Essay

I’d like to see what you think a good example would be, from science, of a circumstance where “consensus” did “quickly change.” Years ago I enjoyed this book, Oxford Monographs on Geology and Geophysics no.16; Paleoclimatology; Crowley & North; 1991, about Earth’s climate systems and how they developed, which explains “who (Or rather what) caused it.” And with that understanding, it should be obvious why the current situation, where CO2 levels now exceed anything seen since before our species evolved, is a critical concern. Do you have a particular question, or concern of your own, about the level of that understanding and overall concern?

Yes, and "biochemistry" is even more complex, because you need the "epigenetic, transcriptome and proteome analysis" for each individual's own microbiome also ...along with the understanding of how it all interacts and works. But its not too complex, if you have more complete knowledge, the right analytical tools, and enough computing power. And along the way, we can fix many smaller problems too. ~ p.s. Scientific American had an interesting overview last year.

As I said, "some new-age hype ...but the fundamental chemistry seems sound and is well tested." How would you market 'rock dust' on today's internet? ~

There is some new-age hype associated with rock dust, and many other soil amendments, but the fundamental chemistry seems sound and is well tested. Though as Sensei mentions, it can be tricky stuff. The best suggestion is to mix it with a compost pile first, along with some charred biomass, and let any strong effects get balanced and buffered--so to speak--before application. I worked with this nursery a few years ago to make sure they understood the benefits of biochar, and their long and successful experience in this area demonstrated enough to convince me. I used one of their rock-dust charged biochar products (designed for transplant situations) improperly on some regular well-established house plants. It slightly burned them for a while, but they recovered and the old, salty soil is much better now. See also: "minerals-unlock-microbiology-of-gardening" "grow-your-soil-first" ...as well as "Agricharge" "Because it can be detrimental to use biochar without first blending it with compost, agricharge is blended with rock dust, carbohydrates, amino acids, and humates, then inoculated with lab grown bacteria, mycorrhizae, and biodynamic preparations to provide the most advanced organic soil amendment capable of radically transforming soil dynamics. The rock dust and carbohydrates provide short and long term food for both the microorganisms as well as the plants." ~ Good luck!

Mike, this reminds me of a recreational revelation, which a friend stumbled upon back in 1981. He said, "Life is just Nature's Way of Turning Light into Heat." After staring at each other for a moment, we laughed long and hard at, what certainly seemed to us to be, perhaps the most basic and simple, universal profundity. At the time, we were both taking a thermodynamics class, working toward a degree in chemistry; and if you're looking for a purpose behind this reality, you might look at entropy. Growing, or maximizing entropy, seems to be where this universe is headed, but that's just an observation. Now in retrospect, I can see some caveats or problems with defining the terms; but at the time it was very funny because of the way he saw increasing entropy--as "turning light into heat." === You might also be interested in "The Three Big Bangs," which I haven't read, but I did hear him give a lecture on the topic some years back. ~

You might find some ways to be creatively creative by helping scientists communicate better, either with the public or with each other. A fairly new 'thing' in science is cross-disciplinary studies, since real-world problems often involve more than one scientific discipline. “Global environmental change has precipitated the need for integrated science, requiring collaborative efforts across organizations, institutions, and disciplines.” - Deana D. Pennington, 2008 Searching cross disciplinary science and creativity, I found some interesting links: such as: http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED462060 & another .gov site & lots more, from that search. Or you could try some other likely search terms, such as "team" or "integrative" or "integrated" science ...and creativity. ~Enjoy

Welcome, and congratulations on being a critically important part of the future! What you describe sounds a lot like "convertible husbandry," which I first learned about from the book "Larding the Lean Earth." Soil is the key. Don't forget the charcoal (biochar or charred organic matter). As Professor Eugene Kelly, head of the Department of Soil and Crop Sciences recently emphasized to me, "Every soil, every soil, every soil, every soil, has some charcoal in it!" They should teach that--how in addition to sand, silt, clay, and organic matter--charred organic matter is a natural and normal ...and even beneficial part of any good soil: ....As recent research continues to show. Biochar affects carbon composition and stability in soil: a combined spectroscopy-microscopy study "The benefits of biochar application for carbon sequestration and soil productivity have been examined extensively over the last decade." Good going and good luck! ~

