance is too undefined and subjective to limit the theoretical... ...so go for it!!! === It might be helpful in tackling "wicked problems," so we can move on to become a Type I civilization. ~

Well from the graph above you can clearly see why plants are green, but I assume you're asking why chlorophyll absorbs as it does and not in some other way. It's an interesting question about why chlorophyll "has a hole" (green) in its absorption spectrum. I'm speculating, but I notice.... The more primitave pigments seem to absorb a narrow band of color or frequency, but chlorophyll seems to have two "narrow bands" (blue & red) where it absorbs light. I think chlorophyll is a tetramer of smaller units, which originally were probably "more primitave pigments" absorbing in the low-energy end of the spectrum. But as a tetramer, perhaps a resonance or harmonic of the lower-energy absorbance structure permitted the additional (new) absorption of higher energy (blue) light. The "b-chlorophyll" seems to have mutated enough to favor absorbing the blue somewhat more over the red. The many interesting points in previous posts [which all seem valid] about more ancient life forms and their pigments certainly suggest that environmental light conditions may have driven much of the evolution in pigment utilization, which were originally important in establishing protection from UV and other high energy light. Competition for light is not one of the most obvious environmental problems, but it seems at times it must be very significant. === But it seems obvious that the very complex pigment, chlorophyll--as a tetramer and as a molecule that functions only with the coordinated absorption of two photons, iirc--must have evolved fairly late in the sequence of early "basic physiological" biochemistry. I don't know if the absorbed photons need to be of the same color or not; but if not, that would be a vote in favor of a strong evolutionary advantage for the tetramer's capability. === The point here is that it is unusual enough when any molecule can absorb light energy and reliably convert it into chemical or redox potential; but when it does happen, it will most likely be "tuned" for a single frequency (or color range). It would be difficult to get a single molecule to absorb equally efficiently over a broad range of frequencies [due to the physics of conjugated double bonds in chromophores]. So getting a single molecule (or dimer or tetramer) to absorb two different ranges of light equally well is quite an evolutionary feat, imho. I can now see why it was rewarded with such dominance. === Or maybe I'm speculating way too much with confused or outdated information, eh? But... esbo, does your idea about plant color have to do with the physics of the biochemistry involved, or is it based on some ideas related to crystal vibrations or some god's (or microbe's) favorite color perhaps? Give us a clue.... ~

Or there may be 3 humongous things that you don't understand... But whichever, maybe we can figure it out....Feel free to ask questions. === About the green light being "reflected" to outer space, the main point should be that it is "not absorbed" which means some or maybe most of it passes through, on down to the lower levels of the canopy or the ground. Only some is "reflected." And really, plants don't absorb as much blue as they do red. I don't think you can grow a plant on strictly blue light, but strictly red will grow a plant. They do reflect blue (and yellow) so we also see that as green instead of blue (I may be wrong about that, but a physicist can correct me easily). But overall we are thinking of chlorophyll as absorbing one wavelength, whereas in a real leaf there is an array of pigments which gather light energy of various wavelengths and channel it to the chlorophyll (assuming my decades-old plant physiology class is still valid); so that whatever angle the leaf is at, or however shaded it might be, it can get any sort of light and make use of it. It's just that red is mainly absorbed, so we see green (absorbed least) mostly around us. === But the point about the color of our star, and the energy it puts out, is the real answer to your question. That is what determines which chemicals will be photosynthetically effective yet still withstand the spectrum, and which would not be effective enough to drive chemical synthesis. Or if we were farther from the sun, plant life might be pink, in order to utilize the higher energy blues and greens; but at our current distance, blues and greens are too high in energy to absorb and utilize directly. ~ p.s. I notice the spectrum show a broad absorbance in the blue (400-480ish nm) and a sharp absorption peak in the red at about 680 nm. I wonder if that indicates a stongly "tuned" absorption in the red, contrasted with a less specific (less efficient?) more general absorption in the blue range; perhaps the higher energy blue overcoming the less specific (for blue) "tuning" of the antenna-like pigment molecules. Xanthine pigments in a leaf are tuned to absorb yellow most. Carotene, violaxanthin, and lutein absorb very little in the blue. "Beta-carotene is best-known as the pigment of the carrot (Daucus carota). It occurs mostly as a crystal. One of its most important derivatives is vitamin A (a precursor of visual purple)." http://www.biologie....ine/e20/20b.htm see also: wikipedia says... Violaxanthin is a natural xanthophyll pigment with an orange color found in a variety of plants including pansies. It is biosynthesized from zeaxanthin by....

