Between 1990 and 2000 I owned 40 acres of Piñon-Juniper land about 90 miles south of Santa Fe. I recently saw an item about a highly effective carbon sequestration grass. It has stiff leaves about 3 or 4 feet long. For a moment I thought that I should have planted that stuff there. Then I realized that watering it would be a severe problem. Wells there produce a maximum of 16 gallons of water per minute. The neighbors would have been annoyed since they wouldn't have bought the carbon argument.
----------------------------------- Frank Wimberly My memoir: https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly My scientific publications: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2 Phone (505) 670-9918 On Thu, Jan 2, 2020, 2:00 PM David Eric Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > And not only forests. > > Restructure agriculture. The perennial polyculture concept for which Wes > Jackson founded the Land Institute > https://landinstitute.org/ > Is meant to base farming on a cropping system with the structure of a > prairie sod. Either farmland or prairie may have 1/2 meter to 2m of annual > stem and leaf mass above ground. But farmland today has a few 10s of cm > (if that) of annual subsurface root. The prairie sods of the Great Plains, > before being plowed up, could have 2m depth of perennial root mass. In > addition to greater capacity to absorb water from episodic rain and deliver > it under conditions of drought, it retains nutrients, reducing inputs with > their energy waste, and runoff. 2m doesn’t seem so much compared to a > tree, but if one multiplies this by the area currently under commodity > cropping, it may amount to more carbon than the part of the US currently > under forest. > > I like to think of forest and grassland as part of a whole nutrient-shed > pipeline. Trees mine the deep rock in ways that herbs can’t, and the leaf > litter is a surface deposit at the margins of prairie basins. The > grasslands can depend on the flux of that rare material, recycling along > the way, as it runs eventually to the continental drainage as the > biotically augmented part of continental weathering. > > These kinds of redesigns are whole-system oriented, and really have to be > understood, I think, in the language of public goods. So we are looking at > government, civil society, culture, or something to coordinate and require > a system restructure. > > The idea that “there’s no way we can get these sociopathic bastards to do > anything” is I think a reflection of the luxury of not yet being scared. > The sailors haven’t stopped swearing because they don’t realize the ship is > in trouble. There is a wonderful documentary > > https://www.filmsforaction.org/watch/the-power-of-community-how-cuba-survived-peak-oil-2006/ > about the restructuring of Cuban agriculture when oil suddenly > disappeared, and also international credit, on a span of months surrounding > the disassembly of the former Soviet Union. All of a sudden, for the > people, it was “change or starve”. For the government it was “change or > get your head chopped off in a revolution”. Remarkable how choices like > that suddenly opened the possibility space, both for single actors as > smallholders, and for the government as an aid and coordinator rather than > an impediment. Japan and Australia contributed a little bit in the way of > resources and know-how, but most fo the credit goes to Cuban agronomic and > medical knowledge that was already resident and just needing support to be > better deployed. The best thing about the Cuban story is that it doesn’t > distill down into sound bites. The restructure was complex, with to-task > decisions of many kinds needing to be made. And there was no starvation > and no revolution. They came through it nutritionally at least as well-off > as they had started, if somewhat less overfed on fast calories and pork. > > I am brought back again to Ortega y Gasset’s argument that cultures > collapse because ideas that were once real and tied to the substance of > living become conventionalized to topics, phrases, and empty repetition of > others rather than understandings held by oneself of concrete problems that > need solving. We envision the possibilities too much in terms of the > habits of people around us because they are stubborn and we don’t see the > levers to move them. Glen is right, too: when everything about the society > around you makes waste the available method, it requires a kind of proteus > to invent a whole survivable life for himself with new methods. There are > such people, but it consumes all of their effort just to live without > harm. If a society makes more non-damaging ways of doing things available, > ordinary people have the option of living with less harm, and the proteuses > in one or another domain have some spare energy to try to extend what is > possible, rather than just tread water. > > Anyway, > > Eric > > > > > > On Jan 3, 2020, at 2:56 AM, Frank Wimberly <[email