Can you provide a citation for why you think any such historical document or translation should be taken literally, rather than literarily? Don't most religious leaders and scholars suggest a literary interpretation? ~

Good going! And if you were already studying biology, you should probably notice how, in that second question, choice #1 described the last step in protein synthesis. Without even reading the other four choices, for the steps in the sequence (for which we're supposed to select the correct order), a quick glance at the answers reveals only one, (answer C), has #1 listed as the last step in the sequence. That trick saved a lot of time, on that question for me, now; but that's only because of a lot of time, in the past, spent studying biology. ~

I was searching for some pictures from a lecture I once saw about hypothetical and random "genetic" systems, built from just 7-10 "simple robust chaotic" operators, which produced a stable complexity of outputs, in a surprisingly high proportion of trials (considering they were random), but I couldn't find any. I did stumble across Chua's circuit, which you might find interesting. === And of course there are always the climate type of feedback examples. ...or maybe you could also look at how the Krebs Cycle is regulated by intermediate metabolites. ~ p.s. ...and don't forget to look up pictures of the real "chaos attractors," which these lines below represent.

It’s not a fair comparison, to point at some “tipping point” at the end of this several thousand-year-long Younger-Dryas event, and then compare it with the 20th century; especially when the science describes the present and near future to be “in the early stages of a warming” (as considered by the consensus in 1991 “…in determining the evolution of climate on decadal to centennial time scales.”). That is from Oxford Monographs on Geology and Geophysics no.16; Paleoclimatology; Crowley & North; 1991; –p.257 Further on, in the section entitled “Regional Responses to a Greenhouse Warming,” they talk about how “the East Antarctic Ice Sheet could grow during the initial stages of a greenhouse warming.” That would be now and the coming decades, "during the initial stages," which they are talking about; that is, before the time when “much higher CO2 levels could tilt the mass balance of the ice sheet from accumulation to ablation." –p.258 === I hope you’ll also note how this mention of East Antarctica is a specific “prediction” from the experts in 1991, which seems to be “coming true” so far. I’m sure you’ve heard the reports about how the ice is now growing in Antarctica (but only in East Antarctica). And I expect you've also heard from many clueless or motivated denialists, who have touted these recent reports as evidence supporting their views. Jokes on them, eh? === But about comparing different scales of events: Sure, the meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs created “more rapid” and “longer lasting” climate change, compared to what we are currently inflicting upon the earth system, but since a time long before some primates became bipedal, neither our species, nor the other species, have been forced to cope with such extreme and persistent and global change as we are currently introducing into the earth system. Usually, radical changes to the climate are caused by one-time events, while all of the primary drivers creating climate will continue operating as usual. As long as the primary drivers continue on as usual, cycling around some long-term average, then the climate will eventually return to a point nearly the same as before the radical, one-time, change. By changing the primary drivers, as significantly and continuously as we are now doing, we should expect to see significant, or extreme and persistent and global, change …and over “decadal to centennial time scales.” So you should see why comparing the YD with AGW (or with the 20th century) doesn’t work well, if you look at the scale of those “rapid climate changes” from the past, and compare those with the scale of the projected consequence from AGW, which is described by the National Academy of Sciences as something “…that Earth has not experienced for more than 30 million years.” And, that will be still “in the early stages of a warming” event, where “by the end of this century,” we (or the next generation) can expect this unprecedented change. ~