Why do you think plants absorb blue? How much? I know plants absorb different colors depending on the time of year (fall colors) by using different pigments to channel the energy into the chlorophyl system, and blue may also be an ancillary pigment; but mostly it is the "green" pigment that is best at absorbing energy that is "low enough" to avoid destruction, and "high enough" to be more than simple heat. === btw.... Humus is derived from these same organic molecules, and so serves as an example of how destructive light is to organics. I was speaking of humus in freshwater (or even saline) sources, though it applys to soils also (but is not as obvious, as you noted). Interestingly, humus is about an order of magnitude greater than ozone, in its capacity to be protective from high-energy light, for developing or evolving life. === So is this idea still "shattered," or can you think of some questions to ask, or clarifications to seek? ~

It only seems so because you don't know all the details surrounding that stuff, I suspect; but....=== Briefly... Plants are green because they mostly absorb redder light (reflecting more green as well as blue & yellow which also = green). Red light is absorbed and used because it is high enough energy to provide usable "chemical" energy when gathered and distributed by the antenna-like pigments molecules... and more energy than just heat (IR).... But Red light is not so "high energy" that is breaks the antennae apart. Look at what those shorter wavelengths do to organic molecules (especially the antenae-like resonators such as conjugated double bonds)... photo-oxidation. This also explains why humus is not violet, blue, or green; but rather yellow, orange, or red; as those colors (bonding structures) can better survive the high energy of visible light. ~

Fabrication? Resolve? What are you talking about?...but whatever.... === I wouldn't pass up an important topic with a title based on either of those two links you put on this thread. But only when I have time, not now or here please. === RC, your points seem fairly off-topic. Usually you live up to your name --from the few months I've seen-- but your posts here just seem like those of a typical denialist. So what is your point? I don't have time now to read and reply to those very interesting-sounding and authoratative links you put on this thread. But whatever they might say about our present climate, do they change our understanding surrounding the effect of CO2 as a GHG or ocean acidifier? ...or do they apply to this "model climate" topic, where somebody claims that we are measuring our global system incorrectly? ~

I read enough of that paper to get their point, which seems easily dismissed. Although I'm not an expert in physics, the conventional view that the top of our atmosphere --where heat is lost to space-- is the appropriate place to measure outgoing radiation, seems reasonable. This paper's view that outgoing radiation should be measured from the middle of our atmosphere seems wrong, since not all of that radiation is outgoing; but that may be an overly simplistic answer, as I'm not an atmospheric scientist. But I have taken a class on climate science taught by an atmospheric scientist, and when I read this parenthetical remark in the linked "model atmosphere" paper: "(There does not seem to be any readily-available data on separate day-time and night-time average temperatures for the Earth, which is very curious, while there is a wealth of data on daily average temperatures. The day-time and night-time averages are extremely important and would go far in helping to determine the heat retention capacity and properties of the atmosphere.)" ...I was pretty sure the paper wasn't written by any atmospheric scientists either. ...nor did I read any further. === But anyone, after taking an introductory thermodynamics class, could write such a paper. Where did this come from? Oh, right! Thanks! ~

Yes, well the quote was meant to sound a bit sarcastic or ironic... or maybe sardonic? But regardless, as scientist it is important to remind people that our seemingly hopeless situation is actually solvable. I like to.... Remind people about pyrolysis, which can be a new industry--providing new jobs--while also reversing energy dependance and climate problems, and also turn the deserts green again (to reduce the tendancy toward piratism). It is one "scientific" solution that addresses many problems (incl. 8 Millennium Development Goals) simultaneously. With pyrolysis, people (overpopulation or refugees, immigrants, marginalized groups, unemployed, etc.) become a resource instead of a drain on the system. So I try to remain optimistic; it's the moral imperative... and the only "viable" option. ~

"It's just a little car-crash off a cliff! They'll be fine...." === With those givens you've listed, I can see why you come to a somewhat pessimistic conclusion; but.... There is not a finite amount of money (or wealth) in the world. Money is arbitrarily created (ala creationism?); and wealth depends more on distribution of the finite resources, so it can fluctuate depending on the efficiency, the ratio, and the distribution of resource use. Also, while I also see the side of humanity that you describe, such a side seems to displace a more welcoming, generous, and cooperative nature only when (and proportionally related to how much) resources become limited. I agree that such an inverse displacement of our bad side for our good side describes most of our history, since our history is one of growing population and declining resources; but... Our population is stabilizing, and science can allow us to utilize our resource more efficiently, to recycle resources, and to restore ecosystem services providing more resources. Would there be pirates coming out of Somalia if they had extensive, productive fields in Somalia? So if we can learn to avoid the historical patterns typical of 'rise-n-fall' civilization (now that we are a global civilization), and learn also from the patterns of biology-- about the patterns of growth and development --so that we stop relying so much on ceasless growth; but rather see that there is a time for development and the refinements that come with maturity, then we should be fine! === Science (or more simply, wisdom) can allow us to utilize our resource more efficiently, to recycle resources, and to restore ecosystem services providing more resources; to fully understand the dominion we now have over our providence, as was suggested through biblical wisdom a few thousand years ago. We need to reassess and reevaluate our resources, and rethink the meaning behind the value of sustainability. "They'll be fine...."

