I respect you as a scientist. But telling me what is readily available does not answer the historical question about historical weather cycles. Was Europe and the New World filling the sky with wood smoke before the little Ice Age?
The problem is one of survival not only of humanity but of the other species that make the world work. I don't think discussion is bad and I applaud Al Gore because of the discussion he stirred up but I also don't think that the historical questions have been answered. Yes it will probably get hotter and then? People in different parts of the world have told me that the weather is turning to the cool. Is that true? I realize the glaciers are melting but is there a likelihood of intense global cooling? Is sustainability the best solution over the current predatory activity towards the earth? Absolutely. But what that means should be explored and how to design a strategy that deals with such large scale systems as the weather, seems like a good idea. Maybe we might find something other than dead air if we explored the realm of the Ani-hyvtaquatlosgi more seriously. However I don't see any large scale projects being designed, built or otherwise by the private sector. Modifying the weather is a big public domain project that must be transparent to anyone who is going to be asked to support or sacrifice for its success. Why not discuss these things unless its a closed book to everyone but this retired Opera Director and new Professor? Whether farming the ocean or farming that great ocean of grass that had been carefully nurtured for thousands of years, the Paraná private "school" approach turned out to be a bad idea. It's not good enough to do something because you can when the implications are so terminal. It's like the pharmaceutical approach to my health. I have to watch it like a hawk and trust no one. If I didn't I would have been dead long ago. I'm just one person but science told me that these drugs were good and that I could trust the experts. That was a fabrication. Admittedly scale is a problem but being careful, and not under-scoping by using economic rules of "cost effect" in a system too big for private sector externalities to make any sense at all, would seem logical. Good to hear from you and anyone else who has questions as I do. REH -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of pete Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 9:56 PM To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION Subject: Re: [Futurework] FW: The Coming Green Wave: Ocean Farming On Thu, 1 Dec 2011, Ray Harrell wrote: > A glib answer from a respected scientist is problematic for me personally. I'm not sure how to parse this. The World Meteorological Organization is the UN climate and weather agency, and represents 189 member countries. Meteorology is a branch of physics, and when dealing with a branch of physics not one's own specialty, one defers to the expertise of the practitioners. I don't see anything glib about their bulletin. And I would never characterize myself as a respected scientist, I'm more like a cypher in the scientific machine. Meteorology is wickedly complex, but summarizing the current situation is not a particularly contentious aspect. It seems pretty clear that the earth has been retaining more heat over the last century or so, and the change seems to be increasing. The evidence appears to be overwhelming, and for skeptics, there is the report last month from Richard Muller, who had set out to try to refute the conclusion. Either global warming is real, or all the thermometers are lying. > > > Following the crowd in my work is usually the way to bad product. No > Artist is surprised at the failure of the crowd in Wall Street when they > shared assumptions, denied transparency and operated from a top down > authoritarian structure that bullied those who questioned and denied the > intelligence of those who asked whether the managers understood what they > were doing. Many of these market "experts" were physicist out to make a > "buck." What seemed incomprehensible was really the Peter Principle at > work. > > Does there not have to be referential transparency here? You can prove > anything as long as you control the questions. I don't take a stand as to > the truth of global warming although I see changes happening. I will take > a stand for the earth going through changes. How long was the wine grapes > grown in Sweden before the little Ice Age drove the vineyards all the way > back to the Mediterranean? 