I rarely watch videos, but did search this guy’s name to see what he might be speaking about. Looking for a reputable journalistic source, or a scientific/educational source, for something like a book review or peer review of this Dr. Bell’s work, I thought “Principia Scientific International” sounded like the best candidate, from my first page of search results, for being a fair and reliable source. Wow, I was surprised at how wrong “fair and reliable” was, as an assumption, which I’d made partially because it was a ‘dot org’ site, and especially because of the name. At first glance, the site seemed to do a good job of describing this guy’s baseless ideas, revealing the idiocy of his logic, and exposing his agenda. But as I read closer, I realized they were extolling these as valid notions and facts! So by researching that site’s name, this came up first in the search results: “Principia Scientific International universal principle is that good science journals should be free of propaganda, subterfuge and corruption.” What?!? Well, of course, technically that is true; but how paranoid do you have to be, to see the need to make that your mission statement? The rest of the results were along the lines of: “…an organization based in the United Kingdom which promotes fringe views and material to claim that carbon dioxide is…” “O'Sullivan has been promoting this book and himself, his other writings, his fascade company called Principia Scientific International, and soliciting public…” “Jul 25, 2012 - John O'Sullivan is a principle founder and pusher of "Principia Scientific International" a group of AGW deniers intent on spreading…” “Most Recent Commentaries: The Myth of Scientific Neutrality (April 18, 2015); The Last Battle of Climate Alarmism? (March…” …hmmmmm. Once again, these ‘commentaries’ are sounding a bit paranoid, it seems to me. At the bottom of the first page of search results, was the first “mainstream” website. Answers.Yahoo.com seems to have some reality-based webpages on topics about “global warming,” and they had this information: “Jul 26, 2011 - The paper was written for Principia Scientific International (PSI) which tries to pass itself off as a scientific organisation. It isn't. It's a UK based publicity business owned by shareholders.” “The book was written by oil industry funded Dr Timothy Ball, who also happens to be the Chair of PSI.” ...and …which Michael Mann won, iirc. Anyway, I was surprised to see the wide extent of this conspiracy theory, about the hoax of AGW, based on these notions that Bell is promulgating: “Today we may see for ourselves why Ball correctly adjudged that Mann (and others) should be in ‘the state pen, not Penn. State’.” “…identifying the serious damage to climate science – and government-funded science in general – that the University of East Anglia’s Climate Change Unit (CRU) has brought upon the entire issue of so-called man-made climate change. The damage the UN’s 30-year “green agenda” has done to modern industrial progress cannot be underestimated, says Ball. Much of the science is fudged, if not outright faked.” “Dr Ball tells his audience that today’s anti-industrialists are the latest incarnation of a misguided cause that goes back to the 19th century writings of Thomas Malthus.” ...and So writes John O'Sullivan, quoting Ball I assume in …ahem, ‘reviewing’ “this mind-blowing book” on the PSI website. === OMG!!! And there’s even more of ‘em! An AirCrap dot org, (yes, really!) is another of these looney conspiracist websites, which goes on about HAARP and chemtrails, and as they say: “The abuse and corruption of science to manipulate and control society for the New World Order Agenda.” ...and …an appropriately named website, istm. It’s no wonder so many folks seem to have such a world view, and these contrary or low opinions, if these are the sorts of easily found sources being relied upon for their information. ~ p.s. The best part is how PSI describes the IPCC, as "nothing more and nothing less than a politically contrived organisation." They make that sound like such a bad thing.... But isn't that precisely why it is called ...the InterGOVERNMENTAL Panel on CC?

Trumpism ...or Trumpagnosia, perhaps, for an individual afflicted as you describe; and for a group of such folks, Teavangelicals. === But more seriously, you might also look into Magical Thinking, "the belief that thinking or wishing something can cause it to occur." ~