Thanks, and I think I can see you're framing my "equation" in terms of proteins and their number of amino acids (aa's). My numbers (1/100...) don't refer to the chance of getting a protein with 100 aa's, but to the ratio of... odds against anything /(divided by) the odds in favor anything. edit: whoops, it should be "odds in favor/odds against, I suppose, but either way.... My point, about the "infinity of ways" that any problem (like osmotic regulation) could be solved, is meant to suggest many different proteins will naturally serve that function, regardless of whether they are 30 or 300 or 3000 aa's long. Even non-proteins, just simple molecules of the pre-biotic soup or humus (often bound to metals/ions), will contribute to that "osmotic regulation" function. In fact, the odds against finding any molecule that doesn't affect osmotic regulation might be higher than the odds of finding one that does. === Google the phrase "between the first cell and the last universal ancestor" with the quote marks, to see a discussion on osmotic regulation in these "first cells" in "Bacterial Growth and Form" by A. Koch (re: redox potential & proton-motive force). ...and then find it at a library.... I suspect, from your comments, that you think the DNA (or RNA) "tape" must have preceded the first cell. But this book talks about how simple chemistry could drive (like a ball rolling downhill) "cellular" processes such as growth and division, without the need for reproducible "tapes" of information. It's that anthropic principle (the not knowing of all the other possibilities, which also could have worked) that makes us think the odds are "one" against virtual infinity. But really it is more like the odds are "almost infinite" against virtual infinity. So the ratio is (metaphorically) between 1/100 and 1/1000. === btw, Is your use of the word "variance" the same as the term that comes from the statistical idea associated with "standard deviation, sigma, and chi-square" type of stuff? ~

That CSMonitor link is from back, just before the optimism bubble burst, in '08: "Actual marketplace production of cellulosic ethanol is zero – there's not a gallon being produced [commercially] right now," says Thomas Foust, biofuels research director at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colo. "But with all these plants coming on line ... by 2010 or 2011 we will start to see millions of gallons." Has any of this come to pass? There are better ways, than these resource intensive schemes, to beneficially utilize waste biomass and create biofuels. see: http://www.sciencefo..._20#entry623817 But I like your point about "waste biomass" being a better option than energy intensive (and subsidized) corn for biofuel. ~

...speaking of a newly recognized commodity... with value: Waste Biomass... ...could be a valuable commodity.... http://www.ars.usda....q_no_115=254817 Research Project: INNOVATIVE ANIMAL MANURE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR ENHANCED ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Location: Coastal Plains Soil, Water, and Plant Research Center "blended animal manures" ...yummmmm; phosphorus! googled: "phosphorous content" biochar http://content.alter...Rapport2158.pdf see googled: biochar "Ehlert et al." http://ec.europa.eu/..._phosphorus.pdf http://www.courage20..._Balans_def.pdf http://www.courage20...oedselketen.pdf ...pdf presentations! === http://lib.bioinfo.p...20Sci%20Technol Environmental Science & Technology 2010, Jan 15; v.44 (#2): p.827-833 Life cycle assessment of biochar systems: estimating the energetic, economic, and climate change potential. "Biochar may at present only deliver climate change mitigation benefits and be financially viable as a distributed system using waste biomass. Keywords: switchgrass; feedstock; climate change; waste; ghg; climate; yard waste; cycle assessment; soil; stover; economic; pyrolysy; biomass; yard; waste management;" "...a distributed system using waste biomass." ...sounds like "Jobs!" to me. ~

It's been a while since I followed the beginning of this thread, so I hope this is meaningful: I'm reminded of the idea about love [...can't start it like a car, nor stop it with a bullet...]; but.... First, I'd like to point out that the quoted stuff from "Rare Earth" contained many "contingency" words, including at least: 5 times for "may be" 2 times for "perhaps" & once for "can be calamitous" Not that I disagree with the "rare earth" point. Heck! What about the "rare universe" point! Our universe is finely tuned, from the charge and weight of an electron to the strength of gravity, especially to promote life. We are "lucky" to be living in the goldilocks zone of our galaxy also! That makes the "odds against" even greater! How could we be soooo lucky? I think it is called the anthropic principle, and this should also apply to your point about proteins (& genetics and the virtually infinite odds against spontaneous biocreation). ...or words to that effect. So, what are the odds that just the right protein would form (just by chance) to handle some task important to-- say osmotic regulation? It's between 1/100 and 1/1000, which aren't bad odds overall. === This is because there is not just one "right protein" to handle the osmotic regulation problem. In fact, there are practically an infinity of ways for that fundamental "osmotic regulation" problem to be handled. And this applies to all of the "unique solutions" (so unique they appear to be designed), which we see here before us. === See, you need to consider: virtually infinite odds against / practically infinite ways for = "between 1/100 and 1/1000" chances. Does this "equation" make sense for you? ~ p.s. Life is just God's Way of maximizing Entropy. ...it's like a ball rolling downhill; you can't start it like a car, but you can't stop it any way.