protected]> wrote: > > I think he should say reducing greenhouse gases and > > Other mitigation strategies include: > > - Improving the energy efficiency of buildings to reduce emissions > from heating/cooling > - Planting forests and tree to remove excess carbon dioxide from our > atmosphere > - Reducing fuel emissions associated with motor vehicles > > I like the planting approaches. > ----------------------------------- > > > Frank Wimberly > > My memoir: > https://www.amazon.com/author/frankwimberly > > My scientific publications: > https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Wimberly2 > > Phone (505) 670-9918 > > On Thu, Jan 2, 2020, 10:51 AM <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Merle, >> >> >> >> I think he is going to say that the migration IS the treatment. >> >> >> >> Nick >> >> >> >> Nicholas Thompson >> >> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology >> >> Clark University >> >> [email protected] >> >> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* Friam <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Marcus Daniels >> *Sent:* Thursday, January 2, 2020 10:46 AM >> *To:* Tom Johnson <[email protected]>; The Friday Morning Applied >> Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]> >> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions >> >> >> >> Dave writes: >> >> >> >> < Even more scary are all the side effects as massive migrations that >> fail to respect existing political boundaries ensue with a concomitant rise >> in nationalism and all the joys it will bring us.> >> >> Tom writes: >> >> >> >> < So perhaps "existing political boundaries" are no longer a viable or >> rational concept? > >> >> >> >> *Side effects* is a good way to look at it. No drug that works doesn't >> have side effects. Just have to ride them out and let the treatment do >> its thing. >> >> >> >> Marcus >> ------------------------------ >> >> *From:* Friam <[email protected]> on behalf of Tom Johnson < >> [email protected]> >> *Sent:* Thursday, January 2, 2020 1:20 AM >> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group < >> [email protected]> >> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions >> >> >> >> RE Dave West: So perhaps "existing political boundaries" are no longer a >> viable or rational concept? (But I have yet to find a potential >> alternative.) >> >> Tom Johnson >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 2, 2020, 8:18 AM <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Well we certainly agree on that. >> >> So should we put it before the Jury? >> >> N >> >> Nicholas Thompson >> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology >> Clark University >> [email protected] >> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Friam <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Prof David West >> Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 12:30 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] climate change questions >> >> Nick, >> >> I am not overwhelmingly concerned with steady climate change per se; it is >> the variability that is the real concern, as you point out. Even more >> scary >> are all the side effects as massive migrations that fail to respect >> existing >> political boundaries ensue with a concomitant rise in nationalism and all >> the joys it will bring us. >> >> davew >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 1, 2020, at 7:09 PM, [email protected] wrote: >> > Dave, >> > >> > I like these questions, and I think The Congregation should take them >> > as a challenge. >> > >> > What can we-all, we who have long association, and a generalized (if >> > somewhat guarded) respect, come to agree upon with respect to climate >> > change and human activity? By what process, with what attitudes, by >> > what rules of engagement, are we likely to arrive at ANY truth of that >> > matter. Because, if we, here, cannot agree on some matters, agreement >> > would seem to be beyond human reach. >> > >> > So, for starters, I find I am inclined to disagree with your facts as >> > stated. They seem to assert that Things (whatever Things are) are not >> > as bad as they were predicted to be. Yet, I find, I am inclined to >> > believe that in fact Things are worse. The only specific data I feel >> > I have been exposed to recently is ocean surface rise and glacial >> > melting. But even there, I would be hard pressed to match your >> > specific references to any of my own. So, I guess the conclusion is, >> > I disagree, but I don't know what I am talking about. Ugh! >> > >> > I could (after some labor) cite data to support the following concern: >> > what we should be watching out for, perhaps more than long term >> > climate warming, is increases in year-to-year climate variability. >> > You can grow rape seed in Canada and maize in the US, and as the >> > climate alters, the bands of climate supporting these two crops will >> > move north. But what happens if one year the climate demands one crop >> > and the next the other? And the switch from one to the other is >> > entirely unpredictable. Anybody who plants a garden knows that only >> > two dates have a tremendous effect on the productivity of your garden: >> > first frost and last frost. The average frost free period in my >> > garden in Ma 135 days or so, but only a few miles away, it is as short >> > as 90. And while we have never had a 90 day frost year, we have had >> > last frost dates in June and first frost dates in early September. It >> > would take a very small year-to-year increase in variability to turn >> > my garden from something that could support life for a year in New >> England >> into a 30 x 50 wasteplot. >> > >> > I think I could show you that the period in which we live, the >> > Holocene, is a period of remarkably low, year-to-year, variation in >> climate VARIABILITY. >> > I think I could convince you that everything that has occurred in the >> > last ten thousand years by way of civilization is entirely dependent >> > on that anomalous stability. The neanderthals were not too stupid to >> > do agriculture; the climate of the Pleistocene would not permit it. >> > The whole idea of nation states depends on the idea that one can make >> > more or less the same kind of living by staying more or less in the >> > same place and doing more or less the same thing. A return to >> > Pleistocene year-to-year variation would obliterate that possibility. >> > >> > If then, I could convince you, that --quite apart from Global >> > Warming-- we are seeing an increase in climate variability, then, by >> > God, I think I could scare the Living Crap out of you. >> > >> > The only question is whether we have the energy and sitzfleisch to do >> > it, and some way to keep our correspondence is order so that it's >> > value could be harvested for the long run. >> > >> > Happy New Year! >> > >> > Nick >> > >> > Nicholas Thompson >> > Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology Clark University >> > [email protected] https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ >> > >> > >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Friam <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Prof David West >> > Sent: Wednesday, January 1, 2020 9:45 AM >> > To: [email protected] >> > Subject: [FRIAM] climate change questions >> > >> > Questions, that do NOT, in any manner or form deny the reality of >> climate >> > change. >> > >> > In 1990, citing the "best scientific models available" stated that >> because >> > of carbon dioxide emissions, the Earth would warm by an average of 3 >> degrees >> > Fahrenheit and the U.S. as the largest producer, by an average of 6 >> degrees >> > Fahrenheit by 2020. >> > >> > The UN IPCC report of the same year predicted a range of temperature >> > increases ranging from 1-5 degrees F, with the most likely expectations >> > being 3-5 by the year 2020. >> > >> > The current report predicts a rise of 2-5 degrees by 2100. >> > >> > The New York Times, CNN, and the President of Exxon USA predicted the >> end >> of >> > domestic oil and gas reserves by 2020. >> > >> > The undisputed rise in Earth (and US) temperature as of 2020 is 1 >> degree. >> > >> > Exactly how does one go about constructing a reasoned, and accurate, >> > argument for the need to address climate change in the context of badly >> > incorrect predictions, grounded in the best available scientific models, >> and >> > over-hyped "disaster scenarios" promulgated by those with political or >> > simply "circulation" motives. >> > >> > In light of this context of "error" and "hype," is it fair to tar >> everyone >> > expressing questions or doubts with the same "deny-er" brush? >> > >> > Is it possible to constructively criticize either the models or the >> proposed >> > "solutions" without being dismissed as a troglodyte "deny-er?" >> > >> > Is there a way to evaluate a spectrum of means (eliminating coal to >> carbon >> > scrubbers to ...) along with analyses of cost/benefit ratios, human >> > socio-economic impact, etc. and compare them? >> > >> > Is there more than one strategy for getting out of this mess; and if so, >> how >> > do we decide (and/or construct a blend) on one that will optimize our >> > chances? >> > >> > davew >> > >> > ============================================================ >> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe >> > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> > archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >> > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove >> > >> > >> > ============================================================ >> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> > archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >> > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove >> > >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove >> >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove >> > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