> ...but also: You put the taint in certainty! It sounds like you’re saying how, just because a doctor can’t predict your exact date and cause of death, nobody should listen to a doctor’s advice …since there is, y’know, uncertainty. === But regarding studiot's odd suggestion, if you legitimately want to know whether or not the carbon problem is really serious, please listen to reputable journalistic sources such as the Columbia Journalism Review (and/or summaries from the actual science community, such as Yale’s climate-review dot org), rather than the so-called common-sense reasoning of any individual author; especially if that author is already well known for loading his ‘common-sense’ speeches with optimistically-slanted and emotionally-persuasive language that promote “unfairly warped truths,” and who also has a “record of persistent and consistent misrepresentation” and has based his conclusions on “incomplete calculations.” There are lists of these Lomborgisms, and “books and websites devoted to enumerating his errors,” which fairly critique this “strategic communicator” “who systematically spins a complex topic,” but who also seems capable of happily marketing his ‘take on things’ to an audience anxious for easy solutions. However, if you’re going to read that book, you should read his other book too, so you can see how he just repeats his same, lame and commonsensically oversimplified sort of perspective and solutions. Though, as Wikipedia suggests, “if you are going to read only one book on climate, don’t read this one. But if you are going to read ten, reading Lomborg may be worthwhile.” [...my added emphasis] If you are only reading this one book, beware that, “unless you are an expert, you will never know which facts are correct and appropriately used and which are not. You might not be aware that large (and crucial) chunks of the story are skipped altogether.” But if you are going to read ten, make sure one of them is also “The Lomborg Deception, by Howard Friel,” which documents various lomborgasms such as "misrepresentation of academic research, misquotation of data, reliance on studies irrelevant to the author’s claims, and citation of sources that seem not to exist." ~

Alkanes, alkenes, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons ...oh my! Yes, you're right about the "...piles of partially broken down lignin strands? Cellulose/glucose? Partially broken down cellulose?" ...and along with broken down bacterial and fungal cell walls, which then break down more, into various chemicals such as phenols and furans and ketones and aldehydes, as well as pyrenes, pyrones, and pyrimidines ...and various acids and alcohols or whatever, somewhat depending on conditions and source materials. Humus is the generic word for that pile of chemicals, which result from the decomposition of biomass. So if you search online for "humus" or "humic substances" (and click on images), you should get some good pictures of the various chemical moieties, which make up the black gold ...or Texas Tea. Also search "chromophores" to see what some humic substances look like. And, btw, any "tea" is just a solution of humus. Even the chemicals that we can smell, or see as smoke, would be hard to distinguish from the "humic substances" originating from decomposition, if those smell or smoke chemicals were found in the soil. The book, "An Introduction to Organic Geochemistry" should explain everything you want to know. But in the end, you'll notice how, whether by slow bio-geological processes, or by fast pyrolytic or burning processes, the end products are very similar or often the same, chemically. "An Introduction to Organic Geochemistry explores the fate of organic matter of all types, biogenic and man-made, in the Earth System." and it "...investigates the variety of pathways and biogeochemical transformations that carbon compounds can experience over a range of time scales and in different environments." ...beginning, of course, with decomposition. Good luck, and glad to hear that you're using biochar! Biochar will help with the retention of humus, reducing offgassing from the more rapid decomposition processes, which then improves the compost's moisture regulating properties and reduces leaching from the compost. In several ways, it seems to me that biochar is essentially just solidified, or dehydrated, humus. ~

The conclusion I took away from this, which I hoped the quotes would suggest, is that essentially the "pre-biotic soup" would be equivalent to an ocean of humus. Sure it would be very dilute humus, in most places; and this is using the broadest definition of humus, which includes those simple molecules identified in the abiogenesis experiments, as well as the many resinous and oily, yellow-brown, molecules that were not identified in those same experiments. But the process of humus production, as well as humification and diagenesis, would still operate in marine environments and on seafloors; and as Steinberg points out, "the quality of HS becomes more diverse" as life evolved, and so especially after it moved up onto land. Probably there should be different words for 'pre-biotic humus' and 'post-biotic humus' (and 'post-Cambrian humus'), but since this is a "little studied" topic, the terminology is still developing. Your view was right, for the relevant circumstances; but now this word is being applied to a much broader canvas, so the definitions get broadened ...or words to that effect. ~