300 years? > > The issue here is context. The scale is huge. The systems are huge. > Applying theories across immense differences in scale are usually > problematic. The successful pursuit of a predictable singularity is > usually an indication of a rising competency that diminishes the complexity. > We learn about it, it becomes easier until its simple. The Cant out there > to us non-Scientists is that Computers have made us imagine all kinds of > possibilities for a rising predictable singularity. But after the > singularity there is a blossoming and a rise in complexity once again as > knowledge races away from consciousness. > > I'm not sure your answer was a singularity. > > REH > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of pete > Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 11:05 PM > To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION > Subject: Re: [Futurework] FW: The Coming Green Wave: Ocean Farming > > On Tue, 29 Nov 2011, Ray Harrell wrote: > > > So is global warming real or not? > > > > REH > > Seems kinda hard to miss, these days: > > http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/news/index_en.html > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] > > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of pete > > Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 4:58 PM > > To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION > > Subject: Re: [Futurework] FW: The Coming Green Wave: Ocean Farming > > > > > > > > This article is rather disinformative with its use of semi-science > > terminology which is simplified to the point of being wrong > > > > On Sun, 27 Nov 2011, Sally Lerner wrote: > > > > > Sounds good all ways, but I'll be looking for the impact assessments... > > Sally > > > ________________________________________ > > > From: Portside Moderator [[email protected]] > > > Sent: Friday, November 25, 2011 8:39 PM > > > To: [email protected] > > > Subject: The Coming Green Wave: Ocean Farming > > > > > > The Coming Green Wave: Ocean Farming to Fight Climate Change > > > > > > by Brendan Smith > > > November 23, 2011 > > > > > > http://www.theatlantic.com/life/archive/2011/11/the-coming-green-wave-ocean- > > farming-to-fight-climate-change/248750/ > > > > > > Seaweed farms have the capacity to grow huge > > > amounts of nutrient-rich food, and oysters can act > > > as an efficient carbon and nitrogen sink > > > > [...] > > > > > Oysters also absorb carbon, but their real talent is > > > filtering nitrogen out of the water column. Nitrogen is > > > the greenhouse gas you don't pay attention to -- it is > > > nearly 300 times as potent[9] as carbon dioxide, and > > > according to the journal Nature[11], the second worst in > > > terms of having already exceeded a maximum "planetary > > > boundary[12]." > > > > Yipes. If this were true, life might never have started, or have > > been roasted out, as on Venus, billions of years ago. After all, > > nitrogen is 80% of the atmosphere. Let's see how this nonsense came > > about. Reference 9: > > > > > > > http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Living-Green/2010/0113/Earth-s-growing- > > nitrogen-threat > > > > Ah. in this article, we learn that the 300x CO2 factor belongs > > to N2O, nitrous oxide, not nitrogen at all. Extraordinarily sloppy > > writing, obviously a techno-illiterate. But there's more... > > > > > > Like carbon, nitrogen is an essential > > > part of life -- plants, animals, and bacteria all need > > > it to survive -- but too much has a devastating effect > > > on our land and ocean ecosystems. > > > > > > The main nitrogen polluter is agricultural fertilizer > > > runoff. All told, the production of synthetic > > > fertilizers and pesticides contributes more than one > > > trillion pounds of greenhouse gas emissions to the > > > atmosphere globally each year. That's the same amount of > > > emissions that are generated by 88 million passenger > > > cars each year. > > > > > > Much of this nitrogen from fertilizers ends up in our > > > oceans, where nitrogen is now 50 percent above normal > > > levels. According to the journal Science, excess > > > nitrogen "depletes essential oxygen levels in the water > > > and has significant effects on climate, food production, > > > and ecosystems all over the world." > > > > OK, first we have "greenhouse gas" implicitly conflated as > > "nitrogen", which is patent nonsense. And then we have > > immediately following, "nitrogen" levels 50% above normal > > in sea water, and depleting oxygen. Again, with nitrogen > > at 80% of the atmosphere, the surface layers of the sea > > must be saturated with N2 already, so this makes no sense, > > but this sounds like a dire change. Well, obviously, the > > nitrogen-containing pollutants from fertilizer runoff are > > nitrates and nitrites, not nitrogen at all. Conflating the > > two is like raising alarms after confusing the chloride in > > sea salt with chlorine gas. Pity the poor chemically naive > > reader trying to get a handle on these issues after reading > > this befuddlement. And it doesn't stop there. > > > > > Oysters to the rescue. One oyster filters 30-50 gallons > > > of water a day -- and in the process filters nitrogen > > > out of the water column. > > > > That would be a good trick, if it were possible, but of course > > it isn't. The N2 levels in sea water are unaffected by mollusc > > metabolism. Again, it is nitrates which are being mislabelled > > here. > > > > With this level of error in the fundamental science, I am > > led to doubt pretty much everything else this guy has written > > in this article, as I don't have time to go through and fact > > check all the rest of his text. > > > > -Pete > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Futurework mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Futurework mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