...speaking of abiogenesis fossil fuels: I was surprised to learn the main reason why humus was “little studied” for much of the 20th century, was that it also was “too complex for analysis” or too difficult to reliably isolate and characterize …or as Steinberg [2003] says on page ten, in Ecology of Humic Substances in Freshwaters, “The fact that these matters are little studied is certainly due to the traditional view that Humic Substances are (with the exception of photolytic cleavage) inert, refractory, or in some other way passive in ecosystems.” He concludes by noting, “This idea is at best outdated, if not false.” === Now that science has begun to characterize the variety of molecules that comprise humus (which broadly includes humic substances (HS), humic acid, fulvic acid, humin, and humic acid precursors), it is easy to see how these relatively simple molecules are converted into ‘fossil fuels’ after being geologically concentrated and then variously compressed and heated. And if these molecules occur naturally, then it is probably no coincidence that some of these same molecules, which are created as part of the resinous or "oily scum" and "yellow-brown" goo in various abiogenesis experiments, are some of the same molecules that have been identified as intermediates in the normal biochemical pathways found in common physiological systems. === This would also explain how, as Steinberg writes on page 36, “Humus or at least HS-like molecules become established in ecosystems independently from life and death events and play a definitive role in early evolution.” He adds: “The HS are to be granted the role of an independent ecosystem component, such as atmosphere, water, or light, since they come into being simultaneously with early life.” That is a paradigm shifting idea, isn’t it? When we formed our worldview, evaluated our resources, and developed our economic ideologies, did we overlook accounting for an important fundamental? ...but back on the topic: “This means that living organisms have to adapt to humus or HS-like materials with which they come in contact from the very time they evolve.” Wow! For one thing, any HS would have been scavenging reactive radicals, “which otherwise inhibit or prevent the synthesis of amino acids, carbohydrates, and nucleic acids.” === Steinberg continues on page 37, noting that “Once organisms have evolved, and through the formation of humus from dead biomass, the quality of HS becomes more diverse and its quantity greater. For organisms, the adaptive pressure rises.” So it seems, since life developed and lives within a virtual ‘aether’ of humic substances, it is not surprising that, “…the transformation (detoxification) systems are very conservative, occurring in only slightly altered forms in organisms from bacteria to mammals.” ~

I was wondering how (and when) the Late Heavy Bombardment (4.1 to 3.8 billion years ago) fit into the question, and I found an interesting blog that seems to reliably summarize (with some good, well-cited but un-linked, references on) this topic. ...gosh, think of the erosion back then! === But it seems the early atmosphere may have varied somewhat, perhaps more than once, between periods dominated by highly reducing or moderately or mildly reducing or even neutral conditions. ~

But, if you cut countless nucleic acids in every kind of way, and don't isolate but integrate them into a membrane bound system, which replicates due to passive growth and already has a proton pump, then after just a few thousand years (I'd expect) the selection for copying of beneficial molecules would occur ...until something close to an actual living cell would become recognizable.

You should be able to write your "starting equation," or 'reconstruct' it, based upon the information that you're given.

...that would probably be true, if global warming were completely uniform, but that is why the term 'climate change' better describes the global revving that occurs when extra heat is added to the system. Increased snowfall in certain regions is a common response to greenhouse heating (since the warmer air can hold more moisture) as long as it’s still cold enough to snow within that region. Here is an additional elaboration, on these replies so far, from an article explaining why “Global Warming Won't Stop Snowstorms.” It mentions how: “People may know the expression, ‘It’s too cold to snow’ — if it’s very cold, there is too little water vapor in the air to support a very heavy snowfall, and if it’s too warm, most of the precipitation will fall as rain,” O’Gorman said. “Snowfall extremes still occur in the same narrow temperature range with climate change, and so [snowfall extremes] respond differently to climate change compared to rainfall extremes or average snowfall.” I was taught that for every degree of warming, there is a 4% increase in the amount of water vapor that the air holds. And I think that is in degrees F, so it would almost double that water vapor increase, for degrees C, which is how most climate models and their predictions are reported in the media. And if you live in an area with Lake Effect Snows, then this change in water vapor is probably swamped by your particular conditions locally. But for the rest of us, who occasionally get snow, we may get more of a taste for what Lake Effect Snows are like, as the atmospheric reservoir becomes increasingly charged. ~

You might be on to something ...about that political landscape, and the talk about "unfettered movement of migrants," in the UK, which Germany seems to have noticed. I usually watch the half hour “world” news (for an English-speaking audience), from Deutsche Welle (DW) TV in Germany, and recently (9/1?) on this topic, Barbara Wesel explained how the “holdup in getting a comprehensive plan in place” was coming “from Budapest …other Eastern European Countries …Poland …Slovakia …the Baltic States, and from Great Britain, where a totally hysterical debate about migrants has opened up now.” === ...or maybe not: For months now, DW has been covering Germany’s many efforts to welcome, care for, and integrate these refugee newcomers, along with covering the few efforts to revile, attack, or otherwise discourage immigrants who are arriving or staying in Germany. Overall though, even with these high numbers recently, it is still less than one percent of their population that they are coping with every year. The main attraction in Germany, it seems to me, is a good (the best) job market, and similarly with the other “preferred” destinations, in descending order, are the “better” job markets. The 'migrants' also seem to easily learn where they now will be most welcomed, and where they now and historically are not welcomed. The worst job markets are in those (least welcoming) countries where these people find their “first sites of safe refuge.” I guess if one is smart (or rich or desperate) enough to escape the increasing destabilization, one might also be inclined to search for the best chance at a stable future. But since it is a very complex and increasingly dynamic problem, I wish the EU luck with their comprehensive plan, as well as getting that plan in place. It still seems though, roughly to be holding steady, at about one per thousand, who die trying to get into the EU. “As [mentioned in a blog at The Economist] a large country with a population of 80m, Germany tops the list of acceptances ....Considering its demographics, EU needs immigration….” ~

You might find some interesting points to support your ideas, or some additional information or interesting ideas that expand upon your own ideas, if you google "pedology entropy" as I just did: ...where I found this interesting and informative link: "The Kolmogorov entropy of the pre- and post- agricultural landscapes...." Soils have many similarities to living systems, as they point out in "The search for a new Paradigm in Pedology", and so they talk about various aspects of entropy, as well as ergodic theory, which you also might find helpful. ~

But that is wrong, since the scientists didn't "change their minds" on this point. These observations of increasing ice are confirming "climate" predictions from more than 25 years ago. Here is what the scientists predicted in 1991, when the latest or best consensus view was published in Oxford Monographs on Geology and Geophysics, no.16; Paleoclimatology; Crowley & North; 1991. 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." -p.258 === I think that this entire coming century will qualify as "the initial stages of a greenhouse warming," so we should expect continuing "regional responses" to the extra heating as the century unfolds. ~

I’m not sure, but I’d expect it is the level of ecological knowledge, possessed by those specific folks you mention, that gives them a strong intuitive sense of how limited the benefits of genetically engineering “productivity” could possibly be; and especially when compared to the vast interconnected universe of unimagined and unintended and irreversible possibilities, which accompany genetically engineered “productivity” schemes. …or words to that effect. === “What if material from our food actually made its way into the innermost control centers of our cells, taking charge of fundamental gene expression?” Scientific American had a feature, in 2011, about micro-RNAs, which are altered in genetically modified rice, that (at least) influence our HDL/LDL balances. Aside from the known importance of HDL/LDL levels, this could also produce effects on the immune system; but our science doesn’t yet know enough about the importance of all the immune-system proteins, which are contained within the “lipoprotein” part of our HDL/LDLs, so this complexity hasn't yet been studied. There may yet still be more to learn about human nutrition and physiology, and about pathologies and diseases, especially given some of the recent revelations about the importance of the human microbiome to those dimensions; so just because they haven't yet found evidence of harm, in the places and ways that they now look, it doesn’t mean that serious changes couldn’t possibly be happening. And given the complexity of the system (of which we are just beginning to learn about) that we are “privately” manipulating or engineering, then certainly the long future of possible unintended and irreversible consequences seems more foreboding, to my own broad and deep ecological sensibilities, than any notion of relatively short-term and incremental gains in productivity. Plus, other options, seemingly better, are appearing on the horizon. I’d expect that those scientists you mentioned also see this same perspective, in one form or another, more or less. ~